ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- See You In The 'Burbs, Baby!

[ Posted Friday, November 8th, 2019 – 18:56 UTC ]

Republicans, it seems, are just never satisfied. First, they howled for a full House vote on impeachment. When the Democrats gave them one, they were not happy for some unfathomable reason. Then they demanded the end to "secret hearings" with no public transcripts. This week, Democrats began releasing all the transcripts to the public. When the first two were released, Republicans complained that the transcripts released were "cherry-picked." By week's end, all the major transcripts were released, putting the lie to this notion. Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham, in a snit, said that he wouldn't be reading the transcripts, for some unfathomable reason. Next week, public hearings will begin. So of course now Republicans are decrying the very idea of public hearings, for some unfathomable reason (President Trump: "They shouldn't be having public hearings."). It's almost as if Republicans don't care what they're complaining about as long as they get to complain about something. Hey, it's easier than trying to defend the indefensible, we suppose.

Republicans are really making a pretty poor showing all around. They tried to make the case for weeks that Democrats were somehow hiding things in the closed hearings, and if the transcripts were only to be made public then there would be plenty of exculpatory evidence for Trump. This turned out not to be the case. In fact, the transcripts showed that what had already been leaked to the press weren't even the most damning statements made. Witness after witness after witness all said exactly the same thing: there was indeed a quid pro quo and it consisted of withholding both a White House meeting and the military aid until the Ukrainian president went on television and said three words: "investigations, Biden, and Clinton." This corrupt bargain came straight from President Donald Trump, who was aided and abetted by Rudy Giuliani.

It's all pretty easy to understand, which is why things have moved so fast. Making this case to the public is going to be pretty easy, in fact, during the public hearings. Democrats have even publicly released the three main questions they will be asking during the public hearings:

  • Did the President request that a foreign leader and government initiate investigations to benefit the President's personal political interests in the United States, including an investigation related to the President's political rival and potential opponent in the 2020 U.S. presidential election?
  • Did the President – directly or through agents – seek to use the power of the Office of the President and other instruments of the federal government in other ways to apply pressure on the head of state and government of Ukraine to advance the President's personal political interests, including by leveraging an Oval Office meeting desired by the President of Ukraine or by withholding U.S. military assistance to Ukraine?
  • Did the President and his Administration seek to obstruct, suppress or cover up information to conceal from the Congress and the American people evidence about the President's actions and conduct?

The answers to all three are going to be "Yes," of course. Which leaves the Republicans in an untenable position, because in order to defend Trump's actions they have to make the case that, in the future, it will be perfectly OK for any president to strongarm any foreign leader to manufacture dirt on their political opponents. That is not exactly what could be called a traditional Republican position on foreign affairs, to put it mildly. The question enterprising journalists should be asking every Republican in sight: "So you would have been fine with President Barack Obama doing the same thing to Mitt Romney?"

Republicans are left scrambling for something -- anything -- to complain about. Some are still obsessed with unmasking the whistleblower, which is just silly at this point. If a bank robbery occurred and someone anonymously dialed 911 to report it, after all, should the police spend all their energy searching for the caller, or should they instead try to put the robbers behind bars?

Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham is testing out a new defense of Trump: he was just too stupid and incompetent to succeed in his criminal behavior, therefore we should all go easy on him. No, really! Here's the quote: "What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward the Ukraine? It was incoherent. It depends on who you talk to. They seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo."

There are a few Republicans who have realized just how bad things have gotten, though. William Cohen, a Republican who while a member of the House supported Richard Nixon's impeachment (before becoming Bill Clinton's defense secretary), called Trump's obvious quid pro quo: "a form of bribery, a form of a high crime and misdemeanor," also adding that it was "an impeachable act."

Of course, there were all kinds of revelations from the transcripts this week that were bad for Trump -- even if Lindsey Graham didn't read them -- but they will all likely be overwhelmed by live testimony next week in the open hearings, so for the time being we're just going to skip over it all. Instead, here's a very brief (pun intended) look at Trump's recent losses in the courts:

A federal appeals court ruled this week that Trump's accountant does indeed have to turn over his tax returns to New York state prosecutors. This is probably going to be the first Trump case to hit the Supreme Court, which will be interesting, but so far Trump's blanket defense of: "the president can't be held accountable for any laws he might break of have broken, while he's in office" is going over like a lead balloon with pretty much every judge who hears it. It sounded better in the original French, anyway: "L'état, c'est moi."

Trump's fraudulent charity lost on the state level too, and the judge ruled that Trump must pay $2 million to other, legitimate charities. At the federal level, a judge threw out the "conscience rule" Trump tried to institute for healthcare workers that would have allowed them to deny people health care based on their religious beliefs. And the final cherry on this judicial sundae: a judge released over 100,000 pages of documents from the GOP redistricting guru who recently died. Here's the report:

The files were collected earlier this year by Common Cause, the North Carolina Democratic Party and Democratic voters -- through a subpoena of the daughter of Thomas Hofeller -- for their partisan gerrymandering lawsuit that went to trial in July. Hofeller died last year.

. . .

The subpoenaed documents that can now be distributed following Monday's ruling by Wake County Superior Court Judge Vince Rozier will show the efforts that Hofeller and his allies had taken to skew maps across the country, a representative for one of the plaintiffs said.

"The limited release of Dr. Hofeller's files has already proven critical in exposing secret efforts to manipulate the census and redistricting," said Kathay Feng, national redistricting director for Common Cause. "Now the truth can come out about all of Hofeller's shocking efforts to rig elections in almost every state."

So there's that to look forward to.

A report came out this week showing farm bankruptcies are up 24 percent this year, and that 40 percent of total U.S. farm income will come from either government subsidies or government insurance. So looks like Trump's trade war has done the opposite of making America's farms great again.

Which could explain why Trump's so down in the polls. In head-to-head matchups with the top five Democratic challengers, Trump loses them all, mostly by double digits. Trump's best showing was against Kamala Harris, who got 51 percent to Trump's 42. Pete Buttigieg beat Trump by 11 points, Bernie Sanders by 14 points, and Elizabeth Warren by 15 points. But the biggest gap was in a Biden-Trump matchup, where Trump only got 39 percent to Biden's 56 percent -- a whopping 17-point gap.

And finally, some more bad news for Trump. It seems that smugglers are already cutting through his big, beautiful border wall despite Trump previously claiming that this would not be possible. In a campaign rally this week, Trump bragged that "you can cut through steel but you can't through the concrete, and then you can't through the hardened rebar," claiming that his wall was "virtually impenetrable." The Washington Post begged to differ, pointing out that "smugglers have repeatedly sawed through newly built sections of the wall using a widely available cordless reciprocating saw that costs as little as $100." Also, that people are (duh!) using ladders to climb over Trump's wall. Trump's reaction? "You can cut through anything, in all fairness." Except maybe the B.S. Trump regularly spews, that is.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

This one's pretty easy. This Tuesday, there was an off-off-year election, but in every year before a presidential year there are a few states which vote on big offices.

There were two big victories for Democrats this week, showing the staying power of the big blue wave that arose in the 2018 midterms. One of these was a collective victory, as Democrats took control of both houses of the Virginia statehouse, for the first time in over a quarter-century. Together with their Democratic governor, this gives the party full control, which will lead first to passing gun control legislation, then to being the state that breaks the three-fourths barrier to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, and finally to dominating the redistricting process which will happen after the 2020 Census -- which will end the Republican-gerrymandered map.

That's a very big deal. So we have Honorable Mention awards all around for every Democrat who won every delegate and senate seat this week. Well done, all!

But there was an even higher-profile victory this Tuesday than winning the political trifecta in Virginia, and that was Andy Beshear winning the governor's race in Kentucky. This was a big upset, although the circumstances were rather unique. The sitting Republican governor was massively unpopular, and the Democratic candidate was the son of the governor that preceded the current one (Steve Beshear, who had to leave office in 2015 due to term limits).

Even so, it was indeed a joy to watch the election returns come in. The big takeaway from the night: the suburbs are flipping blue, and at this point there doesn't seem to be anything Republicans can do about that. They've made their peace with Donald Trump at the head of their party, but suburban women have most decidedly not. This may be a lasting shift in the electorate -- kind of like the "Reagan Democrats" -- that won't just flip back after Trump is gone. That could change American politics for an entire generation. Of course, it may only be a temporary phenomenon that goes away after Trump does too, but even so it does not bode well for Republicans up and down the 2020 ballot. The anger voters expressed during the midterms has not abated in any way, which will likely lead to a massive turnout at the polls next year.

Every Democratic pickup is worth celebrating, of course, but some are more notable than others. Even after Donald Trump personally held a rally for the Kentucky governor (less than 12 hours before the polls opened, no less), he lost. Trump even said during this rally: "If you win, they are going to make it like: ho hum. And if you lose, they are going to say Trump suffered the greatest defeat in the history of the world. You can't let that happen to me!"

Kentucky voters just did. In a state Trump won by a whopping 30 points. Which is why Governor-Elect Andy Beshear is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Kentucky Governor-Elect Andy Beshear on his official state contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Michael Bloomberg, for some bizarre reason, thinks that the big problem is that there just aren't enough Democrats running for president. Seriously.

Of course, he has an answer to this problem, which is to throw his own hat into the ring. Because only he can save the party. Obviously, what the party needs is an aging white billionaire who was the father of "stop and frisk" in New York City to ride in on his white horse and save the day for Democrats.

The bigger picture is that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are putting fear into the hearts of the Democratic donor class, otherwise known as the corporate wing of the party. Both reacted predictably:

"The billionaire class is scared and they should be scared," Sanders wrote on Twitter after news of Bloomberg's possible entry became public.

"Welcome to the race, @MikeBloomberg!" Warren tweeted, providing a link to the impacts her policies would have on billionaires. She also sent out a fundraising email saying "the wealthy and well connected are scared."

And they're right. What's really going on is the initial signs of panic among the Democratic donor class, since Joe Biden seems to be having trouble gaining traction. Biden's campaign even tried to lower expectations for Iowa this week, which was rather astonishingly early for such a move:

"I think we're the only ones who don't have to win Iowa, honestly, because our strength is the fact that we have a broad and diverse coalition," Biden campaign manager Greg Schultz told the Wall Street Journal on Sunday.

The comments came after a New York Times/Siena College poll on Friday showed Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren leading the pack with 22 percent of likely caucus-goers, trailed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (19 percent), South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg (18 percent), and Biden (17 percent). The poll showed that just 2 percent of voters under 45 backed Biden, even as he led among older voters.

So of course the answer is Michael Bloomberg. Well, not really. The answer is for the donor class to realize that after running weak centrist candidates for decades, the Democratic Party might just try something different this time around. Bloomberg can spend a ton of money, but he's not going to get much value for it. Just ask John Delaney, or Tom Steyer. Bloomberg is even saying he'll refuse donations and totally self-fund his candidacy, which would mean he would never qualify for a debate. He is also reportedly considering skipping the first four states and just flooding the airwaves in all the Super Tuesday states. This is a losing strategy, history has already shown.

Which is why Michael Bloomberg is the obvious choice for Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, if only because we've never created a Most Laughable Democrat Of The Week award. If we had, we'd give that to Bloomberg too.

[Michael Bloomberg is currently a private citizen, and we don't provide links to such people, sorry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 550 (11/9/19)

Our focus this week is on putting some suburban fear into the hearts of Republicans. In fact, we would heartily encourage every Democrat to begin taunting Republicans with the following snappy line: "See you in the 'burbs, baby!"

Heh.

The elections of 2018 and 2019 show a growing disenchantment with the Republican Party in middle-class and upper-middle-class suburbs all across the United States. The GOP is experiencing an absolute exodus of suburban women, who may well be the key to winning in 2020. So we're spending most of our time this week on pointing that out and rubbing it in, in various ways. We're also celebrating some rather momentous election returns as well.

But we're going to open with an excerpt from the upcoming book by "Anonymous," which seems like it'll be a fun read. And we had nowhere else to put it, but we have to at least give a nod to a nameless woman in Georgia who stood on a street to see Donald Trump's motorcade go by, holding a sign guaranteed to annoy him: "I'm the Whistleblower." Nice one!

 

1
   A 12-year-old or a senile uncle, take your pick

As promised, here are two choice quotes from the upcoming book by Anonymous, both of which use some rather juicy metaphors to describe Trump's behavior in the White House:

[President Trump is] like a twelve-year-old in an air traffic control tower, pushing the buttons of government indiscriminately, indifferent to the planes skidding across the runway and the flights frantically diverting away from the airport.

. . .

It's like showing up at the nursing home at daybreak to find your elderly uncle running pantsless across the courtyard and cursing loudly about the cafeteria food, as worried attendants tried to catch him. You're stunned, amused, and embarrassed all at the same time. Only your uncle probably wouldn't do it every single day, his words aren't broadcast to the public, and he doesn't have to lead the U.S. government once he puts his pants on.

 

2
   What a world we live in

This is pretty mindblowing when you think about it.

"You know where we are as a country right now under Donald Trump? The news broke last week that a woman who has accused the president of rape is now going to sue him for defamation because of all the nasty things he has said about her. Got that? The president... a rape accusation... and a defamation lawsuit. In normal times, this would be such big news the media would obsess over it for months on end. In today's world, however, this story was considered too minor to even repeat two days running. Just think about that -- the leader of the country, involved in a sex scandal no less, and the media just yawns because there are so many other horrific things Trump has done to report on. If this is 'making America great again,' I'd prefer to go back to whatever if was previously, myself."

 

3
   See you in the 'burbs, baby! (I)

Our first GOP smackdown comes from an unlikely source. This is what Rick Santorum had to say about the Republicans' future chances, after seeing this Tuesday's election returns:

[The suburbs] are turning and they're not turning in our direction, and Donald Trump is not a help in that regard particularly amongst suburban women. That is apparent. The numbers from Virginia don't lie. You know, Matt Bevin getting crushed in Louisville, in the suburban areas, in Lexington. Those don't lie either. That's a problem and it's a broader problem that is exacerbated by Donald Trump. [Republicans have] to do a better job, and frankly Trump is not the best messenger for that based on his, frankly, his personality and his demeanor. It just turns a lot of suburbanites off. He appeals to blue-collar working folks and that's overwhelmingly not suburban voters, and that's a problem.

 

4
   See you in the 'burbs, baby! (II)

The following was ascribed to an unnamed "gloomy Republican strategist" giving his unvarnished opinion of the party's future chances on election night this week:

This is an overwhelming Trump phenomenon. Trump has accelerated everything. There is no path in a swing, suburban district for a Republican -- male, female or minority.... It's not a challenge, it's a hill.... There's no strategy to climb it. [If the GOP loses more suburban swing districts, the party will be reduced to] white men with white hair and white men with gray hair and a few token women, and when [Representative] Will Hurd leaves, no African-Americans and only a couple of Latinos.

 

5
   See you in the 'burbs, baby! (III)

Here's a fun post-election report from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

It was the first time since at least the Civil War that Democrats won control of the Delaware County Council. They not only won a majority, but also swept Republicans off the governing body entirely. Democrats won a majority on the Chester County Board of Commissioners for the first time in history, in the only suburban Philadelphia county where Republicans still outnumber Democrats. In Bucks County, Democrats were on track to capture the Board of Commissioners for the first time since 1983. And in Philadelphia, a third-party insurgent candidate weakened an already marginalized GOP by securing one of the at-large City Council seats reserved for minority parties -- a seat Republicans have held for decades.... In Delaware County, the results for Republicans were catastrophic.

 

6
   See you in the 'burbs, baby! (IV)

Of course, there was also lots of good news from Virginia, as well.

"When Donald Trump took office, Republicans had a 66-34 majority in the Virginia General Assembly. After this week's election, Democrats will hold a 55-45 majority. This is a historic shift, folks. The Democrats flipped both chambers of the statehouse and currently hold the governor's office, meaning they'll control Virginia politics for at least the next two years. But it's quite likely to be a lot longer than that. When a Democrat took a seat held by a conservative firebrand who often got in trouble for his bigoted and mean-spirited comments, his reaction was at least an honest one: 'The Republican Party is toast in Virginia for the next ten years. Republicans will cease to be a serious political power.' I couldn't have said it better myself."

 

7
   That photo was worth more than 1,000 words...

And finally, the most amusing election result of the entire night.

"Democrat Juli Briskman won a seat previously held by a Republican on the Virginia Loudoun County Board of Supervisors this Tuesday. You probably don't remember her name, but you very likely remember one particular photo of her. She is the woman who was minding her own business, bicycling along a Virginia road when Donald Trump's motorcade drove by after one of Trump's uncountable golf games. So she flipped Trump the bird. And got caught on film doing so. Which led to her being fired from her job. Undaunted, she ran for county office and won. But you know what the best thing about this story is? Her district includes Trump's golf course! So at the local level in Virginia, one of Trump's businesses is now represented by a woman whose claim to fame was that she shot Trump the bird while biking. Her reaction? 'Isn't that sweet justice?' she replied, while loudly laughing."

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

146 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- See You In The 'Burbs, Baby!”

  1. [1] 
    Kick wrote:

    Pop Quiz... Oh, boy!

    * Did the President request that a foreign leader and government initiate investigations to benefit the President's personal political interests in the United States, including an investigation related to the President's political rival and potential opponent in the 2020 U.S. presidential election?

    Yes, multiple foreign leaders from multiple foreign countries, but as pertains to Ukrainian leaders, this is a fact regarding not one but two of them:

    1. Then President Petro Poroshenko, beginning in February 2019
    2. Current President Volodymr Zelensky (who succeeded Poroshenko), beginning shortly thereafter.

    * Did the President – directly or through agents – seek to use the power of the Office of the President and other instruments of the federal government in other ways to apply pressure on the head of state and government of Ukraine to advance the President's personal political interests, including by leveraging an Oval Office meeting desired by the President of Ukraine or by withholding U.S. military assistance to Ukraine?

    Yes, with current President Volodymr Zelensky... all of the above but also with former President Petro Poroshenko who was seeking reelection and promised an official visit to the White House. Every racketeer conducts business through fixers, and every racket thrives on a shakedown: Ukraine's Lutsenko was in contact via telephone and direct meetings with Giuliani, Parnas, and Fruman multiple times beginning in late 2018. Poroshenko ultimately lost the election, and a public announcement was never made though it was widely known in Ukraine regarding the attempted shakedown of Poroshenko and his successor.

    * Did the President and his Administration seek to obstruct, suppress or cover up information to conceal from the Congress and the American people evidence about the President's actions and conduct?

    Yes, and if they had any sort of witness whatsoever that could exculpate the President of the United States or anyone in his Administration, you can bet your sweet ass they'd be allowing them to testify rather than the obstruction of justice they're perpetrating now... but they don't... so they can't.

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Trump's fraudulent charity lost on the state level too, and the judge ruled that Trump must pay $2 million to other, legitimate charities.

    The Trumps agreed to dissolve their foundation under judicial supervision in December 2018, about a month after a New York state judge allowed the state's case to proceed. The Trump Foundation's $1.78 million in assets and $2 million in additional damages have been ordered to be paid to those legitimate charities... so that's quite a hit to the Trump crime family to the tune of $3.78 million.

    New York Attorney General James announced: "The Trump Foundation has shut down, funds that were illegally misused are being restored, the president will be subject to ongoing supervision by my office, and the Trump children had to undergo compulsory training to ensure this type of illegal activity never takes place again."

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: The big takeaway from the night: the suburbs are flipping blue, and at this point there doesn't seem to be anything Republicans can do about that. They've made their peace with Donald Trump at the head of their party, but suburban women have most decidedly not.

    Fact Check

    Dead on accurate. :)

  4. [4] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    From Salon:

    Donald Trump Jr. compared the sacrifices of fallen troops to those his family made to get to the White House in his new book “Triggered.”

    Don Jr., the son of a man who allegedly escaped the Vietnam War draft by obtaining a bogus doctor’s note claiming he had bone spurs in his foot, recalled the day before his father’s inauguration when President-elect Donald Trump brought his family to lay a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery in a passage highlighted bythe Washington Post.

    “I rarely get emotional, if ever. I guess you'd call me hyper-rational, stoic,” Don Jr. wrote. “Yet, as we drove past the rows of white grave markers, in the gravity of the moment, I had a deep sense of the importance of the presidency and a love of our country.”

    Standing there surrounded by the graves of more than 400,000 troops and their families, Don Jr. wrote, he could not help but think of his own families “sacrifices.”

    “In that moment, I also thought of all the attacks we’d already suffered as a family and about all the sacrifices we’d have to make to help my father succeed — voluntarily giving up a huge chunk of our business and all international deals to avoid the appearance that we were ‘profiting off the office,’” he wrote.

    "Frankly, it was a big sacrifice, costing us millions and millions of dollars annually . . . Of course, we didn't get any credit whatsoever from the mainstream media, which now does not surprise me at all,” he added.

    Don Jr. did not mention that his father broke with decades of precedent by retaining ownership of his company and continuing to profit from international business ventures. Don Jr.’s sense of victimhood was also an ironic twist in a book — that is effectively cashes in on his newfound relevance — in which he writes that a “victimhood complex has taken root in the American left.” His father later plugged the book on Twitter,

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Michael Bloomberg, for some bizarre reason, thinks that the big problem is that there just aren't enough Democrats running for president. Seriously.

    I think Bloomberg's issue pertains to quality rather than anything whatsoever to do with quantity. Seriously.

    Of course, he has an answer to this problem, which is to throw his own hat into the ring. Because only he can save the party.

    Did Bloomberg say that? Because it sounds like Trump... not remotely like Bloomberg.

    Obviously, what the party needs is an aging white billionaire who was the father of "stop and frisk" in New York City to ride in on his white horse and save the day for Democrats.

    The father of S&F is an aging white millionaire by the name of Rudolph Giuliani because it was begun by the NYPD during Rudy's time in the mayor's office. While Rudy definitely isn't interested in saving the day for Democrats, he might very well help to accomplish that in a bass-ackwards kind of maneuver.

    The bigger picture is that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are putting fear into the hearts of the Democratic donor class, otherwise known as the corporate wing of the party.

    Mike Bloomberg is interested in Democrats winning elections, and for whatever reason that I will not begin to speculate, he seems concerned about that not happening. For instance, Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety injected $2.5 million into the State of Virginia and definitely helped Democrats win control of both houses of Virginia's legislature so he's definitely part of the Democratic "donor class," but I've heard no complaints about Mike and his millions/billions... until quite recently.

    While I certainly wonder what it is that Bloomberg thinks he can accomplish, I would wager without hesitation he has an objective not likely to be the protection of his assets. If Bloomberg was primarily concerned about his own corporate interests, the obvious move wouldn't be to pump millions to further Democratic causes but rather to funnel the Bloomberg billions into the Trump campaign and GOP races... which he's not doing.

    ** Vote Blue **
    No Matter Who... and it won't be Mike Bloomberg... so no worries. :)

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    How is "Anonymous" not an attorney and/or a woman? The more excerpts I've seen, I believe the author is either a woman or at the very least a woman editor of a man's work.

    So who was the first woman and attorney to deny writing the op-ed the day after its publication?

    Kirstjen Nielsen, come on down... you're the prime suspect on Kick's list of "Anonymous" suspects -- a short list with three people on it. :)

  7. [7] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The more excerpts I've seen, I believe the author is either a woman or at the very least a woman editor of a man's work.

    I thought the same thing.

    CW: Michael Bloomberg, for some bizarre reason, thinks that the big problem is that there just aren't enough Democrats running for president. Seriously.

    I'm with Kick on this. Trouble is: a) he's a little too late, and b) we already have a conservative Dem in the race. Good try, Bloomburg.

  8. [8] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But then again, perhaps Bloomburg is the better candidate. After all: 1) both Kennedy and Roosevelt were rich, and it didn't quell their desire to ease the plight of the poor, 2) after 12 years as New York's mayor you can't fault his executive experience, 3) he's a New Yorker too. Very little bothers him, especially Trump, 4) did I mention? He's several orders richer than Trump.

    Well, the voters will decide.

  9. [9] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "...after running weak centrist candidates for decades, the Democratic Party might just try something different this time around."

    Might being the operative word.

    Bugs Bunny: Would I turn on the gas if my friend Rocky was in this oven?

    Irish cop: Ah... You might, rabbit, you might.

    What exactly are the Dems going to offer that is all that different?

    Small contribution campaigns disguised as small donor campaigns?

    While that may be something different, it is not a difference that will make a difference.

    It is just trying a different deception.

    As long as you continue to buy into and/or peddle this deception you are the most disappointing and laughable Democrat and are part of the problem.

    Get Real and become part of the solution.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ [Thursday's Column 57],

    There is one part of the Mueller testimony that really stood out to me that I feel like the media glossed over: when Mueller states that he would not say specifically if Trump had committed a criminal offense because it would be unfair to Trump since he would not have the opportunity to defend himself in court against such allegations.

    We, the People, will see that we can no longer trust our elected officials to put country over their Party, and we will demand laws that make the president face criminal indictments just like every other citizen would.

    Hopefully, we will see how divided we allowed ourselves to become by listening to and accepting the lies we were being fed. I pray that honesty will become a trait that we demand from those in authority. We will be humbled...how could we not be?

    I agree, the actions of Trump and his administration and congressional Republicans over the last many years sure did their ugly best to sow shock, anger and embarrassment.

    But, I'm worried that all of this will leave your country more than shocked, angered and embarrassed. And, I don't see right now how your country overcomes it all, especially if Trump is re-elected, God-forbid.

    My question remains and that is HOW will your country put all of this behind it and ease the rabid divisions that now threaten to consume it? Even if 2020 sees a new president elected who seeks to unite the country, easing the deep existing divisions will not be easy.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    we already have a conservative Dem in the race.

    We do?

  12. [12] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    If you Weigantian nut jo . . , er I mean partisan fanatics had the slightest concern for the welfare of the nation, you'd cheer Bloomberg's entry into the race and vote for him.

    He could become the first Dem. pres.candidate this particular geriatric partisan fanatic ever voted for!!

  13. [13] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Liz [11] -

    Or to put it another way, only Sanders, Warren, Booker, and Steyer aren't as conservative as Bloomburg.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think you forgot someone.

  15. [15] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    My question remains and that is HOW will your country put all of this behind it and ease the rabid divisions that now threaten to consume it? Even if 2020 sees a new president elected who seeks to unite the country, easing the deep existing divisions will not be easy.

    Time. It’s how the country has healed itself in the past, and barring a national tragedy, it will be the way we move past our divisions once again. The Democrats will implement their plans to improve our nation, the Republicans will predict the end of the world, and after a few years to work out the kinks, those that were so against the changes will become huge fans.

    Time. FoxNews viewers and Trump supporters will die off. The GOP ignored the findings in their organization’s autopsy in 2013 that stated what the party had to do to survive — they had to increase their numbers by being more inclusive to outside groups and younger people. Honestly, it was like they read what they needed to do and then intentionally went out and did the exact opposite! The report said they would benefit greatly by including more Hispanics into the party, so they built a worthless wall and invited white nationalists to come out of their parent’s basements and into the sunlight.

    You are correct that it won’t be easy to recover from the damage caused by Trump’s toxic agenda. I still believe that once the extent of Trump’s criminal enterprise go from accusations to indictments, it is going to cause a large portion of his base to reflect on how they could have ever supported such a horrible person.

    It’s going to be important for liberals to recognize how tough it is for any of us to admit when we are wrong, and to not hinder the healing process by being arrogant and unwilling to move past this.

    I wish there was a simple answer for this complex problem, but then it wouldn’t be a “complex” problem if there was one, would it?

    Of the Trump voters that I know personally, most of them voted for Trump out of resentment towards the Republican Party itself! They were tired of always being lied to, but still believed in what the GOP “used to stand for” (they just couldn’t accept that they’d been lied to for decades and still believe Reagan was looking out for them). Their view of liberals is horrible, but decades of propaganda has a way of altering one’s view like that. I hope that they can get past their habit of automatically defending their representatives lies with the old “all politicians lie” belief and demand that honesty must matter to those who represent them.

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There are no simple answers to be sure and, time alone can't be the remedy, either.

    But, I look forward to the conversation here that attempt to find those complicated answers. That's what I'm here for, after all ...

  17. [17] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen has a point there in his [15]. There probably is a liklihood that "the Fox viewers and the Trump supporters" will die off faster than the ignorant and the unproductive, because the ignorant and the unproductive are constantly being replicated..

    Jesus was wrong with his forecast that "the meek shall inherit the earth". Actually it's the fecund and the prolific who will ultimately "inherit the earth".

  18. [18] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I'm more than a little curious why you people are defining Bloomberg as a "Conservative". He has asway declared himself as a Democratic, he has supported other Democratics not only with moral support, but with $millions. That ought to be the ultimate factor in defining his political stance.

  19. [19] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    OopS,l make that "asway" read ALWAYS.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What are you here for, CRS? Don't bother answering, your motives are as clear as the day is long. Find another blog.

  21. [21] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Shocking, absolutely shocking!!!

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I wish you would get that right, just once.

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Conservative. Progressive. Socialist. Capitalist.

    It doesn't matter what candidates call themselves or what people think the candidates are. What matters is what the candidates are and what they aren't.

    They are all big money candidates and they are not small donor candidates.

    No matter what they claim to be or promise they will be representing the big money interests if elected.

    It not at all complicated.

    You vote for big money candidates you get big money legislators.

    If you don't want big money legislators then you vote for small donor candidates and if there are none on your ballot vote against the big money candidates and create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates by casting a write in vote and registering to participate in One Demand.

    Much more effective than spending time arguing over whether the other false "side" is worse, using it rationalize your delusions and not taking any action to solve the biggest problem with our political system that is at least 50% of the reason we can't solve most other problems- though it is probably closer to 90% on most issues.

  24. [24] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the left-right spectrum isn't adequate to categorize an animal like bloomberg. he's very trump-like in that respect.

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Just in case you wonder why I am commenting here- it's to offer my opinion and bring at least some reality to this alleged reality based blog.

    This is a completely selfless act in case CW is sued for false advertising for claiming a reality based blog, he will at least be able to use my comments to prove there is some reality associated with his blog. :D

  26. [26] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Don Q

    I think you're treating the gazillionaires unfairly/unrealistically.

    When you elect a wannabe gazillionaire, (as in youknowho)his first motivation is to achieve gazillionaire status by stealing from the taxpayers, or at least profiting from the political power by unethical means.

    You elect a Bloomberg, and you gotta know, he's NOT there to steal from the taxpayers!! And that's over and above the fact that with at least some gazillionaires (Bloomberg for instance), you've got a case of demonstrated, proven competence, which you can only rarely say about those who are seeking political fower for self enrichment.

  27. [27] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @crs,

    just because someone has a lot of money and power already doesn't render them immune to the unrelenting greed for more. as a former constituent of bloomberg, i place him in that category. although i agree that he is competent, and perhaps even well-intentioned, mr. bloomberg also has no sense of the limits of his power or intellect. also, looks like somebody else beat me to the punch on pointing out his similarities with donald:

    https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-the-bloom-is-off-the-rose-20191108-afotnt3645cf3jykr6x4naovk4-story.html

  28. [28] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    poet

    I have no way to relate to what goes on in NY politics, it's a totally alien world for me, but I know Bloomberg is very successful at his business, and I have the feeling that he made his $ honestly, and I've heard he is generous with his philanthropic efforts.

    I have no basis to dispute your claim that he craves more 'power', whatever that means, but I ain't buyin' your idea that he craves more money.

    Also I see zero basis for comparing him in any respect whatsoever to Trump, a man for whom I have zero respect.

  29. [29] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    They are all big money candidates and they are not small donor candidates.

    Really? They do not receive any money from small money donors? That’s your claim — if they accept large donations then they cannot receive smaller donations? I know

    No matter what they claim to be or promise they will be representing the big money interests if elected.

    It not at all complicated.

    Unless you have documented evidence to support your accusations, then you are just talking out of your arse! Life is far more complicated than that!

    If a candidate has two donors that give his campaign $25,000 each, and 10,000 donors who each give his campaign $20, you think that our candidate will focus on keeping the 2 big money donors happy at the expense of the 10,000 small money donors, is that it?

    Based on your claims that every politician who accepts large donations serves only those donors, our candidate will screw over the 10,000 voters who gave him $200,000 to keep the two voters that gave him $50,000 happy...likely costing our candidate $200,000 and 10,000 votes in the next election!

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the days of Weigantia yore, THIS is something that would have been written here..

    Dear Democrats: Here’s How Not to Blow It
    What the party needs to learn from this week’s elections.

    By RAHM EMANUEL November 08, 2019
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/08/democrats-2020-advice-rahm-emanuel-229909

    But, in the here and now, with this HHPTDS-infused hate-fest, common sense and rational, logical dissertations are no where to be found.. :(

    Democrats won in 2018 and 2019 by addressing REAL problems, not by grand experiments that will NEVER happen...

    Dems won in 2018 and 2019 because they addressed rising prescription prices and fixing roads.. Dim candidates are running on the platform of giving everyone everything for free.. Free healthcare, free college free everything..

    It's fortunate for this country that Democrat presidential candidates refuse to learn the lessons that the 2018 and 2019
    wins taught..

  31. [31] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    For once we agree on Rahm Emanuel's piece.

    Dear Democrats: Here’s How Not to Blow It
    What the party needs to learn from this week’s elections.

    By RAHM EMANUEL November 08, 2019

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/08/democrats-2020-advice-rahm-emanuel-229909

    Democrats won in 2018 and 2019 by addressing REAL problems

    Very true, indeed.

    Dems won in 2018 and 2019 because they addressed rising prescription prices and fixing roads.

    Absolutely.

    Seems that you have the gist of it.

  32. [32] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    For once we agree on Rahm Emanuel's piece.

    Dear Democrats: Here’s How Not to Blow It
    What the party needs to learn from this week’s elections.

    By RAHM EMANUEL November 08, 2019

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/08/democrats-2020-advice-rahm-emanuel-229909

    Democrats won in 2018 and 2019 by addressing REAL problems

    Very true, indeed.

    Dems won in 2018 and 2019 because they addressed rising prescription prices and fixing roads.

    Absolutely.

    Seems that you have the gist of it.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar..

    Democrats won in 2018 and 2019 by addressing REAL problems

    Very true, indeed.

    Dems won in 2018 and 2019 because they addressed rising prescription prices and fixing roads.

    Absolutely.

    Seems that you have the gist of it.

    OK, so we are completely in agreement as to why Democrats won in 2018 and 2019...

    So, since you agree with me and agree on Emanuel's piece....

    This begs the question..

    Why aren't the Democrat candidates talking about this stuff?? The kitchen table stuff..

    All they are talking about is the Green New Deal, Impeachment, Free College for All, Impeachment, Free Health Care for all, Impeachment, eliminating Fraking and Fossil Fuels, Impeachment... and so on and so on and so on...

    Yes, there is probably a mention of kitchen table stuff here and there..

    But if Democrats want to replicate 2018 and 2019, their candidates should be talking virtually ALL kitchen table stuff with a bit o New Green Deal/Free Everything/Eliminate Fracking & Fossil Fuels thrown in to feed the base..

    Wouldn't you agree??

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know... I know.. It's tough to be in a position where you actually agree with me.. :D

    Take deep breaths... The dizziness and nausea will fade...

    :D

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    No. My claim is if they take any big money they are big money candidates whether or not they also accept contributions from small donors. It is the small donor campaign that has no big money donors.

    Documented evidence? You mean like a quid pro quo?

    Over 80% of citizens want the big money out of politics. Those citizens have seen enough evidence to reach the conclusion that big money is a problem.

    I prefer to spend my time trying to get those citizens to work towards a solution rather than try to convince the other 20% of the obvious.

    Unless you're counting PAC donations a candidate taking 25,000 from anybody would be violating campaign finance law.

    Of course a candidate with two big money donors may not represent the big money donors over the 10,000.

    But a candidate with 100 big money donors vs. 10,000 small donors or 10,000 voters that gave no money would.

    What evidence do you have that such a candidate would worry about the 10,000 not contributing or voting for them in the next election?

    There are multitudes of examples of citizens continuing to vote for big money candidates election after election.

    But you may have hit on a solution.

    What if the 10,000 did refuse to vote for the big money candidates if they continue to take big money?

    What if they were to work together and demand that the candidates not take big money in order to get our votes?

    Oh, wait. That's what I have been saying all along.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, since Michael Bloomberg is likely entering the race, I guess ya'all will be referring to him as 'Cadet FlatFeet', right??

    I mean, ya'all WOULD if ya'all were actually fair and rational people and not hysterical hypocrites, eh??

    :smirk: :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, ya'all WOULD if ya'all were actually fair and rational people and not hysterical hypocrites, eh??

    Notable Exceptions Noted, of course.. :D

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I guess ya'all will be referring to [Bloomberg]as 'Cadet FlatFeet', right??

    I don't understand who Bloomberg thinks will vote for him?

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    if Democrats want to replicate 2018 and 2019, their candidates should be talking virtually ALL kitchen table stuff with a bit o New Green Deal/Free Everything/Eliminate Fracking & Fossil Fuels thrown in to feed the base..

    That's what they're doing. Never mind the most liberal voices, they always peter out. Eventually people vote, and the enthusiasm of these early days gives way to a more pragmatic electorate.

    And in this crowded field are a couple of candidates - Biden, Buttigieg, Bullock, Bennett, Kamala Harris, Klobuchar - that strike a tone to excite pragmatic voters.

    Ultimately, the issue will come down, as Rahm and others have said, to beating Trump. By March or May of next year, the most liberal will have had their say, and cooler heads will prevail.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what they're doing. Never mind the most liberal voices, they always peter out.

    See... We were having a nice reality based conversation, but then you went and spoiled it by Party loyalty..

    Elizabeth Warren is ***NOT*** talking about kitchen table issues. She is talking about Free Medicare for All, free Health care for illegals, Gun confiscation, wealth confiscation, banning fraking (not the fun kind) and banning fossil fuels, etc etc etc..

    Sanders is right up there with her on that..

    So, please.. Don't insult my intelligence by claiming Democrats are not radically and sharply Left..

    Even Pelosi recognizes they are. Even Bloomberg recognizes they wre...

    Ultimately, the issue will come down, as Rahm and others have said, to beating Trump. By March or May of next year, the most liberal will have had their say, and cooler heads will prevail.

    So, you are saying Warren/Sanders et al don't stand a chance of winning the nomination??

    Can I quote you on that??

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't understand who Bloomberg thinks will vote for him?

    Every Democrat who is NOT a socialist or communist..

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Okay, I said never mind the liberal voices, and your very next post was all about them.

    Get it out of your head that they can win the nomination: they can't (not without Russian help).

    What you have to get through your skull is that it's all a Goldilocks process. We'll find our center.

    But not this cycle will a liberal get the nomination. Too many voices talking like Rahm is: beating Trump is the mission.

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Beating Trump is indeed the mission and with Biden you get the best of all worlds … literally.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Okay, I said never mind the liberal voices, and your very next post was all about them.

    And WHY do you think that is??

    WHY is Pelosi and Bloomberg worried about the Left turn of the crop of Democrat candidates??

    Get it out of your head that they can win the nomination: they can't...

    OK.. So.. I CAN QUOTE YOU THAT THE LEFT WING SURGE OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS A BAD THING..

    Right???

    What you have to get through your skull is that it's all a Goldilocks process. We'll find our center.

    I don't think ya'all will..

    BUT...

    But at least we agree that the Left ward shift of the Democrat Party is BAD for the Democrat Party..

    Do we agree on that???

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    See... We were having a nice reality based conversation, but then you went and spoiled it by Party loyalty..

    Commenting too quickly without fully understanding the situation can be dangerous.

    When you see "Party loyalty" everywhere all you see is "Party loyalty" and quite a lot can be missed, entirely.

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do we agree on that???

    I think so.

    What is bad for the GOP?

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    When you see "Party loyalty" everywhere all you see is "Party loyalty" and quite a lot can be missed, entirely.

    Considering that all the Left Wing is a-buzz about Medicare 4 All and Identity Politics etc etc, seeing Party Loyalty is not such a hard chore...

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, you have to put some effort into it and only look where you think it will be - thereby missing everything else and not getting the whole picture.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, you have to put some effort into it and only look where you think it will be - thereby missing everything else and not getting the whole picture.

    I'll be yer Huckleberry.. :D

    What sources are you looking at??

    Because if one looks at the commonly quoted Weigantia Sources... HuffPoop, WaPoop, NY Grime, Salon and every other Left Wing rag, the picture is very clear...

    Party purity wins hands down..

  50. [50] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    I am surprised that no one is talking about why Bernie or EW will be the next POTUS. In 2016 Trump tapped into a huge reservoir of frustration with the status quo and he was the ONLY candidate who spoke to their frustration. Of course he is a complete fraud who never had any intention to actually change the status que, or to "un-rig" the system but he continues to talk that way and fools though they are, they cling to him in the vain hope he will somehow make their lives better. EW and Bernie speak to that desire to change the structure that has led to the unequal situation we have now. The big difference of course, is that, they have actual plans to effect this change and the smarts to carry them out. Once the nomination is secure it becomes a simple task to demonstrate that their plans will actually secure the structural change that many folks lust for, as opposed to Trump that has no plan and has demonstrated no ability to change anything for the better.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    SF Bear..

    So, basically what you are saying is that it's OK.. nay.. DESIRABLE to have a Trump..

    As long as it's YOUR Trump.. :D

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem with your hypothesis is that the VAST MAJORITY of Americans DON'T WANT the kind of changes that a Left Wing "Trump" is pushing..

    REAL Americans DON'T WANT illegal immigrants to have free health care..

    REAL Americans DON'T WANT to lose the health care plans they like..

    REAL Americans DON'T WANT Open/Decriminalized Borders..

    REAL Americans DON'T WANT to pay slave reparations...

    REAL Americans DON'T WANT to give up fraking and fossil fuels and all the benefits they provide..

    In short.. Simply put..

    REAL Americans DON'T WANT what they Far Left is selling..

    It's THAT simple..

  53. [53] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    Perhaps but "Real Americans" that hold those beliefs are a distinct minority. Less than 40% of Americans feel that way. Most of us hunger for a "big structural change" that will be in tune to the needs of us "Real Americans".

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps but "Real Americans" that hold those beliefs are a distinct minority.

    Yea?? Facts to support??

    Hell, I'll even accept POLLS that say the Majority of Americans **WANT** to pay slave reparations, **WANT** to lose the health care plans they like, **WANT** to give illegal immigrant criminals free and full health care, **WANT** to give up fossil fuels and fraking..

    You have any polls that tell you this???

    Most of us hunger for a "big structural change" that will be in tune to the needs of us "Real Americans".

    Yea??

    Prove it....

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me save you some trouble, sunshine..

    You WON'T find **ANY** polls that say the majority of Americans want to pay slave reparations or want decriminalized/open borders or want illegal immigrants criminals to have free and full health care at middle-class Americans' expense..

    Your Left Wing Democrats are OUT OF TOUCH with the vast majority of Americans..

    Why do you think Nancy Pelosi put a brake on the Dim candidates???

  56. [56] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    Amazon the largest company in the world pays zero, that's right, zero taxes and Warren Buffet's secretary still pays more tax than he does. Americans pay more for internet, phone service, appliances, and lot of other things than folks in other counties, because we have allowed big business to gain monopolies and to rig the system. Now many Americans may not understand the actual mechanisms by which the plutocrats have taken over but they know in their bones that they don't have a fair chance in this society, and they are fed up. When the democratic candidate demonstrates that Trump has not done anything to fix this nor does he have the ability to do anything to fix it even if he wanted to, and that he is just a big con, folks will turn on him and he won't just lose but he will be jailed.

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @sf bear,

    Wishful thinking. Frankly, we Americans as a whole just aren't that bright. Which is how we ended up in this position to begin with.

  58. [58] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    Documented evidence? You mean like a quid pro quo?

    Yes, like a quid pro quo! You have stated that any politician that accepts large money donations will only work on behalf of those large money donors, and I would think that would be easy for you to provide evidence of since you base the purpose for your entire movement on that claim —yet you offer none.

    Over 80% of citizens want the big money out of politics. Those citizens have seen enough evidence to reach the conclusion that big money is a problem.

    Is that the conclusion that has been reached?

    I prefer to spend my time trying to get those citizens to work towards a solution rather than try to convince the other 20% of the obvious.

    Unless you're counting PAC donations a candidate taking 25,000 from anybody would be violating campaign finance law.

    You claim “big money” is the problem, but you also note that my example of $25k being given to a campaign exceeds the legal limits on donation amounts that are allowed. In fact, you want us to believe that the 80% of citizens who say they want big money out of politics consider $5600 to be “big money”! You are wanting to battle against folks giving $5600 when most people are much more concerned with the unlimited amounts of money that go into PAC’s and SuperPAC’s accounts! Hell, why would a politician work on behalf of those you accuse of being “big money donors” and not focus far more on those that give to PACs when corporations can give donations to PACs that are hundreds of times larger than what can go directly to their campaign?

    You offer no explanation or proof as to why giving $350 (or whatever random amount you have chosen as the limit) to a candidate is OK, but even a cent more taints the donation as something to be rejected!? Accepting anything more than the amount that you have randomly tossed out there as the standard for determining corruption really would do only thing.... it would make you the most powerful person in politics.

    YOU dictate what is acceptable and what is not based on whatever amount best fits the mood you are in!

    That might explain why you have not bothered to even find out what definition for “big money” most people are using when they say they want it out of politics. Or maybe you have and you chose to ignore your findings, because you knew it would render OneDemand an act in futility.

    You just want to be known as the founder of a successful political grass roots movement — screw the details!

  59. [59] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So, basically what you are saying is that it's OK.. nay.. DESIRABLE to have a Trump..

    As long as it's YOUR Trump.. :D

    NO! Trump is a lying sack of dicks that has only been interested in himself, he never intended on doing anything that didn’t benefit himself, first and foremost! If his selfish actions happened to help anyone else, so be it — but that was a completely unintended side effect and was never Trump’s main purpose for his actions.

    You are confusing what people wanted and some even believed Trump would do if he were elected with the con man Trump that we actually have. People want someone who truly will shake up the system and stick it to the establishment that seeks only to make the rich richer and screw the rest of us over! Trump was NEVER going to be that!

  60. [60] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Are you claiming that Republicans are against the middle class having free and full healthcare benefits? They rant on and on convincing their base that they should not support a law giving undeserving individuals a $50 gift card, but they fail to tell their base that voting against those $50 gift cards will cost them the $10,000 they would have received by voting in favor of that law!

    Face it, you support forcing Americans to overpay for their healthcare and prescriptions, as your Republican Party has blocked every bill the House has passed that tackles these subjects from ever getting a vote in the Senate!

    Remind me again how Trump’s wall will keep illegals and more importantly, illegal drugs, out of the country? Trump bragged that expert climbers had determined that his choice for the wall would be impossible to get over. Someone should tell Trump that Eric is not really an expert climber and that the harness he discovered in the bedroom Eric shared with Don Jr. was for... something else!

  61. [61] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-

    You are right that 80% of citizens may have different ideas about what constitutes big money or a big donor.

    So I have made a determination based on what most citizens can afford to contribute. This is better than most that talk about big money without being specific.

    And I have often pointed out that it is a starting point that can be changed by the participants.

    So I am not dictating anything. That is a bullshit claim and it is childish for you to keep repeating it as if it were never addressed.

    Not that it is out of character for you to repeat bullshit that has been addressed repeatedly while claiming it has never been addressed. It is your SOP besides ridiculous nonsense like claims I just want to be the founder of a political movement as if that is somehow not a desirable goal to have or there is something wrong with someone that wants to start a political organization.

    It is also the same amount chosen in other instances by other people and organizations as threshold for a small contribution or donor.

    It is the same amount Warren has said she will not take more than from some donors (It think it was fossil fuel industry and/or wall street execs).

    Wouldn't it make more sense to just not take more than 200 from anyone? What's the difference that makes these donors giving more than 200 a bad thing when others giving more than 200 is okay?

    Most people that are concerned with PAC money understand that many of the people that give to a PAC are the same people giving the maximum amount to a candidate's campaign.

    A candidate can easily afford to run a campaign on only small donors. There is no valid reason to take big money other than lack of courage, integrity or intelligence.

    The act of futility is voting for big money candidates and expecting them not to represent the big money interests.

    If the candidates did not represent the big money interests the big money interests would not keep giving them money.

    Perhaps the big money interests are smarter than ordinary citizens that keep giving the candidates their votes while getting no representation in return.

  62. [62] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    It is also the same amount chosen in other instances by other people and organizations as threshold for a small contribution or donor.

    Yes, but I don’t see those people claiming that anyone who accepts more than the limit they are setting are corrupt like you have done.

    Not that it is out of character for you to repeat bullshit that has been addressed repeatedly while claiming it has never been addressed.

    What is utter bullshit is the claim that you have actually addressed any issues being raised. The fact is that you have no idea what you are talking about and are speaking out of ignorance.

    A candidate can easily afford to run a campaign on only small donors. There is no valid reason to take big money other than lack of courage, integrity or intelligence.

    And you know this to be true based on what? You have never run a campaign. It’s very telling that you’ve spent a lot of time working on your website...but only in the areas that deal with people giving money to your fake group! But you still do not make it clear that you will be making the information of anyone who signs up with One Demand public for all the world to see. There is no acknowledgement box seeking to get permission from potential One Demand backers for their info.

    Yet, despite all of this, you still think your time is best spent on here trying to shame CW into writing about your imaginary movement.... maybe the fact that you still have only 4 people signed up after 5 years indicates you might want to rethink this approach?

    Nah! We all know that ain’t gonna happen!

  63. [63] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So, since Michael Bloomberg is likely entering the race, I guess ya'all will be referring to him as 'Cadet FlatFeet', right??

    Why would we? There is nothing to indicate that Bloomberg lied about his medical condition like Trump did.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    SF,

    When the democratic candidate demonstrates that Trump has not done anything to fix this nor does he have the ability to do anything to fix it even if he wanted to, and that he is just a big con, folks will turn on him and he won't just lose but he will be jailed.

    Who am I to take away yer dreams?? :D

    Just as long as you understand that you ARE dreaming.. :D

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Why would we? There is nothing to indicate that Bloomberg lied about his medical condition like Trump did.

    Facts to support?? Any FACTS at all??

    Of course not..

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wishful thinking. Frankly, we Americans as a whole just aren't that bright. Which is how we ended up in this position to begin with.

    I disagree...

    SF makes all these grand proclamations about how other countries have all this free stuff..

    It's bullshit, of course, but let's pretend it's actually factual.

    Are all those countries a Superpower?? Nope.. Many of them are shitholes..

    The US is unique and exceptional.. It's pure socialist fantasy to believe that what works in New Zealand or Tahiti or Australia will work in the US.

    To those that say how awesome it is in those countries that have all that free stuff, I say, "Well, then MOVE there!!"

    But people won't because they can't find a job there, they aren't allowed to immigrate there or it's a shithole..

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    People want someone who truly will shake up the system and stick it to the establishment that seeks only to make the rich richer and screw the rest of us over! Trump was NEVER going to be that!<

    And yet, President Trump IS that..

    He has certainly shaken up the Democrat "system".. :D

    Unemployment for minorities is at it's lowest point **IT'S EVER BEEN!!**

    President Trump has accomplished what yer messiah ODUMBO never could do!!

    The simple fact is, President Trump has been more effective than you would EVER give him credit for..

    You have hated President Trump since Nov of 2016 and have NEVER given him a chance...

    Your opinion of President Trump is SOLELY based on hate, bigotry and hysterical emotionalism..

    That's why I can discount practically EVERYTHING you say about it.. Because it's borne of hate, bigotry and hysterical emotionalism without a single fact to support..

    How do we know this to be factually accurate??

    Because you have hated him since 10 Nov 2016, BEFORE he even took office...

    You decided to hate Trump and you would just fill in the blanks later..

    Yer a hater and a bigot..

    It's that simple..

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hope Balthasar is alright.. We had a nice chat where he was fully in agreement with what I said..

    And no one has seen him since...

    Hope he is OK.. :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sen. Graham: Impeachment 'dead on arrival' in Senate if Dems keep whistleblower from testifying
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-graham-impeachment-dead-on-arrival-in-senate-dem-prevent-whistleblower-testimony

    Unless the Democrat plant/stooge testifies publicly??

    The faux impeachment coup is dead on arrival in the Senate..

    It's really THAT simple...

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    African American unemployment reached an all time low of 5.4 percent in October, resulting in the smallest gap between black and white unemployment rates ever recorded. The Hispanic unemployment rate likewise reached an all-time low of 3.9 percent in September, and the Hispanic-American labor force participation rate reached its highest level in a decade the following month.

    The left is fanatical about enforcing equal outcomes, and yet Democrats are trying desperately to get rid of a president whose policies have reduced economic disparities between racial groups to the lowest level in American history.

    If Democrats actually look at the FACTS, President Trump has been totally GREAT for minorities. A constituency that Democrats CLAIM to care about..

    But, in reality, the only thing Dems care about is their hatred and bigotry..

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again.. We have Democrat hysterical hatred and bigotry......

    Not surprisingly, income inequality – a major Democrat bugaboo – is also declining. Contrary to fake news accounts, the Census Bureau’s recommended report on income and poverty recently found that income inequality declined slightly in 2018 using a traditional measure. It also applied a more thorough “equivalency” measure and found a “statistically significant” decline. In fact, the share of household income actually increased the most for the lowest 20 percent of earners (3.4 percent) while the top 20 percent was the only quintile to experience a decrease.

    And then we have the FACTS...

    President Trump has been awesome in the areas that Democrats **CLAIM** to care about..

    But Democrats refuse to give President Trump credit for ANY of it..

    They can't get past their hate and their bigotry..

    It's simply amazing..

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    In addition to the strongest job market in half a century, Trump achieved the most significant criminal justice reforms in at least a generation last year, addressing a long-standing priority of many Democratic voters. The First Step Act reduces sentences for certain drug felonies and other non-violent crimes, fixes the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, and allows prisoners to more easily earn early-release credits for participating in educational programs that help prepare them for life outside prison.?

    Once again, President Trump delivers the goods on issues that Democrats *CLAIM* to care about..

    There is also the FACT that President Trump has initiated the most far-reaching gun control law since 1986...

    That's not my opinion, that's CW's opinion...

    Once again, President Trump does wonders for the DEMOCRAT agenda but no one here cares..

    Ya'all (NEN) can't get past your hate and your bigotry..

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the first time in 29 years, total drug overdoses in America finally declined in July, falling by 5 percent thanks to the bipartisan Support for Patients and Communities Act that President Trump signed last year. The Support Act has modernized and expanded addiction treatment, and is funding crucial research into alternative pain medications that could eventually eliminate the need for addictive opioid medications.

    But don’t expect to hear about these bipartisan achievements from the anti-Trump media. Democrats are trying desperately to humiliate and unseat a president who’s done more for their voters in less than three years than they themselves ever have.

    President Trump has been better for the Democrat agenda than Democrats **EVER** have...

    Once again, the Weigantia of days past would have acknowledged these FACTS and this reality..

    But today's HHPTDS-suffering Weigantia totally ignores these facts and this reality in favor of Democrat Party "truth"...

    "We choose truth over facts."
    -Joe Biden

    Yes, Joe.. You are absolutely right.. Democrats DO choose their truth over the facts.

    And THAT is why Democrats will lose big in 2020...

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    As the Democrats and their Trump-hating media allies are well aware, there is no possibility that the required 20 Senate Republicans would vote to remove a sitting Republican president – who has done nothing impeachable – from office. This is all about trying to manufacture bad publicity for the president going into the 2020 election. Period.

    If Democrats in this do-nothing Congress really cared for the people they supposedly represent, they’d get back to work on important issues, such as passing the US-Mexico-Canada trade deal, lowering the cost of prescription drugs or coming up with health care proposals that might actually work outside the Progressive’s Socialist fairy land. Those are the issues Americans actually care about and the issues Democrats are ignoring.

    It's rather ironic that there is absolutely no daylight between me and Balthasar on this... :D

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Florida county first in state to enact 'Second Amendment Sanctuary' in support of gun rights
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-county-second-amendment-sanctuary-gun-rights

    Now THAT'S what I'm talkin about!! :D

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now, let's re-visit some facts that all of ya'all continue to ignore.. :D

    "Democrats desperation to impeach is directly and inversely proportional to their confidence that they can beat President Trump at the ballot box."
    -Weigantian Wisdom

    "Impeachment can be legitimate if and only if it emanates from a bipartisan conviction that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction."
    -Joe Biden, 1998

    “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country.”
    -Nancy Pelosi, Mar 2019

    “If the evidence isn’t sufficient to win bipartisan support for this, putting the country through a failed impeachment isn’t a good idea.”
    -Adam Schiff

    The gist???

    If an impeachment isn't bi-partisan it is not legitimate..

    If an impeachment is not legitimate, it is illegal..

    An illegal impeachment is a coup.. Or, per Benjamin Franklin, an assassination..

    Leave it to Dumbocrats to decide that a political assassination is the BEST way to address their hatred, bigotry and sore-luser'ism... :smirk: :D

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a note unrelated to politics.

    Has any Windows 10 users experienced a lot of MACHINE CHECK EXCEPTION BSOD in the last week or so??

    My machine has rebooted at least once a day with the MCE BSOD...

    I think the cause might be the latest Win10 update from Microsoft.. Anyone else???

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bloomberg Move Seen as Slam on Dems' Current 2020 Field

    Just seven months ago, Bloomberg announced he would not enter the Democratic primary after a brief exploration phase. His advisers, at the time, privately shared their analysis that there wasn’t room for another centrist like Bloomberg with Biden in the race.

    What a difference seven months makes.

    The former vice president showed vulnerability in his campaign’s earliest days with a series of flubs and uneven performances that bothered his establishment allies. Still, Biden led in virtually every poll for much of the year because of the persistent belief that he was the most electable Democrat in a head-to-head matchup against Trump.

    A turning point came last month when Biden released a weak third-quarter fundraising report that undermined a supposed strength, raising serious questions about the extent of his support from the party’s power brokers. And in recent weeks, a series of underwhelming polls in Iowa and New Hampshire suggested that Biden is falling behind in the states that typically matter most in primary politics.

    He is clearly trending in the wrong direction. And the universe of concerned Democrats is expanding.

    They include establishment allies such as former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who encouraged Biden last month to fire consultants and stop flying on private planes. They include rank-and-file voters like Bobbi Helton, a retiree from Hilton Head, S.C., who said this week that she’s still shopping for a candidate in the moderate lane.

    “I’ve always thought Biden was wonderful,” she said at an event for another candidate this week. “But watching the debates he’s a step behind in his thinking. If he’s going to debate Trump, Trump is going to wipe him out.”
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/09/bloombergs_move_seen_as_slam_on_current_dem_field_141703.html

    So, this begs the question..

    Is Biden falling because the Democrat Party is coming to realize that they don't want to be the Party of old white rich men and are embracing the Socialist Wing of the Party??

    Or is Biden falling because Democrats just don't think he can cut it, a socialist candidate can't beat President Trump, so Democrats might as well stay home??

    It sure would be nice to see some reality-based hard hitting reality check of the Democrat Party from denizens of Weigantia...

    Ironically enough, Balthasar has come to the closest to taking the Democrat Party to task when he agreed with me about Rahm's Op-Ed...

    It would be nice if others adopted a REALITY-BASED attitude in their comments, rather than a DEMOCRAT PARTY CAN DO NO WRONG attitude..

    At least there would be MANY opportunities for common ground..

    And maybe that's why no one here does it...

    Hmmmmmmmm

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump Launches Black Outreach Effort for 2020

    ATLANTA (AP) — During the 2016 campaign, candidate Donald Trump stood in front of largely white crowds and asked black voters to consider, “What the hell do you have to lose?”

    Four years later, the president has a new message for black voters: Look what I’ve delivered.

    Trump and his campaign launched a new “Black Voices for Trump” outreach initiative in Atlanta on Friday dedicated to “recruiting and activating Black Americans in support of President Trump,” according to the campaign. Much of that effort will focus on highlighting ways that African Americans have benefited from the Trump economy, according to advisers.

    “The support we’re getting from the African American community has been overwhelming,” Trump told the crowd, which included supporters wearing red “BLACK LIVES MAGA” hats.

    He predicted victory in 2020, and said, “We’re going to do it with a groundswell of support from hardworking African American patriots.”
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/08/trump_campaign_launching_black_outreach_effort_for_2020_141696.html

    When Democrats lose the black American vote??

    It's all over but the crying...

  80. [80] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (62)-

    Way to double down on your SOP.

    On, wait. That was Listen, not Michale. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. :D

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    On, wait. That was Listen, not Michale. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. :D

    Hay now!! There is no need to be nasty!! Don't be sayin' things ya can't take back!! :D

  82. [82] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    You're half right.

    There was no need caused by you to be nasty to you. :D

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale-
    You're half right.

    Shirley better than being half wit... :D

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re: The Faux Impeachment Coup..

    "The American public needs to understand we're not dealing with a gray area here. This is a black-and-white violation of the Constitution."
    -Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)

    Yea???

    Quote to me the part of the US Constitution that President Trump violated??

    You can't because yer full of kaa-kaa...

    :smirk: :D

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's so hilarious about Democrats are the facts..

    1. President Zelensky did not launch any investigation.

    2. The military aid was delivered once the Pentagon cleared the shipment..

    So, even if Quid Pro Quo **WASN'T** the way that US diplomacy works and even if Joe Biden himself hadn't gone rogue and engaged in Quid Pro Quo to benefit his son...... at WORST, Dumbocrats have ATTEMPTED Quid Pro Quo by President Trump..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    So, even if Democrats are factually accurate on their "truth", they STILL don't have a case of quid pro quo..

    Because the dirt on Biden was never produced and the military aid was still delivered..

    NO QUID PRO QUO...

    It's THAT simple...

  86. [86] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Mike,

    I don't remember the phrase "and it has to work!" written into the constitution (and ignoring the fact that Trump ran the same scheme, albeit quieter, with Porshenko).

    In the present case, the money had been cleared by the Pentagon. The White House had the hold on the Military Aid.

    It seems to be the President's side that's grappling with the facts.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't remember the phrase "and it has to work!" written into the constitution (and ignoring the fact that Trump ran the same scheme, albeit quieter, with Porshenko).

    Please quote the part of the US Constitution that applies to ANYTHING President Trump has done with regards to this faux impeachment coup??

    Any part at all??

    In the present case, the money had been cleared by the Pentagon. The White House had the hold on the Military Aid.

    In the present case, there was no money involved... Unlike Joe Biden's billion dollar extortion...

    Secondly, even if you were factually accurate on who held up the military aid (which you are not) the simple FACT is that aid was delivered without any "dirt" being provided..

    No quid pro quo exists..

    What part of that is too complex for you to comprehend??

    All of this ALSO presupposes that quid pro quo IS NOT the way of diplomacy..

    Which it most certainly is..

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    It seems to be the President's side that's grappling with the facts.

    Of course he isn't..

    Dumbocrats HAVE no relevant facts...

    So how can ANY side grapple with facts that don't exist??

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Stop spreading lies around here, Michale. If you have to resort to lies, then you have nothing of value to contribute here.

    And, don't ask me which one.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stop spreading lies around here, Michale. If you have to resort to lies, then you have nothing of value to contribute here.

    And, don't ask me which one.

    Of course I won't ask you which one..

    There are no lies, only FACTS.. So why would I put you on the spot to point out something we both know doesn't exist.. :D

    Yer too much of a friend for me to do that to you.. :D

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    There are no lies, only FACTS..

    False.

    Unfortunately for this blog and for your friends, many of your comments are fact-free, particularly with regard to Senator Biden.

    And, I won't allow it to continue with impunity.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are no lies, only FACTS..

    False.

    Facts to support your claim???

    Unfortunately for this blog and for your friends, many of your comments are fact-free, particularly with regard to Senator Biden.

    Yes, that's the continued unsubstantiated claim... :D

    And, I won't allow it to continue with impunity.

    Easiest (and, as a matter of fact) *ONLY* way to put an end to it is to provide facts of your own that prove my facts wrong..

    Until such time as you can do that, my facts stand as valid.. :D

  93. [93] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In Article 2, section 4:

    "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

    So the reasoning goes, if it isn't treason, it's bribery, and if not that, then some other high crime or misdemeanor.

    And incidentally, the President CAN be tried for these offenses once safely out of office. Found that out.

    Article 1, section 3, clause 7:

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

    Nifty.

  94. [94] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And further, I'll take the word of experienced and dedicated civil servants over the word of political appointees whether or not a "quid pro quo" existed!

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Facts to support your claim???

    That's a strange game you play for someone who spreads lies that are unsubstantiated with even a cogent argument or two.

    What facts do you have that support the assertion you make that Biden was helping his son when he presented Poroshenko, the Ukrainian leader, with a quid pro quo in which the US would withhold billions of dollars in assistance unless the Ukrainian Prosecutor General was removed from office?

  96. [96] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    From the deposition of William Taylor, the former Ambassador to Ukraine:

    "And, of course, whether it meets a legal definition of ‘quid pro quo’ or it doesn’t is really irrelevant to what we’re focused on here. But it is your testimony that, hey, you don’t make these public statements about these two political investigations we want, you’re not getting this meeting – you make these statements, you’ll get the meeting; you don’t make these statements, you won’t. Was that your understanding of the state of affairs in July of 2019?"

    "Yes," Taylor concluded.

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    So the reasoning goes, if it isn't treason, it's bribery, and if not that, then some other high crime or misdemeanor.

    Yea?? Facts to support???

    Especially when one considers that quid pro quo has been the HALLMARK of US diplomacy since there WAS a U.S.

    But, under President Trump, it's YOUR claim that it is, all of the sudden, UNCONSTITUTIONAL..

    Shirley, you jest...

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

    Yer kinda putting the cart before the horse, sunshine..

    You don't even have an impeachment yet.. And yer already fantasizing about penalties??

    Like I said.. Hatred and bigotry.. Nothing else in play..

    And further, I'll take the word of experienced and dedicated civil servants over the word of political appointees whether or not a "quid pro quo" existed!

    AS LONG AS THOSE "dedicated civil servants" are saying what you want to hear...

    There.. Fixed it for you. Yer welcome..

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    What facts do you have that support the assertion

    The same "facts" you have when you assert that President Trump was only interested in campaign dirt and NOT interested in rooting out corruption...

    PLUS... Obama has not backed up Biden's claim that Biden's actions were part of the US Policy..

    Ergo, the ONLY reason that Biden extorted the Ukrainians left is that Biden was protecting his son..

    you make that Biden was helping his son when he presented Poroshenko, the Ukrainian leader, with a quid pro quo in which the US would withhold billions of dollars in assistance unless the Ukrainian Prosecutor General was removed from office?

    Interesting.. So you concede that VP Biden DID engage in quid pro quo...

    OK.. So explain why the Democrat VP's quid pro quo was acceptable and the GOP PRESIDENT's quid pro quo was not acceptable??

    Either quid pro quo is acceptable or it is not..

    You can't change yer attitudes just because of the -D or the -R after the name..

    It's not allowed.. :D

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    From the deposition of William Taylor, the former Ambassador to Ukraine:

    "And, of course, whether it meets a legal definition of ‘quid pro quo’ or it doesn’t is really irrelevant to what we’re focused on here. But it is your testimony that, hey, you don’t make these public statements about these two political investigations we want, you’re not getting this meeting – you make these statements, you’ll get the meeting; you don’t make these statements, you won’t. Was that your understanding of the state of affairs in July of 2019?"

    "Yes," Taylor concluded.

    Taylor rendered an OPINION.. HIS opinion..

    NOT A FACT...

    Like I said.. You have NO FACTS...

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Especially when one considers that quid pro quo has been the HALLMARK of US diplomacy since there WAS a U.S.

    Of course.

    What has most decidedly NOT been a hallmark of US diplomacy is a president using a quid pro quo based itself on unsubstantiated claims for his own personal political interests.

    What Biden did and what Trump did are as different as day and night. The former furthered the interests of the US and of Ukraine while the latter only furthered the personal political interests of the president alone.

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Interesting.. So you concede that VP Biden DID engage in quid pro quo...

    O F C O U R S E ! ! !

    Not interesting. Very boring.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said.. You have NO FACTS...

    And the "FACTS" you claim you DO have come from alleged transcripts from SECRET Star Chamber meetings and closed-door testimony that NO ONE can confirm...

    So, all ya'all REALLY have is nothing but hearsay...

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    OK.. So explain why the Democrat VP's quid pro quo was acceptable and the GOP PRESIDENT's quid pro quo was not acceptable??

    See 100.

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    O F C O U R S E ! ! !

    Not interesting. Very boring.

    OK.. So it's agreed that Biden engaged in quid pro quo..

    Yet, it's the DEMOCRATS' assertion that President Trump engaged in quid pro quo and THAT was illegal..

    Hell.. Those of lesser brains even claim it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

    How do you reconcile those two diametrically opposed beliefs???

  105. [105] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Face it fumduckers, your entire impeachment fiasco falls under the category of Political Theater! You've gotta shake off the PTSD syndrome overhang from 2016 and join the world of reality.

    Much as the orange moron merits removal from office, this impeachment circus ain't gonna get it done, and if you replace Hillary on the 2020 ticket with the 2nd most unlikely Democratic to ever get elected, you're gonna have to endure him for 4 more yrs.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    What has most decidedly NOT been a hallmark of US diplomacy is a president using a quid pro quo based itself on unsubstantiated claims for his own personal political interests.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    What Biden did and what Trump did are as different as day and night.

    Actually, what Biden did and what President Trump did are IDENTICAL in every way..

    While it's your claim that the MOTIVATIONS are different (a claim you have not a SHRED of fact to support) that doesn't change the FACT that what President Trump did and what Biden did are IDENTICAL ACTIONS...

    That is, of course, if you buy into the idea that President Trump engaged in quid pro quo...

    There are no facts to support that claim..

    But it is UNDENIABLE that Biden engaged in quid pro quo because he STATED as much..

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Face it fumduckers, your entire impeachment fiasco falls under the category of Political Theater! You've gotta shake off the PTSD syndrome overhang from 2016 and join the world of reality.

    If they hadn't shooked it in 3 years, it's doubtful they are even CAPABLE of shaking it off.

    Can you imagine how much deeper their psychosis will go when President Trump is re-elected!!! :D

  108. [108] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How do you reconcile those two diametrically opposed beliefs??? Especially when one considers that quid pro quo has been the HALLMARK of US diplomacy since there WAS a U.S.

    What has most decidedly NOT been a hallmark of US diplomacy is a president using a quid pro quo with the leader of Ukraine, based itself on unsubstantiated claims, for his own personal political interests. I believe that sort of behavior is wholly unprecedented in the history of the United States of America.

    What Biden did and what Trump did are as different as day and night. The former furthered the interests of the US and of Ukraine while the latter only furthered the personal political interests of the president alone.

    I know you understand the difference, Michale.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can any of ya find the law or constitutional amendment that forbids quid pro quo to further a political agenda??

    Hell the VERY DEFINITION of quid pro quo vis a vis politics IS to further a political agenda...

    Basically, I can't find the law or Constitutional Amendment that says "QUID PRO QUO IS ILLEGAL AND HEINOUS WHEN DONE BY A PRESIDENT THAT WE REALLY REALLY *REALLY* HATE!!!!"

    Find me that law or Constitutional Amendment and I will gladly concede yer point. :D

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    That is, of course, if you buy into the idea that President Trump engaged in quid pro quo...There are no facts to support that claim..But it is UNDENIABLE that Biden engaged in quid pro quo because he STATED as much..

    Now, you're just pretending to be obtuse.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    What has most decidedly NOT been a hallmark of US diplomacy is a president using a quid pro quo based itself on unsubstantiated claims for his own personal political interests.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    What Biden did and what Trump did are as different as day and night.

    Actually, what Biden did and what President Trump did are IDENTICAL in every way..

    While it's your claim that the MOTIVATIONS are different (a claim you have not a SHRED of fact to support) that doesn't change the FACT that what President Trump did and what Biden did are IDENTICAL ACTIONS...

    That is, of course, if you buy into the idea that President Trump engaged in quid pro quo...

    There are no facts to support that claim..

    But it is UNDENIABLE that Biden engaged in quid pro quo because he STATED as much..

    So, there isn't any daylight between what Biden did and what President Trump did..

    I would dare say there really isn't any difference in the motivations.. Sans testimony from Obama, Biden did it for personal reasons..

    It can be reasonably inferred that President Trump did it for personal reasons as well..

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, you're just pretending to be obtuse.

    Nope.. Again.. Just the facts.

    Biden confessed to his Quid Pro Quo..

    You see, my dearest Liz... Your problem is that to prove quid pro quo, you MUST prove state of mind..

    We know Biden's state of mind because he STATED it... For the record..

    Ya'all can only GUESS at President Trump's state of mind, but such guesses are colored by the hatred ya'all feel for President Trump and are, as such, not serious..

  113. [113] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    Sorry, but those facts are very much "in evidence".

    That is, of course, if you buy into the idea that President Trump engaged in quid pro quo...

    You're becoming quite the expert in "circular argument" in which circular reasoning plays a role.

    Of course, the entire thing falls apart once the open testimony begins.

  114. [114] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If Biden did it for personal reasons then why did the IMF do it? Why did the British government do it? Why did the Ukrainian parliament do it? Why did the European Community do it?

    I expected better arguments from you, Michale, or admit that you are wrong about all quid pro quos being the same. And, what's worse, I know you don't really believe what you are trying to argue here.

    And, so, I am done with you on this issue.

    Soon, we won't have anything to talk about. :(

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, but those facts are very much "in evidence".

    And yet, you cannot produce a SINGLE ONE..

    Funny how that ALWAYS is the case, eh?? :D

    You're becoming quite the expert in "circular argument" in which circular reasoning plays a role.

    Of course, the entire thing falls apart once the open testimony begins.

    Yea, and after the Mueller report be released, President Trump is going to be frog-marched from the Oval Office..

    Your predictions haev ***ALWAYS*** been wrong.. But I still think it's cute how you continue to believe in your own BS... :D

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Biden did it for personal reasons then why did the IMF do it?

    You don't think it's possible that Biden and the IMF had different reasons??

    Where are your facts to support your claim they did it for the same reasons..

    Obama can put the question to rest.. The fact that Obama does NOT do this would indicate that there IS some question as to Biden's motivations..

    I expected better arguments from you, Michale, or admit that you are wrong about all quid pro quos being the same.

    ALL quid pro quos ARE the same..

    The motivations may differ, but a quid pro quo is a quid pro quo is a quid pro quo...

    This is fact..

    Soon, we won't have anything to talk about. :(

    We can talk about what you liked about ENDGAME... :D

    Maybe SPIDER MAN FAR FROM HOME.. How sad you are that the Marvel Universe is over.. :(

    We have a PLETHORA of subjects we can discuss.. :D

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, the entire thing falls apart once the open testimony begins.

    And, when open testimony begins and ya'all STILL have nothing but hearsay and rumor??

    What will you do then??

    10,000 quatloos says ya'all won't even ENTERTAIN that possibility..

    Such is as it is with fanatics... They can never acknowledge that they COULD be wrong.. :D

  118. [118] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Such is as it is with fanatics... They can never acknowledge that they COULD be wrong..

    That is apparently true. Look in the mirror.

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is apparently true. Look in the mirror.

    Nice deflection..

    But I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and have proved so on the few occasions that I was..

    Ya'all, on the other hand, haven't even accepted that President Trump is the fairly, freely, legally, democratically and Constitutionally Elected President Of The United States..

    So, who is the fanatic that can't admit they are wrong??

    And, when open testimony begins and ya'all STILL have nothing but hearsay and rumor??

    What will you do then??

    I noticed how you ignored the question.. The mark of a true fanatic.. :D

  120. [120] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    We can talk about what you liked about ENDGAME.

    That's for other sites. This site is for politics.

    Of course, I understand your reluctance. Hard to defend the undefendable.

  121. [121] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Ya'all, on the other hand, haven't even accepted that President Trump is the fairly, freely, legally, democratically and Constitutionally Elected President Of The United States..

    Of course we have, idjot. The fact that he got five million less votes sticks in our craw though.

  122. [122] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And, when open testimony begins and ya'all STILL have nothing but hearsay and rumor?

    That ship sailed a long time ago.

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, I understand your reluctance. Hard to defend the undefendable.

    Yea.. I am SO "reluctant"..

    :D

    The fact that he got five million less votes sticks in our craw though.

    Only because you hate this country and it's Constitution..

    The Constitution says that the vanity vote doesn't mean dick in a Presidential election..

    And, as you say, you HATE that.. It sticks in your craw...

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    That ship sailed a long time ago.

    How can it sail when there has been no public testimony??

    You see how illogical and irrational you are??

    You can't even CONCEIVE that you will lose.

    Which is hilarious because ya had the EXACT same belief with the Mueller Russia Collusion delusion.

    And you were flat out WRONG... You LOST...

    Just as you will lose with this faux impeachment coup.

    You yourself have even conceded this..

    "I just wanted to bring everyone back to reality. There isn't going to be an impeachment, because Republicants can't bring themselves to do it. We (dems) knew that this was true before we started it, but feel compelled to do it all the same.

    In the end, like a Thanksgiving turkey which has been meticulously prepped, the process is leading to a half-baked result."
    -Balthasar

    You have already admitted that you know you are going to lose..

  125. [125] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We can talk about what you liked about ENDGAME... :D

    I liked nothing about it. It was not a great note to end on.

    Kind of like Jason Bourne. The last great Bourne movie was the Bourne Legacy.

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's for other sites. This site is for politics.

    Yea.. Before the haters showed up, it was a place for friends to talk about a multitude of subjects.

    It was a very close knit group of friends..

    Then you people showed up...

    And it's been going downhill since..

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    I liked nothing about it. It was not a great note to end on.

    Really?? I have to admit there were some disappointments..

    But when the portals started opening up and all the taken were coming back..

    I loved that part..

    I liked nothing about it. It was not a great note to end on.

    Never really got into the Bourne movies.. Although I loved the books..

    Maybe I should binge-watch the series.... :D

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then you people showed up...

    And it's been going downhill since..

    To be fair, I shouldn't put ALL the blame on the haters..

    The onset of HHPTDS surely had a hand...

  129. [129] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I wouldn't recommend binge watching, Michale. And, don't waste your time with Jason Bourne - it's much like the conversation around here of late ...

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wouldn't recommend binge watching, Michale. And, don't waste your time with Jason Bourne - it's much like the conversation around here of late ...

    hehehe

    What do you recommend?? I have seen both seasons of REVOLUTION, all 3 seasons of JERICHO... Watched Season 2 of TOM CLANCY'S JACK RYAN.. Just finishing up Season 5 of STARGATE ATLANTIS...

    Can't wait for the new THE WITCHER series from Netflix.. :D

  131. [131] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't know anything about any of that, mercifully.

  132. [132] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Now wait a minute - Bourne was a Great series of movies! Go ahead & watch them, you'd like them.

    And try "The Travelers" on Netflix. I'm watching that now. Pretty good.

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    And try "The Travelers" on Netflix. I'm watching that now. Pretty good.

    We actually got thru Season 2 (3??) of Travelers.. It was pretty good, then got weird... :D

    What season is Travelers now??

  134. [134] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Don't know. I'm on Season 1, episode 10. Hasn't gotten weird yet.

  135. [135] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Unless the entire premise is weird. As my brother likes to say, "That's the part where you suspended your belief?"

  136. [136] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Okay, I've been corrected. The exact quote is:

    "That's the part that gotcha' huh?"

    Same difference.

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unless the entire premise is weird. As my brother likes to say, "That's the part where you suspended your belief?"

    Yea.. Anything involving time travel is, by definition, weird..

    "That's why I hate temporal mechanics. It gives me nose bleeds"
    -Geordi LaForge

    Throw in the theory that you can't really alter the path of time. If you attempt to do so, you simply create alternate time lines???

    MAJOR mind frak....

  138. [138] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now wait a minute - Bourne was a Great series of movies! Go ahead & watch them, you'd like them.

    That applies only to the first four.

  139. [139] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Other shows that deserve binge watching: Eureka!, Dark Matter, Leverage, The Librarians, Grimm and if you liked the old Police Squad show (Naked Gun franchise) then I would toss in Angie Tribeca.

    Love Stargate Atlantis, but don’t bother with Stargate Universe — they canceled it after 3 seasons without warning, so you are left with no closure for anyone! Atlantis has an incredible cast...but David Hewlett truly steals the show. If you haven’t reached the episode where he slowly begins to lose his intelligence...just be prepared to have a good supply of Kleenex ready for the tears you’ll be shedding! You and Rodney McKay share a lot of similarities in your personalities, in my mind, Michale — and I will leave it at that.

    Leverage and The Librarians are smart shows. John Larroquette is great in the Librarians.

    Dark Matter ended after 5 seasons still with some conflicts not resolved, but they were “new conflicts” as the issues you are first introduced to at the very first are resolved by season 4.

    Eureka! surprised me at how good it was. Another smart show that benefitted from strong performances by its cast.

    I almost added Andromeda, but after season 3 it started to get to way too cheesy! They had Zorbo falling for a new woman in every episode; which the show did not need...it became a Bay Watch in space sort of crap fest.

  140. [140] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I really liked travelers, and am interested to know whether or not they are renewed for another season. Don't know how they could top the last season's ending though.

  141. [141] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    One last show I meant to add — Falling Skies. Noah Wiley shows how broad his acting range truly is in this compared with his work in The Librarians.

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Love Stargate Atlantis, but don’t bother with Stargate Universe — they canceled it after 3 seasons without warning, so you are left with no closure for anyone! Atlantis has an incredible cast...but David Hewlett truly steals the show. If you haven’t reached the episode where he slowly begins to lose his intelligence...just be prepared to have a good supply of Kleenex ready for the tears you’ll be shedding!

    Yea, I have binge watched STARGATE ATLANTIS several times now... Watching BRAIN STORM as I type....

    The Shrine?? Oh yes, one of the best.. TAO OF RODNEY was also very very GOOD.. But my favorite would have to be MCKAY AND MRS MILLER.. Any S:A with Jeannie Miller in it is awesome...

    I had SO looked forward to an S:A movie for the kind of closure that STARGATE SG-1 ARK OF TRUTH gave us...

    But sadly it was not meant to be..

    You and Rodney McKay share a lot of similarities in your personalities, in my mind, Michale — and I will leave it at that.

    I choose to take that as a compliment..

    As I am sure Rodney McKay would as well. :D

  143. [143] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That applies only to the first four.

    Well, it certainly does those!

  144. [144] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:


    For the first time in 29 years, total drug overdoses in America finally declined in July, falling by 5 percent thanks to the bipartisan Support for Patients and Communities Act that President Trump signed last year.

    But don’t expect to hear about these bipartisan achievements from the anti-Trump media.

    You also brought up The First Step Act for helping prisoners to prepare for re-entry into society, and both of these are great bi-partisan legislation and Trump should be commended for signing them into law.

    But let’s be clear, if you want to commend anyone for this legislation getting passed, it should be the Democrats. This is legislation that has been needed for too long, and the Democrats have tried to get versions of it passed during the previous administration. Sadly, even though the President supported the legislation, the Republicans refused to vote for any legislation that Obama supported...preventing it from getting signed into law.

    Democrats have clearly demonstrated that they are more interested in passing needed legislation than they are worried about Trump getting to take the credit for signing it into law. You cannot say that is true for the Republicans. Sadly, even with Trump as president, Moscow Mitch has not allowed bi-partisan legislation that passed in the House to be sent to committees or voted on.

    Republicans do not know how to create good legislation. They only know how to attack the ideas of others — and they do so without figuring out alternative solutions to offer in their place.

    So bravo to Trump for doing his job the right way! But you gotta admit, with where things are heading, any prison reform legislation that Trump signs into law might be done for more personal reasons and he is just planning ahead!

  145. [145] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    30

    But, in the here and now, with this HHPTDS-infused hate-fest, common sense and rational, logical dissertations are no where to be found.. :(

    A guy who claims common sense on this forum is "no where" to be found and expects people to take him seriously. How pathetic is that? Rhetorical question.

  146. [146] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    43

    Beating Trump is indeed the mission and with Biden you get the best of all worlds … literally.

    Exactly right. A guy with the exact experience needed to clean up the Trump stench that is going to linger worldwide. Biden has the experience and the contacts and can hit the ground running. There is no other candidate better suited to the task.

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]