ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

...28...29...

[ Posted Thursday, November 14th, 2019 – 17:07 UTC ]

Democrats have always been the masters of a rather dubious skill: second-guessing themselves. For any idea, proposal, or candidate for office, Democrats are continually seeking the perfect, sometimes (as the saying goes) at the expense of the good. Nowhere is this more evident than in Democratic presidential primaries. In fact, it's actually a general rule for Democrats, and it seems to be playing out once again this time around.

After a record-setting number of candidates has been battling it out for voter support for almost a full year now, some in the Democratic Party have now decided that what the race really needs is a few more candidates. This is pretty insane, obviously. To date, by my count, a whopping 27 Democrats have previously announced a bid for the presidency. These range from the well-known to people who are so obscure that few can even remember their names now, whether they've already dropped out of the race (Richard Ojeda) or are still running (Wayne Messam). Out of this incredibly wide field, 17 are still in the race. And yet this week we've seen the entry of the 28th candidate (Deval Patrick) and serious consideration by a man who would become the 29th Democrat to run (Michael Bloomberg). Maybe Democrats should go for an even 30? At this point, why not? Maybe Hillary will run again!

Sigh.

There's a reason why Patrick and Bloomberg are getting in at this late date, and it is that the moneyed donor class of the Democratic Party are getting increasingly nervous about Joe Biden's prospects for victory. They've even got a secondary candidate already running, but apparently there isn't much faith among the big donors that Pete Buttigieg has much of a chance. I should note that these are nothing more than subjective predictions -- they have not become reality yet. And perhaps it is too sweeping to state that this is what all of the donor class believes, because perhaps it is just the two close circles of friends of both Patrick and Bloomberg, telling these men what they want to hear. That's a very real possibility. But neither Bloomberg nor Patrick would be making their moves if they truly thought that Biden had the race sewn up. Bloomberg, in particular, has openly stated his doubts, even though he hasn't formally made up his mind to challenge Biden yet.

It's worth pointing out that Joe Biden still leads in most national polls. He doesn't dominate these polls the way he used to, but that was always to be expected as the voters started paying more attention to the race. But Biden may very well lose both Iowa and New Hampshire, if the state-level polling is to be believed. This would be a very rocky start for the candidate who is supposed to be the frontrunner, obviously. Biden seems confident of his support among the African-American voters in South Carolina, but this can change at the last minute (as it indeed did for Hillary Clinton in 2008, after Barack Obama convinced black voters that he had a real chance of winning the nomination). This is precisely what is making the big donors so nervous.

Both Bloomberg and Patrick are already positioning themselves to capitalize on Biden falling short in the first two states. Deval Patrick is black, and is obviously going to make a big play for the South Carolina vote. I'm not sure why he thinks he can connect better than the other two African-Americans in the race (Kamala Harris and Cory Booker), but he's going to have to make the attempt. Bloomberg, on the other hand, is attempting an even-riskier campaign plan, which is to ignore not only Iowa and New Hampshire, but also South Carolina and Nevada. Instead, Bloomberg will spend an enormous amount of his own money flooding the airwaves in all the Super Tuesday states in a bid to burst onto the scene after the first four states have voted. This hasn't worked out so well for other candidates who have tried the same thing (most notably, Rudy Giuliani pinning all his hopes on winning the Republican primary in Florida), but Bloomberg does have an absolutely staggering amount of money to spend, so he'll definitely be a factor in at least the Super Tuesday races.

What's truly ironic about all of this last-minute maneuvering is that the two new candidates might actually cause the very thing they are running to avoid -- namely, having a progressive win the nomination. Wall Street is terrified of an Elizabeth Warren presidency, as several billionaires have very publicly been admitting. They may cloak this in pseudo-fears of Donald Trump winning a second term, but what they're really worried about is Warren (or Bernie Sanders, to be fair) actually winning the presidency. They know full well that they're going to be hit with higher taxes if that happens, which they devoutly do not want to happen.

Their nervousness about Biden may turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. If the donors stop contributing to Biden's campaign (and, now, his super PAC), then he may not have enough money to fully compete on Super Tuesday. And the "moderate centrist lane" will be more crowded. Instead of running only against Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar (as well as a whole bunch of other moderate candidates with zero chance of winning even a single state), Biden will now have to run against Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, and Patrick for the centrist, moderate vote. With more such viable candidates to choose from, this segment of the vote could be watered down between the five moderate candidates, while progressive Democratic voters only have Warren and Bernie to choose between. If either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, then progressives will likely begin coalescing around a single candidate. This would pit a unified progressive faction of voters against a very divided moderate field -- which could easily lead to the progressive actually winning.

Deval Patrick and Michael Bloomberg must know this. It's such an obvious scenario that it would be impossible for them not to have contemplated it. And yet Patrick has already thrown his hat in the ring and it seems more likely than not that Bloomberg is going to do the same. Democrats have always bragged that they have a "big tent" party, but that maxim has never applied to the presidential field in the way it has this year. The dam has burst, and every Democratic politician who has ever looked into a mirror and seen a president looking back at him or her has decided that this is the year for them. Thankfully, there is a light at the end of this tunnel, though. As we pass the filing deadline in state after state, it will soon be too late for anyone to realistically jump into the race. This is what motivated both Patrick and Bloomberg to make their move this week, in fact. So perhaps 29 will be the final number of Democrats in the 2020 field. But then again, maybe not. Maybe one more wannabe will be convinced to jump in, rounding out the record-breaking field at an even 30. At this point, it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

53 Comments on “...28...29...”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hmmmm..

    Apparently, when yer not bashing President Trump and/or Republicans, no one wants to weigh in.. :D

    Congrats, CW..

    A commentary that, somewhat anyways, takes Democrats to task for their actions..

    Milquetoast, to be sure.. But hay.. The long journey back starts with a single step.. :D

    I truly hope this is the start of a new trend.. :D

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seriously, do you have an actual source for your number, or are you just pulling that number out of thin air, as usual?

    I gave you the source for my number.

    It's not my fault you are too ignorant to understand the data..

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Oh come on, there's plenty of substance to argue over, why split hairs over the type of error that confuses 1.3 and 1.03?

    A typo-lame?? Seriously???

    I'll remind you of that the next time you make a typo. :^/

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh come on, there's plenty of substance to argue over, why split hairs over the type of error that confuses 1.3 and 1.03?

    And, just for the record, the typo was irrelevant to the point..

    Whether it was 1.3 or 1.03, the number of Home Invasions totally precluded Balthasar's implied point that there aren't enough home invasions yearly to justify allowing home dwellers to have semi-automatic rifles to defend themselves..

    I get it. I really do.. Ya'all can't fight the facts so ya'all nit pick around the periphery in the vain hope that a typo lame, SOMEHOW, negates the validity of my point...

    It's OK.. Around here, I am used to winning debates and discussions by default or forfeit.. :D

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    So perhaps 29 will be the final number of Democrats in the 2020 field. But then again, maybe not. Maybe one more wannabe will be convinced to jump in, rounding out the record-breaking field at an even 30. At this point, it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

    Oh come now.. A modern day Democrat Primary would simply NOT be completely without 2-time Luser, Hillary Clinton.. :D

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pregnant Florida woman uses AR-15 to fend off burglars attacking her family
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-pregnant-woman-ar-15-burglary

    Yea... Home Invasions NEVER happen!!! :eyeroll:

    No need to allow us mere citizens to own AR-15s..

  7. [7] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Whether it's a type-o or an overlooked digit, either mistake is pretty minor and understandable. Unless of course you're an accountant...

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    As for Bloomberg and Patrick, they must be smoking something better than the laws in new york or Massachusetts permit.

  9. [9] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Bloomberg's net worth is upwards of 50 billion. You can buy a decent sized navy for that. A couple of million here and there is chump change to him...walking around money. I suspect that political money goes a lot further in the age of digital media than it did in the broadcast TV/newspaper/magazine era. That's more incentive to play politics...in person, or through donations ro surrogates who see a target rich donar class. In other words, yet another new normal.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whether it's a type-o or an overlooked digit, either mistake is pretty minor and understandable. Unless of course you're an accountant...

    Thank you..

    That's what I meant. It's not relevant to the central point that refuted Balthasar's implied point.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Deputy Sheriff Makeem Brooks
    Northampton County Sheriff's Office, North Carolina
    End of Watch: Wednesday, November 13, 2019

    And remind the few...
    When ill of us they speak...
    That we are all that stands between...
    The monsters and the weak.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:
  13. [13] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "...the moneyed donor class of the Democratic Party are getting increasingly nervous about Joe Biden's prospects for victory."

    What? The big money interests are afraid they may be losing control of the party?

    So you admit the Democratic Party is controlled by big money? They can't lose control if they don't have it to lose.

    I don't believe for a minute that wall street is that concerned with Warren or even Bernie. They would prefer Biden, but presidents only sign legislation and the big money interests will control the legislature no matter who wins the presidency.

    The concern from the moneyed donor class on Warren is a red herring so that citizens will support a false alternative to the moneyed donor class preferred candidate(s) instead of demanding real small donor candidates that the moneyed donor class can't control or even Bernie.

    And as long as citizens are distracted by the impeachment proceedings and the presidential primaries they they will not be taking any action to get the big money legislators out of the legislature or the presidency.

    28, 29 , 30, 47 . Numbers that are not relevant to the problem of the moneyed donor class controlling the Democratic Party as none of the candidates or possible candidates are taking action they could take now to solve the problem by paying attention to a number that addresses the problem- 200.

    That number would be the 200 dollar aggregate limit per donor that would make their campaign a real small donor campaign that would really frighten the moneyed donor class because that would be a candidate they can't control.

    And even if citizens are so concerned with Trump they will vote for any Dem in the presidential election, they can still demand small donor candidates for the congressional elections in 2020.

    Imagine the terror in the hearts of the moneyed donor class if citizens were to take that approach to 2020.

    The big money interests can control the effects of one or two presidential candidates they do not prefer in the primaries, but dozens of congressional elections with small donor candidates getting votes and write in votes demanding small donor candidates in the next election would be much more difficult and expensive to restrain.

    How can you resist this what if?

    Is it that you want to believe or you want to deceive?

    Get Real.

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the solution is pie.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    the solution is pie.

    The "solution" opens up a whole 'nother plethora of problems..

    WHICH pie??? Apple?? Cherry?? Chocolate?? Meat?? Pot??

    :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pecan, pumpkin, creme, key lime, mud...

    Where does it stop!!!????

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    that's the beauty of pie, it doesn't NEED to stop. the possibilities of pie are limitless!

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's the beauty of pie, it doesn't NEED to stop. the possibilities of pie are limitless!

    OK... So the status quo is acceptable, nay... even DESIRED! :D

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    Roger Stone convicted on ALL counts

    Lied under oath for Donald Trump... now going to prison.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Something else that was missed in this commentary..

    These late entries only serve to bolster President Trump's re-election campaign by further dividing the Democrat Party...

    Michale
    Serving Up The FACTS Since 2005

    :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Roger Stone convicted on ALL counts

    All process crimes.. NO CRIMES having anything to do with Russia, President Trump or the 2016 election..

    .. now going to prison.

    Wanna bet?? :D

    Michale
    Serving Up The FACTS Since 2005

  22. [22] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    .. now going to prison. Wanna bet?

    Pray, tell us why not.

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS

    How will all these prison perps fit on the White House Christmas card?

    So... who's next? Rudy Giuliani, come on down! You're the next contestant on the Price is Prison! *laughs*

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    .. now going to prison. Wanna bet?

    Pray, tell us why not.

    President Trump will likely pardon Stone..

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooops.. Forgot my new SIG...

    Michale
    Serving Up The Facts Since 2005 With CW

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    21

    All process crimes.. NO CRIMES having anything to do with Russia, President Trump or the 2016 election..

    Liar.

    Also: When a so-called "law enforcement officer" and Donald Trump sucker is driven to scoff at the significance of the commission of numerous felonies, that says more about that person than it does anyone else. Despite all your protestations to the contrary, imagine how ideologically partisan you'd have to be to allow yourself to be reduced to making light of the commission of multiple felonies like that? You're actually quite transparent.

    It's Lindsey Graham and Rush Limbaugh and their ilk that keep tossing out this derision about "process" when they were "all in" serving as the impeachment manager and right-wingnut blowhole against a different sitting president who wasn't convicted of a process crime... so their newly found indifference reeks with the stench of hypocrisy that's going to linger for a long, long time.

    Poor pathetic morons. For whatever reason I cannot fathom, they are forgetting about Appendix D of the Mueller Report and how those multiple heavily redacted cases are continuing robustly, and they seem to be assuming like total idiots that the criminal charges and felonies for which the Trumpers are going to jail today will preclude an entirely different set of criminal charges tomorrow. Now how stupid is that? *laughs*

  27. [27] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    And the PTSD syndrome strikes again.

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    24

    President Trump will likely pardon Stone..

    I could tell you the legal reason why Roger Stone is not likely to escape going to prison and why the dumbest thing Donald Trump could do at the present time would be to pardon any single one of his co-conspirators who have been in prison for months or heading there soon -- Cohen, Flynn, Manafort, Stone, take your pick -- if I thought you had even the slightest ability to comprehend that reason, but I don't... because you don't... so I won't. :)

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    And the PTSD syndrome strikes again.

    I know, I know... Simply a sign of the new Weigantia..

    But hay.. There IS a silver lining..

    When President Trump glides to re-election and the Democrats lose the House, the hysterical types will likely lose their frakin' minds in such a manner that will make the aftermath of 2016 look like normal mental health by comparison... :D

    "If nothing else, they should be fun to watch."
    -Gene Hackman, THE REPLACEMENTS

    :D

  30. [30] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-23

    An Advent calendar format might work well as the number of perps approaches 12 - if not this year, then the next. I would suggest a prison block format with little cell doors that slide or swing out to reveal the personality inside. This would look very nice on a fireplace mantel with all the stockings below.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    that will make the aftermath of 2016 look like normal mental health by comparison...

    Let's re-visit that heady time when the Democrats's world came crashing down all around them.. :D

    Relive President Trump's STUNNING Decimation Of Hillary Clinton
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mYVi7WHyiU

    :D

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    29

    I know, I know... Simply a sign of the new Weigantia..

    You go right ahead and join in with the other troll's comparing the "same shit different day" quite regular machinations of politics to a very serious disease that befalls our men and women in uniform who serve the United States. Please keep doing that bullshit because your being a so-called "career veteran" comparing mere political issues with a serious disease suffered by so many of our soldiers falls right on the same spectrum and right in line with your being a so-called "law enforcement officer" scoffing at the very real commission of multiple felonies against the United States of America.

    Congratulations, Mike, your priorities that you've made abundantly clear here lie in stark contrast with everything you've claimed you represent, and that makes you the poster child and the very living embodiment of the rank hypocrisy and ideological slavery you claim to counter. Now how pathetic is that?

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oo!! Here's another good one!! :D

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=For_WjPZ8qo

    Can't wait for their reactions when President Trump coasts to re-election in 2020.. :D

  34. [34] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [4]
    Whether it was 1.3 or 1.03, the number of Home Invasions totally precluded Balthasar's implied point that there aren't enough home invasions yearly to justify allowing home dwellers to have semi-automatic rifles to defend themselves..

    Well, which is it? Can you provide a link to a web page page that actually contains the words "home invasion" that has either of those numbers on it? Because so far, you have failed to do this.

    If you can't actually provide that source, then it's hard to see how your made-up number "totally precluded" anything at all.

    [20]
    Michale
    Serving Up The FACTS Since 2005

    Hilarious!

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G87UXIH8Lzo

    What's funny with this link is that they ALL sound as adamant and as sure as ya'all sound when ya'all spew (NEN) your Trump/America hatred..

    And everyone knows how utterly and completely WRONG they all were.. :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, which is it? Can you provide a link to a web page page that actually contains the words "home invasion" that has either of those numbers on it? Because so far, you have failed to do this.

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

    Seriously!!??? You REALLY think that the words "Home Invasion" are exclusive.. You really think that there is no other way to say it??

    Jeezus, CB.. Yer getting dumber by the minute..

    Look, I have spoon fed you long enough.. It's clear you are either too stoopid to understand the facts and reality or yer really really good at PLAYING stoopid..

    Either way...

    If you can't actually provide that source, then it's hard to see how your made-up number "totally precluded" anything at all.

    I said the numbers were easy to find.. You were too dumb to find them.. I then provided you with the LINK.. And yer STILL too dumb to understand..

    As I said, I have spoon fed ya long enough, moron..

    Hilarious!

    Actually, your inability to understand rudimentary concepts is not hilarious.. It's sad and pathetic. I always thought you were smarter than that..

    Michale
    Serving Up The FACTS w/CW Since 2005

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    Who was it that was wrong about Russia Collusion??

    You were, not I..

    Who was it that was wrong about President Trump winning the election..

    You were, not I..

    So, when it comes right down to it, I have the facts... And YOU are always wrong.. :D

    Michale
    Serving Up The FACTS w/CW Since 2005

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Irregardless of your ignorance, CB the simple fact is this..

    There is not going to be a semi-automatic rifle ban..

    There SHOULDN'T be a semi-automatic rifle ban..

    It doesn't matter if there there are 1.03 million Home Invasions per year and 103 Home Invasions per year..

    The 2nd Amendment gives Americans the RIGHT to defend themselves..

    And no mount of yer hysterical nit picking and Party slavery spewage is going to change that SIMPLE FACT..

    Michale
    Serving Up The FACTS w/CW Since 2005
    00001

    Just testing which format is going to be best.. :D

  39. [39] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [36]
    I said the numbers were easy to find.. You were too dumb to find them.. I then provided you with the LINK.. And yer STILL too dumb to understand..

    For heaven's sake, the link you provided wasn't even a link to a page containing any statistics at all. It was a link to a page with additional links into an archive of 60 years of pdfs. So, no, that is not providing a source.

    I can only conclude that you don't provide a source, because you don't have a source. Unless you meant to reference this respected authority.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Republicans were able to extract some noteworthy statements from the witness, including an admission that despite allegations President Trump withheld support to Ukraine in exchange for politically advantageous investigations, it was Trump – not his predecessor, Barack Obama – who ultimately provided “defensive lethal aid” to Kiev.

    Funny how NONE of that is mentioned here in Weigantia, eh?

    It was PRESIDENT TRUMP who was the best defender of Ukraine..

    Odumbo let Ukraine twist in the wind and thru Ukrainians to the Russian Bear..

    Funny how that little ***FACT*** never gets any airplay here in Weigantia, eh??

    Another difference between the old fun and family/friends Weigantia and the new Hateful/Bigotry/HHPTDS Weigantia...

    Michale
    Serving Up The FACTS w/CW Since 2005
    001

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    I can only conclude that you don't provide a source, because you don't have a source.

    Of course you conclude that..

    You concluded that the SECOND you didn't have any rational argument to dispute the FACT that semi-automatic rifles will NEVER be banned..

    Like I said, that's the M.O. here.. Hysterically argue what the definition of 'is' is so ya don't have to admit how WRONG ya are..

    About EVERYTHING..

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shit.. Keep forgetting the tagline..

    Serving Up The FACTS w/CW Since 2005
    Zero-Zero-Zero-One

  43. [43] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [41]
    You concluded that the SECOND you didn't have any rational argument to dispute the FACT that semi-automatic rifles will NEVER be banned..

    I'm not making any sort of argument about semi-automatic rifles at all. I'm just pointing out that you're presenting made up data to make your own argument, as usual.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that you can "conclude" all you want.. Conclude here and conclude there til the cows come home..

    But, unless you have any FACTS to support your conclusion (which you NEVER do), then it's as delusional as yer Russia Collusion delusion was... :D

    You have a happy day, CB.. :D

    Serving Up The FACTS w/CW Since 2005

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm not making any sort of argument about semi-automatic rifles at all.

    Well, that was the entire point of the discussion..

    I'm just pointing out that you're presenting made up data to make your own argument, as usual.

    Yes, that's your claim.. But it is a claim totally unsupported by ANY facts whatsoever.

    I provided the facts that support my data..

    You have not..

    It's THAT simple..

    Michale
    Serving Up The FACTS w/CW Since 2005

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    30

    An Advent calendar format might work well as the number of perps approaches 12 - if not this year, then the next. I would suggest a prison block format with little cell doors that slide or swing out to reveal the personality inside.

    A calendar... a perfect idea! And since they're all convicted liars, we could also create some "snowmen" covered all in sugar: Marshmallow Perps! (TM)

    This would look very nice on a fireplace mantel with all the stockings below.

    Sing it with me:

    It's beginning to look a lot like Prison
    Everywhere you know
    Stone is looking at likely ten in the Federal Pen
    With orange suits and cigarettes for dough!

    It's beginning to look a lot like Prison
    Who could ask for more?
    But the craziest thing we'll see is that Nixon will finally be
    Behind a prison door.

    https://buffalonews.com/2019/01/28/adam-zyglis-roger-stone-indicted/

  47. [47] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [44]

    >I'm just pointing out that you're presenting made up data to make your own argument, as usual.

    Yes, that's your claim.. But it is a claim totally unsupported by ANY facts whatsoever.

    I provided the facts that support my data..

    No, you haven't provided any facts at all to support your claim that there are more than 1 million Home Invasions a year. The proof for that is simple but tedious - just read your comments over the past few days. You provided two links; neither support your assertion.

    And now, in addition to making up the numbers to start with, you've moved on to making up that you provided any valid sources at all.

    It's hard to understand - why you don't just admit that you don't have a source? You can still make whatever argument you were trying to make about semi-automatic rifles or whatever; just don't use made up numbers unless you admit that you are making a wild-ass guess.

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oh, look... Michael Caputo thinks he's helping. *shakes head*

    That Michael Caputo
    @MichaelRCaputo

    @jeffsessions this is on you. You failed everyone, but especially @realDonaldTrump and his most loyal soldiers.

    Wolf Blitzer
    @wolfblitzer

    And now Roger Stone added to the list.
    ___________
    (graphic)

    Trump Associates Convicted or Pleaded Guilty

    Roger Stone
    Michael Cohen
    Paul Manafort
    Rick Gates
    Michael Flynn
    George Papadopoulos

    https://twitter.com/MichaelRCaputo/status/1195431464550182914

    Nice touch, Mikey!

    Someone should seriously tell Mikey Caputo that there is no limit to the number of Mikey C's associated with Donald Trump that can land in prison; this isn't like "Highlander" where "there can be only one!"

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Charles Brown, Esq
    47

    And now, in addition to making up the numbers to start with, you've moved on to making up that you provided any valid sources at all.

    Lying and inventing bullshit about near everything is what this dipshit does here.

    Also: I think there is no end to his anguish and whining about your most excellent script and introduction of the TamperMonkey device to this forum; he does so speak of it often.

    About the worst thing you can do to a pathologically lying troll like Mike is:

    * Call him on his deception, bullshit, and outright lies.

    * Provide a way to completely erase his pathetic existence in its entirety from the forum he spams and trolls with his quackery and fabrication.
    __________

    So to recap: You turned that prat's existence into exactly what he represents and who he is: Nothing and Nobody!

    You didn't become Our Lord High Treasurer His Grace the Right Honourable Charles Brown, Esquire for no reason, you know! :)

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aww right.. My time now belongs to my beautiful wife.. :D

    See ya'all early in the AM.. :D

    Michale
    The Purveyor Of Facts Since 2005

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    50

    The Purveyor Of Facts Since 2005

    PROCLAMATION

    Dipshits DO NOT get titles.
    Prats DO NOT get titles.
    Dipshits and Prats DO NOT get titles.

    So We Sayeth:

    * Our Lord High Treasurer His Grace the Right Honourable Charles Brown, Esquire

    * Our Personal Aide-de-Camp the Lord of the Privy Council and Royal Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter the Right and Honourable Royal Highness Russ.

    So Ordered:

    @~)~~~~ HM Victoria

  52. [52] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick 46

    It's beginning to look a lot like sepsis.....

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    52

    It's beginning to look a lot like sepsis.....

    That too! *laughs*

Comments for this article are closed.