ChrisWeigant.com

Pelosi Trolls Trump

[ Posted Monday, December 30th, 2019 – 18:06 UTC ]

Is Nancy Pelosi now just openly trolling Trump? It certainly seems that way. At this point, Pelosi's refusal to send over the articles of impeachment to the Senate appears to be nothing short of a political stunt to keep the impeachment story raging over the holiday weeks at the end of the year, while causing Trump's head to explode (even more than normal, of course). By this measure, it is working out wonderfully well for Pelosi.

Personally, I'm not buying all the hype, by which I mean I am not really taking Pelosi's delay seriously. I think once the Senate reconvenes in January, the articles of impeachment will arrive on Mitch McConnell's desk without much further delay. The leverage that Pelosi superficially says she is utilizing isn't all that strong, after all, since the Senate really would much rather not have to hold a trial in the first place. McConnell has even publicly pointed this out, asking why Pelosi is trying to force him not to do something he really doesn't want to do in the first place. And he's got a point, you've got to admit.

Congress always takes a big chunk of vacation time at both the end and beginning of the calendar year. There are the weeks off for Christmas and New Year's Day, after which they officially reconvene in the first week in January -- usually to then immediately go into a recess until the end of the month (or after the State Of The Union address, whose scheduling is a bit fluid). In normal times, not much of anything gets done on Capitol Hill from mid-December through the start of February. Now, however, the Senate is planning on using all of January for the trial, which Pelosi is well aware of. But even so, absolutely nothing is going to happen (or ever was going to happen, no matter the status of the paperwork) before the sixth of January, the official date when the Senate is scheduled to reconvene.

Pelosi has been in charge of the impeachment process all along, which most definitely includes the scheduling. Her plan was to hold the hearings and then have the full House vote on the articles of impeachment right before the year-end break. She accomplished this right on schedule. But she knows that nothing was ever going to happen from that point until the first Monday in January. So she decided to troll Trump over the holidays.

It worked. Trump has, quite predictably, gone ballistic on Twitter. First he wanted to halt the impeachment process, and now he wants it to move forward as quickly as possible. The change, of course, is that when the Senate takes over the reins Republicans will be in charge of all the details. And so far Mitch McConnell has shown precisely zero inclination to do anything the president doesn't approve of.

This is where the whole thing gets a little strange, though. Because, on the face of it, both Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump want exactly the same thing: witnesses to appear at the Senate trial. McConnell, on the other hand, wants as streamlined a trial process as possible, which means no witnesses at all.

Of course, when Pelosi and Trump say they want witnesses, they're not referring to the same exact thing, which is why they're not really on the same side in this fight. Trump wants a long list of those dastardly Democrats to be hauled before the Senate to be grilled on Rudy Giuliani's fantasies and conspiracy theories. This list begins with Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Adam Schiff, and the whistleblower. None of whom have the slightest thing to do with the actual charges against Trump, of course, but this is the scandal that Trump has sought all along to create -- seeing the Bidens squirm before the cameras. Pelosi, on the other hand, wants to hear from the top White House officials what exactly happened between Trump and Ukraine. So far, all of these officials have ignored requests and subpoenas to testify before the House, so their stories remain untold. Any one of them (John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney in particular) might shed a whole bunch of new light on what happened. So while it is accurate to say that both Trump and Pelosi "want witnesses," this means something very different to each of them.

If Trump gets his way it might not have the political impact he seems to think it will have. Remember that Hillary Clinton got grilled for over 10 hours by a congressional panel during her recent presidential run, and it didn't seem to hurt her in the eyes of the public at all. Her public approval may even have gotten a boost by her strong performance in the hearing. Just calling someone in to testify can backfire politically, in other words, and that might just happen again if Joe Biden is put under oath in the Senate. His stature may rise as a direct result, which is obviously not the outcome Trump wants to see.

Hunter Biden might not fare as well, since he quite obviously was cashing in on the strength of who his father is. But that's not illegal (neither here nor in Ukraine), and if it were illegal there'd be a whole bunch of celebrity and political-dynasty children already languishing in jail (starting, most obviously, with the Trump kids). So Hunter might suffer some personal embarrassment, but that's not the same thing as negatively affecting his father's chances in the presidential race.

Pelosi and the Democrats might not get what they want either, even if all their desired witnesses were called by the Senate. In the first case, these witnesses could just refuse to appear even if the Senate subpoenas them. There would really be nothing to stop them from doing so, because it would just throw the entire process into the judicial system -- which would then take a very long time to act. It's not entirely out of the question that the Supreme Court could immediately act while the Senate trial was underway, but this is not very likely to happen. And even if people like Bolton or Mulvaney did actually appear before the trial, there is no guarantee that they'll actually answer any questions. They could either claim executive privilege over any question of substance, or they could just take the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer any questions at all. Just honoring a subpoena by showing up doesn't automatically mean they're going to "tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth," in other words.

I have heard it suggested that Pelosi is actually trying to influence the scheduling in the Senate for a different reason, though. The idea is that Pelosi doesn't want the Senate trial to be over before Trump gives his State Of The Union speech. If the trial is still underway, then Trump won't be able to brag about "being exonerated," in other words. But this interpretation is doubtful for a number of reasons. If this really was Pelosi's goal, then why did she schedule the speech for February 4th? She could have slated it for as much as two weeks earlier, which would have had the same effect -- the trial would likely still be ongoing by the time Trump got to speak. Scheduling the speech for so late seems to undercut the argument that this is Pelosi's ultimate aim here.

The other big argument against this being the case is the fact that the Iowa caucuses will be held the day before the State Of The Union speech. This is politically significant for obvious reasons, but there is a secondary significance as well. During the trial, the Senate is (supposedly) going to meet for six days a week, and the senators will be barred from using their phones to post on social media during the proceedings. They're also expected to be present for the whole process. But out of the group of leading Democratic presidential candidates, almost half of them are sitting senators: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Cory Booker. Having to sit in D.C. for the whole trial means that they will not be able to travel the highways and byways of Iowa, in a last-minute campaigning push right before the caucuses. This would obviously leave them at a serious disadvantage to the other candidates, whose schedules would be clear.

This is why I don't really expect the tactic of withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate to come to much at all, in the end. I think it is nothing more than a political stunt, plain and simple. Pelosi knew that throwing a monkey wrench into the works over the holidays would enrage Trump, which it did. His daily spleen-venting on Twitter has been constantly in the news ever since the House voted, in fact. This might have been the case anyway, but this puts Pelosi back into the equation for the duration rather than having all eyes turn to the Senate.

I doubt that Pelosi and her counterpart Chuck Schumer are going to gain all that much from this in the end. The Democrats never really had much leverage with this move to begin with, which I am sure both Pelosi and Schumer know full well. It has increased the political pressure on McConnell in the meantime, though, which will indeed be a useful thing going forward. But I would bet that Pelosi soon relents once Congress returns in early January. I'd be seriously surprised if the impasse went on longer than a day or two after the Senate reconvenes, in fact.

Because, in the end, I think this delay was really about one thing and one thing only -- keeping the issue alive and contentious over the holidays, while keeping the Democrats in the media spotlight rather than handing everything off to Trump and McConnell. Or to put it another way, I think that Pelosi just saw the opportunity to troll Donald Trump and jumped on it, plain and simple. Because she knew it would be an irresistible provocation for Trump -- and she was obviously right about that.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

113 Comments on “Pelosi Trolls Trump”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    hmm, interesting take. ultimately i think you're right and it's about winning a few news cycles. not sure whether or not there's strategy beyond that though.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    So.. After ALL the Dumbocrat claims of "solemn" & "Constitutional" duty....

    Dumbocrats finally concede that their faux impeachment coup was just another partisan political stunt.

    So, Dumbocrats lied and Weigantians applaud them for it..

    Out n out hypocrisy at it's finest..

  3. [3] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    I think you are correct that Pelosi decided to take advantage of the holiday break Congress is on to keep Trump off balance. I also think that Pelosi is right to push McConnell to set the rules for the trial ASAP while shining a spot light on his determination to violate his oath as a juror in the impeachment trial by ignoring the evidence and letting the defendant determine how the trial should be run.

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    I also think that Pelosi is right to push McConnell to set the rules for the trial ASAP while shining a spot light on his determination to violate his oath as a juror in the impeachment trial by ignoring the evidence and letting the defendant determine how the trial should be run.

    It's funny how ya'all have a problem with McConnell coordinating with the White House, but you have ZERO problem with Democrats coordinating with Trump/America haters..

    Simply another fact that proves the case ya'all just want President Trump gone, by hook or by crook..

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    hmm, interesting take. ultimately i think you're right and it's about winning a few news cycles. not sure whether or not there's strategy beyond that though.

    There was..

    But, as is the norm for Dumbocrats, it failed...

    MISERABLY..

    Just like their Russia Collusion delusion failed...

    MISERABLY..

    All Dumbocrats can do these days is fail..

    MISERABLY..

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    The leverage that Pelosi superficially says she is utilizing isn't all that strong, after all, since the Senate really would much rather not have to hold a trial in the first place.

    I coulda told ya'all that...

    Wait a tic! I *DID* tell ya'all that!!! :D

    It's funny how hysterical Trump/America haters around here treated Pelosi's move as nth Level 3D Chess when all it was was an admission of inadequacy and acknowledgment that House Democrats could simply not make their case with this faux impeachment coup..

    McConnell has even publicly pointed this out, asking why Pelosi is trying to force him not to do something he really doesn't want to do in the first place. And he's got a point, you've got to admit.

    Ahhhhhhh Once again, the old Weigantia peeks thru... I bask in it's warmth and goodness and light.. :D

    So she decided to troll Trump over the holidays.

    Actually, she allowed President Trump to gain the upper hand by pointing out, factually, that Democrats have no case.. If they had one, they wouldn't need more witnesses and would have sent the AOI to the Senate lickity split...

    So, while I am sure Pelosi WANTED to troll President Trump (as a side note, funny how ya'all LOVES trolls and trolling.. When it's DUMBOCRAT trolls and trolling.. More hypocrisy) she failed....

    MISERABLY...

    This is where the whole thing gets a little strange, though. Because, on the face of it, both Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump want exactly the same thing: witnesses to appear at the Senate trial. McConnell, on the other hand, wants as streamlined a trial process as possible, which means no witnesses at all.

    Actually, that's not factually accurate.

    The White House has come around to McConnell's way of thinking..

    And let's be clear.. Democrats only want THEIR witnesses but don't want to hear from GOP's witnesses..

    Again.. MORE hypocrisy..

    None of whom have the slightest thing to do with the actual charges against Trump,

    Your fingers must have turned to fire when ya typed this.. :D

    If Trump gets his way it might not have the political impact he seems to think it will have.

    Then again, it also MIGHT have the exact political impact President Trump thinks it will have..

    What have I said about underestimating President Trump??

    You wanna roll the dice?? :D

    Remember that Hillary Clinton got grilled for over 10 hours by a congressional panel during her recent presidential run, and it didn't seem to hurt her in the eyes of the public at all.

    At the time, Clinton was still the Demcorat darling.. Do you think history would repeat itself if it were to happen today??

    And, let's face some reality here..

    Joe Biden and Hunter Biden ain't no Hillary Clinton.. :D

    You can say a LOT about Hillary, but she is tightly controlled and rarely goes off script..

    Can you imagine Joe Biden being interrogated by the Senate??? :D

    I am surprised you would think, in this regard, a comparison between Biden & Hillary is a valid comparison to make..

    As an aside, in the days of the OLD Weigantia, you would have responded with a, "That's a good point, Michale..." :D

    This is politically significant for obvious reasons, but there is a secondary significance as well. During the trial, the Senate is (supposedly) going to meet for six days a week, and the senators will be barred from using their phones to post on social media during the proceedings. They're also expected to be present for the whole process. But out of the group of leading Democratic presidential candidates, almost half of them are sitting senators: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Cory Booker. Having to sit in D.C. for the whole trial means that they will not be able to travel the highways and byways of Iowa, in a last-minute campaigning push right before the caucuses. This would obviously leave them at a serious disadvantage to the other candidates, whose schedules would be clear.

    Yea, I have been saying that for a month now..

    Glad ta see ya agreeing with me... :D

    The Democrats never really had much leverage with this move to begin with, which I am sure both Pelosi and Schumer know full well.

    As someone here so wisely and sagely put it..

    "The GOP controls the impeachment proceedings in the Senate. PERIOD FULL STOP.."

    :D

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Being homeless is not a crime

    Local governments across the U.S. have been punishing people for being poor and not having a home. Is this not the definition of cruelty?

    On Dec. 16, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled its agreement by refusing to consider a petition to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s Martin v. City of Boise ruling. The case’s central holding is: “An ordinance violates the Eighth Amendment insofar as it imposes criminal sanctions against homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors, on public property, when no alternative shelter is available to them.” In other words, fining or jailing a homeless person, because they have no place to stay, violates the U.S. Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

    The moral clarity of this ruling seems obvious.

    And yet, city, county and state governments across the country, along with business associations, chambers of commerce and law enforcement associations, filed amicus briefs asking the court to reverse the Martin decision and effectively empower governments to criminalize homelessness. One Los Angeles County supervisor said, justifying filing such a brief, “[I]t’s critical we have access to every tool at our disposal to combat homelessness.”

    Arresting or citing people living on the streets does not combat homelessness. Tearing down encampments on public property where people are trying to survive does not help people overcome misery. It simply adds to that misery. The police, whose primary tools are tickets, arrests and force, are not an answer to poverty and homelessness.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/475803-being-homeless-is-not-a-crime

    Of course being homeless is not a crime.. But how one responds to being homeless usually IS...

    Being hungry is not a crime...

    But stealing food is....

    I am amazed I have to explain this stuff.. :eyeroll:

  8. [8] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It is good to know nothing will be happening until at least Jan. 6.

    The question is what will you do with that time?

    Will you waste it with articles speculating about what might happen after Jan. 6 or will you use it to cover and address things that are always left out like One Demand that could prevent the results that lead to the need for impeachment so you can speculate on the disaster/distraction of the moment which leads more disaster/distractions of the moment?

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, ya'all are in good company..

    Violent protests erupt around U.S. Embassy in Baghdad after U.S. air strikes

    In Washington, U.S. President Donald Trump accused Iran of orchestrating the violence and said Tehran would be held responsible.

    The protesters and militiamen stormed and burned a security post at the entrance of the U.S. Embassy but did not breach the main compound, Reuters witnesses said.

    They threw stones at the gate while others chanted, "No, no, America! No, no, Trump!"
    http://news.trust.org/item/20191231125147-8kqgc

    Ya'all and scumbag terrorists in Iraq both hate President Trump..

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Top Ten List you'll never see in Weigantia.. :D

    Trump's Top 10 Achievements for 2019

    #1 JOBS

    #2 BROADENING THE MOVEMENT

    #3 CONFRONTING CHINA

    #4 TRADE DEALS

    #5 JUDGES & COURTS

    #6 REMAIN IN MEXICO POLICY

    #7 MUELLER EXONERATION

    #8 AL-BAGHDADI KILLING

    #9 FOSSIL FUEL EXPORTS SOAR

    #10 U.S.S.F UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE.. The precursor to STARFLEET

    Here's to another exciting 4 years... :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Top Ten List you'll never see in Weigantia.. :D

    Trump's Top 10 Achievements for 2019

    Apparently, I was wrong about that.. :D hehehehe

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Every trial is a pursuit of truth. Will my colleagues in the Senate uphold that?
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/every-trial-is-a-pursuit-of-truth-will-my-colleagues-in-the-senate-uphold-that/ar-BBYtsWl

    Sorry, sir but you are wrong..

    Every trial is NOT the pursuit of truth..

    Like archaeology, every trial is a pursuit for **FACTS**...

    "Truth" is subjective..

    FACTS are objective and give no sway based on partisan agendas or ideological bigotry..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Turns Out, Trump’s ‘Evil’ ICE Raids Benefited American Workers

    In early August, some 600 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents surrounded seven plants operated by five companies in six different cities. They rounded up 680 “undocumented” immigrants, in what was described as the largest raid in a single state.

    In fact, the raid was the furthest thing from cruel or evil or immoral to American citizens living in the area – many of them blacks – who flocked to get the jobs those illegals had held.

    This week, the New York Times, to its credit, went to Morton, Mississippi – where a third of the illegals rounded up in those raids had worked – to see what’s become of the town months after Trump’s “evil” act.

    And in a shocking display of honest reporting, the Times shows how Americans – particularly black Americans – benefited as a result.

    The Times notes that before the raid, managers had been recruiting Hispanic workers “by the thousands” to work in those chicken plants because they were “cheaper and more exploitable.”

    But the inescapable conclusion is that the chicken companies had been exploiting cheap illegal immigrant labor to do jobs that Americans are clearly willing to take, if they have the chance.

    Yet here we have the country’s leading Democrats – who constantly bleat about being on the side of the little guy and the downtrodden – siding with greedy companies that were exploiting illegal immigrants to fatten their bottom lines, and were doing so at the expense of low-income blacks in the area who were shut out of those jobs.

    Tell us again which is the party of compassion?
    https://issuesinsights.com/2019/12/31/turns-out-trumps-evil-ice-raids-benefited-american-workers/

    Turns out Democrats are siding with greedy, unprincipled corporations who exploit illegal immigrants for financial..

    Is anyone *REALLY* surprised by this??

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Master Patrol Officer Spencer Bristol
    Hendersonville Police Department, Tennessee
    End of Watch: Monday, December 30, 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

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting factoid..

    The final full moon of this decade was on 12/12 at precisely 12:12 AM eastern time. And it turns out that it was also exactly 6,666 days from 9/11.

    Weird...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    US presses Iraq to protect American personnel after embassy attack: ‘There will be no Benghazis’

    A U.S. defense official told Fox News that 100 Marines are being sent to the embassy to bolster security. A U.S. Apache helicopter gunship also flew over the embassy and dropped flares in a “show of force,” attempting to disperse the crowd. Defense Secretary Mark Esper later confirmed additional forces are being sent.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-presses-iraq-to-protect-american-personnel-after-embassy-attack-there-will-be-no-benghazis

    This is how REAL Americans... PATRIOTIC Americans handle Embassy attacks..

    Dumbocrats just lets the ambassador and his team get brutally murdered...

  17. [17] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    #2 BROADENING THE MOVEMENT

    That's a curious one. Tell me, is that a lie that you tell yourselves, or is it wishful thinking?

    Over at RCP, they're showing Biden beating Trump by +11 points overall, by +4 in Virginia, by +2 in Florida.

  18. [18] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Being hungry is not a crime...

    But stealing food is....

    I am amazed I have to explain this stuff.. :eyeroll:

    Why are you amazed? You are always disputing comments that no one here has made or believes to be true and then acting like you are offering much needed sage advice to the masses...which is laughable. You are just copying Trump’s practice of creating a problem in order to be able to claim that he solved the problem so that his easily fooled fans can tongue-bathe his ballsack with their rabid praise... too bad no one here buys what you are selling!

    Once again it seems like you didn’t bother to read the linked story that you’ve posted from, as it doesn’t argue that stealing food is not a crime.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's a curious one. Tell me, is that a lie that you tell yourselves, or is it wishful thinking?

    Says the guy who actually thinks Democrats are going to gain something with their faux impeachment coup..

    Over at RCP, they're showing Biden beating Trump by +11 points overall, by +4 in Virginia, by +2 in Florida.

    Yea, and Hillary Clinton had a 98% chance of winning the election..

    It's so darn cute that you actually believe in polls.. :D

    An intelligent non-hating objective person would have learned a lesson from 2016...

    I'm just sayin..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again it seems like you didn’t bother to read the linked story that you’ve posted from, as it doesn’t argue that stealing food is not a crime.

    No, it argues that violating vagrancy laws is not a crime..

    It is..

    You are just copying Trump’s practice of creating a problem in order to be able to claim that he solved the problem so that his easily fooled fans can tongue-bathe his ballsack with their rabid praise... too bad no one here buys what you are selling!

    I nor President Trump is creating the homeless problem..

    That's ALL on Dumbocrats...

    Notice how it's ALL Democrat run cities and states that have the biggest homeless problems..

    Those places are shitholes, pure and simple..

    Thanx to Dumbocrat incompetence..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in the FUNNY CUZ IT'S TRUE folder...

    My generation had WONDER WOMAN

    Today's generation has to wonder if it's a woman..

    :D

  22. [22] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The Times notes that before the raid, managers had been recruiting Hispanic workers “by the thousands” to work in those chicken plants because they were “cheaper and more exploitable.”

    But the inescapable conclusion is that the chicken companies had been exploiting cheap illegal immigrant labor to do jobs that Americans are clearly willing to take, if they have the chance.

    Then the question that everyone should be asking is why didn’t Trump punish these companies for hiring practices that targeted illegal immigrants over citizens? They

    Yet here we have the country’s leading Democrats – who constantly bleat about being on the side of the little guy and the downtrodden – siding with greedy companies that were exploiting illegal immigrants to fatten their bottom lines, and were doing so at the expense of low-income blacks in the area who were shut out of those jobs.

    How are Democrats siding with “the greedy companies”??? For pointing out that Trump wants to punish the most vulnerable people involved in this matter while letting those that caused this problem and benefit the most from it financially get off without facing any punishment??? You idiot bigots blame the wrong people for causing this problem! Seriously, how stupid are you? Not too shocking seeing how just today it was reported that Trump had to fire another batch of illegals that his corrupt company had been keeping quiet about. Those evil illegal immigrants forcing the innocent companies to underpay and overwork them!

    What’s next for you? Based on your past actions, I guess we should not be shocked if we learn that you support throwing kids who are forced into being in kiddie porn into jail while letting the people selling the videos go, huh?

  23. [23] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale

    You said, Of course being homeless is not a crime..

    Then you said, No, it argues that violating vagrancy laws is not a crime..

    It is..

    Someone arrested for sleeping on a park bench is being arrested for violating the local vagrancy laws...which would make homelessness a crime.

    I nor President Trump is creating the homeless problem..

    THANK YOU FOR PROVING THE POINT I WAS MAKING!!! You once again are challenging accusations that no one has made against you...and what’s worse is how poorly you do it!

  24. [24] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    FACTS are objective and give no sway based on partisan agendas or ideological bigotry..

    Further proof that what you to refer to “FACTS” to support your arguments cannot be defined as such.

    And trials do look for truth and they use the facts to do so.

    Fact: a police officer shoots and kills a man — both parties concede to this being true.

    Now the trial is tasked to determine the truth concerning the justification of the shooting. Did the officer act in self-defense? Was the person killed someone who was struck by a bullet that missed the officer’s target and hit the person hiding behind a curtain that the officer was not aware was there?

    To determine whether shootings are justified under the law, juries are asked to determine if it was reasonable for the shooter to believe their life or the lives of others were at risk if they had not acted the moment that they pulled the trigger. Basing the verdict on the reasonableness of the beliefs one claims caused them to act is searching for the truth.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then the question that everyone should be asking is why didn’t Trump punish these companies for hiring practices that targeted illegal immigrants over citizens?

    Facts to support he didn't???

    How are Democrats siding with “the greedy companies”???

    By wanting to give them more and more illegal immigrant slaves..

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    there are many problems donald did not create but still managed to make a lot worse through thoughtless policy and poor management. the most dramatic is probably immigration, but other departments like environment and education are being harmed just as egregiously.

  27. [27] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Facts to support he didn't???

    You’ll find them boldly stated right after the facts you provide showing his administration punished companies that hire undocumented workers.

    Oh wait! His own company continues to screw over Americans in need of work by hiring those....what were they again...oh yeah, “illegal immigrant criminals”, I believe was what you called them! Trump screws over Americans in favor of the same dangerous criminals he claims he is protecting us from! Strange way of protecting us!

    I wonder if AG Barr has told his staff that it is unconstitutional to even investigate a company owned by the President while he is in office? Long live King Dotard!

  28. [28] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Notice how it's ALL Democrat run cities and states that have the biggest homeless problems..

    It would seem that the clear message from that is that people would rather be homeless in a place run by Democrats than to live in a city where they could afford a home — but it is run by Republicans.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    there are many problems donald did not create but still managed to make a lot worse through thoughtless policy and poor management. the most dramatic is probably immigration, but other departments like environment and education are being harmed just as egregiously.

    Bullshit.. Odumbo caused tons more problems over immigration...

    And the only "egregious" problems caused in environment and education are problems for the Democrat agenda in those areas..

    And agenda that is opposed by the vast majority of patriotic Americans..

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    It would seem that the clear message from that is that people would rather be homeless in a place run by Democrats than to live in a city where they could afford a home — but it is run by Republicans.

    However you have to spin it to make it thru your day.

    But the simple FACT is Democrat Governance = Shithole living conditions....

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Susan Collins Becomes Second GOP Senator to Question McConnell Over Impeachment Trial
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-collins-becomes-second-gop-senator-to-question-mcconnell-over-impeachment-trial-11577823952

    And here again.. Another GOP Senator who has never seen the TOS Trek episode A PRIVATE LITTLE WAR... :eyeroll:

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I'd like to add another column for next year's McLaughlin Awards: "This changes everything". Here are my nominees:
    * RBG (or another liberal justice) dies

    Why on earth would anyone wish to make such a prediction as that.

    Because, some people here, sometimes (not often, but sometimes) sees things as they really are.. Not as the would wish them to be..

    For her part, RBG has a long and highly productive life ahead of her.

    Simply not factually accurate.. It's pure wishful thinking..

    RBG will not be on the Supreme Court come election day.. Adding a new urgency and a new reason for Trump Supporters to turn out by the tens of millions..

    Hopefully, we won't see anymore of that particular kind of sentiment around here as we idealistic realists head into 2020 and beyond ...

    "Idealistic realist"??

    That's like saying an intelligent moron.. :D

    Here's to 2020... :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Slowly, the race narrows as Pete Buttigieg drops behind. Eventually Biden picks up his share of the voters, while Warren and Sanders continue to split the progressive vote. By the convention, though, Biden will have picked up enough delegates to secure the nomination.

    Nope.. Democrats will have a contested convention this year..

    You can take that one to the bank...

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Deputy Sheriff Chris Dickerson
    Panola County Sheriff's Office, Texas
    End of Watch: Tuesday, December 31, 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/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15

  35. [35] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen [28]

    Re "people would rather be homeless . . ."

    Or, it could be that some folks just enjoy pooping on the sidewalk, rather than the old-fashioned way the Republicans do it.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or, it could be that some folks just enjoy pooping on the sidewalk, rather than the old-fashioned way the Republicans do it.

    Exactly..

    "Homeless" has nothing to do with it.

    You can still be homeless and act like a civilized human being..

    Apparently, in DEMOCRAT run shitholes, they don't care about civilized..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    2020 is a leap year..

    That means Democrats will have President Trump as their President for a WHOLE EXTRA DAY!!! :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Carbon dioxide is the gas most responsible for predictions that Earth will warm on average by about 3 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2020. The United States, because it occupies a large continent in higher latitudes, could warm by as much as 6 degrees Fahrenheit."
    -Washington Post, 1990

    Well... It's 2020...

    And how much has it warmed???

    SURVEY SAYS... 1 degree...

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I believe I have had it with this site.

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, by that, I mean only the comments sections, of course.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    So..

    THAT'S yer New Year's resolution?? :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden's "DEPLORABLE" Moment..

    Joe Biden says coal miners should 'learn to program'

    Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's suggestion that coal miners should "learn to program" as the United States transitions away from fossil fuels shows "disdain" for the profession, a representative of West Virginia miners said Wednesday on "Fox & Friends."

    Chris Hamilton, co-chair of the West Virginia Coal Forum, hit back at the former vice president for essentially saying coal miners should learn to code or focus on preparing for a revamped green economy.

    “Anybody who can go down 300-3,000 feet in a mine sure as hell can learn how to program as well,” said Biden at a campaign event Monday in New Hampshire. “But we don’t think of it that way. Anybody who can throw coal into furnace can learn how to program for God’s sake.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-biden-coal-miners-learn-program-code

    Even if he wins the nomination, he's gonna lose in every coal/fracking/natural gas state in the country...

  43. [43] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    A U.S. Apache helicopter gunship also flew over the embassy and dropped flares in a “show of force,” attempting to disperse the crowd.

    This is how REAL Americans... PATRIOTIC Americans handle Embassy attacks..

    This has to be the first time anyone has EVER used the term “show of force” to describe dropping flares in response to an embassy attack!!! And how effective was this “show of force” by our military? I think that can be determined by what was NOT said. They dropped them “attempting to disperse the crowd”, not that they dropped them and the crowd dispersed!”

    So you believe that REAL Americans...PATRIOTIC Americans handle Embassy attacks ineffectively?

  44. [44] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's suggestion that coal miners should "learn to program" as the United States transitions away from fossil fuels shows "disdain" for the profession, a representative of West Virginia miners said Wednesday on "Fox & Friends."

    No, it does NOT show disdain, snowflake, programming is a fairly quick to learn skill that provides job opportunities to communities where mines have shut down. There are organizations that offer the training to miners and these programs have been extremely successful at preparing them for work in the IT fields. Biden didn’t just randomly pull “programming” out of thin air. It’s a shame that you and Fox News think that miners are too stupid to learn new skills in order to provide for their families and that they should just remain “unemployed”.

    And, FYI, the West Virginia Coal Forum represents the mining industry, not the miners that are employed to work in the mines! Mining is dying! Coal mines are shutting down and new ones are not replacing them. So if miners

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    This has to be the first time anyone has EVER used the term “show of force” to describe dropping flares in response to an embassy attack!!!

    Spoken like someone truly and utterly ignorant of the military..

    Dood!!!

    The APACHEs ***SHOWING UP*** is the show of force..

    And it's 100 times more of a show of force than Odumbo ever did..

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, it does NOT show disdain,

    Yea.. You made the same kinds of excuses to justify Hillary's "Deplorable" comment..

    You were wrong then.. Yer wrong now..

    It's that simple..

  47. [47] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    My prediction for 2020:

    It will be discovered that Trump had ordered the jobs/unemployment reports to be altered to make him look good. Face it, Trump showed the world that he wasn’t above ordering federal agencies to put out false reports in order to make him look good when he ordered NOAA to release an inaccurate statement to soothe his hurt ego! It was at that moment that we should have realized that we cannot trust the authenticity of any report from federal agencies that paint Trump in a positive light. Trump is too thin-skinned to be trusted not to inflate reports that his presidency can be judged by; and he has made that abundantly clear!

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i wasn't aware that funding after school programs and school lunches was a "democrat agenda" problem. betsy devos has never done a day's work in her life, and now she's literally stealing kindergarteners' lunch money.

  49. [49] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Yea.. You made the same kinds of excuses to justify Hillary's "Deplorable" comment..

    You were wrong then.. Yer wrong now..

    It's that simple..

    You mean when I pointed out how Trumpkins are such snowflakes that they intentionally misrepresent what people say just so they can act hurt and offended? Yes, I did that then and I am doing it now.

    And I agreed with Hillary...if you support homophobic, xenophobic, racist and sexist doctrine and policies, then you ARE deplorable! Anyone referring to themself as a “deplorable” is simply admitting/announcing to the world who they truly are! Liberals can take political correctness too far, but conservatives just make shit up in order to feel victimized!

  50. [50] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Just saw that you had responded to my post regarding the dangers of non-police individuals brandishing guns during an active shooter incident.

    https://www.npr.org/2019/02/05/691798641/alabama-police-officer-will-not-be-charged-in-fatal-shooting-of-mistaken-gunman

    As usual, your claims were proven wrong. It’s starting to become clear that It is not that you are simply uninformed when you make such claims... it is that you are intentionally dishonest!!!

    It’s pointless to talk politics with someone who claims that truth is not as important as what he refers to as “FACTS”. Statistics are facts, but those facts can easily be made to appear as if they support two completely differing and opposing arguments — one based in the truth, others in dishonesty. Which makes your claims that your FACTS are more important than the TRUTH all the more telling. Your FACTS support your DISHONESTY!

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Yeah, that was one of my resolutions for the New Year. So much for that one. Heh.

    And, if that's what Joe Biden said about coal miners, then I'd say he'd better come up with a better way to explain the situation, and fast!

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And I agreed with Hillary...if you support homophobic, xenophobic, racist and sexist doctrine and policies, then you ARE deplorable! Anyone referring to themself as a “deplorable” is simply admitting/announcing to the world who they truly are! Liberals can take political correctness too far, but conservatives just make shit up in order to feel victimized!

    I disagreed with her and, guess what? She lost. I wouldn't go around defending that sort of strategy if you hope to unseat president Trump.

    Why are simple lessons so hard to learn?

  53. [53] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    I disagreed with her and, guess what? She lost. I wouldn't go around defending that sort of strategy if you hope to unseat president Trump.

    So you agree with Michale that Biden was showing disdain for coal miners for suggesting that they should consider learning programming instead of remaining unemployed because the mines have shut down? You think this will cost Biden the election?

    Also, do you NOT think that people who support homophobic, xenophobic, racist and sexist doctrine and policies fit the definition for deplorable? Are you suggesting that we should be welcoming those people to join us?

    It is safe to assume that it is only the things that Hillary did that you disagreed with that caused her to lose the election, right? I have no problem with Hillary pointing out that a large number of Trump’s base were folks who supported extremist views and promoted hatred and bigotry and questioning why those that did not share those views were so comfortable supporting a candidate that did!

    Conservatives twisted her words and clutched their pearls claiming that Hillary was showing her hatred of them for referring to them as “deplorables”. You are free to criticize her for doing so as you wish, but I don’t think the “deplorable” comment was what stopped her from winning the election.

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I am suggesting that Democrats haven't learned much from 2016 and that if they don't learn the simple lessons of that year they are bound to repeat history.

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don’t think the “deplorable” comment was what stopped her from winning the election.

    It didn't help but her husband's actions were what did her in.

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So you agree with Michale that Biden was showing disdain for coal miners for suggesting that they should consider learning programming instead of remaining unemployed because the mines have shut down?

    I thought I made that clear enough, no?

    You think this will cost Biden the election?

    Of course, not! But, if he keeps saying things like that and squandering opportunities like he is doing with the Ukraine affair, then yes, it will cost him the nomination and Trump will win.

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Also, do you NOT think that people who support homophobic, xenophobic, racist and sexist doctrine and policies fit the definition for deplorable? Are you suggesting that we should be welcoming those people to join us?

    It is that very kind of thinking and over-generalization that can get a person - or a candidate - into serious trouble. Beyond that, it's no way to start working towards consensus if not unity.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    My prediction for 2020:

    My wish-casting for 2020:

    There.. Fixed it for you...

    "What can I say except 'Yer Welcome'!!"
    -Maui, MOANA

    :D

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean when I pointed out how Trumpkins are such snowflakes that they intentionally misrepresent what people say just so they can act hurt and offended?

    hehehehehehehe I wonder if you can appreciate the complete and utter hypocrisy of what you just said?? :D

    Because what you just said is EXACTLY what ya'all and the rest of the Trump/America haters have been doing for over 3 years now..

    And I agreed with Hillary...if you support homophobic, xenophobic, racist and sexist doctrine and policies, then you ARE deplorable!

    Yea, way to attack the very voters that Democrats MUST HAVE to win the White House and keep the House.

    And ya wonder why Democrats always lose..

    Liberals can take political correctness too far, but conservatives just make shit up in order to feel victimized!

    It's amazing how ya ALWAYS attribute actions to President Trump and the Right that you and your fellow Trump/America haters are always guilty of..

    Just saw that you had responded to my post regarding the dangers of non-police individuals brandishing guns during an active shooter incident.

    As I said, you mis-characterized the shooting..

    It was a simple case of mistaken identity, not a case of a good guy with a gun being shot..

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    And, if that's what Joe Biden said about coal miners, then I'd say he'd better come up with a better way to explain the situation, and fast!

    I completely and 1000% agree..

    Hillary dropped the ball by doubling down on her "deplorable" comment..

    Let's hope that Joe Biden doesn't make the same mistake..

    I disagreed with her and, guess what? She lost. I wouldn't go around defending that sort of strategy if you hope to unseat president Trump.

    Why are simple lessons so hard to learn?

    That's easy..

    They can't learn even simple lessons when their hearts are filled with hate and bigotry..

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    So you agree with Michale that Biden was showing disdain for coal miners for suggesting that they should consider learning programming instead of remaining unemployed because the mines have shut down?

    That's what she said, sweetie pie.. :D

    You think this will cost Biden the election?

    I don't think she said anything of the sort..

    Also, do you NOT think that people who support homophobic, xenophobic, racist and sexist doctrine and policies fit the definition for deplorable?

    There have been absolutely NO homophobic, xenophobic, racist and sexist doctrine and policies.. It's all in your head....

    Funny how you "intentionally misrepresent what people say just so they can act hurt and offended?"

    Like I said... You always accuse others of doing EXACTLY what you do.. :D

    Are you suggesting that we should be welcoming those people to join us?

    Only if you want Democrats to actually win elections.. :D

    but I don’t think the “deplorable” comment was what stopped her from winning the election.

    Then yer in the minority of one here in Weigantia..

    Because it is universally accepted that Hillary bonehead "deplorable" fiasco was one of the main reasons she lost the election..

    Only a bigoted hater would think otherwise..

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am suggesting that Democrats haven't learned much from 2016 and that if they don't learn the simple lessons of that year they are bound to repeat history.

    So says the Warden Of Weigantia..

    And she is dead on balls accurate.. :D

    Of course, not! But, if he keeps saying things like that and squandering opportunities like he is doing with the Ukraine affair, then yes, it will cost him the nomination and Trump will win.

    And there is Liz's Sherman... :D Awesome...

    I completely respect people who can take a definitive stand and have the strength of their convictions...

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is that very kind of thinking and over-generalization that can get a person - or a candidate - into serious trouble. Beyond that, it's no way to start working towards consensus if not unity.

    I like this 2020 Liz... :D

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    You see, my friend... Here are the facts..

    President Trump does not need any Trump/America to win in November..

    But whomever is the Democrat nominee will DEFINITELY need Trump supporters/voters to best President Trump...

    Vilifying and attacking and denigrating the very voters Democrats NEED is not a viable election strategy..

    It's what cost Hillary the election in 2016..

    As Liz points out, if ya'all don't learn the lessons of 2016, ya'all are doomed to repeat the mistakes of 2016...

    I can't make it any simpler than that..

    "You dumb this down any more and I'm gonna punch ya!"
    -Lt Col John Shepard, STARGATE ATLANTIS

    :D

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump does not need any Trump/America to win in November..

    President Trump does not need any Trump/America HATERS to win in November..

    Got ahead of myself.. DOH!! :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    RE: Joe Biden's "deplorable" moment...

    Even if he wins the nomination, he's gonna lose in every coal/fracking/natural gas state in the country...

    On the other hand....

    Joe's deplorable-esque comment IS very similar to Hillary's "deplorable" comment, it IS possible it will not have the same impact that Hillary's statement had, even if Joe chooses not to walk it back..

    Hillary's statement was in the General very close to the actual November election...

    Joe's statement was in the Primary and it's unlikely that it will be remembered come November..

    So, I readily concede that there is the possibility that, assuming Biden wins the nomination, the deplorable-esque comment is unlikely to have an impact on the General.

    However, the comment COULD very well impact Joe's chances of winning the primary...

    So, to sum up..

    While the statement *IS* very similar to Hillary's "deplorable" comment..

    It's unlikely to have the same impact in the General Election... Assuming, of course, Joe wins the Dem primary..

    Howz THAT for talking out both sides of my ass!! :D

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not bad. :)

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Being able to see all sides of any given issue..

    That's my superpower... :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting fact..

    It took Obama 13 hours to send aid to our Benghazi Consulate...

    It took President Trump 13 minutes to send aid to our Iraqi Embassy...

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    U.S. economy better than ever
    In the United States, there are more jobs than workers

    2019 was a very good year, despite a dysfunctional Congress. A few weeks ago, a friend said she had noticed that clothing was getting less and less expensive and, in fact, many items seemed to be getting less expensive.

    Economists call a general decline in prices, deflation and a general rise in prices, inflation. At any given time, some prices are falling and others are rising, depending on supply, demand and efficiency of production. Innovations come along, enabling people to get a better product or service for the same or lower price. Some innovations eliminate the need for some products, freeing up money to buy other things. Few people now buy typewriters or fax machines.

    In the United States, there are more jobs than workers. Wages for all groups are rising faster than prices. What is particularly remarkable — and a very good sign — is that wages for the lowest income and least skilled are rising faster than other groups.

    As the world becomes more efficient, it needs less physical stuff to do the same things. Irrigation and fertilizers are applied with more precision because of information technology, producing larger and better crops with less water and fertilizer. The computers in cellphones are far more powerful than computers that would fill an entire room a generation ago. Cars use less steel but are stronger and safer than they were 30 years ago. The real price of gasoline has not fallen by very much, but a much better car today can go more than twice as far on a gallon than it could decades ago — which is a transportation price decline.

    The real wealth and well-being of the vast majority of Americans have risen faster for the past three years than almost any time in history. The grumpy old nay-sayers are obviously wrong — pay them no attention and count your blessings.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/30/better-than-ever/

    And to think that Fear-Mongerers and Sore Lusers claimed that the country would go to hell in a handbasket if President Trump was elected...

    Crazy talk... :D

  71. [71] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    As I've pointed out previously (many times), U.S. presidents get the credit for everything that goes right during their administrations, and the blame for everything that goes wrong, and truth is, they rarely deserve either.

    There are two bases for the dislike/hatred of Trump. The ideological basis is simply the inevitable result of the fact that he's less liberal/more conservative than the rabid lefties would prefer, and there's no changing that, it would be the same for any other "R" guy.

    The other basis is the undeniable fact that he's in many regards at best marginally competent, along with the fact that he's an asshole of a human being.

    Whether that gets him re-elected or not I suppose depends on who the D's run against him. I hesitate to prognosticate.

  72. [72] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hehe Stucki,

    I may not agree with everything you say, but you sure do have a way with saying it. And it sure is too bad that the righties couldn't bring themselves to give Obama cred for the beginning of the boom.

    But what you say is fact.

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    The other basis is the undeniable fact that he's in many regards at best marginally competent, along with the fact that he's an asshole of a human being.

    I would say that THAT second assessment is solely based on the first assessment..

    Because it's clear from the last 3 years that President Trump is EXTREMELY competent..

    At least in the areas that matter to patriotic Americans..

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it sure is too bad that the righties couldn't bring themselves to give Obama cred for the beginning of the boom.

    Because there are no facts to support any credit..

  75. [75] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Of Course. :eyeroll;

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it sure is too bad that the righties couldn't bring themselves to give Obama cred for the beginning of the boom.

    How is that any different than Trump/America haters inability to give President Trump credit???

  77. [77] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy [72]

    Re Obama being shortchanged on credit for the "beginning of the boom".

    The "boom" didn't have a beginning, in my opinion. All we had was the "end of the bust" (a return to normalcy after the housing bubble) We don't even have a "boom" now. We have mostly normal, relative prosperity.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    How about this?

    I'll give Obama 25% credit for the awesome economy if you give President Trump 75% credit for the awesome economy...

    Deal???

  79. [79] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    As I said, you mis-characterized the shooting..

    It was a simple case of mistaken identity, not a case of a good guy with a gun being shot..

    It was a simple case of mistaken identity...yeah, because he was running through the mall holding a firearm — he looked exactly like a person who the police knew was a threat to the lives of everyone in that mall, and he looked that way because he had a gun!

    He was not shot because he and the shooter had the same facial structure, had similar haircuts, or had the same eyes... the police saw him running toward them with a gun and they shot the immediate threat to public safety —and they were justified in doing so!

    And from everything I read about the victim, he truly was a great guy who was just wanting to help people. After the shooting started, he supposedly ran out to his truck, grabbed his firearm and rushed back in to see if he could stop the shooter. He had just been honorably discharged from the military. And for all his good intentions, running into a mall where there was a known active shooter with a gun drawn is EXACTLY why he was killed!

  80. [80] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    On the other hand....

    Joe's deplorable-esque comment IS very similar to Hillary's "deplorable" comment, it IS possible it will not have the same impact that Hillary's statement had, even if Joe chooses not to walk it back..

    Joe’s comment was not “deplorable-esquire” at all! Coal mines are shutting down in lots of areas, and new ones are NOT replacing them! That means coal miners are going to need new job skills if they want to find work...how hard is it to understand this?

    How many coal miners are there?

    According to a 2016 federal jobs report, the mining industry accounted for 183,300 jobs. But that includes a lot of mining unrelated to coal and a lot of support occupations, too: supervisors, truck drivers and so on. In May 2015, there were 69,460 jobs in coal mining itself — only 15,900 of which were extraction workers or helpers, mining machine operators or earth drillers.

    That’s 0.019 percent of the American workforce that month.

    Also, do you NOT think that people who support homophobic, xenophobic, racist and sexist doctrine and policies fit the definition for deplorable?

    There have been absolutely NO homophobic, xenophobic, racist and sexist doctrine and policies.. It's all in your head....

    First, Trump wasn’t in office when the deplorable’s comment was made, so there was NO CHANCE THAT I WAS MAKING THE ACCUSATION THAT YOU CLAIM!!!

    Second, there are plenty examples of Trump’s policies that are toxic and fit in the above lists. Asylum seeking is not a crime, but Trump treats people crossing the southern border like it is. Trump’s Muslim ban that included many countries that citizens played no part in any terrorist attacks against our country, but ignored the countries where most terrorists were from! Of course, those were countries where Trump is trying to put hotels...but that had nothing to do with it, I am sure!

    Third, falsely calling me out for the shit that you do on here fools no one!

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll give Obama 25% credit for the awesome economy if you give President Trump 75% credit for the awesome economy...

    I mean, let's face reality..

    25% is being GROSSLY generous..

    Obama didn't believe it could happen.. So why should he get credit for something he didn't believe could happen?? He obviously didn't work towards the goal..

    It's like saying, "I don't believe in unicorns, but I am going to work for a better economy for unicorns.."

    So, in reality, Obama deserves ZERO credit because he didn't do any of the work..

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Second, there are plenty examples of Trump’s policies that are toxic and fit in the above lists.

    No, there is not.

    That only exists in your mind, your spin and your futile efforts to "intentionally misrepresent what people say just so they can act hurt and offended?"

  83. [83] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    You see, my friend... Here are the facts..

    President Trump does not need any Trump/America to win in November..

    You obviously have a lot of faith in the Russians being able to do it again for Trump!

    But whomever is the Democrat nominee will DEFINITELY need Trump supporters/voters to best President Trump...

    NOPE! NO WAY! No they won’t!

    Not only have lots of Trump voters died since 2016, there are plenty that regret that they voted for Trump in 2016. Trump lost the popular vote by over 3 million votes. Politicians who have had tied their campaign to Trump and have had Trump speak at their political rallies have been voted out of office more often than they won!

    Look, there were plenty of independents and liberals who voted for Trump simply because they could not force themselves to vote fo Hillary. Face it, the biggest difference between the 2016 and the 2020 elections will be that none of the candidates have been the subject of negative propaganda for the past 35 years. I might not like Trump, but it is not because I have heard that he was a criminal since I was a toddler!

    Trump won’t have that working to his advantage this time around...regardless of who the Democrat nominee winds up being.

  84. [84] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    I don’t think the “deplorable” comment was what stopped her from winning the election.

    It didn't help but her husband's actions were what did her in.

    OK...i’ll bite...what in the HELL are you referring to? Do you think Bill not having as many women accusing him of sexual assault as Trump somehow hurt her campaign?

  85. [85] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    I have spent the last few days calling out your lies and you have responded by avoiding the subject matter of my posts in favor of replying with false narratives to comments that I never actually said.

    This goes back to your whole “FACTS” vs. “TRUTH” obsession. You take what I say (FACT) out of context and argue against positions I never claimed in order to avoid admitting that I am correct (TRUTH).

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    You obviously have a lot of faith in the Russians being able to do it again for Trump!

    President Trump doesn't need Russia's help either..

    He has 96% of GOP voters and 70% of Indpendents/NPAs...

    It's in the bag...

    But whomever is the Democrat nominee will DEFINITELY need Trump supporters/voters to best President Trump...

    NOPE! NO WAY! No they won’t!

    Yea.. Ya'all thought the same in 2016..

    How did THAT work out for ya??

    And, when ya consider that Dumbocrats have MISERABLY failed **TWICE** to remove President Trump from office??

    Your Democrat voters are just going to stay home in disgust...

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have spent the last few days calling out your lies and you have responded by avoiding the subject matter of my posts in favor of replying with false narratives to comments that I never actually said.

    No, you have spent the last few days spewing out bullshit..

    Me?? I just have the FACTS.. :D

    You take what I say (FACT) out of context and argue against positions I never claimed in order to avoid admitting that I am correct (TRUTH).

    I am sure that's what you believe.. it's the only way you can continue living with the shame of getting yer ass kicked day in and day out.. :D

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump camp raises $46M in final quarter; reelect team says impeachment drove best haul to date
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/2/trump-camp-raises-46m-final-quarter-reelect-team-s/

    Democrats are gonna get STOMPED!! :D

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    You may recall that mere days before Hillary was to be interviewed by the FBI, her campaign-sabotaging husband, Bill, decided that it was a good time to board the plane carrying the US Attorney General for a friendly chit chat, as it were.

    Now, under near any other circumstances, this act would be unremarkable.

    But, instead, this asinine act resulted in the AG having to say out loud that she would defer to whatever the FBI concluded with respect to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's handling of sensitive emails.

    There would be no James Comey without Bill Clinton - if you know what I mean and I think that you do.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, people.. We have a bit of a contradiction here..

    On the one hand, ya'all advocate that Senators have SECRET ballots.. You claim that Senators really hate President Trump and a SECRET ballot will allow them to vote, free from consequences..

    Yet, when it comes to the polls, you DON'T believe that the polls skew against Trump because people don't want to state their support, even though they fully support President Trump..

    Two diametrically opposed points of views..

    Sounds like ya'all will just say ANYTHING, as long as it's against President Trump.. Even if what you say totally contradicts what you previously said..

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Do you think Bill not having as many women accusing him of sexual assault as Trump somehow hurt her campaign?

    Do you think Bill having MANY women accuse Bill of rape and sexual assault and sexual harassment HELPED Hillary's campaign???

    Are you DEFENDING Bill Clinton???

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That just gave me a headache.

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the bi...

    Where is that "recession" we were supposed to have in 2019???

    Didn't see a BIT of it anywhere...

    :D

    "Kahn.... I am LAUGHING at the superior intellect..."
    -Admiral James T Kirk

    :D

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hope it holds off for a while longer - I need more time to prepare ...

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooooohhh CW??? :D

    With the utmost respect..

    North Korea's Kim Jong Un delivers his "Christmas present" on either New Year's Day or the day after. Much to the surprise of many, this comes not in the form of an I.C.B.M. test but rather with another nuclear test explosion. Trump flails in response.

    Not starting out too well on yer predictions, eh?? :D

    I, on the other hand, am one fer one.. :D

    There will be nothing coming out of North Korea for New Years..

    It's all just another media hype that the Trump/America haters use to bash President Trump..

    Obviously Kim is a fan of the M*A*S*H Episode THE JOKER IS WILD

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0638437/

    I'll keep the gloating to a minimum.. :D

    I'll just suggest (with the UTMOST respect) that you might consider the biased nature of your predictions and consider that maybe.... JUST MAYBE... they are colored more by your hate and disgust with President Trump and less by reality and the facts.

    It's just a suggestion... Don't kill the messenger.. :D

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hope it holds off for a while longer - I need more time to prepare ...

    It's hard to say...

    If, as I expect, a GOP'er is elected after President Trump leaves office in 2025 then it's likely we won't see a recession until at least 2029....

    So, you have almost a decade to prepare.

    Good 'nuff??? :D

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, it's 0740hrs 3 Jan 2020 in Nork Land...

    :D

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now, THERE is some kind of wishful thinking!!!

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Must you always post when I do?

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Must you always post when I do?

    We do seem to be linked, you and I... :D

    Kinda like our own little BORG Collective, eh...

    :D

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have no idea what that means ...

  102. [102] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    But, instead, this asinine act resulted in the AG having to say out loud that she would defer to whatever the FBI concluded with respect to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's handling of sensitive emails.

    That was the AG’s fault for giving into Republican pearl-clutching and false indignation, claiming that Bill speaking with Lynch meant that she could not be trusted to act professionally and unbiasedly! They weren’t having a secret meeting, Bill walked over and boarded a plane she was in with her staff to say hello to someone who had worked for him. If Clinton was trying to get her to drop the investigation, he would not have done it in broad daylight in front of folks. Think about it! If he wanted to have a secret conversation with Lynch, then he has her cell phone number he could have done so no one would know that they talked!

    It’s odd how Republicans have not had a problem with Trump conversing directly with the AG ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS OF HIM & HIS CAMPAIGN! On multiple occasions Rod Rosenstein was called in to speak to Trump about Mueller’s investigation...and Republicans didn’t bat an eye!

    Liberals and Democrats need to drop their habit of bending over backwards to appease Republicans when they start screaming “Unfair! Unfair!” Kinda like how Biden got slammed for suggesting coal miners should take advantage of job training offered to them. Biden was not putting down coal miners, he was encouraging them to learn new skills rather than go hungry by remaining unemployed!

    But as long as liberals continue to allow conservatives to take things out of context and run with it to attack Democrats, we will never be able to stop them from doing this! Until we stop rewarding their bad behavior, there is no reason to hope that things will get better!

  103. [103] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump camp raises $46M in final quarter; reelect team says impeachment drove best haul to date

    Yeah, Lev and Igor were arrested for funneling foreign money into Trump’s campaign. Russia’s money laundering through Trump has helped clean up millions in Russian mob money!

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Russ, you see nothing wrong with what Bill did and no relationship to Comey being thrust into the position he was?

    That's quite naïve.

  105. [105] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Especially considering that the Clintons and Lynch go way back, she might have recused herself without the meeting on a plane in the phoenix tarmac.

    This may not have meant anything to you, Russ, but it did to people of integrity at the FBI.

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's strange to me how this episode that meant to much never comes up in any forensic analysis of why Hillary lost ...

  107. [107] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It’s odd how Republicans have not had a problem with Trump conversing directly with the AG ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS OF HIM & HIS CAMPAIGN! On multiple occasions Rod Rosenstein was called in to speak to Trump about Mueller’s investigation...and Republicans didn’t bat an eye!

    I hope that's not the standard you want to live by, now.

  108. [108] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But as long as liberals continue to allow conservatives to take things out of context and run with it to attack Democrats, we will never be able to stop them from doing this!

    How does one take a meeting between Hillary's husband and the AG days before she is to be interviewed by the FBI out of context?

    Please explain to me how this was nothing and didn't put in motion a series of events that made it very difficult for Hillary to overcome in 2016.

  109. [109] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, as for Biden, he needs to find a new strategy for winning votes in coal country.

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    They weren’t having a secret meeting, Bill walked over and boarded a plane she was in with her staff to say hello to someone who had worked for him. If Clinton was trying to get her to drop the investigation, he would not have done it in broad daylight in front of folks. Think about it! If he wanted to have a secret conversation with Lynch, then he has her cell phone number he could have done so no one would know that they talked!

    No one would have known that they talked? Are you sure about that! Well, that's a whole other conversation! Heh.

    Russ, secrecy has nothing to do with this episode. The mere fact that Bill decided to board that plane and speak with the AG - about the weather, for God's sake!!! - days before his wife was to be interviewed by the FBI was quite enough to relay an unspoken message.

    Consider an example - you don't think that anyone involved in an illegal quid pro quo is actually going to say that he is engaging in an illegal quid pro quo, do you? :)

    You see, Bill didn't have to say anything about his wife and her emails and the investigation into her handling of sensitive emails with the AG to send a message days before her FBI interview. He just had to board the place to effect the perception of impropriety. And, THAT is why the AG deferred to the FBI on this matter. The rest, as they say, is history.

  111. [111] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yikes … did I just use a banned word!? Well, it was modified with 'illegal'. I mean, there is a difference!

    Damn!

    :-)

  112. [112] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It's strange to me how this episode that meant to much never comes up in any forensic analysis of why Hillary lost ...

    Probably because it did not mean anything to anyone...because there was nothing to it!!! I have never heard a single person state that they were leaning towards voting for Hillary, but Bill talking to Lynch changed their mind!

    So, Russ, you see nothing wrong with what Bill did and no relationship to Comey being thrust into the position he was?

    Comey was Director of the FBI before Bill spoke to Lynch. His involvement did not change at all!!! Lynch removed herself from the process, she did not hand over her responsibilities to Comey. As FBI Director, he had final say on whether or not the agency recommended charges be filled — which is exactly what happened! Lynch recused herself, but that didn’t keep the #2 person at the DOJ from stepping in if they disagreed with Comey’s assessment!

    Especially considering that the Clintons and Lynch go way back, she might have recused herself without the meeting on a plane in the phoenix tarmac.

    No, that’s not how it works! It is proper to recuse one’s self from any official action when there is a potential conflict of interest. “Knowing someone” is NOT a legitimate conflict of interest — financial ties or potential involvement in activities under investigation are conflicts of interests. D.C. is not that huge of a place, so it would bring our government to a stand still if simply “knowing someone” could jeopardize an agencies ability to conduct business.

    Bill’s history and shared work relationship with Lynch is the one thing that justifies his saying hello that day. You would have a good argument if Bill had never met Lynch prior to that day!

    Russ, secrecy has nothing to do with this episode. The mere fact that Bill decided to board that plane and speak with the AG - about the weather, for God's sake!!! - days before his wife was to be interviewed by the FBI was quite enough to relay an unspoken message.

    What unspoken message did you receive from it? Hillary agreed to being questioned by the FBI. Lynch was not directly part of the investigation process; she ran the DOJ. Guess what? People being investigated are constantly contacting the heads of the investigating agencies to ask questions, to complain about the investigation, etc..

    Again, Lynch’s mistake was trying to prevent Republicans from twisting her meeting with Bill into something it wasn’t by recusing herself right after it happened... in doing so she basically did the job for the Republicans and gave credence to something that did not warrant it!

    Consider an example - you don't think that anyone involved in an illegal quid pro quo is actually going to say that he is engaging in an illegal quid pro quo, do you? :)

    No offense, Liz, but what the hell are you talking about? What quid pro quo are you seeing here that no one else is? If you can show evidence of someone giving preferential treatment in exchange for receiving something of value, I would love to hear it! There was nothing requested by Bill; there was nothing offered by Bill. There was no QUID, no PRO, and no QUO. It was Bill saying “hello” to an old friend who used to work for him.

    Sometimes a “hello” is just a hello!

  113. [113] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You must understand what I'm saying … Bill's decision to meet the AG put into motion Comey's PUBLIC involvement in the Hillary case. Instead of the AG making the final decision, circumstances - including the meeting on the plane in Phoenix - compelled Comey to go public with his infamous "press conference".

    Now, I for one, blame only one person for Hillary's unbelievable loss to Trump - and, that would be the candidate herself. Not Comey, not Bill, not her silly email practice, not even the Russians.

    All I am saying is that Bill's decision to meet the AG days before his wife was to be interviewed by the FBI put into motion several events that wouldn't otherwise have happened and that many Democrats, Hillary included, blame for her loss.

    You might want to revisit Comey's testimony before Congress on this issue and what it meant to the FBI.

Comments for this article are closed.