ChrisWeigant.com

Looking Forward To A Democratic Foreign Policy Debate

[ Posted Wednesday, January 8th, 2020 – 18:14 UTC ]

The next Democratic presidential debate is going to almost have to focus intensely on questions of foreign policy. No matter what anyone had planned previously, the situation almost demands it now. So far, the debates have been remarkably light on foreign policy, which has allowed almost all the candidates to utter platitudes about the type of world they'd like to see as president, without delving too far into any specifics about what they'd do as president at all (except perhaps on minor differences between the candidates' policies). This is no longer good enough, as we all wait to see what happens next with Iran.

The next debate was already shaping up to be the most interesting, since barring any last-minute polling surprises it appears only five candidates will qualify to be on the stage: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar. Michael Bloomberg is currently polling better than Klobuchar, but because he insists on self-funding his entire campaign he will never meet the number-of-donors threshold the Democratic National Committee has laid down for this debate cycle, so he won't be on the stage for either this debate or the next one (beyond that, the D.N.C. could change the rules, because they haven't finalized them yet). Andrew Yang and Tom Steyer, who both appeared at the last debate, will be shut out of this one -- as will all of the other candidates still running.

This winnowing means that there will only be five people to answer questions. This means all of them can be asked the same question without it taking forever, and it means that overall each candidate will have a lot more time to speak. These are both good developments because they should sharpen the debate between the frontrunners.

But this debate will likely be a lot different from those which have already happened, because foreign policy should be the first and most important subject debated. And the questions should be very specific rather than asking for sweeping generalities -- unless the moderators fall down on their job (Wolf Blitzer was just named one of the moderators, which doesn't exactly fill me with confidence). "If you were president what would you do now on Iran?" is an obvious first question, but there should also be followup questions about where things might stand next January when the new president will be sworn in. That's a year's worth of time, and the situation will likely be different, so the questions should reflect this reality.

The candidates will have the benefit of the Iran situation developing for a week before they have to publicly debate it, which should help (since first reactions often prove to be wrong ones -- no matter where you stand politically -- when it comes to war). They may have even longer, as there is talk of delaying the next debate if the Senate is in the midst of the impeachment trial (three of the five candidates who qualified are sitting senators, after all). But whenever it takes place, what will be on display is each candidate's strengths and weaknesses in the realm of foreign policy. So let's try to weigh these for each of them, to assess how strong they'll be on the subject.

Joe Biden has a long record on foreign policy. This is his biggest strength and also his biggest weakness. Biden voted for the Iraq War, and he has overstated how quickly he came to realize that this vote was a mistake. He moved from saying he "immediately" became a war critic to now admitting that this process took a lot longer than that. But he's not the only Democratic politician who had to walk that same route to realization. What many forget as well is that plenty of Democratic voters also had to make this same journey from initially supporting the war to ultimately condemning it. So Biden's sin isn't as grievous as people like Bernie Sanders like to make it.

Biden has other strengths and weaknesses in his foreign policy record, but one thing that nobody is going to argue is that he has the most foreign policy experience of any candidate on the stage. Being vice president means handling a lot of foreign policy matters, after all. Biden will claim his extensive experience makes him the best candidate for the job because he's already seen many tense situations, while the other candidates will be looking to score shots on the positions he's taken that turned out to be duds.

Biden supporters will decry such tactics, but they are indeed worthwhile and even necessary. Whichever candidate takes on Trump is going to get hit on any perceived weakness or past wrong decision, that's for sure. So the process of the primary debates should definitely include the candidates having to defend their records.

Bernie Sanders also has a long record on foreign policy, but not nearly as much as experience as Biden. Like Biden, Bernie's record will be both his strongest point and his weakest point. Calling Bernie a peacenik might be overstating the case, but he's certainly has been a staunch non-interventionist. He will proudly -- and accurately -- state that he voted against the Iraq War even while war fever was high and had swept up many Democrats in Congress. He will point out that in the end he was proven correct that it was the wrong thing for America to do. But Bernie's biggest problem will be answering the question of under what precise circumstances he would take the nation into war. Democratic voters are not monolithically non-interventionist, and even though the public is indeed pretty war-weary after suffering the longest war America has ever been involved with (Afghanistan) and the stupidest war America has fought since the War of 1812 (Iraq), the American people do want the reassurance that the president will indeed take us to war if the situation rightfully demands it. This will be the hardest case for Bernie to make, since his whole record has been so non-interventionist.

Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar are weaker candidates on foreign policy, although not the absolute weakest. They have no direct experience of being in the White House Situation Room, and they have no extensive foreign policy record in the Senate to fall back on. Both will be making the case that what they have seen and experienced is enough for voters to decide they would make the right decisions if given presidential power. Senate experience is better than no experience, and both will likely argue that pretty much any Democrat would be far better than Donald Trump making such decisions.

Pete Buttigieg will claim a different sort of experience in making his foreign policy case, that of wearing the uniform of the United States while the country was at war. That's a pretty strong argument even in the Democratic Party these days (it didn't used to be, but the whole nation has seen a rather large perceptual shift in how it sees military service, pretty much ever since 9/11). Buttigieg will be able to claim that he's seen American war policy as one of the "boots on the ground," which gives him a perspective none of the others can claim. All the other Democratic candidates who could also claim such credit (such as Tulsi Gabbard) have now been sidelined, so Buttigieg is the only one remaining with active military service. However, being a soldier in a war isn't the same thing as launching or directing a war, so it remains to be seen how potent an argument this will be with the voters. Other than his military service, Mayor Pete has no other foreign policy experience to fall back on. It's not like South Bend, Indiana had to negotiate treaties with foreign nations, after all. And Buttigieg has never served in Congress, so he can't claim secondhand foreign policy experience (as the other candidates on the stage will attempt to do).

The weakest candidate of all, however, won't even be on the stage. Michael Bloomberg has precisely zero formal experience with foreign policy. He may try to claim (as New Yorkers often do) that New York City is indeed on the front lines of defending against terrorism, therefore the mayor is no newbie when it comes to defending the citizenry. That's a reasonable claim to make, but it's still pretty limited. The people responsible for keeping America safe -- at both the federal and city levels -- do focus more on New York City than any other place in the country, for obvious reasons. Other former New York City mayors have even ridden this perception to the tune of making millions of dollars off of it (see: Rudy Giuliani). So Bloomberg will make the case that protecting America is just protecting New York City writ larger. He may point out that since the United Nations is in New York it meant having to deal with foreign diplomats on a very personal basis all the time, too. But it remains to be seen if anyone will buy his arguments or not. Mayors -- even of the biggest cities in the country -- have an incredibly minor role to play on the world stage. It just isn't equivalent to sitting in the Oval Office at all. It's not like Bloomberg ever faced the decision of whether to declare war against New Jersey or anything.

Bloomberg won't be present to defend himself at the next debate, so it'll be interesting to see if any of the other candidates take a few gratuitous shots at him or not. If he's lucky, they'll be more concerned with fighting each other than taking him on directly.

Of course, it being a Democratic debate, the one thing that all the candidates are likely to agree upon wholeheartedly is that Donald Trump is the wrong man for the job when it comes to foreign policy or war. They'll point out the inconsistency of Trump attacking NATO constantly and then begging them to help out more with Iran, for instance. Or the fact that tensions with Iran didn't ratchet up until Trump decided to tear up the nuclear agreement with them. And that Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign has been an abject failure all along.

This will be just as interesting (to me, at any rate) to hear as the Democrats disagreeing with each other. These debates are not solely to see which Democrat has the best policies, after all, they are also an audition for taking on Trump head-on in the general election. The Democrats are going to have to be careful in how they attack Trump in this regard, because as stated events on the ground have a way of changing drastically. Who knows what the American people will think this summer about Iran? It all depends on what happens in the meantime, which nobody can be sure of at this point. In their efforts to show how misguided Trump is, Democrats have to avoid making statements now that prove to be just as misguided six months from now, in other words.

The Middle East situation used to be a minor factor in the Democratic primaries. It has barely been discussed in the previous debates at all. That is all about to change. The next Democratic debate won't be entirely devoted to foreign policy, but at this point it looks pretty certain that this will be the biggest topic of the night. These candidates are all running for the job of president, and the voters need to understand how each of them might handle a situation such as the one we now find ourselves. So I for one am looking forward to hearing the Democratic candidates debate foreign policy strategy and policies in detail.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

80 Comments on “Looking Forward To A Democratic Foreign Policy Debate”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hope the moderators focus on asking Biden to wax lyrical on why he voted for the AUMF or for authorizing the Bush administration to use military force in Iraq IF NECESSARY!!

    That last bit always gets left out. Why? Because it's too complicated.

    Biden should attempt to take up the whole debate and come back to answering this question, ad Bidenitum, with every possible scintilla of an opportunity … all the while drawing a stark contrast between himself and everybody in the room.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "If you were president what would you do now on Iran?" is an obvious first question, but there should also be followup questions about where things might stand next January when the new president will be sworn in. That's a year's worth of time, and the situation will likely be different, so the questions should reflect this reality.

    Heh.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just one quick statement for the record to say that Biden didn't vote for war. His vote was to avoid war.

    Let's preview the debate on THAT ... right here, right now! :)

    And, I think Biden was right to vote against the Levin amendment, too. All very relevant to the current Iran situation. But, the moderators won't ask about that, either.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Who among all of the current crop of Democratic candidates, on or off the debate stage, worked tirelessly and relentlessly during the period of 2003 through 2007 to promote a sound US policy to advocate for a better Iraq for all Iraqis?

    There is only one candidate who did that and, in so doing, handed the Bush administration an invaluable gift on a silver platter which was summarily sabotaged and the rest is history.

    So, yes! Let's please debate who knows what and how about Iraq.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [Biden] moved from saying he "immediately" became [an Iraq] war critic to now admitting that this process took a lot longer than that. But he's not the only Democratic politician who had to walk that same route to realization.

    Okay, Chris, how long did it really take for Biden to become a critic of the Iraq war. Be precise! :)

    Biden's explanations around this can be summed up by saying that once a president goes to war - and, let's be honest, it's not as if Iraq's leader didn't deserve a united global front to bring his reign of terror to an end and would indubitably have had to be dealt with sooner or later - it is important for Americans of all stripes to support the effort until such time as ineptitude, in this case, demands solid criticism.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [Biden] moved from saying he "immediately" became [an Iraq] war critic to now admitting that this process took a lot longer than that. But he's not the only Democratic politician who had to walk that same route to realization.

    Okay, Chris, how long did it really take for Biden to become a critic of the Iraq war. Be precise! :)

    Biden's explanations around this can be summed up by saying that once a president goes to war - and, let's be honest, it's not as if Iraq's leader didn't deserve a united global front to bring his reign of terror to an end and would indubitably have had to be dealt with sooner or later - it is important for Americans of all stripes to support the effort until such time as ineptitude, in this case, demands solid criticism.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, what puts Biden heads and shoulders' above everyone else, not just the rest of the field in this particular race, is the fact that he did everything humanly possible to put right US policy with respect to Iraq.

    No one did more to try to rectify the situation. And, if Iraq had followed the path set out by Biden they wouldn't still be in a political mess.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, I watched much of the Senate debate over two days on the Iraq question. It was, by far, the most interesting and thought-provoking debate I have ever heard.

    Republicans and Democrats each made good points and counterpoints and, of course, I think Biden made most of them!

    I'd love it if anyone can post a link to this debate in early October 2002 - video or transcript ...

  9. [9] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    If I were a betting man, I would wager that you have a little crush on Joe Biden.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Give me a freakin' break!

    Is that all you got? Seriously!!!???

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm really done with this site.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Ah, don't worry about it.

    There aren't any good debates in the US Senate anymore, either.

    :-(

  13. [13] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Give me a freakin' break!

    Is that all you got? Seriously!!!???

    Figured that’d get a rise out of ya! Hehehehehe!

    You are right about the Senate rarely having any good debates. Sadly, you can blame technology and C-Span for that! Whenever you see video of Senators addressing the Senate, they are typically addressing, except for various aides and staff, a mostly empty room with no Senators listening in the room.

    Now, they can just get video clips of various speeches instead of having to be in the Senate. This limits what they actually hear and take away from what is being addressed on the Senate floor.

    And probably more than anything else, it limits how much time they spend with other Senators from both parties. To me, this is a huge part of the problem with how little gets accomplished in the Senate. They do not HAVE to work together, they do not HAVE to interact with each other...why wouldn’t we expect gridlock from them?

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    WOW, Liz.

    I go away for a day and you assume the persona of Michale, eh? :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ, (from a previous commentary)

    What is really odd is that for the most part, only right-wing media outlets report on famous people’s political opinions.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    Even if that were factually accurate (which it's not) it's because Left Wing media outlets completely and utterly agree with the spewage coming from the famous people and their ignorant political opinions..

    So it would make sense that Left Wing media outlets would not report them..

    You don’t mind being lied to, you just want it to entertain and comfort you!

    "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"

    "If you like your healthcare plan you can keep your health care plan."

    "I welcome the debate on domestic surveillance."

    "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

    "I didn't inhale."

    "I have never met the whistleblower prior to his complaint."

    "The following a factual representation of the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky."

    Once again, you accuse the GOP of actions that ya'all and yer fellow Dumbocrats are guilty of.

    The FACTS clearly show that its you people who don't mind being lied to...

    Seriously, YOU are the only one claiming that past-their-prime one-time-actors-now waiting-tables speak for all Democrats.

    As ya'all established at Charlottesville, SILENCE GIVES ASSENT..

    I didn't see ANYONE here in Weigantia condemn McGowan's words..

    Ergo... Since ya'all were silent on those words, it HAS to mean that you agree with those words.

    As I said, this is YA'ALL'S OWN thought process at work here..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Grrrrr

    Russ, (from a previous commentary)

    What is really odd is that for the most part, only right-wing media outlets report on famous people’s political opinions.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    Even if that were factually accurate (which it's not) it's because Left Wing media outlets completely and utterly agree with the spewage coming from the famous people and their ignorant political opinions..

    So it would make sense that Left Wing media outlets would not report them..

    You don’t mind being lied to, you just want it to entertain and comfort you!

    "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"

    "If you like your healthcare plan you can keep your health care plan."

    "I welcome the debate on domestic surveillance."

    "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

    "I didn't inhale."

    "I have never met the whistleblower prior to his complaint."

    "The following a factual representation of the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky."

    Once again, you accuse the GOP of actions that ya'all and yer fellow Dumbocrats are guilty of.

    The FACTS clearly show that its you people who don't mind being lied to...

    Seriously, YOU are the only one claiming that past-their-prime one-time-actors-now waiting-tables speak for all Democrats.

    As ya'all established at Charlottesville, SILENCE GIVES ASSENT..

    I didn't see ANYONE here in Weigantia condemn McGowan's words..

    Ergo... Since ya'all were silent on those words, it HAS to mean that you agree with those words.

    As I said, this is YA'ALL'S OWN thought process at work here..

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump campaign turns Iran attack into massive Facebook ad blitz, sparking Democratic criticisms
    https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Trump-campaign-turns-Iran-attack-into-massive-14960107.php

    You see how democrats are their own worst enemies??

    If they had remained non-committal about the Sillyman execution or, gods forbid, actually supported President Trump on the assassination that would have taken A LOT of wind out of the PR sails..

    But, by letting their hate and bigotry run their response, Democrats once again, find themselves on the wrong side of an issue, opposite real patriotic Americans..

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    I seem to recall a debate in the not so distant past whereas one Weigantian (who, apparently, is no longer with us) claimed that Chief Justice Roberts would have absolutely power over any Senate impeachment proceedings and would "never allow" irrelevant impeachment witnesses such as the whistleblower, the Bidens or Schiff-head..

    I, of course, argued (complete with FACTS) that the opposite is true.. That the Chief Justice is merely a figure head and that the power, the REAL power lies with the GOP Majority..

    Roberts would hold the gavel, but not the power, at Trump impeachment trial

    The chief justice is likely to punt contentious and political questions to lawmakers

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. will preside over any impeachment trial of President Donald Trump as the Constitution requires, but don’t expect him to make decisions that substantively reshape the action.

    Although there is speculation about how active a role Roberts will take in an impeachment trial and whether key witnesses testify, the Senate under past rules has given relatively little authority to the nation’s top judicial figure. And in the areas Roberts might have authority to make rulings, such as questions about whether evidence is relevant, the rules also allow the Senate to call for a vote to overrule him anyway.
    https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/roberts-will-preside-but-not-rule-over-trump-impeachment-trial

    It's rough, me being so factually accurate all the time.. :D

    Ah well, it's just a bear I must cross... :D

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    NYT‘s Paul Krugman Says Hacker Downloaded ‘Child Pornography’ Using His IP Address
    https://www.mediaite.com/print/nyts-paul-krugman-says-hacker-downloaded-child-pornography-using-his-ip-address/

    Looks like Krugman is setting up an affirmative defense..

    One has to wonder why he would go public with this other than to be pro-active on a coming criminal charge...

    Them Democrats... I ax ya....

  20. [20] 
    TheStig wrote:

    EM-10,11,12

    The site is mostly fine. It' the comment section that's mostly broken. By a few idiots. Just ignore the idiots. It will save you several hours per week and greatly annoy the idiots. Life is short...and getting shorter by the day.

  21. [21] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    he fell for a scam and jumped to the wrong conclusion. sometimes even the smartest among us are not so smart.

  22. [22] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    the krugman story should interest you particularly, since you're a tech person with some law enforcement background. sometimes folks get ahold of our information through their own ingenuity, other times through our own thoughtless naiveté. nobody's immune.

    https://www.cbronline.com/cybersecurity/paul-krugman-scam/

  23. [23] 
    TheStig wrote:

    EM-

    Have you noticed that CW only rarely responds to comments these day? I think he agrees with me. He has a column to write. It's a very fine column.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    NEVER AGAIN!!!
    http://sjfm.us/pics/NeverForget.jpg

    hehehehehehehehe

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    he fell for a scam and jumped to the wrong conclusion. sometimes even the smartest among us are not so smart.

    Who/What are you referring to??

    the krugman story should interest you particularly, since you're a tech person with some law enforcement background. sometimes folks get ahold of our information through their own ingenuity, other times through our own thoughtless naiveté. nobody's immune.

    Troo..

    But that, in NO WAY WHATSOEVER, mitigates, extenuates or excuses the crimes committed by the scumbag..

    To go down that slippery slope would invariably lead you to the *ONLY* conclusion that the 16yr old DESERVED to be raped because she wore a tight skirt and low-cut top..

    And I don't think that's a place **ANY** of us want to go..

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Have you noticed that CW only rarely responds to comments these day? I think he agrees with me.

    In other words, Stig agrees with ME..

    SILENCE GIVES ASSENT

    :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as the Krugman thing goes, as I said.. I think Krugman is being pro-active and preparing a defense for a soon-to-be release from the Press that Krugman had child-porn on his pooter...

    I can't see any reason for releasing this information otherwise..

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    read the CBR article.

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    One mistake that none of the Democrats will admit whether they are in the debate or not is not running a small donor campaign- even if they were actually asked about it which they won't be.

    Of course if the DNC can change the rules to allow Bloomberg to be in the debates they could also change the rules so that only small donor candidates could be in the debates.

    I wonder how long it would take for the candidates to admit they made a mistake by not running a small donor campaign if that were to happen.

    Of course it won't happen because the DNC is controlled by the big money interests and their job at the DNC is to create a false alternative to big money Republicans.

    And the media participates by pretending those are the only choices.

    No one, Wolf Blitzer included, will ask Bernie and/or Warren this question:

    You talk about the average contribution to your campaign being a small contribution.

    But a donor that contributed 50 dollars a week which is a small contribution since you first declared about a year ago that you were running in 2020 would have made an average contribution of 50 dollars but would have given you around 2000 dollars total by now.

    What difference does it make if you take 2000 dollars from one donor in many small contributions or if Joe Biden takes 2000 dollars from one donor in one contribution?

    Just 3% of the citizens that normally vote in presidential election cycles would be around 5 million citizens.

    If a candidate would commit to run a true small donor campaign (not taking more than 200 dollars total from any one donor) that candidate could raise around 500 million dollars by just getting 3% of presidential election cycle voters to contribute 100 dollars to their primary campaign.

    Do you think a candidate making this commitment could get 3% of citizens to contribute an average of 100 dollars and could raise 500 million dollars and if so will you make this commitment for the remainder of the primary campaign and for the general election campaign should you win the nomination?

    If you don't think a candidate making this commitment
    could raise 500 million from 3% of presidential election cycle voters then do we deserve to get the big money out of our political process?

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    read the CBR article.

    Ahhhh

    THanks...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:
  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, Russ … you know me too well. Heh.

    Sadly, the US senate is less than a mere shadow of its former intelligent and deliberate force. Which is why Trump finds it so easy to dismiss

    I would wager that most Republican and a number of Democratic senators today think a debate is what happens every fours in a presidential caucus and primary season and they don't give a damn about their legacies ... or their desks - if you know what I mean and I'm sure that you do!

    But, I still have hope … that a real debate will one day emerge around here again. :)

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    WOW, Liz. I go away for a day and you assume the persona of Michale, eh? :D

    Hmmmm. When will you assume mine and stop incurring the wrath of LizM? Heh, that doesn't even look familiar, anymore!

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    It HAS been a while, eh?? :d

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone here know how to configure a BRIDGE REPEATER using DD-WRT???

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    They do not HAVE to work together, they do not HAVE to interact with each other...why wouldn’t we expect gridlock from them?

    I agree, that - and the other things you mentioned - goes a long way toward explaining what has happened to my favourite body of the US government.

    That reminds of how Biden saw the 2004 presidential and senate election cycle and John Kerry as the Democratic nominee for president … Biden explained why he wasn't running for president in 2004 - circumstances made it seem so obvious to everyone that he would and should.

    Biden explained that he was too busy with the Iraq file and working to deliver Iraq and America out of a military and political disaster which, by the end of 2003, the US war in Iraq had become.

    Of course, the next question that would inevitably come up is would he agree to be Kerry's secretary of state to which Biden would respond, "it depends". Heh. On whether he would assume the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in which case he would decline becoming secretary of state.

    Biden is, was, and always will be a senate man, through and through. He loved his desk!

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senate Democrats begin breaking with Nancy Pelosi on articles of impeachment

    Increasingly impatient Senate Democrats have started speaking out about their desire for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to turn over impeachment articles.

    Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) told Politico that House Democrats “should move on” and send the articles to the Senate.

    “I think [the trial] needs to start, I really do. I can’t tell the House how to do their business. I would never try to tell Speaker Pelosi … Let us do what we have to do over here,” the red-state Democrat told a Washington Post reporter.
    https://nypost.com/2020/01/09/senate-democrats-begin-breaking-with-nancy-pelosi-on-articles-of-impeachment/

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this!!???

    Oh... Wait.. :D

    "Seer of Seers... Prognosticator of prognosticators..."
    -GROUNDHOG DAY

    :D

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS (do we have a real name for you?),

    The site is mostly fine. It' the comment section that's mostly broken. By a few idiots. Just ignore the idiots. It will save you several hours per week and greatly annoy the idiots. Life is short...and getting shorter by the day.

    All of that was worth repeating!

    This site is much better than mostly fine, in my opinion. In fact, it is my favourite place to be to let off a little steam, meet up with a few friends, have a little heated discussion - it happens! Just not nearly enough.

    Chris could work for any newspaper or magazine in the country - or world, for that matter - and provide his analyses to an infinitely wider audience his pieces so richly deserve and still keep this site going ...oh, which reminds - I'll get that in the mail tomorrow, I promise! …

    And, TS, I wholeheartedly agree with that last bit of yours and hope that most who come here will understand that life is decidedly too short to tap out the kind of nonsense that can infect such an excellent site as this with asinine mean-spiritedness. Well, it could use an edit function, as it were. :)

    And, of course, I mostly ignore the nonsense, as you rightly suggest. But, that misses the point of my wrath. I care deeply about this 'site' and it pains me to see it go … well, the way of the US senate. :(

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS (do we have a real name for you?),

    Melvin :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Hats off to Mitch McConnell for playing this very well. We'll take the trial up next week."
    -Senator Lindsey Graham

    Democrats fraked this all up six ways from Sunday....

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Police Officer Paul Dunn
    Lakeland Police Department, Florida
    End of Watch: Thursday, January 9, 2020

    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

  42. [42] 
    TheStig wrote:

    EM-38

    As to my real name, I don't use it due to security concerns. Once you witness internet/telephone/mail or other harassment 2nd hand you don't want to experience it personally. All the random commercial harassment that shows up in my email inbox each morning is more than enough.

    CW has the absolute right to set his comment section policy anyway he wants. I'm sure he gets some useful feedback, and it may boost readership. That said, the trash treasure ratio seems to keep growing. Comment posting can easily become addictive. As far as I can tell, YouTube and Twitter are founded on this principle...it puts asses in the seats and money in the bank. I shut down Twitter after a week and and I never ever read comments on YouTube where 98% of the traffic appears to come from 8-12 yr old boys ....or bots that write exactly like 8-12 yr old boys. I don't think CW reaps an equivalent benefit.

    The old ink stained tradition of curated letters to the editor was a better model. If you got your letter published, it was big deal. This encouraged quality, and discouraged extremism among correspondents who quickly learned they weren't as insightful or amusing as they thought. Persistent offenders would receive a personal letter from the editor saying " Dear Mr. Simpson - I regret to inform you that a mentally disturbed individual seems to be sending us letters under your name....perhaps you should consider taking legal action." On the other hand, editors might fake extremism to chum the waters a bit, but it was high quality chum and generally amusing, if not strictly ethical.

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The comments sections would be worth reading through if there was moderation that would eliminate the riffraff. Then commenters could build up enough trust that their comments would not have to pass through moderation.

    But, I understand that would be a costly and/or time-consuming process to have Chris or an appointee take on that job. It would pay dividends in the end, though ...

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    Have you noticed that CW only rarely responds to comments these day? I think he agrees with me.

    Naw, it's just that an inordinate amount of his time is consumed dealing with persistent car troubles ...

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    As to my real name, I don't use it due to security concerns. Once you witness internet/telephone/mail or other harassment 2nd hand you don't want to experience it personally.

    It's sad that's how it has to be around here.

    Another BIG difference between the Weigantia of days yore and today's HHPTDS Weigantia..

    On the other hand, editors might fake extremism to chum the waters a bit, but it was high quality chum and generally amusing, if not strictly ethical.

    Hi Quality Chum is in the eye of the beholder..

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, I understand that would be a costly and/or time-consuming process to have Chris or an appointee take on that job. It would pay dividends in the end, though ...

    2nd'ed...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    As to my real name, I don't use it due to security concerns.

    So, we'll just call ya Melvin.. Cool?? :D

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I got a plan. It might get us both killed but if it works, it will be a totally boss story. Cool?"
    -Dwayne Johnson, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

    :D

  49. [49] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I've always assumed that bloggers who use "Noms-de-Keyboard" are ashamed of what they write. I've been using my real name for yrs, my name, address and land-line phone number (the only phone I own) have been listed in the local directory for 50-plus yrs, no "security problems." You guys never heard of "sticks and stones", etc.?

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've always assumed that bloggers who use "Noms-de-Keyboard" are ashamed of what they write. I've been using my real name for yrs

    Yea, when Weigantia first started, things were much different than today.. We freely swapped family pictures and stories and videos.. We even made pie in the sky plans to actually get together in real life for picnics and bar-hopping..

    Those were the days when Weigantia was really REALLY fun...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    You guys never heard of "sticks and stones", etc.?

    Sticks and stones have very little to do with the here and now..

    These days it's all about SWAT'ing and cyber-stalking..

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senate Democrats begin breaking with Nancy Pelosi on articles of impeachment

    Sen. Angus King, the Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats, was blunt about Pelosi’s chances of swaying McConnell.

    “I don’t think her holding them puts any particular pressure,” he told NBC News.

    Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), who faces an uphill battle this November in his Senate race, told a CNN reporter that he is “hoping [the articles] will come over here soon. I think most people are ready to get moving on this.”

    Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told Politico he thinks “it is time to get on with it,” but added, “I respect the fact that she is concerned about the fact about whether or not there will be a fair trial.”

    Both Democratic senators from Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, came out in support of Pelosi sending over the articles.

    “I think the time has passed. She should send the articles over,” Murphy told a Washington Post reporter.

    “At some point, it’s appropriate to send them and in effect pass the baton to senators who are going to continue to insist on witnesses and documents,” Blumenthal told Politico.

    “The longer it goes on, the less urgent it becomes,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Politico.

    “So if it’s serious and urgent, send them over. If it isn’t, don’t send it over.”
    https://nypost.com/2020/01/09/senate-democrats-begin-breaking-with-nancy-pelosi-on-articles-of-impeachment/

    Once again, Democrat overreach forces House Dems to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory..

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this!?? :D

    Oh... Wait.. :D

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seriously, people..

    There are a couple people here besides me who saw this coming..

    Don't the rest of ya'all feel embarrassed about your wish-casting and totally ignoring the facts?? :D

  54. [54] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller - [43]

    In lieu of comments moderation, which is a lot of work for a one-man band of a blog, I would wish for a blocking feature akin to the one on Facebook. It would save me a lot of rapid scrolling each afternoon here. But that might not be available on this platform, I suppose.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    GOP senator: ‘Trump’s stock level is at an all-time high’

    A key Republican senator on Wednesday said that respect for President Trump has surged since he ordered the killing of Iran’s top military leader, and he gave credit to the White House and Pentagon for reinvigorating U.S. deterrence power.

    “Trump’s stock value is at an all-time high,” Indiana Republican Sen. Mike Braun told Secrets after attending a high-level administration briefing for all senators.

    “I felt good after listening to the total presentation; it made sense,” he said, adding that the killing of Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani “did restore the deterrence factor that obviously had been lost in the Obama administration.”
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/gop-senator-trumps-stock-level-at-all-time-high

    President Trump is gonna be UNSTOPPABLE in 2020... :D

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    In lieu of comments moderation, which is a lot of work for a one-man band of a blog, I would wish for a blocking feature akin to the one on Facebook. It would save me a lot of rapid scrolling each afternoon here. But that might not be available on this platform, I suppose.

    There is already something like that for those who can't handle the facts and reality..

    But it's a script you have to run on your computer and it opens up your entire data contents to the internet..

    But hay.. Have at it.. Identity Theft is no big deal.. Since those who use it can't handle facts and reality, what's one more strike against ya?? :D

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Those who block are simply cowards who concede they have no logical or rational rebuttal...

    Wear yer badge of cowardice proudly.. :D

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    John,

    In lieu of comments moderation, which is a lot of work for a one-man band of a blog, I would wish for a blocking feature akin to the one on Facebook. It would save me a lot of rapid scrolling each afternoon here. But that might not be available on this platform, I suppose.

    That wouldn't do anything to solve the problem I'm talking about.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bloomberg won’t release women who sued him from secrecy agreements
    Bloomberg was sued several times over the years. Three cases remain open.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bloomberg-wont-release-women-sued-secrecy-agreements/story?id=68171036

    DEMOCRATS FOR BLOOMBERG!!!!

    Because sexual harassment and sexual assault are PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE if it's a Democrat who's doing it..

    :eyeroll:

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There is already something like that for those who can't handle the facts and reality..But it's a script you have to run on your computer and it opens up your entire data contents to the internet..

    Heh.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    The BEST way to get me to leave this forum is to start defeating me in debates..

    But we know THAT will never happen because ya first have to have FACTS to counter my facts.. : D

  62. [62] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I love finding articles that put into words concerns I have tried to express, but could never do the argument the justice that Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig is able to.

    Don’t allow McConnell to swear a false oath

    Before the Senate begins its trial to determine whether the president should be convicted of the charges for which he has been impeached, the jury — the members of the Senate — must be sworn to service. The oath is mandated by the Constitution; its language, set by Senate rules, requires each senator to swear to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.”

    To swear a false oath is perjury — the crime President Bill Clinton was charged with in his impeachment. Yet given the Constitution’s speech or debate clause, a senator likely could not be charged with perjury for swearing falsely on the Senate floor. Instead, it is the Senate itself that must police members’ oaths — as it has in the past.

    Beginning in 1864, and continuing for 20 years, members had to swear an oath affirming their commitment to the Union. Often when it was clear that a member could not swear that oath honestly, he was not permitted to take it. As Massachusetts Sen. Charles Sumner said, “A false oath, taken with our knowledge, would compromise the Senate. We who consent will become parties to the falsehood.”

    Among the senators who will have to take an oath in the trial of President Trump is the majority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Yet McConnell has openly declared that he is “not impartial about this at all.” “Impeachment,” the senator has opined, is a “political process. This [sic] is not anything judicial about it.”

    But however one characterizes the process of impeachment, an oath is an oath. Even a majority leader — like a president — is not privileged to swear an oath falsely. And whereas most politicians are careful to avoid language that expressly declares the opposite of their pledge, McConnell has openly flouted the Constitution’s clear command to “do impartial justice.” If others follow, it would corrupt the Senate’s role in fairly adjudicating the charges.

    Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) has called on McConnell to recuse himself. But the issue is far more serious. The real question is for the chief justice, who presides over the president’s trial: Can he accept an oath that he knows is false? Can he seat a juror who he knows has pledged not to be impartial?

    During the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, this question became a serious issue. Sen. Thomas Hendricks objected to swearing in the Senate’s president pro tempore, Benjamin Wade, because under the rules of succession, if Johnson were convicted, Wade would have become president — casting doubt on Wade’s pledge of impartiality. That objection threw the Senate into a fierce debate until, for reasons unknown, Hendricks withdrew his objection.

    That precedent should matter today. Any senator is privileged to object to any other senator taking an oath. The chief justice would then have to decide whether the oath can be sworn honestly. As there seems no way that McConnell’s oath could be honest, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. should forbid McConnell from taking it. Whether he so rules or not, the decision could be appealed to the Senate as a whole. Should the Senate openly accept a false oath — perjury — in a proceeding to determine the president’s guilt?

    This would not be an easy question for many Republican senators. The strong distinction that they all have drawn between Trump’s case and Clinton’s is perjury: Clinton swore a false oath, and thus had to be impeached. But then how can those same senators accept the perjurious oath of another senator? Is the president forbidden from lying under oath but McConnell not?

    Our cynicism about politicians makes it difficult for many to even see the issue. Whatever senators say, many citizens believe most have made up their minds. But believing that is fundamentally different from accepting an open declaration that a senator will not be impartial. A nation governed by the rule of law cannot accept a plain flouting of the law. Given his words, McConnell cannot honestly be sworn to serve on the president’s jury. Any senator who allows it becomes, in Sumner’s words, a party to that falsehood.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-allow-mcconnell-to-swear-a-false-oath/2020/01/08/78bb70ae-3234-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That oath is why house speaker Pelosi shouldn't let this thing draw out much longer and let it get away from her. But, she knows that.

  64. [64] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The BEST way to get me to leave this forum is to start defeating me in debates..

    That happens all the time and pretty much by everyone here at one time or the other...yet, here you still are. There have been times that you got your ass handed to you so spectacularly that you run away for a week or two to lick your wounds and sulk...but then you slink back an try to act as if nothing happened.

    And honestly, for me at least, it is not that I want you to leave as much as I just wish you were able to go back to being willing/able to debate honestly on here. You’ve always been a contrarian, for the most part, but you were at least willing to concede when presented with indisputable truths. But it has been a long time since that has occurred when it comes to any significant topic.

    But we know THAT will never happen because ya first have to have FACTS to counter my facts.. : D

    THAT cannot happen when “FACTS” is your personal slang for lies that you are going to act as if they are indisputable truths. It would just mean that we are creating lies to counter your lies.

    It is impossible to defeat someone who refuses to acknowledge that facts are only valid if they are based in truth. And honestly, it seems like you stopped being reasonable the moment Trump became the Republican candidate. I remember what you used to be like on here — frustrating as hell, but at least you were based in reality for the most part. But you’ve changed more than anyone who has been here for a while, and definitely not for the better.

    Maybe you’ve gotten worse because you are now stuck trying to defend Trump who changes his story so often that you cannot keep up with him.

    Maybe you’ve just gotten lazy. It’s easier to just tell a lie and stick to it than to have to defend the truth with legitimate points that could stand on their own merits.

    Or maybe Trump has freed you to be your truest self. You definitely seem to relish in the hatred, projectionist tendencies, cruelty, dishonesty and narcissism which Trump has brought upon this country and the world far more gleefully than I thought possible.

    I do not think you support Trump as much as you claim to on here. You just have not shown yourself to be that nasty of a person prior to Trump, and you are too intelligent to believe the flawed arguments that he forces you to defend. I had hoped that you might have gained some wisdom from your brush with your own mortality and recognize that following in image of Trump is just so toxic to your health that you’d come back to reality. I also wished for a pony. Thanks Santa...struck out both times!

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I concur with all of what Russ is saying up there.

    And, I don't think you should leave, Michale, just because you might lose a few debates. I just wish you'd stop making it look like you think we're a bunch of idiots and insulting our intelligence, as it were.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    I love finding articles that put into words concerns I have tried to express, but could never do the argument the justice that Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig is able to.

    The US Constitution allows the US Senate to try impeachments ***AS THE SENATE SEES FIT***

    Democrats have NO SAY...

    Considering how biased and hysterical the House procedure was, Democrats have absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION to bitch how the Senate is doing things..

    That happens all the time and pretty much by everyone here at one time or the other...yet, here you still are.

    For example....????

    And honestly, for me at least, it is not that I want you to leave as much as I just wish you were able to go back to being willing/able to debate honestly on here.

    What you call "debating honestly" is nothing more than parroting your own point of view..

    I won't do that unless you have the factually accurate point of view..

    Which you rarely have..

    You’ve always been a contrarian, for the most part, but you were at least willing to concede when presented with indisputable truths. But it has been a long time since that has occurred when it comes to any significant topic.

    Yer right...

    It HAS been a while since ya'all have been able to provide indisputable FACTS...

    THAT cannot happen when “FACTS” is your personal slang for lies that you are going to act as if they are indisputable truths.

    ANd that's your problem. You care about "truth".. Democrat truth..

    I care only for FACTS..

    I do not think you support Trump as much as you claim to on here.

    No, I don't support President Trump as much as YOU claim I do...

    I have called him out when he was wrong on MANY occasions..

    FAR more often than ya'all called out Odumbo..

    Maybe you’ve gotten worse because you are now stuck trying to defend Trump who changes his story so often that you cannot keep up with him.

    Again, not factually accurate.. I have gotten "worse" because it's undeniably factual that President Trump is kicking Democrat ass all up one side and down the other.

    This latest faux impeachment scandal PROVES that beyond any doubt.

    Hell, even CW agrees that Pelosi's bone head move was not a good play to make..

    I had hoped that you might have gained some wisdom from your brush with your own mortality and recognize that following in image of Trump is just so toxic to your health that you’d come back to reality.

    In other words, you wanted me to adopt YOUR image of President Trump.

    I can NEVER do that because your image of President Trump is based on hate and bigotry and I am a happy-go-lucky kinda guy.. :D

  67. [67] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Lessig’s article makes sense. It is why I could not believe just how far McConnell and Graham had gone in their professions of loyalty to Trump above all else...they disqualified themselves from being jurors or risk facing ethic charges for perjury if they do not recuse themselves!

    Pelosi is definitely in the driver’s seat on this one. We learn more and more about what happened as more documents get released by the courts. It will be much easier to add new articles of impeachment to the existing ones than it would be to attempt to open a new impeachment hearing, so taking it slowly is not a bad thing!

    And McConnell has no one to blame but himself for causing this to happen. Why would Pelosi agree to sending over the charges prior to knowing what the rules for the trial will be after McConnell announced to the world that he was going to abdicate the responsibilities required of him by our Constitution in favor of allowing Trump’s attorney’s to call the shots???

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just wish you'd stop making it look like you think we're a bunch of idiots and insulting our intelligence, as it were.

    Well, considering all the idiotic things on here???? Supporting this faux impeachment coup, claiming that Mueller did NOT exonerate President Trump, supporting Democrats no matter HOW utterly moronic they are acting..

    I mean, I simply call them as I see them..

    Do you recall a commentary where the Democrat Party was taken to task for their bone head moves..

    I don't mean a one off or a MDDOTW award, but a SERIOUS in depth commentary where Democrats were read the riot act as enthusiastically as President Trump is attacked.

    Do you recall such a commentary in the last 3 years???

    Neither do I.... Yet, prior to the onset of HHPTDS, those kinds of commentaries were frequent.. Several times a month, if not at least once a week..

    But since President Trump was elected, we don't see ANY of those..

    Why?? Because HHPTDS demands total and complete subservience and loyalty...

    All I am asking for is a smidgen of balance... All of this TRUMP BAD, DEMOCRATS PERFECT over and over and over again just invites my kinds of comments that insult ya'all's intelligence...

    The problem is, ya'all START your debates from TRUMP IS EVIL TRUMP IS BAD TRUMP IS LUCIFER and then debate from there..

    How awesome would it be if ya started from the point where you concede all ya'all's biases and bigotries may not be factually accurate or called for..

    Let's start from common ground and go from there..

    But if you start from the Far Left, you can't be surprised when ya'all's motives are called into question..

    My superpower is I can see many sides of a given issue... Which ya'all, it's not even a strain to see where ya'all are coming from..

    TRUMP IS EVIL TRUMP IS BAD TRUMP IS LUCIFER

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you recall such a commentary in the last 3 years???

    Yeah, I think I wrote it.

  70. [70] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The US Constitution allows the US Senate to try impeachments ***AS THE SENATE SEES FIT***

    Democrats have NO SAY...

    Sure they do. They have one vote per Senator just as the Republican Senators do. What I cannot believe is that you know that the trial the Republicans are suggesting does not fit the intent that the Founding Fathers had for an impeachment trial and you support it.

    Patriotic Americans put loyalty to the Constitution before loyalty to any individual. So either you truly support corruption, or you are knowingly arguing points you know to be untrue. It seems more likely that you are just being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian...and why you’d do that is anyone’s guess.

    I have called him out when he was wrong on MANY occasions..

    Bullshit! By all means, show us these rare gems of honesty, but I sure cannot find any examples of you disagreeing with Trump’s actions. You might have one or two times said that Trump misspoke, or that you did not understand why he made the comment he made....but you do not contradict Trump and you sure as hell have not called him out on his lies! (And “one or two” does not equate to MANY, sorry)

    I have gotten "worse" because it's undeniably factual that President Trump is kicking Democrat ass all up one side and down the other.

    Who the hell talks like this? Some boneheaded teenager trying to sound tough in front of the cool kids he wants to impress? This is just your way of avoiding having to address the points made that you cannot deny or defend yourself against... and it gives me BINGO on my Michale’s Bullshit Bingo card! Well, this along with your trying to say for some reason that because we didn’t call Obama for something completely unrelated, you should not be expected to do the right thing.

    But back to the point, Trump’s job isn’t to “kick Democrat ass”, he’s the frigging President who was supposed to be working for all Americans — even those that didn’t vote for him and those that do not always agree with him. This is one of the problems with what the GOP has become.... governing is not an “us vs. them” contest where winner takes all! Making concessions isn’t a sign of weakness or disloyalty, it is how people work together to please the greatest amount of people!

    Hell, even CW agrees that Pelosi's bone head move was not a good play to make..

    That’s great, but that’s CW’s opinion and I do not share it. Guess what? That doesn’t mean that he is wrong and I am right, or that I am wrong and he is right! We can disagree! I know in Trumplandia that anyone who disagrees aloud with something Trump does or says is instantly branded a “NEVER TRUMPER”. But just know that it is OK to disagree with someone you support.

    In other words, you wanted me to adopt YOUR image of President Trump.

    I just want you to adopt a realistic image of Trump, it doesn’t have to be identical to mine, but it should be based in reality. But your statements of “Mueller clear Trump of having any ties to Russia” and claiming “it’s OK for Trump to obstruct justice because he is president” make it clear that you do not want reality to play any part of your thinking.

    You know what Trump is doing isn’t right. Your attempts to use “what-about-when-Obama-isms” proves this. You do not claim that Trump is innocent, you argue that we did not get upset when Obama supposedly did the same wrong thing...which makes us hypocrites. You justify accepting Trump doing wrong by accusing us of not holding Obama of the same thing when he did it in the past...as if that makes what they did OK!

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, I think I wrote it.

    Can ya link it? Would love to read it..

  72. [72] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Do you recall a commentary where the Democrat Party was taken to task for their bone head moves..

    Well, if the party, as a whole, decides to make a boneheaded move, I am confident that
    CW will call them out on it. YOU are arguing that because Trump is criticized more harshly and often, that this must be based on unfair treatment of Trump instead of first asking whether the criticisms are justified or not! They are justified, and you know it.

    Do you recall such a commentary in the last 3 years???

    Neither do I.... Yet, prior to the onset of HHPTDS, those kinds of commentaries were frequent.. Several times a month, if not at least once a week..

    It might have to do with the fact that it hasn’t been the Democrats in power over the last three years! I am guessing that it is difficult for CW to write current articles harshly criticizing the Dem’s administration when there is not one available for critique!

    You scream that anyone who points out when Trump says something contradictory to what he said the day/hour/minute/second before is suffering from HHPTDS! Yes, we are always pointing out when he is wrong, and we’d gladly stop if he would!

    This really is not an area of conversation that will be very rewarding for you to continue in, trust me!

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    That’s great, but that’s CW’s opinion and I do not share it.

    And yet, you remained silent..

    Funny how you CLAIM you don't agree with it, yet there are no facts to support that claim..

    You know what Trump is doing isn’t right.

    Actually, I KNOW that what President Trump is doing is EXACTLY what this country needs..

    THAT is why we're having such a great economy..

    The problem is, you suffer from Sore Luserism..

    You can't handle that you lost..

    I have called him out when he was wrong on MANY occasions..

    Bullshit! By all means, show us these rare gems of honesty, but I sure cannot find any examples of you disagreeing with Trump’s actions.

    I have commented several times his bump stock ban was stoopid and ineffective and didn't make ANY American safer..

    I have also opposed his pulling out of Syria and leaving the Kurds to the mercy of the Russians..

    Those are but two example which required 5 seconds of thought.. I am sure I can find TONS more examples..

    But, since you never admit you're wrong, what would be the point??

    Sure they do.

    Nope, they don't. House Democrats have NO SAY in Senate impeachment proceedings..

    Liz,

    You see?? This is EXACTLY what I am talking about.. These Trump/America haters have ***ZERO*** grasp of reality..

    It's like when Victoria (Kick) argued with me about the GOP being totally in control of Senate impeachment proceedings..

    She was completely and utterly wrong and she could not admit..

    Weigantia of 12 years ago did not have that problem...

    Back to you, Russ...


    I just want you to adopt a realistic image of Trump,

    I do have a realistic image of President Trump.. A flawed, egotistical, narcissistic human being who has done some really great things for this country..

    Once again, you accuse me of something that YOU are guilty of..

    You are the one who doesn't have a realistic image of President Trump.

    YOUR image is of a man who simply cannot do a single thing right...

    And THAT is simply your hate and bigotry talking..

    You do not claim that Trump is innocent,

    I don't have to.. I already know it for a fact...

    you argue that we did not get upset when Obama supposedly did the same wrong thing...which makes us hypocrites.

    Exactly.. I see no need to defend President Trump because he is doing the best thing for this country.. Usually..

    So, given that, the only thing to comment on is ya'all's hypocrisy.. How you attack President Trump for things that you actively applauded in Obama...

    That further reduces your argument as valid because your ENTIRE argument is SOLELY based on the -D/-R after the person's name..

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, if the party, as a whole, decides to make a boneheaded move, I am confident that
    CW will call them out on it.

    And yet, there have been PLENTY of examples of just that..

    The Party's reaction to Sillyman's assassination is a PERFECT example...

    Even JL acknowledges it was a brilliant move.

    And Dumbocrats rail and cry against the killing..

    Weigantia, circa 2007 or 2008 would have bitch-slapped the HELL out of the Democrat Party for their utterly tone deaf opposition of the Sillyman assassination...

    But HHPTDS infused Weigantia totally ignores the utter debacle that is the Democrat Party response..

    Let's be clear.. I am not advocating that CW adopt a topic he has never discussed... I am not asking CW to take a position he has never taken..

    I am simply asking to forgo the irrational and hysterical President Trump hatred and restore this forum as a ***REALITY*** based forum...

    Ragging on President Trump for "coffeve" or the like is ***NOT*** reality based..

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Florida security guard charged with threatening to kill Trump in retaliation for Soleimani
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-security-guard-charged-threatening-trump-retaliation-soleimani

    Where's the condemnation from the Left Wingery???

    {{{cccchhhiiirrrrrppppppp}}}, {{ccccccchhhhhiiiirrrrrppppp}}

    THAT is today's Democrat Party..

    They support a scumbag terrorist who has killed and maimed THOUSANDS of Americans against the FREELY, FAIRLY, LEGALLY, DEMOCRATICALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY elected President Of the United States..

    And you have the temerity to tall me that YA'ALL are the "rational" ones???

    On what planet!?

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    In symbolic rebuke, House votes to limit Trump's military action against Iran
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-passes-war-powers-resolution-in-rebuke-of-trumps-actions-against-iran

    Here's a perfect example..

    When a GOP congress tried to limit a Democrat President's military authority, Weigantia of yore rose up and condemned the action..

    How much do you want to bet that HHPTDS Weigantia will fully support this action of limiting the President's military authority..

    You see why the -D/-R is so important in ***ALL*** of ya'all's arguments??

    It's the BASIS for practically EVERY ONE of ya'all's arguments...

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Can ya link it? Would love to read it..

    You couldn't have missed it, Michale. It was a multi-part, non-brief comment here analyzing the campaign of the 2016 Democratic nominee for president, circa 2016.

  78. [78] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CRS-49

    Why would you assume that?

    The Federalist Papers were published under assumed names. Were Madison, Hamilton and Jay ashamed of what they wrote? Jane Austin, the Bronte sisters and Walter Scott preferred to remain anonymous authors too. All these folks are pretty highly regarded in the literary world. Still in print! Galileo published scientific works under the cover of Lothario Sarsio Sigensano. Malthus (who you claim to have read) also published anonymously.

    You should be ashamed at putting your name to such a flimsy assumption. Lack of shame hasn't stopped you in the past, and probably won't in future.

  79. [79] 
    TheStig wrote:

    All-

    Amazon Prime is streaming the 1981 BBC video of Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy! Many of the effects are cheesy, but it's still a hoot and much better than the 2005 movie. The movie makes some startlingly accurate predictions....although THE BOOK is much larger than a smart phone and has terrible graphics by 2020 standards. Actually, terrible by 1990 standards! Richard Veron is still the definitive Slartibartfast. Watch quickly or you will late. Like my vinyl recording of the BBC Radio play, which just may be the best non-print version ever attempted.

  80. [80] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    That’s great, but that’s CW’s opinion and I do not share it.

    And yet, you remained silent..

    Funny how you CLAIM you don't agree with it, yet there are no facts to support that claim..

    Except for me stating —

    That’s great, but that’s CW’s opinion and I do not share it.

    Did you have a stroke? Suffering from dementia?

    And I do not feel the need to express every time I disagree with someone here. God, for you alone I would be here 24/7!

    I have also opposed his pulling out of Syria and leaving the Kurds to the mercy of the Russians..

    Funny, you never mentioned that opposition on 10/7/19. All of your posts regarding the Kurds were you deflecting that no one was upset when Obama stabbed them in the back. Only difference was that the Kurds had warning to when Obama’s decision was implemented...Trump gave them NO time to prepare and lives were lost!

    I don’t doubt your claim that you thought that Trump was wrong to abandon the Kurds the way that he did. I say this not based on you saying those words in any of your posts...because you never said those words! No, you spent every post attacking everyone for not caring when Obama did this to the Kurds...so thanks for verifying my hypothesis on the reasons for your deflections. But the point is, you can say that you disagreed with Trump regarding the Kurds now, but you never said it before now!

Comments for this article are closed.