ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- The Madman Theory, Personified

[ Posted Friday, January 10th, 2020 – 18:29 UTC ]

Well we made it to the end of the week without a major new war breaking out in the Middle East. At this point, that's about as good as it gets with Donald Trump in charge.

We've said it before and we're sure we'll have to say it again before the year's out, but President Trump is the personification of what Richard Nixon used to call the "Madman Theory" of foreign policy. Back then, it was a bluff -- if Nixon acted crazy enough, then perhaps the North Vietnamese would think he was so crazy he might just drop a nuclear bomb on them. This would tend to restrain them more than if they were sure he wouldn't.

Now, however, it is no bluff. Trump actually is a madman with no idea what he's getting into at any given time, on any given subject. This obviously weighed on the minds of the Iranians, who actually chose to take a measured approach to reacting, by lobbing some missiles at a few military bases in Iraq that housed American soldiers. Rather astonishingly, nobody was hurt or killed (they were all reportedly safe in bunkers for hours before the attacks happened), and even more astonishingly, Trump refused to retaliate further. Thus both countries backed away from the brink of all-out war. In this particular instance, the Madman Theory worked.

Next time, of course, we might not be so lucky. And nobody really knows if this is the end of the Iranian response to us assassinating their top military leader -- there could be much more covert or third-party attacks to come, either on the battlefields of the Middle East or much closer to home. So while we're all breathing a rather large sigh of relief right now, there may be another shoe to drop at some point further on.

The Trump administration has been far less successful explaining (read: "making up after the fact") any rationale for the initial assassination, other than: "Trump thought it was a good idea at the time." Trump's mouthpieces all adamantly insist that there was an "imminent" attack planned, and Trump pushed the envelope even further by stating that an attack (or possibly multiple attacks) would be targeting U.S. embassies. At this point, however, precisely zero people are giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, because he doesn't have a shred of credibility left after lying to the American public over 15,000 times in three short years. A recent analysis of one of Trump's rallies showed that a full two-thirds of his claims were lies, in fact, meaning the sheer volume of such falsehoods can be expected to increase, from now right up to Election Day. To explain his actions towards Iran to the American public, Trump gave one of those TelePrompTer speeches where he struggled to pronounce polysyllabic words, and even though it was short, he managed to squeeze in several out-and-out lies, just to make himself feel better.

During the week, Trump added to this record by tweeting out a threat that if the Iranians retaliated for the assassination, he would then target their cultural sites -- which would be a war crime. The Pentagon and other Trump aides had to then admit that they would never actually do such a thing -- meaning that Trump might have been on the brink of giving the Pentagon illegal orders which they would then have to refuse to follow.

This is where we're at, folks: the leaders of Iran are both more believable and more restrained than the U.S. president. Mostly because everyone remembers the movie Wag The Dog, and it's pretty obvious that Trump wants to shove the impending impeachment trial in the Senate off the front page by any means necessary.

Of course, while all-out war didn't actually happen, that fact didn't stop the all-out warmongering coming from Trump's minions. We were told that anyone (read: Democrats) who wasn't cheering Trump's actions wholeheartedly was "mourning" the death of the Iranian military leader, or just flat out "in love with terrorists." Those are actual quotes, the first from Nikki Haley (who was supposed to be a lot more of an adult than this) and the second from Representative Doug Collins, who stated in an interview that Democrats were "in love with terrorists, we see that they mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our gold star families." Apparently he has forgotten how Trump himself treats Gold Star families (which he was then brutally reminded of on Twitter). He later was forced to apologize for saying such a disgusting thing, but the damage was already done. All of this despite the fact that precisely zero Democrats either "mourned" the death of Soleimani or were "in love with terrorists." Trump, on the other hand, mocks the death of American politicians who spent years as prisoners of war and says he and ruthless dictator Kim Jong Un are "in love." Sometimes the irony is overwhelming, in other words.

Speaking of irony, let's take stock of how things stand after the tit-for-tat belligerence with Iran. When Donald Trump took office, Iran was slowly rejoining the international community and had made good on every promise it had made in the agreement to curtail its nuclear progress. Inspectors were allowed full access, and even the Pentagon was satisfied that Iran was making good on its promises. Trump then tore up the agreement, using the Republican rationale that "the agreement will end after 10-25 years, and then they'll be able to rush towards making a nuclear bomb!" You know, 10 or 25 years down the road. That was the fear.

Now, of course, Iran is free to rush to build a nuclear bomb right now. This is somehow supposed to be better than the agreement they were adhering to, according to Trump apologists. As for Iran's other activities in the Middle East, before we assassinated their top military leader, they were all over the place in Iraq and Syria. After the past two weeks, they will still be all over the place in Iraq and Syria -- but we may not be, soon. The Iraqis are still understandably upset that we launched missiles at cars leaving the Baghdad airport, and now they are demanding we begin a hasty exit from their country. It's hard to see this as anything but a loss for the American military, who may be forced out of Iraq, and anything but a win for the Iranian military, who will still be in Iraq after we leave -- and indeed, will likely get even stronger without us there to constrain them. It's tough to see how any of this puts us in a better position, but that's what the Trump apologists sincerely believe (somehow).

In actual fact, the Trump administration is having a tough time explaining things to either the public or to the members of Congress who are (theoretically, at least) supposed to hold the power to declare wars. Trump's team gave a briefing to members of Congress which didn't reveal much of anything that hadn't already been printed in the newspapers. Senator Mike Lee, usually a strong supporter of Trump, called it "probably the worst briefing I've seen at least on a military issue in the nine years I've served in the United States Senate." He then clarified how terrible the briefing actually was:

Lee said the message from the administration officials was that lawmakers need to be "good little boys and girls and run along and not debate this in public" — an instruction he described as "insane."

"With history as our guide, consultation isn't necessarily the same thing as authorization of the use of military force.... Drive-by notification or after-the-fact, lame briefings like the one we just received aren't adequate," Lee said.

He also said he was left "somewhat unsatisfied" on the level of information shared with regard to the legal justification behind the attack on Soleimani.

He said the briefing has influenced him to back a war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), pending some minor amendments.

"It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch... to come and tell us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran," Lee said.

"It's un-American, it's unconstitutional, and it's wrong."

He also stated: "One of the messages that we received from the briefers was: Do not debate, do not discuss the issue of appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran. And that if you do, you'll be emboldening Iran," meaning the administration's efforts to paint anyone disagreeing with them as the enemy isn't limited only to Democrats. In a later interview, Lee specified what really shocked him during the briefing:

As I recall, one of my colleagues asked a hypothetical involving the Supreme Leader of Iran: If at that point, the United States government decided that it wanted to undertake a strike against him personally, recognizing that he would be a threat to the United States, would that require authorization for the use of military force? The fact that there was nothing but a refusal to answer that question was perhaps the most deeply upsetting thing to me in that meeting.

Got that? Trump can kill the leader of a foreign country that we are not currently at war with any time he feels like it, and he doesn't feel the need to obtain authorization from Congress to do so. That should make us all sleep sounder at night, right?

What with all the dog-wagging going on this week, it was easy to lose sight of the fact that Donald Trump is awaiting his impeachment trial in the Senate (only the third one ever), and that there's a real race among Democrats heading into Iowa and New Hampshire. Although the field continues to shrink, there are still 13 Democrats running to replace Trump, and the next debate is scheduled for early next week. Julián Castro bowed out and then immediately endorsed Elizabeth Warren, and just today Marianne Williamson admitted the reality that her campaign was going nowhere fast and headed for the exit as well.

Surprisingly, there will actually be six Democrats on the debate stage next week. This is surprising because everyone expected just five, but the money that Tom Steyer has been sinking into advertising appears to have paid off, as he got just enough polling support to qualify (tonight at midnight is the deadline for such polls). So he'll be there, although Michael Bloomberg will not. Bloomberg made a few jaws drop this week by announcing he's spending $10 million on a 60-second Super Bowl ad -- something that is just beyond the budget of any other Democrat at this point. Donald Trump quickly announced a few hours later that he also would be ponying up ten million for his own ad, so we've all got both of those to look forward to during the game.

On the impeachment front, Nancy Pelosi has made her point and appears to be almost ready to send over the articles of impeachment to the Senate. The trial is tentatively scheduled to begin next Wednesday, although this could always change. This will mean the Senate will be in session six days a week, which is going to seriously impact the five senators still in the Democratic race (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Michael Bennet). You can't be in two places at once, of course, so they'll all be stuck in Washington while Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and all the rest will be in the midst of their last-minute push in Iowa (and, if the trial goes on long enough, New Hampshire). This was always unavoidable, but the scheduling may impact how the senatorial candidates do in the earliest races.

The biggest news on the impeachment front this week came from John Bolton, who now says he'll be willing to testify if the Senate sends him a subpoena. Whether they're going to do so or not is a very open question, though, meaning it may be up to the House committees to take him up on the offer instead. Bolton's testimony could wind up being crucial, or it could never happen -- we'll have to wait and see how it plays out.

And we'll end our roundup with some good news, because Virginia Democrats are about to hand a huge political gift to all Democrats running for office everywhere. Because the legislature is now Democratic, they plan on holding a vote on the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment in the next few weeks. They're going to ratify it -- they've already got the votes. Importantly, by doing so, they'll become the 38th state to do so -- which should fulfill the three-fourths requirement for amendments to be adopted into the U.S. Constitution. However, it's not that simple this time around. There are two big legal fights which will take place over the E.R.A., one of which has already begun. When Congress approved the amendment decades ago, they set a time limit for ratification. The deadline came and went, and the amendment didn't have the required three-fourths of the states' approval. The deadline was then extended, but once again they didn't cross the finish line. But the deadlines were never part of the amendment's text, they were just a sort of rider that Congress attached. So are such deadlines constitutional? That's the heart of the first big legal challenge.

The second one also raises a constitutional question never before faced: can a state "un-ratify" an amendment after they've already ratified it? Several states have done so in the intervening years. So does the proposed amendment really have three-fourths of the states behind it or not? This argument hasn't been made yet, but it doubtlessly will be at some point along the way. Both of these issues seem ripe for the Supreme Court to tackle, but that will take a while.

In the meantime, the issue will be a huge political wedge between the parties. Democrats everywhere can campaign on their wholehearted support for the Equal Rights Amendment, while Republicans are going to have to struggle to explain why they're against it. Some of them are already suing in court to block it, so this isn't some theoretical position. They'll try to claim all sorts of nonsense when attempting to explain their opposition to the E.R.A., but all Democrats have to do to counter it is point to the text of the amendment itself, because it is so short. Here is the entirety of the Equal Rights Amendment: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." That's it. That's all it says.

This, obviously, is going to be a big political winner for Democrats among women (and fair-minded men, for that matter). Especially those key suburban voters, who are going to be mystified as to why the Republican Party -- in this day and age -- is against ensuring equality for everyone's daughters and mothers. Being against such a simple and fair idea ain't going to play well in Peoria, we'd be willing to bet. And with the courts dragging things out, this battle is going to be ongoing for the entire election year. As we said, a huge gift from the Virginia Democrats to every other Democrat running for any office anywhere.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We missed it last week, so we have to give retroactive recognition to the lieutenant governor of Illinois, who not only supported making recreational marijuana legal but actually stood first in line to buy some on the first day of legal sales. Nice! Never in our wildest dreams would such a thing have even been conceivable 20 or 30 years ago, but now it was essentially a non-story outside of the state. We've come a long way, in other words.

But this week our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week goes to Senator Tammy Duckworth, also from Illinois. She responded to Trump's actions this week in the most scathing way possible, pointing out his failings and idiocies in excruciating detail. Here is the best part of what she had to say:

"Iran didn't want Trump to kill Soleimani," [Senator Duckworth] said. "But they were hungry for all that has happened as a result. They were starving to go on the offensive. Desperate to change the narrative, to swing public opinion and solidify their power in Iraq. To have a new excuse to attack anyone with an American flag on their shoulder, and to shrug off the restraints of the nuclear deal."

She continued: "Like a pawn in a game of chess he didn't even seem to know he was playing, Trump was baited into handing them all of that. Like a child who is blind to consequences, ignorant of his own ignorance, he's given Iran everything they could have asked for in the end, making it far more likely that tomorrow, or next week, or next month, more Americans will be sent into another one of the forever wars he's bragged he, and he alone, would be able to end."

She argued that the Trump Doctrine is that the president "gets manipulated again and again by hostile regimes."

"We've seen it played out on the streets of Venezuela and the deserts of northeast Syria. We've seen him get manipulated by tyrants in Pyongyang and Riyadh, subjugated by despots in Moscow and Ankara, as our allies laughed -- literally laughed! -- at him behind his back," she continued. "The president of the United States is as easy to control as a toddler.... My diaper-wearing 20-month old daughter has better impulse control than this president."

Tell us how you really feel, Senator!

Seriously, though, we heard plenty of denunciations of Trump and his shortsightedness this week, but nothing even came close to the takedown Duckworth served up. On the strength of this interview alone, Tammy Duckworth was the easy choice for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Senator Tammy Duckworth on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Perhaps this one is just a wee bit personal, since she's our senator and all. Sigh.

Nancy Pelosi delayed the start of the Senate's impeachment trial by at least a week, by continuing to refuse to send over the actual articles of impeachment to Mitch McConnell. By doing so, she focused attention on the fact that McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate just want to make the whole thing go away rather than conduct an actual trial with actual witnesses and actual evidence. Pelosi never really had that much leverage to begin with, and this week a few Senate Democrats began pointing this out in frustration. By the end of the week, Pelosi was signaling that she's almost ready to send the articles over, which is now expected to happen early next week.

Now, there's a way to politely disagree with Pelosi, as Senator Chris Coons showed everyone: "I respect the fact that [Pelosi] is concerned about the fact about whether or not there will be a fair trial. But I do think it is time to get on with it."

You'll notice that he doesn't stoop to using Republican talking points to register his disagreement and frustration with Pelosi. However, there's another way to do this, what we would term "the wrong way." That is to use Republican talking points as your main thesis, as Senator Dianne Feinstein did: "The longer it goes on the less urgent it becomes. So if it's serious and urgent, send them over. If it isn't, don't send it over."

It comes as no surprise to us that Feinstein sounds an awful lot like a Republican here, because we've heard her do exactly the same thing so many times in the past. For showing other Democrats how not to respectfully disagree with Pelosi in an effort (that did work, we have to admit) to get your own name and face in the news, Dianne Feinstein is this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. We fervently hope that this will be DiFi's last term and that she'll step down and make way for a younger and much better senator from the great state of California. One can certainly hope.

[Contact Senator Dianne Feinstein on her Senate contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 556 (1/10/20)

We're still a little rusty in the talking points department after the holidays, so these are kind of all over the map this week. There are some serious points made, and then there's a quote from Homer Simpson. Hey, it's been that kind of week.

 

1
   Who is better off?

This should be obvious, but many are missing the big picture.

"So let's see... after the past two weeks, who exactly is better off as a result? Well, we killed the head of Iran's Quds Force, and nobody can argue against the fact that the world is a better place without him in it. However, he will be replaced -- it's not like we wiped out the entire Quds Force or anything. The government of Iraq is now insisting that all American troops pull out of their country, which is going to mean that Iran will have a free hand to gain even more influence there as a direct result. That's got to be chalked up as a big win for them. And all of this came to be because Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, which would have kept them from working on a nuclear bomb for more than a decade. Now, they are restarting this work as we speak -- that's now, not in 20 or 25 years' time. So Iran's influence and military are getting stronger, and our influence is getting a lot weaker. How is this a win for us, exactly? I'd really like someone to explain that, because I just don't see it."

 

2
   Has Executive Order 11905 been rescinded?

This is a rather important question that nobody in the media seems capable of asking right now, for some strange reason.

"I would like the Trump White House to answer a very simple question: has Executive Order 11905 been rescinded? This was the order signed by President Gerald Ford back in the 1970s which bans political assassination by the United States. This week, however, a Trump official briefing Congress couldn't answer a hypothetical question about whether they should get congressional approval before assassinating the political leader of Iran. The answer to that should have been 'such assassinations are illegal,' but somehow that's not what was said. So I'd like to know if this is now official U.S. policy. Presidents can always sign new executive orders, so would someone please ask Donald Trump if he has done so to overturn Executive Order 11905? Because I think the public really deserves a clear answer to that question."

 

3
   Commander Cuckoo-Bananas

The following was uttered by Homer Simpson, a while back. He was warning Bart what would happen if he got kicked out of school, and although he was speaking about George W. Bush at the time, the following quote got a lot of attention this week, for obvious reasons. So to all the boys and girls, you need to be good not just for Santa but for the following reason:

And if you get kicked out of that (school), you're going straight in the army, where you'll be sent straight to America's latest military quagmire. Where will it be? North Korea? Iran? Anything's possible with Commander Cuckoo-Bananas in charge.

 

4
   I want YOU (but not ME, of course)

We really should have given this an Honorable Mention back in the awards section, but we wanted to save it for here. Some pranksters made up a new Army recruiting poster updated for our illustrious first family. It has an image not of Uncle Sam, but of Donald Trump Junior. Next to him is the inspiring slogan:

I'm not enlisting, but you should!

It gets even better in the smaller print. Below the main slogan is the tagline:

There's weak, and then there's Trump weak.

These posters are now available online, should anyone (hint, hint) wish to print one out and post it up near their local recruiting station.

 

5
   What law would that be?

Donald Trump, when he was forced to walk back his threat to commit war crimes by targeting Iranian cultural sites, was pretty petulant. He kept trying to make the case that he really should have the freedom to bomb any mosques he would like. But eventually he had to state that he would indeed obey the laws of war which prohibit such atrocities, to which he added: "...if that's what the law is, I like to obey the law." On the internet, hilarity ensued. HuffPost has a list of the funniest of these, but we thought one in particular was worth repeating as a Democratic talking point:

"Donald Trump said, after someone explained to him that targeting cultural sites would be a war crime, that he 'likes to obey the law.' Really? That's news to me. As one waggish commenter put it: 'Which law? Name one.'"

 

6
   Bring it on!

As mentioned previously, this one is going to pay rather large political dividends.

"Democrats in Virginia are on the brink of ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment, which would make them the 38th state to do so. Normally, that would mean it would then become part of the Constitution, but Republicans are fighting this outcome as hard as they can. I have no idea why, because ensuring equal rights based on sex should be about as non-controversial as you can get in the year 2020. What's the problem with doing so, after all? I have no real idea. But Republicans are out there manning the barricades to prevent it from happening. I'd like every woman voter out there to ask any Republican running to represent them in any governmental office whether they support the E.R.A. or not. The entire amendment is only twenty-four words long, so I'd invite all the Republicans who oppose it to explain exactly which word or words they disagree with. On the 100th anniversary of women gaining the right to vote, I think any candidate for public office ought to support ensuring women equal rights in this country, and for the life of me I cannot see why anyone would disagree."

 

7
   Trump's Nobel envy

And finally, some snark to close on, just because.

"Donald Trump really really really wants his own Nobel Peace Prize. Just this week, he tried to take partial credit for the Nobel prize given to the leader of Ethiopia. Trump bizarrely stated: 'I made a deal, I saved a country, and I just heard that the head of that country is now getting the Nobel Peace Prize for saving the country. I said, "What, did I have something do with it?"' The answer to that question is a resounding 'NO!' Ethiopia reached a peace deal with Eritrea, which was why the Nobel was given. Trump had absolutely nothing to do with this peace deal being reached in any way, shape, or form. Instead, Trump confused another negotiation, between Ethiopia and Egypt over a dam, with the peace deal. It's downright pathetic watching Trump go green with envy each and every time the Nobel committee laughs at his efforts to win the peace prize. Donald Trump has an acute case of Nobel envy, and it's just sad to see."

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

103 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- The Madman Theory, Personified”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris, I've been thinking lately, about why and when I first came here; about how I hated the term talking points because it meant to me a lack of real knowledge and how I came to understand that talking points could facilitate a narrative about the truth of the matter. Which has, since I first came here, become more an imperative that ever before in this anti-fact, post-truth era in which we live.

    Now, I love FTP columns! I love them even when you bash Biden ... ahem, on occasion.

    Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for all of your hard work and precious time spent on these important weekly columns and all of your other pieces. I think you may hold the record for a running series on the internet(s). I think it may actually be a toss up between FTP and OPW. Heh. In any event, you deserve to be rewarded.

    Thanks again for all you do!

  2. [2] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I think Trump killing Soleimani is a splendid addition to Trump's, er, Nobel Peace Prize Resume, Amirite?

  3. [3] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    WH Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley tweeted,

    "When Obama killed bin Laden, al-Awlaki and Gaddafi, without Congressional approval, there were NO 'imminent attacks' and Democrats did not ask or care."

    Oh, I get it! Obama killing Osama bin Ladin etc after they declared war on us and killed almost 3,000 Americans is bad.

    But Trump killing the Iranian equivalent to our Norman Schwarzkopf and leading us to the brink of war is somehow good?

    I think there is a Trump Derangement Syndrome but it is not us Democrats who have it.

  4. [4] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    (In the belated spirit of the holidays)

    Yes, Virginia, there is a Trump Derangement Syndrome. And it's the people wearing red hats who have it.

    Somebody...Stop me!

  5. [5] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It's not really Nobel envy, it's Obama envy. Donald really has a bug up his bottom about Barry getting the Nobel peace prize. Or Barry getting credit for anything at all. Not sure why he seems to care so much.

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I've also been musing about whether Pelosi stalling the impeachment articles is actually a little dog-wagging of her own, as an impeachment trial now will drag the two leading liberals out of Iowa while the two leading moderates remain.

  7. [7] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [6]

    Good point, nypoet22!

    While Nancy is on the Liberal side as Democrats go, I've never gotten the impression that Nancy was in the Sanders/Warren camp. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if Nancy pulls a let's screw the true Progressives ala 2016. Smh

  8. [8] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [5]

    I think that it's at least two reasons:

    (1) The Trump Doctrine, do the opposite of Obama/undo his legacy, is revenge for Barry's completely embarrassing Trump at the WH Correspondents Dinner a few years back.

    (2) While Trump is truly our fake President his political instincts told him that this course of action would please (to no end) GOP voters.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    From the previous commentary..

    Russ,

    Joe Biden would have no problem passing the background check...

    Of course you think that..

    And, of course, the facts prove you wrong...

    Just think of all the gaffes that Biden has committed in his 3rd run for the presidency..

    After decades in politics you can bet that Joe has some skeletons in his closets and knows where a LOT of the bodies are buried..

    Put another way.. If you subject Biden to the same in-depth witch hunt style of background check that you would want for President Trump??

    You can bet you would find a lot of those skeletons and bodies..

    Trump would never have been on a ballot if he would have been required to submit to one.

    That's an opinion unsupported by facts.

    "Speculation. I move that it be stricken from the record."
    -Colonel Chang, STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country

    Ohhhh.. is the thought of having background checks run on you bringing up some sad memories? Like how police officers can’t have a record like yours and still be in law enforcement?

    Always have to go with the personal bullshit attacks, don't you Russ... I accept your concession... :eyeroll:

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've also been musing about whether Pelosi stalling the impeachment articles is actually a little dog-wagging of her own, as an impeachment trial now will drag the two leading liberals out of Iowa while the two leading moderates remain.

    Funny.. I think someone has been saying that for months now.. :D

    I am flattered to see such high level confirmation.. :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    I think Trump killing Soleimani is a splendid addition to Trump's, er, Nobel Peace Prize Resume, Amirite?

    You mean, as opposed to Odumbo who has the distinct {dis}honor of having launched the most cruise missiles and kill the most innocent people of any Nobel Peace Prize recipient in history..

    It's really funny watching how ya'all ignore the facts and reality in pursuit of your Party agenda.... :D

  12. [12] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While I agree with the purpose of the ERA, I don't see how the amendment will accomplish anything or that it even clearly says what people think it says.

    It starts out okay- but what the fuck does "...on account of sex" mean?

    Does it mean your physical gender? Does it mean the gender you consider yourself? Does it have nothing to do with gender? Does it cover sexual orientation? Does it allow for discrimination against virgins and those that are celibate or incapable of having sex?

    How did such an unclear amendment get passed and ratified at all?

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    (1) The Trump Doctrine, do the opposite of Obama/undo his legacy, is revenge for Barry's completely embarrassing Trump at the WH Correspondents Dinner a few years back.

    Yep.. I pointed that out myself a couple weeks ago.. :D

    So yer in good company, MC...

    (2) While Trump is truly our fake President his political instincts told him that this course of action would please (to no end) GOP voters.

    So, your in the crowd who thinks that President Trump is not the legitimately elected POTUS??

    What, EXACTLY, makes him not legitimate??

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, I get it! Obama killing Osama bin Ladin etc after they declared war on us and killed almost 3,000 Americans is bad.

    No, that's not what is being said.

    What's being asked is why Democrats oppose President Trump for killing the scumbag Sillyman, when they supported Odumbo in HIS killing of terrorist scumbags??

    It's a very good question..

    Do you have any answer??

    I think there is a Trump Derangement Syndrome but it is not us Democrats who have it.

    Whatever you have to tell yerself to make it thru yer day.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL<

    It's not really Nobel envy, it's Obama envy. Donald really has a bug up his bottom about Barry getting the Nobel peace prize. Or Barry getting credit for anything at all. Not sure why he seems to care so much.

    You mean, as opposed to your fellow Weigantians & Democrats who have a "bug up their bottom" about giving President Trump credit for anything??

    No matter HOW you slice it or spin it, killing Sillyman was a GOOD thing..

    But you are the only one of your peers who can rise above the petty Party loyalty and give credit where credit is due..

    Once again.. Republicans are accused of things that Democrats are undeniably guilty of..

    I am sensing a pattern here :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mark 'Oz' Geist: Trump's decisive leadership would have saved my Benghazi team
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mark-geist-trump-decisive-leadership-would-have-saved-benghazi-team

    It took Odumbo 13 hours to send help to Benghazi...

    It took President Trump 13 minutes to dispatch a QRF to Iraq....

    The latter is a leader..

    The former is a schmuck...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi caves

    More than three weeks after the House passed articles of impeachment against President Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to start the process of appointing managers and sending the articles to the Senate for trial. In a letter to colleagues Friday, Pelosi did not say precisely when that will happen, but it appears it will be sometime next week.

    The speaker got nothing in return for her decision to end the holdout. Back on Dec. 18, the night the House impeached the president, Pelosi said she would not send the articles until she received some assurance that the Senate trial would be "fair."
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/pelosi-caves

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this!??

    Oh... Wait.. :D

    Pelosi hands President Trump a huge win on a silver platter.. :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Column: ‘Richard Jewell,’ Nicholas Sandmann and the media mob
    https://outline.com/mcRW9Y

    Left Wingers are simply filled with hate..

    They have no shame or decency..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    The telling tale of Glacier National Park’s ‘gone by 2020’ signs
    https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/the-telling-tale-of-glacier-national-parks-gone-by-2020-signs/

    ATTENTION AMERICANS
    THE SCHEDULED END OF THE WORLD DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING HAS BEEN CANCELLED...

    THAT IS ALL

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Never put a time limit on your doomsday predictions.

    This rookie error has been the undoing of charlatans, cultists and false prophets through the ages, from Martin of Tours, who predicted that the world would end by 400, to Harold Camping, who claimed it would happen on Sept. 6, 1994.

    The latest poor saps to join the oops club are the authorities in charge of Montana’s Glacier National Park. For years they’ve been warning on their visitor signs that their main attraction, the glaciers, would be “gone by 2020.” Instead, it’s those misleading signs that have had to go, because 2020 has now arrived and those pesky glaciers, all 29 of them, remain stubbornly unmelted by climate change.

    You can tell that the National Park Service is secretly embarrassed because it has been trying to replace the signs by stealth. It began doing so last year but was rumbled by a visitor, Roger Roots, who reported the skullduggery at the website Watts Up With That?

    Glacier National Park recently confirmed the changes to CNN but is maintaining a defiant public face. Its signs will now say: “When they [the glaciers] will completely disappear depends on how and when we act. One thing is consistent: The glaciers in the park are shrinking.”

    But in truth the new signs are no more accurate than the old ones. First, some of the glaciers have expanded, not shrunk, in the last decade.

    Lemme know if ya'all need help washing off that egg that is all over ya'all's faces.. :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Chris, I've been thinking lately, about why and when I first came here; about how I hated the term talking points because it meant to me a lack of real knowledge and how I came to understand that talking points could facilitate a narrative about the truth of the matter. Which has, since I first came here, become more an imperative that ever before in this anti-fact, post-truth era in which we live.

    Now, I love FTP columns!

    I agree.. The Democrats in Weigantia used to snort derisively at "Talking Points"..

    Now that Talking Points are part and parcel to their agenda, now they love Talking Points.. :D

    Thanx to CW :D

    Now pardon me while I rub this brown stuff off my nose.. :D

  22. [22] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I visited Glacier N.P. as a teen in the 1950's. I recall the signs at the visitor's overlooks mentioning that most of their glaciers had been receeding slowly most every year since the first white men ever saw them, which was decades before automobiles and large-scale coal mining ever existed, which would indicate that global warmin/global cooling has been going on far longer than humans have been capable of influencing climate.

    I do not recall any of the signs forecasting when the glacieers would disappear. That must have happened later.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well we made it to the end of the week without a major new war breaking out in the Middle East.

    But... But... But.. Ya'all said President Trump is going to start a war in the Middle East!!!

    What gives!!??? :smirk: :D

    Now, however, it is no bluff. Trump actually is a madman with no idea what he's getting into at any given time, on any given subject.

    Facts to support?? No?? None??

    Hokay.. I'm country. I can live with that.. :D

    Rather astonishingly, nobody was hurt or killed (they were all reportedly safe in bunkers for hours before the attacks happened), and even more astonishingly, Trump refused to retaliate further. Thus both countries backed away from the brink of all-out war. In this particular instance, the Madman Theory worked.

    Yes it did.. FLAWLESSLY.. Iran backed down...

    Are you giving President Trump credit here??

    "Be still my beating heart.. No, I mean it.. Be still.. Yer killin' me!!"

    :D

    Next time, of course, we might not be so lucky. And nobody really knows if this is the end of the Iranian response to us assassinating their top military leader -- there could be much more covert or third-party attacks to come, either on the battlefields of the Middle East or much closer to home.

    Do I detect a note of hopefulness in that?? :D

    In actual fact, the Trump administration is having a tough time explaining things to either the public or to the members of Congress who are (theoretically, at least) supposed to hold the power to declare wars.

    And, if President Trump had declared war, you might have a point..

    Funny.. When Odumbo was lobbing cruise missiles at everything that moved in the ME (and, by the way, killing almost 500 innocent civilians) and ignoring Congress as he did it..

    None of ya'all said "BOO"... Why is that???

    Could it possibly be because Odumbo is a Democrat and Democrats can do no wrong???

    Hmmmmm??? Possibly???

    Got that? Trump can kill the leader of a foreign country that we are not currently at war with any time he feels like it, and he doesn't feel the need to obtain authorization from Congress to do so

    Let's just go to the heart of the matter..

    "Let's brass some tacks!"
    -Metatron, SUPERNATURAL

    You don't really care about the action.. If you did, you would have called Obama on it when he went off the reservation..

    You just want a new shiny to beat President Trump over the head with..

    We were told that anyone (read: Democrats) who wasn't cheering Trump's actions wholeheartedly was "mourning" the death of the Iranian military leader, or just flat out "in love with terrorists."

    Yep, that sums it up..

    You even had Democrat APOLOGIZING to Iran..

    And not a whiff of condemnation from ya'all or other Trump/America haters..

    Again.. Why is that??

    What with all the dog-wagging going on this week, it was easy to lose sight of the fact that Donald Trump is awaiting his impeachment trial in the Senate (only the third one ever),

    Which will result in the COMPLETE exoneration and vindication of President Trump...

    Democrats couldn't have chosen a WORSE possible action to bring down President Trump than this faux impeachment coup...

    Democrats are PROVING that A> President Trump is invincible and 2> Democrats are impotent to stop him..

    Does this guarantee President Trump's re-election??

    "I'de call that a big 'YES'.."
    -Bill Murray, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

    All in all, one thing has been cemented in fact...

    Ya'all Democrats attack President Trump for precedents that Obama himself established...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    I visited Glacier N.P. as a teen in the 1950's. I recall the signs at the visitor's overlooks mentioning that most of their glaciers had been receeding slowly most every year since the first white men ever saw them, which was decades before automobiles and large-scale coal mining ever existed, which would indicate that global warmin/global cooling has been going on far longer than humans have been capable of influencing climate.

    Yea... According to REAL scientists, the glaciers have been receding since 1860...

    Of course, NOW it's because of humans. Prior to 60-80 years ago??

    "Uh... er.... hmmmm..."
    -Global Warning Fanatics

    Global Warming fanatics like to ignore facts that don't support their end of the world agenda...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Magnitude 5.9 shock rocks quake-stunned Puerto Rico
    https://apnews.com/fd6b234395379a876bddc74e1b882d43

    IT'S TRUMP'S FAULT!!!!

    GLOBAL WARMING DID THIS!!!!

    There.. Ya'all are covered... :smirk: :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it seems like I ridicule ya'all (NEN) a lot....

    It's because I do.. :D

    But, in my defense, ya'all give me such a target-rich environment.. :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it seems like I ridicule ya'all (NEN) a lot....

    It's because I do.. :D

    Just keep in mind.. When it comes to my presence in Weigantia..

    I am a product of my environment..

    As I always say..

    If ya want respect.. Then be respectful...

    If ya want tolerance.. Then be tolerant..

    "For those who will be our allies, you will find no more faithful a friend than the United States.
    For those who would wish to make war on us and do us harm, be warned? We can be faithful to that as well."

    -President Jack Ryan, EXECUTIVE ORDERS

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump on royal 'Megxit' drama: 'I don’t think this should be happening' to the Queen

    I disagree with President Trump on this issue..

    A- He should stay out of it..

    B- The entire concept of Royalty is so un-American..

    Any royal who wants to strike out on their own should be applauded

  29. [29] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [11]

    Michale

    MC,

    I think Trump killing Soleimani is a splendid addition to Trump's, er, Nobel Peace Prize Resume, Amirite?

    You mean, as opposed to Odumbo who has the distinct {dis}honor of having launched the most cruise missiles and kill the most innocent people of any Nobel Peace Prize recipient in history..

    It's really funny watching how ya'all ignore the facts and reality in pursuit of your Party agenda.... :D

    Two points:

    (1) Trump is keen (fairly lobbying for it, in fact) to win the Nobel Peace Prize. My sarcasm flavored post simply points out that killing Soleimani appears unlikely to move the Selection Committee in a fruitful direction. Just sayin'.

    (2) Enough with the Whataboutism! Whether or not Obama or even every President did [fill in the blank bad thing] that was then and this is now! What others did in no way let's Trump off the hook for what he's doing now.

    It's not lost on us that GOP Whataboutism seeks to avoid answering the point. It seeks to divert the parties into a separate argument.

    And, Presidents are not graded on a curve. Don't you want your President to aspire to greatness, to avoid as many of their predecessors mistakes as possible? To stand alone above others, not hide in a herd of mediocrity?

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    (1) Trump is keen (fairly lobbying for it, in fact) to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

    As was Obama thru his minions..

    My sarcasm flavored post simply points out that killing Soleimani appears unlikely to move the Selection Committee in a fruitful direction. Just sayin'.

    ESPECIALLY when they got so burned by Obama being the ONLY Nobel Peace Prize recipient to have brutally killed almost 500 innocent civilians via drone strikes..

    Of course they would be a little gun shy about giving Trump a peace prize for absolutely nothing at all, as they did Obama..

    But you can bet if President Trump reunited the Koreas or brought lasting peace to the Middle East, the Nobel committee would HAVE to award the peace prize to President Trump..

    To do other wise would cement the idea that the Nobel Prize is nothing but a Political prize that has NOTHING to do with facts or reality..

    (2) Enough with the Whataboutism! Whether or not Obama or even every President did [fill in the blank bad thing] that was then and this is now! What others did in no way let's Trump off the hook for what he's doing now.

    And my point is ya'all's hypocrisy..

    If you condemn President Trump for A, B and C but were silent or actively supported Obama when HE did A, B and C.... Well what does that say about you??

    It says you are not credible in your condemnation..

    It's not lost on us that GOP Whataboutism seeks to avoid answering the point. It seeks to divert the parties into a separate argument.

    Of course it does... Because I don't argue with what ya'all accuse President Trump of..

    I argue ya'all's SPIN on the action and point out that the accusation is NOT based on a dislike of the action, but rather the fact that it was a guy with an R after his name who did the action..

    And, Presidents are not graded on a curve. Don't you want your President to aspire to greatness, to avoid as many of their predecessors mistakes as possible? To stand alone above others, not hide in a herd of mediocrity?

    President Trump has surely stood out and has far surpassed the mediocrity and anti-American positions of his predecessor..

    But what you call "mistakes" on President Trump's part can't really BE mistakes because Obama did the exact same thing..

    So, why is it a mistake for Trump but it's perfectly acceptable, even APPLAUDED for Obama..

    Because the sole basis for the complaint of the mistakes is the -D / -R after the persons name...

    In short (too late.. :D) I am addressing ya'all's credibility in the assessment of the facts..

    And ya'all's credibility is pretty much at ZERO because all ya'all's complaints and accusations are based on Party loyalty and Party loyalty only...

  31. [31] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    While Nancy is on the Liberal side as Democrats go, I've never gotten the impression that Nancy was in the Sanders/Warren camp. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if Nancy pulls a let's screw the true Progressives ala 2016. Smh

    Doesn’t seem much more likely that she did this so our nation could focus on the Iranian crisis without being distracted by the Impeachment trial — the very reason that Trump chose to kill Soleimani when he did, perhaps? Had Pelosi released the AOI at the start of last week as had been rumored, the Senate would have rushed that trial through as quietly as they could! She held off this week on releasing it to prevent Trump from being rewarded for his bringing us to the brink of war.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    It's like what I posted to CW yesterday..

    There is a test you can run on ANY statement or position to determine if it's based in Party bigotry..

    Republicans who now slavishly insist upon supporting anything and everything Trump does -- no matter how outrageous, no matter how disruptive -- should be warned that future presidents (Democratic ones most definitely included) may one day point to current GOP behavior while insisting that they have exactly the same rights that Trump has claimed for himself. Because this is always the ultimate test of supporting any expansion of presidential powers: would you support a president of the other party doing such a thing? Again, Republicans would do well to consider this in the Trump era, because it's my guess that some of these precedents are going to come back to bite them later on. And it'll be pretty tough for them to argue against these precedents after so wholeheartedly supporting them now.
    -CW

    Now turn it around..

    Democrats who now slavishly insist upon supporting anything and everything Obama does -- no matter how outrageous, no matter how disruptive -- should be warned that future presidents (Republican ones most definitely included) may one day point to current DEM behavior while insisting that they have exactly the same rights that Obama has claimed for himself. Because this is always the ultimate test of supporting any expansion of presidential powers: would you support a president of the other party doing such a thing? Again, Democrats would do well to consider this in the Obama era, because it's my guess that some of these precedents are going to come back to bite them later on. And it'll be pretty tough for them to argue against these precedents after so wholeheartedly supporting them now.
    -Michale

    If you diametrically re-arrange the players and the claim STILL works, then you know it's a claim based solely on Party loyalty and not reality..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    — the very reason that Trump chose to kill Soleimani when he did, perhaps?

    Facts to support??

    No??

    If President Trump didn't assassinate a well known terrorist to fade the heat from ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion (which was kinda a serious charge) why would you think that President Trump assassinated Swillyman to fade the heat from this bullshit faux impeachment coup that has charges that are not even crimes.

    If ya'all would actually think things thru, ya'all would realize how bigoted and bullshit ya'all's claims are...

    She held off this week on releasing it to prevent Trump from being rewarded for his bringing us to the brink of war.

    Snowflake was skeer'ed of war?? :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    I coulda told ya that there wasn't going to be any war..

    Hell, I *DID* tell ya'all that there wasn't going to be any war...

    Iran was bitch-slapped into submission..

    Thank the gods for President Trump!! :D

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Congratulations, Michale … you have succeeded masterfully in ensuring that no commenters of goodwill and thoughtful disposition will care to participate in Chris's blog.

    I hope you are finally satisfied.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Congratulations, Michale … you have succeeded masterfully in ensuring that no commenters of goodwill and thoughtful disposition will care to participate in Chris's blog.

    Don't put it all on me..

    As I said and as has been proven beyond ANY doubt..

    Here in Weigantia, I am a product of my environment...

    The lack of "goodwill and thoughtful disposition" is apparent in the comments I was responding to...

    Do you want "goodwill and thoughtful disposition"??? Show some towards President Trump..

    If you can't do that then, with the utmost respect and affection, you are part of the problem and not part of the solution...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hope you are finally satisfied.

    Considering I have been on the correct and factually accurate side of all the HHPTDS for the past 3+ years??

    I was satisfied LONG ago.. :D

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why so juvenile Michale?

    Of course, the problem isn't all on you. However, you are in a position to be a significant part of the solution. Which you refuse to put any effort into for more than a few comments.

    I find that disappointing but, sadly, not surprising.

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    One more thing, what is this HHPTDS that you keep referring to without explaining?

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    However, you are in a position to be a significant part of the solution.

    We've tried that.. DOZENS of times.. Never panned out...

    On the other hand, 2 of the major instigators have been absent for quite a while..

    Maybe it's time to give it another shot..

    I find that disappointing but, sadly, not surprising.

    I can only do so much.. What you ask for requires a group effort..

    Get Russ and JM and Stig to sign on board.. Then we might have something..

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm sure they would be happy participants.

    You, on the other don't seem to understand that this effort doesn't have a time limit. It is meant to last forever on each of our parts, regardless of what other less thoughtful commenters may contribute.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    One more thing, what is this HHPTDS that you keep referring to without explaining?

    It's a more virulent form of Trump Derangement Syndrome..

    Hyper Hysterical President Trump Derangement Syndrome..

    Symptoms include an irrational desire to attack President Trump regardless of any facts or reality..

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm sure they would be happy participants.

    Get them to publicly sign on and we might actually have a chance.. :D

    You, on the other don't seem to understand that this effort doesn't have a time limit.

    It's not that I don't understand, it's that I get frustrated because I am the only one making the effort..

    It's like you want me to go on an OP where the enemy is armed to the teeth with automatics and RPGs and all I am allowed to carry is a Bowie Knife..

    If ya have a free hour watch the STAR TREK episode A PRIVATE LITTLE WAR...

    That will give ya the gist of where I am coming from..

    It is meant to last forever on each of our parts, regardless of what other less thoughtful commenters may contribute.

    And yet, when every other commenter (NEN) is of the less thoughtful types, is it really fair to ask me to be the bigger person?? Especially since I wear such a large target on my back..

    Let someone else show they have the capability to rise above the flame wars..

    Mountain Caddy showed them how it was done...

    Let someone else assume the mantle of mature and thoughtful commenter..

    I'll be happy to join in..

    :D

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Well, we killed the head of Iran's Quds Force, and nobody can argue against the fact that the world is a better place without him in it.

    Except no one of the Trump/America clan has made that argument..

    They all simply bashed and attacked President Trump..

    "I would like the Trump White House to answer a very simple question: has Executive Order 11905 been rescinded? This was the order signed by President Gerald Ford back in the 1970s which bans political assassination by the United States.

    Speaking as the only military authority here in Weigantia...

    It wasn't a political assassination..

    It was a military OP that resulted in the well-deserved death of one of the biggest terrorists on the planet..

    Again, I am AMAZED that anyone has a problem with the killing.... It boggles the mind..

    Again, you and all the Left like to give lip-service to Swillyman's killing...

    Yet when ya'all try and articulate the claim, it just comes out as another run o' the mill attack on President Trump..

    Another symptom of HHPTDS, apparently..

    Big difference..

  45. [45] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I wrote (2) While Trump is truly our fake President his political instincts told him that this course of action would please (to no end) GOP voters.

    So, your in the crowd who thinks that President Trump is not the legitimately elected POTUS??

    What, EXACTLY, makes him not legitimate??

    No, I'm NOT in that camp. The Republican Electoral College voted Trump in, and that's that. Trump IS our Constitutionally legitimate President, K?

    Clearly I should have defined fake President. And it's not even about how Trump won (the DNC tipping the scales against Bernie, Hillary's overconfident woodenness, the Russians, Comey's October Surprise...not to mention Trump's political astuteness and campaigning chops. Sigh.)

    It's about how Trump has performed: he knows little about government, foreign policy, science etc but what's unacceptable is his utter disinterest in learning how to do his job. You've got to read, for heaven's sake! He is not honest (15,000 lies, and counting.) He is hard on our Allies yet soft on dictators and the like. He appears to put his own interests before America's. You think George W was devisive? Trump is many times more so. He acts like he's Putin's b*tch. He lacks the temperament to have the power of life and death, as he is vain, impulsive, vindictive and has the thin skin of a teenager. Trump is an anti-President in word and deed. If he bumbles into WWIII or condemns the world to worst-case global warming? He'll be be known as anti-Christ./i>

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Iran didn't want Trump to kill Soleimani," [Senator Duckworth] said. "But they were hungry for all that has happened as a result. They were starving to go on the offensive. Desperate to change the narrative, to swing public opinion and solidify their power in Iraq. To have a new excuse to attack anyone with an American flag on their shoulder, and to shrug off the restraints of the nuclear deal."

    And yet, the FACTS show that Iran turned tail and ran, only offering up a token retaliation that simply put a few holes in the bare ground...

    So, with the utmost respect to Duckworth....

    Events proved her totally wrong..

    Seriously, though, we heard plenty of denunciations of Trump and his shortsightedness this week,

    EXACTLY..

    Very vocal and unfair attacks on President Trump, but little if any acknowledgement that Sillywaaa was a scumbag terrorist who got what he deserved..

    Thank you for agreeing with me.. :D

    Nancy Pelosi delayed the start of the Senate's impeachment trial by at least a week, by continuing to refuse to send over the actual articles of impeachment to Mitch McConnell. By doing so, she focused attention on the fact that McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate just want to make the whole thing go away rather than conduct an actual trial with actual witnesses and actual evidence. Pelosi never really had that much leverage to begin with, and this week a few Senate Democrats began pointing this out in frustration. By the end of the week, Pelosi was signaling that she's almost ready to send the articles over, which is now expected to happen early next week.

    PELOSI CAVES!!!! I nailed it!!! :D

    It comes as no surprise to us that Feinstein sounds an awful lot like a Republican here, because we've heard her do exactly the same thing so many times in the past.

    And by sounding like a Republican, of course you mean that she is dead on ballz factually accurate.. :D

    Let's face reality..

    Pelosi has scrooed da pooch.. She has given President Trump ANOTHER win, ANOTHER factual claim of vindication and exoneration..

    It was an unforced error and Pelosi should have known better...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    No, I'm NOT in that camp. The Republican Electoral College voted Trump in, and that's that. Trump IS our Constitutionally legitimate President, K?

    You realize that there is no such thing as a "Republican Electoral College", right???

    But I take you at your word that you concede that President Trump is the legitimate President Of The United States..

    he knows little about government, foreign policy, science etc but what's unacceptable is his utter disinterest in learning how to do his job.

    Before President Trump we had more than our fill of Presidents who "knew" about government and all the rest of what you say..

    And how did they do???

    Crappy...

    We have an economy that is roaring, we are respected and feared around the world, as evidenced by Iran's running away... Maybe an someone who doesn't know squat about government but is a business savant is exactly what this country needed...

    He is not honest (15,000 lies, and counting.)

    He's as honest, if not more so, than Obama.. The problem is ya'all re-define "lie" to mean anything President Trump says..

    In other words, ya'all fudge the definition to fit the bigotry...

    He acts like he's Putin's b*tch.

    The facts don't support that claim.

    Now OBAMA really gave us FACTS to consider that it was HE who was Putin's bitch..

    "Ask Vlad to give me some help (space) in my election and I can be 'flexible' for him after I win.."
    -Barack Obama

    Funny how you don't have a problem with that...

    Trump is an anti-President in word and deed. If he bumbles into WWIII or condemns the world to worst-case global warming? He'll be be known as anti-Christ.

    Considering that the Left made all those predictions even BEFORE President Trump took office and NONE of them have come to pass..

    Don't you realize that ya'all have a credibility problem??

    EVERY attack or accusation ya'all have made against President Trump has been WRONG...

    Funny how that is, eh?? :D

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously... Think about it..

    If ya'all are ALWAYS wrong in the position you take..

    Shouldn't it be time to reconsider that position??

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously... Think about it..

    If ya'all are ALWAYS wrong in the position you take..

    Shouldn't it be time to reconsider that position??

    I'm just sayin'....

    If there is a fault in my logic....

    "I'm all ears.."
    -Ross Perot

  50. [50] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Put another way.. If you subject Biden to the same in-depth witch hunt style of background check that you would want for President Trump??

    You can bet you would find a lot of those skeletons and bodies..

    Actually, I stated quite plainly that I expect our elected officials to be able to pass the same background check that any federal employee working at the White House has to pass...yet you still refer to it as an ”in-depth witch hunt”.

    But I guess that should not be too surprising, you call the impeachment “a faux coup”, any news story that points out Trump’s dishonesty is declared “FAKE NEWS”. You work so hard to cover for this asshat...who returns your loyalty by laughing at how easy it is to manipulate followers like you!

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, I stated quite plainly that I expect our elected officials to be able to pass the same background check that any federal employee working at the White House has to pass...yet you still refer to it as an ”in-depth witch hunt”.

    That's because the "checks" Democrats have advocated with President Trump amounted to a witch hunt..

    But, it's interesting.. You don't advocate a THOROUGH background check like the ones President Trump has had to endure **AFTER** he was elected??

    But I guess that should not be too surprising, you call the impeachment “a faux coup”,

    I call it as I see it..

    And, when you consider that the articles of impeachment are not even crimes, "faux impeachment coup" seems to be most apropos..

    You work so hard to cover for this asshat...

    I see no need to cover for President Trump at all..

    Considering how good President Trump has been for this country, no covering required... :D

    .who returns your loyalty by laughing at how easy it is to manipulate followers like you!

    Facts to support??

    Of course not..

    You see, this is EXACTLY ya'all's problem..

    You have *NO* facts to support ANY of yer spewage...

  52. [52] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    TP 7

    It's an absolute travesty that Alfred Nobel's name has been attached to the fake 'Nobels' awarded out of Norway.

    But Re Trump's "dissapointment" Amazingly he never stood a chance. He only assassinates people monthly. The prior winner did it weekly.

  53. [53] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale

    As I always say..

    If ya want respect.. Then be respectful...

    If ya want tolerance.. Then be tolerant..

    You DO say this a lot... now if we could only get you to follow through with it! Especially when you bullshit yourself into a corner that you cannot contradict yourself out of...then you resort to being extremely nasty just to avoid having to admit that you got served!

    "For those who will be our allies, you will find no more faithful a friend than the United States. For those who would wish to make war on us and do us harm, be warned? We can be faithful to that as well."
    -President Jack Ryan, EXECUTIVE ORDERS<

    I’m pretty sure the Kurds would find that laughable! Trump has made that line a punchline to an extremely unfunny joke.

  54. [54] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CRS-22

    Your evidence is park sign you "remember" from 1950?

    The first white men to see Glacier Park, and record what saw, did so in 1850, which is before automobiles but not before burning of coal on an industrial scale. The trend has been accelerating since the 1938 and is well documented by systematic landscape photography from that point on.

    It's not just Glacier Park, glaciers all over the globe are shrinking at an increasing rate.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/

  55. [55] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    That's because the "checks" Democrats have advocated with President Trump amounted to a witch hunt..

    Again, I was talking about the pre-hire background check that keeps people with a history of making extremely bad decisions from being hired. Poor Trump, having people looking into his past and finding that he is untrustworthy! How unfair!

    But, it's interesting.. You don't advocate a THOROUGH background check like the ones President Trump has had to endure **AFTER** he was elected??

    Those are called INVESTIGATIONS! And no, I have no problem with investigations being run when someone is caught committing potentially illegal acts.

    And, when you consider that the articles of impeachment are not even crimes, "faux impeachment coup" seems to be most apropos..

    Funny, the Constitution does not require the charges to be violations of criminal statutes. Take the charge of “Obstruction of Congress” for example — Congress is the Legislative Branch, they cannot claim Trump committed obstruction of justice because they are neither a court (judicial) nor are they law enforcement (executive).

    Obstruction of Congress has been used to charge past presidents facing impeachment, but since you cannot defend anything that Trump did since he has admitted to it all, I guess it’s all you have left.

  56. [56] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig

    Re "Industrial scale" coal mining in 1850.

    Get real. In 1850, coal was mined by humans swinging pickaxes and shovels. A contemporary coal mining operation could excavate more coal in a single day than all the coalminers in England could drag to the surface in a year. And a contemporary coal-fired electric generating plant could burn more coal in a day that all the fireplaces in English homes could burn in a year.

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    yeah, obama won the not being bush prize, which in retrospect is kind-of quaint.

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  59. [59] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CRS-56

    I point it out because your starting point for significant use of non-renewable fuels is about 100 years out of date. You brought it up, not me. When you construct models to investigate cause and effect relationships it is important to get the details as accurate as possible. A good model must timeline accurately, if not, your predictions are garbage.

    You have an 18 th century mentality when it comes to science and economics that can't deal with 21st century problems. Sorry the modern world got complicated for you. You seem to thing orbital mechanics can explain the bulk of recent climate change. Nope, they can't match the timeline of global warming. Even if they did, we can't change planetary orbital mechanics.

    Maybe the universe is full of Stuckis. That could explain why we don't see any signs of advanced alien civilizations.

  60. [60] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    It starts out okay- but what the fuck does "...on account of sex" mean?

    It’s pretty clear... any way you want to define “sex”, the ERA says that you cannot discriminate based on it! Why wouldn’t you define it as broadly as possible? Why would discrimination be OK based on any of the definitions you listed?

  61. [61] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If you condemn President Trump for A, B and C but were silent or actively supported Obama when HE did A, B and C.... Well what does that say about you??

    It says you are not credible in your condemnation..

    If you condemned President Obama for A, B, and C but are silent or actively support Trump when HE does A, B and C.... Well what does that say about you??

    If we condemn President Trump for A, B and C but YOU loudly claim that when Obama did D, E and F it was identical to Trump doing A, B and C, that says you are full of crap!

    It says YOU ARE JUST NOT CREDIBLE!

    If IT is wrong to do, IT is wrong to do regardless of who does it!

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Was that really necessary?

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, tell Don to watch his juvenile language. I wouldn't go around re=posting it, either.

    Are you guys putting a great deal of effort into making this a place unfit for intelligent debate or does it just come naturally?

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    You DO say this a lot... now if we could only get you to follow through with it!

    I do follow thru..

    I treat people exactly as they treat me..

    So, if you have a problem with it, take a look in the mirror..

    I’m pretty sure the Kurds would find that laughable! Trump has made that line a punchline to an extremely unfunny joke.

    Actually, it was Obama who made it a punch line when he abandoned the Kurds..

    And you didn't condemn Obama for that.. Why not??

    Because Obama has a -D after his name.. :smirk: :D

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stig,

    It's not just Glacier Park, glaciers all over the globe are shrinking at an increasing rate.

    Yea.. They have been shrinking for over a hundred years..

    Kinda kills yer theory that humans are the cause..

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, I was talking about the pre-hire background check that keeps people with a history of making extremely bad decisions from being hired.

    And yet, you and your Democrats LOVED Donald Trump's decisions when he had a -D after his name..

    Why is that??

    Obstruction of Congress has been used to charge past presidents facing impeachment,

    Bullshit.. Prove it...

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you condemned President Obama for A, B, and C but are silent or actively support Trump when HE does A, B and C.... Well what does that say about you??

    Never happened.. So it says that I am a man of facts and integrity..

    If we condemn President Trump for A, B and C but YOU loudly claim that when Obama did D, E and F it was identical to Trump doing A, B and C, that says you are full of crap!

    And yet, you do not have a single fact to support your claim..

    Why is that???

    It says YOU ARE JUST NOT CREDIBLE!

    Says the guy who has been ***WRONG*** about every Trump prediction he has made.. :D

    If IT is wrong to do, IT is wrong to do regardless of who does it!

    Yes, that's my point..

    So, if it was WRONG when Obama did it, WHY didn't you condemn Obama???

    Because Obama has a -D after his name and you are all about Party Slavery and not so much about integrity and love of country..

    It's going to be fascinating to see how you react to President Trump being re-elected.. :D

    It's gonna be an E-ride fer sure.. :D

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Maybe the universe is full of Stuckis. That could explain why we don't see any signs of advanced alien civilizations.

    the universe is immense and mostly full of nothing at all. the peter mulvey song vlad the astrophysicist explains better than anything else i've encountered why we probably won't ever find intelligent life other than ourselves. not really a song, more of a story with musical accompaniment, but that's more in the weeds than necessary.

    https://youtu.be/sNGUkdovn_8

  69. [69] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    i know you're not a fan of links, but if you haven't heard the piece yet, i'm recommending you click it. that goes for everybody else too.

    JL

  70. [70] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    There is nothing wrong with a broad definition.

    But a definition by definition must actually define something.

    "...on the account of sex" does not clearly define what they mean by that statement. Clearly not a definition.

    And since the Supreme Court gets to decide what the Constitution means when the Constitution does not clearly define what it means, any changes to the Constitution should be clearly defined in the amendment.

    As it is not clear what is meant by "sex", the Supreme Court can say it means any definition that could apply whether it was intended or not.

    So the Supreme Court could issue a ruling that one thing it means is the act of having sex and the amendment therefore does not protect people that don't have sex.

  71. [71] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    What's the problem?

    Fuck is just one definition of sex. :D

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Sorry about yer Ravens..

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Perhaps intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is intelligent enough to keep us from finding them.

    From a song I wrote back in the 80's:

    Traveling through space
    exploring new worlds
    came to star
    'round which nine planets whirled
    went to the third one
    appeared to have life
    went down to observe
    and could not believe my eyes
    war and mistrust
    pollution and greed
    stealing for pleasure
    what another man needs
    men taking men's lives
    no thought what they're worth
    no I don't see intelligent life here on earth.

    Buildings of metal
    rise up in the sky
    men laugh an feast there
    while others starve and die
    wheeling an dealing
    for corporate gain
    not hearing or feeling
    the screams or the pain
    raping their planet
    turn oceans to dirt
    no I don't see intelligent life here on earth

    Your world and it's troubles
    explode in your mind
    You're one man alone
    what hope can you find
    your world 'round you crumbles
    to dust at your feet
    they've been warned before
    so why can't they see
    but don't give up trying
    with death there comes birth
    and soon all the fools will pass from the earth

    -Observer

    At this point I would settle for the fools passing on from CW.com. :D

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stig,

    I point it out because your starting point for significant use of non-renewable fuels is about 100 years out of date. You brought it up, not me. When you construct models to investigate cause and effect relationships it is important to get the details as accurate as possible. A good model must timeline accurately, if not, your predictions are garbage.

    Ahhhh So THAT explains why Global Warming religion-esque fanatics always have "garbage" predictions..

    They ignore the details..

    Like the FACT that there has been no warming for the last 15 years, according to hyper-accurate weather station data...

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like the FACT that there has been no warming for the last 15 years, according to hyper-accurate weather station data...

    What?? You don't know the facts???

    Well, allow me..

    NOAA has always been getting grief about how they have to tweak and massage the data to give the desired result..

    So, in 2004, the NOAA in conjunction with NASA, designed and build 400 hyper-accurate weather stations.. They deployed these hyper-accurate weather stations in areas that would render ACTUAL temp data and avoid pitfalls like heat island effect etc etc..

    So, NOW NOAA would have indisputably accurate temp data that won't have to be tweaked or massaged..

    The system was deployed in early 2005...

    19 years later, the results were compiled...

    These hyper-accurate weather stations not only PROVED that there was no warming, the data results PROVED that there had actually been a slight cooling trend....

    Boy, did NOAA and NASA have egg all over their faces.. :D

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama campaign guru: Trump would love to run against Bernie
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/bernie-sanders-trump-jim-messina-097578

    Seems like Bernie is still not all that popular, eh? :D

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump issues warning to Iran: 'Do not kill your protesters ... the USA is watching'

    President Trump issued a stark warning Sunday to Iran as leaders in Tehran gear up to deal with protesters who took to the streets after the government admitted to accidentally shooting down a Ukrainian passenger jet.

    “To the leaders of Iran - DO NOT KILL YOUR PROTESTERS,” Trump tweeted. “Thousands have already been killed or imprisoned by you, and the World is watching. More importantly, the USA is watching.”

    He added: “Turn your internet back on and let reporters roam free! Stop the killing of your great Iranian people!”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-issues-warning-to-iran-do-not-kill-your-protestors-the-usa-is-watching

    Compare & Contrast President Trump's reaction to the Iranian protests vs Obama throwing Iranian protesters to the wolves....

    President Trump is 20x the leader Odumbo could EVER hope to be...

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    How anyone here can condemn President Trump and give Obama a pass is beyond rational understanding....

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I have to admit..

    I am very curious how ya'all will spin this to make Obama the good guy and President Trump the very bad guy...

    20,000 quatloos says ya'all will simply ignore it because ya can't come up with any good spin.. :D

  80. [80] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    How anyone here can condemn Obama and give President Trump a pass is beyond rational understanding....

    Easily reversible...

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    How is that reversible??

    President Trump DID THE RIGHT THING.. So, of course he gets a pass..

    Odumbo thru the Iranian protesters to the wolves.. So he DOESN'T deserve a pass...

    Your "rebuttal" makes absolutely NO SENSE..

    Did you hit your head???

    Maybe a little too drunk??

  82. [82] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Like the FACT that there has been no warming for the last 15 years, according to hyper-accurate weather station data...

    Funny, the only article publishing this story is at
    https://onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2019/08/31/official-readings-show-no-warming-in-us-over-last-15plus-yrs

    It is obvious that for once you did read the article that you posted a link for...bravo!

    Now if you bothered to get your stories from even semi-legitimate sites, you might get taken a little more serious! Notice that the article talks about NOAA a lot, but no one from NOAA is quoted, which means the author did not even attempt to ask them to comment on the report. No, the “expert” who explains what the study found is someone who works for a blog called The Powerline Blog. No mention of his educational background is offered. Later in the article, someone from a Koch’s brother-backed “Institute” actually claims the temperature has not changed in 80 years.

    There are three links in the article, all that link to right-wing, climate change denying sites. Oddly enough, none of these sites offer a link to the study that they are getting this data from!

    The article says that the temperature measurements were taken more accurately by adjusting the readings to accommodate for the increase in temperatures that the factors associated with heavily populated areas (mass population, miles of asphalt, large numbers of vehicles, air pollution, etc.) cause.

    Think about that for just a second... They are LITERALLY saying that if you remove ALL of the man-made factors that cause the temperature to increase, then the earth’s temperatures have not changed in 15 years! But you cannot just remove those factors, because they do exist! Their findings are nothing short of an admission that man has caused temperatures to increase.

    They even point out that inner city temps are often higher than in unpopulated wooded areas just miles away. Where man-made factors do not exist, the temperatures seem to be cooler. But man-made factors do exist, and trying to remove them in determining the temperature is an admission of their influence.

    I wonder if that is why you’ve never offered up a link in all your rantings about this alleged study? Were you so stupid that you did not realize what this story was actually saying, or were you intentionally posting dishonest info because your arguments are all bullshat?

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ

    In other words, you have no facts to support your claims..

    Thank you for your concession.. :D

    Your hysterical Global Warming predictions are as crappy and wrong as your Trump/America hating predictions.

    At least yer consistent.. :D

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    If ya'all don't like lusing on the Global Warming subject..

    How the House destroyed its own case for the Trump impeachment

    “Situation quiet. The captain has been put away for the night.” The words from the movie “The Caine Mutiny” came to mind on Friday when House leaders announced that Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not move until next week in submitting the impeachment of President Trump to a Senate trial. While various Democrats have publicly grumbled about the delay, going into its fourth week, without any sign of success in forcing the Senate to call witnesses, Pelosi continued a strategy that could jeopardize not just any trial but the rules governing impeachment. Indeed, Pelosi may force the Senate into a couple of unprecedented but well deserved rulings.

    From the outset, the ploy of Pelosi withholding the House impeachment articles was as implausible as it was hypocritical. There was no reason why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would make concessions to get an impeachment that he loathed. More importantly, just a couple of days earlier, House leaders insisted that some of us were wrong to encourage them to wait on an impeachment vote to create a more complete record. Pelosi previously insisted that House committees could not pursue direct witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton because there was no time to delay in getting this impeachment to the Senate. She then waited a month and counting to send the articles over to the Senate.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/477818-how-the-house-destroyed-its-own-case-for-the-trump-impeachment

    We can always go back to me kicking ya'all's ass over this faux impeachment coup... :D

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact is that Pelosi played into the hands of McConnell by first rushing this impeachment forward with an incomplete record and now giving him the excuse to summarily change the rules, or even to dismiss the articles. Waiting for the House to submit a list of managers was always a courtesy extended by Senate rules and not a requirement of the Constitution. By inappropriately withholding the articles of impeachment and breaking with tradition, Pelosi simply gave McConnell ample reason to exercise the “nuclear option” and change the rules on both majority voting as well as the rule for the start of trials. That is a high price to pay for her vanity.

    It could get even worse for the House case. I previously discussed that the Senate had an excuse to simply declare that a trial will start next week and either the House will appear with a team of managers or the case will be summarily dismissed. McConnell is now moving toward a summary vote in the Senate, in light of the House failing to comply with its own procedural obligations. That is what happens when prosecutors defy a court and fail to appear for a trial. It is known as “dismissal for want of prosecution.”

    Those who think that Pelosi is some Jedi Master playing nth level 3D chess...

    They are deluding themselves..

  86. [86] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    20,000 quatloos says ya'all will simply ignore it because ya can't come up with any good spin.. :D

    When did Iran accidently shoot down one of their own airliners while Obama was President? How could/ why would people protest a senseless loss of life that never occurred?

    “To the leaders of Iran - DO NOT KILL YOUR PROTESTERS,” Trump tweeted. “Thousands have already been killed or imprisoned by you, and the World is watching. More importantly, the USA is watching.”

    He added: “Turn your internet back on and let reporters roam free! Stop the killing of your great Iranian people!”

    Wow! I am impressed that someone was able to get his phone away from him, because he CLEARLY did not write that himself. Any chance that he’ll send that same message to Turkey, China, Saudi Arabia, or Russia? No, of course he won’t! Even if he wrote this just so liberals can no longer claim that Trump NEVER calls out countries for trying to silence free speech and the press, he should realize that their pointing out that this is the ONLY time he’s done this looks just as bad!

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    When did Iran accidently shoot down one of their own airliners while Obama was President?

    Which has NOTHING to do with anything I posted..

    But it's interesting.. You blame President Trump for Iran shooting down an airliner??

    "The hate is strong with this one"
    -Emperor Palpatine..

    Wow! I am impressed that someone was able to get his phone away from him, because he CLEARLY did not write that himself.

    Of course, you have NO FACTS to support your bullshit claim.. Par for your course..

    Even if he wrote this just so liberals can no longer claim that Trump NEVER calls out countries for trying to silence free speech and the press, he should realize that their pointing out that this is the ONLY time he’s done this looks just as bad!

    In other words, President Trump did something good, but you paint it as bad because you are ruled by your hate and bigotry.

    And, of course, you ignore the FACT that Odumbo threw Iranian protesters to the wolves...

  88. [88] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Here’s what the Republican pundits seem to ignore. Pelosi could have sent the AOI over once Congress was on recess, but what would that have accomplished? Congress was not meeting and no votes could occur until the beginning of January when Congress went back to work. So why hold sending the AOI, what would that accomplish?

    Pelosi could not force the Republicans to do their jobs appropriately and fairly, but she could hold sending the AOI over so that the Republicans could make it clear to the country that they have no intention of holding a fair trial. Over 70% of Americans believe that Congress must hold a fair trial that allows for witnesses to offer testimony to the charges against the president. You may ignore anything that doesn’t support your delusions, but I am guessing Senators up for re-election this year won’t be so quick to ignore them!

    Hell, you all but brag in here how the Republicans are gonna break their oaths and won’t consider any of the evidence to make their decision of whether Trump is guilty and should be removed from office. Arguing that the House did not get conduct a complete investigation is your pointing out that they did not have the courts rule on whether Trump could completely block Congress from investigating his actions as President, no?

    Trump has shown that he does not believe that Courts have authority to make the president do anything he doesn’t want to do! The courts ordered that all children rounded up and removed from their parents at our southern border be returned to their parents. That order was over a year ago and Trump has refused to comply. Nothing says that when Trump obstructs Congress from investigating him that the House must get the court to try to force him to comply prior to impeaching him. If Trump didn’t want to be impeached, he could have released the info requested.

    So Pelosi played this perfectly...especially when Trump tried to goad Iran into a war as a distraction.

  89. [89] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    When did Iran accidently shoot down one of their own airliners while Obama was President?

    Which has NOTHING to do with anything I posted..

    Good God your dishonesty knows no bounds. I suppose you did not post:

    Compare & Contrast President Trump's reaction to the Iranian protests vs Obama throwing Iranian protesters to the wolves....

    Trump’s comments were in response to Iranians being upset over and protesting their government shooting down a passenger jet full of people. You want us to compare Trump’s defense of the Iranian people to Obama’s when this happened during his presidency. I am simply asking when did Obama face this same set of circumstances that you claim Trump handled much better than Obama did? You will not answer that honestly, will you?

    Nah, of course you won’t.

  90. [90] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I treat people exactly as they treat me..

    Really? Funny, I seem to remember my posting a simple question that Devon wanted me to ask you in response to arguments you were making regarding gun ownership. You had stated that without guns, how could a person guarantee their family’s safety?

    Devon’s question was, “If having a gun guarantees a person’s safety, then why do police wear Kevlar vests?” A simple question... nothing inflammatory about its content?

    How did you respond? You went off on a rabid spewing of hate-filled insults and nasty comments. You attacked Devon’s service as a law enforcement officer, our relationship and marriage, and both of us personally...

    You were asked a simple question and that was your response.

    I treat people exactly as they treat me..

    Sure ya do! When I pointed out that you had told me that your only time in law enforcement was as an MP in the military, you declared to everyone I was a liar.

    When I recounted you telling me that you had shot and killed a woman who had come at you with a butcher’s knife during a DV call, you said you had never said any of it and spewed insults of how dishonest I am.

    When I said that for someone who claimed to be in law enforcement for almost 25 years, you sure did not understand how laws are enforced by officers... you denied ever claiming to have been in law enforcement for that long.

    Then I posted your past comments saying everything that I had claimed you had said. You completely ignored the bulk of the evidence that I bitchslapped you with, and only said something incoherent about how you were claiming to have been in “public safety” for 25 years, not law enforcement. Funny, you sure had no problem calling me all sorts of insults when I simply was repeating things that you had said about yourself! Never once was there an apology or acknowledgement of your dishonest comments about me or your false claims to everyone here.

    You treat everyone the way they treat you? You couldn’t handle Kick throwing the way you treat people back in your face... she was such a big bully for making you experience your own medicine. I’m more than happy to repost all the dates and actual comments showing your dishonesty if you want those FACTS up to remind everyone here who you truly are. I doubt that you do, so I chose not to further humiliate you.

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You guys are completely beyond hope.

    But, it doesn't really matter. I clicked on Joshua's link and none of the juvenile banter that is the hallmark of the comments sections around here matters a whit.

    Because, in the grand scheme of things and in the vastness of space, none of it matters.

    What does matter is what we choose to make of our short time here on our tiny speck in the Universe - and here, in the confines of CW.com.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    So Pelosi played this perfectly...especially when Trump tried to goad Iran into a war as a distraction.

    Wow.. You simply are totally deluded, aren't you..

    The facts CLEARLY show that Pelosi totally scroo'ed da pooch..

    Even DEMOCRATS are saying it was a bone headed move that only hurt the Democrats' faux impeachment coup..

    Even CW and many other Weigantians says what a dumbshit thing it was to do..

    But you totally believe that Pelosi did the most awesomest thing in the world...

    I have to admire such blind devotion.. :D

    Trump’s comments were in response to Iranians being upset over and protesting their government shooting down a passenger jet full of people.

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    And the blind delusion STILL continues..

    Iranians have been protesting their government for MONTHS, if not years..

    This shoot-down was just the latest reason why..

    When I said that for someone who claimed to be in law enforcement for almost 25 years, you sure did not understand how laws are enforced by officers... you denied ever claiming to have been in law enforcement for that long.

    Because I never said I was in Law Enforcement for 25 years..

    I said I was "in the field" for 25 years. That field included security, LEO, military, MI and FSO...

    WHY is it so important to you??

    WHY must you turn EVER discussion into a personal attack???

    I realize your Dumbocrats are not giving you anything to brag about..

    But that doesn't mean you have to turn every comment of yours into a flame war..

    Grow up, dood..

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    There’s Almost No Chance of a Recession This Year, Experts Say. Here’s Why.
    https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/why-markets-will-gain-despite-looming-risks-barrons-roundtable-panelists-say-51578707631

    I cornfused..

    Ya'all have been PROMISING me a recession since before Nov of 2016..

    And we have YET to see one..

    Why is that??

    Were ya'all {gasp} LYING!!!?????

    Say it ain't so!!! :D

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    When Barron’s gathers some of Wall Street’s best minds—as we do every January for our annual Roundtable—we expect some consensus, some disagreement, and one or two off-the-wall notions that sometimes turn out to be surprisingly prescient. This year did not disappoint.

    Investors entered 2020 with the financial markets heading higher and a lot of optimism about the economy.

    In other words, in 2020, in the months leading up to the November election, the economy is going to be roaring hot.. :D

    Maybe ya'all's Democrats should just concede 2020 and set their sights on 2024.. :D

    I'm just sayin'...

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump’s comments were in response to Iranians being upset over and protesting their government shooting down a passenger jet full of people.

    And I noticed you didn't address.

    Odumbo threw the Iranian protesters under the bus..

    President Trump supports the Iran protesters to the hilt.

    Yet, President Trump is wrong and Odumbo was right??

    How does that work, exactly???

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone see the Jeremy Renner movie WIND RIVER??

    Trump signs executive order creating task force on missing and murdered Native Americans
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-native-americans-president-to-sign-executive-order-for-task-force-on-missing-murdered-native-americans/?fbclid=IwAR307jJmhg8BYVBchlU8gHE_0aur_hDPsX4mfoZ9cEbajVCu_iqqhmPj0Jk#

    Of course moronic Democrats and Trump/America haters won't give President Trump any credit for this..

    Proving once again beyond any doubt, that President Trump could single-handedly cure cancer and bring peace to the middle east and they haters would still attack him.. :eyeroll:

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE??
    Dems silent on Iran protests as demonstrators blame regime, not Trump, for plane crash

    Democratic congressional leaders and presidential candidates who were unsparing in their criticism of President Trump for the escalation with Iran over the past two weeks largely have gone silent now that the protests on the streets of Tehran and beyond have turned their rage toward the regime — and not the Trump White House.

    Even as videos emerged online Monday that purportedly show Iranian police and security forces firing live ammunition to disperse protestors, so far among the 2020 Democratic candidates only former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., have spoken out in support of the people.

    Journalist Yashar Ali, who is of Iranian descent and has friends and family there, called out the left for being silent when it comes to the protests, in a viral Twitter thread about the situation.

    IRANIAN SECURITY FORCES PURPORTEDLY FIRE LIVE AMMUNITION TO DISPERSE PROTESTERS DESPITE TRUMP'S WARNING

    “I've gone through some of the most active and prominent liberal Twitter accounts and none of them mentioned the Iran protests today,” Ali tweeted Sunday. “These same people were actively tweeting about wanting to avoid war and attacking Trump for his decision. What happened?”

    “In this context, Iranians are being used by certain people on the left (i didn't say all) as a tool to attack President Trump. But these same people don't seem to care to ... support their right to protest?” he said.

    Ali implied that because the protesters were criticizing their own leaders and not blaming President Trump, “it wasn’t worth it” for liberals to talk about them
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-silent-on-iran-protests-as-demonstrators-blame-regime-not-trump-for-plane-crash

    Ya see???

    Democrats don't care about ANYTHING but bashing and attacking President Trump... :eyeroll:

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, the cats of christmas got yer fingers.. :D

  99. [99] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump’s comments were in response to Iranians being upset over and protesting their government shooting down a passenger jet full of people.

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    And the blind delusion STILL continues..

    Iranians have been protesting their government for MONTHS, if not years..

    This shoot-down was just the latest reason why..

    After I clarify what Trump was commenting on that earned him your praise and had you accusing Obama of “throwing the Iranians under the bus” by comparison, you laugh and say that I am deluded to think that the plane being shot down was what the Iranians were protesting.

    Iranians have been protesting their government for MONTHS, if not years.

    True. Very true. But Trump has never commented in support of the Iranian protesters before this. Then, AFTER ridiculing me for saying this protest was in response to the airplane being shot down, you state:

    This shoot-down was just the latest reason why..

    So you think I am delusional for claiming that Trump was defending the Iranians right to protest the plane being shot down...and then admit that was actually what happened...but I am delusional for thinking what actually occurred was what happened?!?! WTF?!? You are so trained to just attack anything we say without first considering if we are justified in our statements that you attack me for comments that you actually agree with!

    Then you said:

    And I noticed you didn't address.

    Odumbo threw the Iranian protesters under the bus..

    President Trump supports the Iran protesters to the hilt.

    Yet, President Trump is wrong and Odumbo was right??

    How does that work, exactly???

    How exactly did Obama throw “the Iranian protesters under the bus..”?

    Do you even know what that phrase means? Idioms defines it as...

    throw (someone) under the bus. 1. To exploit someone's trust for one's own purpose, gain, or agenda; to harm someone through deceit or treachery. 2. To avoid blame, trouble, or criticism by allowing someone else to take responsibility.

    So, again, I ask you what event took place that you are claiming Obama exploited the Iranian people’s trust? Or, when did Obama blame the Iranian people for something that he was guilty of doing??? Both of these definitions seem to fit the characteristics of Trump much more than Obama.

    Regardless of how you define your use of “throwing someone under the bus”, this much must be true:

    If you are claiming that because Trump officially tweeted support for Iranians when Obama did not when the same thing occurred during his presidency, Obama “threw them under the bus”; then are you admitting that Trump has thrown the following people under the bus, — Iraqis, Saudi’s, Russians, Chinese, and the Turkish — as well, for his failure to tweet support for their right to protest and the rights of journalists?

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    After I clarify what Trump was commenting on that earned him your praise and had you accusing Obama of “throwing the Iranians under the bus” by comparison, you laugh and say that I am deluded to think that the plane being shot down was what the Iranians were protesting.

    Yer playing semantics and deflection..

    Of course I laugh at you..

    Obama threw Iranian protesters under the bus..

    President Trump publicly and forcefully support the Iranian protesters..

    You can't address that FACT because you know yer full of shit..

    How exactly did Obama throw “the Iranian protesters under the bus..”?

    By ignoring them..

    By doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what President Trump has done..

    You can't handle the fact that President Trump did good and Odumbo frak'ed up..

    Play your semantic deflection games all ya want.

    As usual, I have the FACTS and reality on my side..

    Boy, I just CAN'T wait until Nov when President Trump wins re-election..

    It's gonna be SOOO MUCH FUN taunting you and gloating.. :D

  101. [101] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Because I never said I was in Law Enforcement for 25 years..

    I said I was "in the field" for 25 years. That field included security, LEO, military, MI and FSO...

    Actually, you did say that. Your statement that you’d “been in the field for two and a half decades” was made in response to people agreeing and accepting my explanation for how law enforcement handles officer involved shootings. We were discussing law enforcement...at no time did anyone expand the conversation to “public safety” or even mention the phrase “public safety.” So your comment was CLEARLY a claim of being in law enforcement for 25 years... which you are now admitting to everyone was not the truth!

    It should also be pointed out that you are doing your best to ignore my calling you out on your dishonesty. I mean, I understand that you’d only look more foolish if you tried to deny it, but I thought that maybe a confession and apology from you might be warranted.

    WHY is it so important to you??

    WHY must you turn EVER discussion into a personal attack???

    When you get cornered making stupid arguments that you cannot defend, your MO is to launch into a flame war...you swear at us, hurl insults about our loved ones, and attack us personally and viciously. You do this because you know that a flame war will shift everyone’s attention from you being proven wrong to something much more salacious.

    That’s why you were so upset that after you spewed the hateful and disparaging insults and lies attacking both Devon and I, I did not respond in kind. I didn’t flinch. You even tried a second time to get me to engage when you pointed out that I hadn’t fought back against your bullshit — whining that I wouldn’t play your little game meant to distract everyone from you being called out for your dishonesty.

    Now you have the nerve to claim that my holding you accountable for what you say to people here is somehow the same thing as a “personal attack” against you? NO! The filth you said about Devon and I was a “personal attack” on steroids! And before you attempt to spin what you said in any way, just remember that you admitted it was a personal attack when you wondered why I refused to fight back! Again, I can post the actual comments if you’d like to be humiliated further, but that’s your call.

    Why haven’t I stopped reminding you of how dishonest you are on here? I still have not received an apology for what you said about my husband, Devon, or for your attempts to tarnish and dishonor his over 20 years of service in law enforcement! You attacked me because I pointed out that you were saying things that contradicted your previous statements! Hell, at this point, your willingness to steal the honor of those that serve in law enforcement makes me doubt that you ever served in the military.

    When you attack people to cover up your own dishonesty, that’s being a bully, Michale. I don’t like bullies. Bullies need to learn that their dishonesty is not acceptable, and they should ask forgiveness to those they harmed. I’m an extremely forgiving person; but it’s your choice whether you would like to see if that is true or not!

  102. [102] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Yer playing semantics and deflection..

    No, but you are projecting by making such an ignorant claim.

    I simply pointed out that you were, once again, caught by your own dishonest statements. It would be much simpler, and far less humiliating, if you could simply admit when you are wrong and moved on. Instead, you double and triple down on your dishonesty. No one here believes these pathetic attempts to distort the truth...not even you!

    How exactly did Obama throw “the Iranian protesters under the bus..”?

    By ignoring them..

    By doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what President Trump has done..

    Obama didn’t ignore them. He put out a statement doing exactly what Trump did...he offered words of support, but he didn’t get our forces involved! You are praising Trump for doing exactly what Obama did...minus Trump’s threats to commit war crime acts which were all his own! It’s funny how you applaud Trump for not responding to Iran launching missiles and destroying barracks on a US military base, but Obama was weak for not waging war.

    I applaud Trump for actually following Obama’s example, for once, instead of instinctively doing the exact opposite without considering the consequences that decision would bring. If Trump continues to follow in Obama’s wisdom, maybe he’ll avoid destroying our country...or our world!

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama didn’t ignore them. He put out a statement doing exactly what Trump did...he offered words of support,

    Bullshit..

    Prove it..

Leave a Reply

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

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

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