ChrisWeigant.com

Warren-Sanders Spat Wildly Overblown

[ Posted Monday, January 13th, 2020 – 18:21 UTC ]

As you may have heard, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are now locked in a political deathmatch, trading body blows and viciously attacking each other. Except for the fact that this isn't really true, of course. But the media loves confrontation, so when there isn't much to work with, they just hype the heck out of whatever thin reeds they have available.

Excuse me for being snarky, but this sort of thing just kind of brings it out in me. I have firm beliefs about primary races in general, and my biggest disappointment (which usually comes true every four years like clockwork) is when Democrats don't attack each other strongly enough. But that needs a qualification, because mere attacks for the sake of attacking aren't what I'm talking about.

See if the following sounds familiar or not. Democratic candidates all have a rousing primary race, and attacks are hurled at each other. Mostly these have to do with splitting hairs on what it means to be the best Democrat for the race. That's pretty broad, but you know what I mean -- this cycle, it is exemplified the best in the fact that the candidates are constantly put into a cage-match situation by the media over their differences in how to best achieve universal health care coverage. There are indeed differences, to be sure, and some of them are pretty big. But all of these differences absolutely pale in comparison to the differences between the plans of any Democrat on that stage and what both Donald Trump and the Republicans believe. That chasm is so wide you can barely see the other side of it, which makes the Democratic differences look pretty minor in comparison.

That's just one example of many. But to get back to my main premise: after these minor differences are blown way out of proportion in the primary race, eventually a nominee emerges. They strive for -- and then finally achieve -- the magic number of delegates which lock in the nomination for them at the convention. The dust settles on the Democratic side.

Immediately thereafter, the opposition research from the Republicans kicks in and the Democratic candidate now has to face attacks of an entirely different nature. This is where "Hillary's emails" or "swiftboating" takes place, in other words. Flaws in the candidate and the candidate's past are used as blunt instruments and the Democrat falters as a direct result.

Again, does any of this sound familiar? It should. Because even after a hard-fought primary, it seems there is dirt on the nominee (or even perceived dirt) that the other Democrats were far too polite to ever mention -- even if their campaigns had obtained the same negative information. But at this point, the candidate is locked in as the nominee, and Democrats just have to hunker down and hope to weather the storm. Sometimes they do, and sometimes the storm wipes them out.

Which is why I would dearly love to see the Democrats attack on all fronts during the primary. Some believe this is a politically suicidal thing to wish for, since Democrats could wind up hurting their own candidate so badly in the primary season that they never get a second wind for the general election. I don't buy it -- I am more in the "get anything negative out as quickly as possible, fashion a response to it, and then deride the media from that point on for bringing up old stuff" school of thought. These days, few scandals are incapable of being forgiven -- or forgotten entirely -- by the voters. The proof of this is Donald Trump, really.

But getting back to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, the big scoop about the "big battle" between them was so overblown as to be laughable. At the beginning of the race, when both Sanders and Warren were making up their minds to run, they famously forged a "non-aggression pact" between them. They're both almost identical in their ideological political outlook, so they agreed to essentially fight back to back as a duo, taking on all comers from the moderate wing of the party. So far, this is exactly what has happened. Warren and Sanders never get into it during debates, and they save their most cutting remarks for people like Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar.

It's debatable whether this strategy was the right one for the two candidates (I have my doubts about such pacts, I should mention, but we've never really seen one quite this strong before so I'm reserving judgment to see how it all works out), but they have stuck to it for the most part. But it cannot continue forever. There can be only one candidate, after all, and if through some bizarre turn of events the race turned into a two-candidate race between Warren and Sanders, they'd be forced into vying with each other for the nomination, pact or no pact.

We haven't reached that point, obviously. However, even if the race doesn't turn into a two-candidate race between them, at some point the pact is going to collapse. Iowa and New Hampshire are supposed to thin the field -- people used to talk about there "only being three tickets out of Iowa" -- but this time around that may not happen to the same degree as normal. What if there is still essentially a tie between the top four candidates (Warren, Sanders, Biden, and Buttigieg) after both states weigh in? That's a very plausible scenario at this point, and it even understates the case because Michael Bloomberg will still be lurking in the background in the run-up to Super Tuesday. Throughout the first four early-voting primaries, the field could remain a lot wider (five tickets, not three, in other words) than in normal years.

Sooner or later it will shrink, down to four and then to three. When that happens, if both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are still in the race, their non-aggression pact (if it survives this far) will have to collapse. If the race is "Warren v. Biden v. Somebody Else," then the only way either Biden or Warren will have any hope of winning the nomination is if the other one drops out. If they both stay in the race for too long, it could hand the victory to the Somebody Else in the race, plain and simple. This is the scenario which worries me the most, personally.

But having said all that -- in an admittedly naked effort to "bury the lede" on the Bernie-Warren spat -- let's take a look at what actually happened recently that has the media drooling so much, shall we?

The story was a scoop because someone leaked a "call sheet" from the Bernie camp to the media. These call sheets are essentially telephone call scripts. Some of us may remember (from an earlier, more innocent age) being terrified before calling up a girl (or boy) as a gangly teenager, to ask for that crucial first date. In an effort to answer the burning internal question: "Ohmigod whaddam I gonna say?" before the call, some of us would game the call out in our heads and perhaps make a few notes to have some lines ready depending on how the call went. That's precisely what the campaigns do, on a much higher scale.

If you are a phone bank volunteer trying to drum up support for your candidate -- especially in Iowa, where second choices can matter greatly, due to the strange caucus rules -- then you need to be prepared to try to convince voters who are supporting other candidates to give yours a chance too. So there are scenarios written out for what the phone-bankers should say if the voter says they're supporting Candidate X or Candidate Y. It's important to note that all campaigns do this sort of thing -- it is standard procedure.

Someone leaked one of these scripts to the press from the Sanders campaign. The media blew the entire thing up as "Sanders supporters are attacking Warren in phone calls to voters!" This is, as I said, downright laughable. Need proof? Here's a Salon story which puts the entire thing in perspective:

The whole debacle, in fact, is just further evidence that, going into what is going to be a tense primary season, it's important for people to at least try not to get riled up by provocative headlines and instead read actual stories. And to be particularly wary of outrage bait from headlines that play well on Twitter.

What the actual story shows it that volunteers for the Sanders campaign were given a script that included some language to use when voters they're talking to say they're leaning towards another candidate -- not just Warren, but also South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg or former Vice President Joe Biden. And of the three, the objections cited regarding Warren are, however incorrect one might think they are, less aggressive than the ones aimed at Sanders's male opponents.

"I like Elizabeth Warren. [optional] In fact, she's my second choice," the script reads. Then volunteer is asked to argue that Warren's voters are "highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what" and Sanders can draw the "disaffected working class voters."

In contrast, volunteers are not asked to say that they like either Buttigieg or Biden, but simply to say Buttigieg has "many admirable qualities" but he's "not winning over young people or African Americans" and while "[M]any people" like Biden, "no one is really excited about him."

Got that? There were suggested scripts for answering Biden supporters, Buttigieg supporters, and Warren supporters. These suggestions differed somewhat, being tailored to each opponent's perceived weaknesses. But none of them is all that nasty or even really rises to the term "an attack" (the Biden one comes the closest, but still doesn't really qualify). They're all subtly trying to make the same point: Bernie is not only just as electable as the other candidates, in fact he's more electable than the field. Again, this is pretty standard stuff. In all the scripts, the emphasis was similar, pointing out that Bernie could energize and enthuse more people to vote than any of the other candidates.

In other words, a non-story.

What made it a story was some intrepid reporter who got Warren to take the bait. She was asked about the call sheet, and responded that Bernie's team was "trashing her." That's buying into the media's overstating the case, and it is buying into their burning desire to see Bernie and Warren duke it out for progressive support. Here's how Politico reported this:

Warren, thrumming with umbrage, instantly retaliated. "I was disappointed to hear Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me," she told reporters in Iowa. She predicted that if the Democrats started going at each other for real the party would collapse into a repeat of 2016, when factionalism allegedly weakened Hillary Clinton enough that she lost a layup general election. Sanders didn't criticize his underlings for producing the script; instead he turned on the press, dismissing the episode "a bit of media blow-up, who kind of wants conflict."

Seriously? "Thrumming with umbrage"? "Instantly retaliated"? I defy anyone who actually views the video of Warren's response -- which was prompted by a reporter's question, instead of being an "instant retaliation" of any kind -- to tell me she was "thrumming" with anything, let alone "umbrage." Bernie was right to avoid taking the bait, and quite correctly pointed out that the entire thing was a non-story the media was overhyping because they were bored (or just plain lazy).

What I find most interesting about this whole tempest in a teapot is that the media is now actually paying attention to the campaigns of both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren -- certainly paying a lot more attention in the past few days than they have for quite some time. There's a reason for that, and the reason is that the Iowa poll most respected by the media just put out new numbers, and the results were pretty shocking. Bernie led the field with 20 percent, Warren came in second with 17 percent, and both Buttigieg and Biden were bested by the two (although not by much, Buttigieg pulled 16 percent to Biden's 15 percent). After largely ignoring Bernie -- or, worse, outright deriding his campaign -- for months now, the media suddenly had to come to grips with the fact that the Iowa voters weren't writing either candidate off, no matter how much the mainstream media ignored them. So what better way of highlighting their campaigns than to take some mistaken perception of an "attack" and blow it far out of proportion in an effort to have both progressive candidates come out looking worse for the new attention?

Personally, I would love it -- for a number of reasons -- if that poll turned out to be strictly accurate in predicting the outcome. If Iowa votes for Bernie, with Warren taking second and Biden and Buttigieg in third and fourth (in either order), then the media are going to have to completely change their outlook when it comes to the "electability" of the progressive candidates. If this is followed up by similar results in New Hampshire, then it'll be a whole new race -- both in reality and in the media.

Perhaps -- just perhaps, mind you -- this would actually lead to the long-overdue realization that progressive policies are not some sort of "fringe, extreme far-left" positions, but in fact the agenda that a growing majority of Americans actually largely agree with. But I do realize that this might be too much to hope for. Unless and until that happens, we'll likely see a whole lot more ginned-up pseudo-fights between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the headlines. In fact, I fully expect this "spat" to be an issue in tomorrow night's debate, because it's such media catnip right now.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

74 Comments on “Warren-Sanders Spat Wildly Overblown”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Note: As you can probably guess, this was written before the NEXT Warren-Sanders "spat" story appeared (the one about Bernie supposedly telling Warren he thought a woman couldn't win). Just to be clear, that's why I didn't include it in the article.

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    of course the spat is overblown. they're both big cake candidates pretending to support pie.

  3. [3] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    I agree with much of what you said regarding the media’s overly dramatic descriptions and habit of making mountains (“they are at war”) out of molehills (“they disagreed on a minor issue”). But I am surprised that you would suggest candidates running “no-holds-barred” campaigns during the primaries against fellow Democrats! Why encourage them to dig up and use as much dirt as they can on each other — dirt that the Republicans might never have discovered otherwise? And given the Republicans habit of turning nothing-burgers into huge scandals, it seems like you are just handing them more fuel to throw on future fires.

    Seriously, CW, unless you are suggesting that a Democrat should attempt Trump’s trick of having scandals coming so fast and furious that they never have an opportunity to stick and do any real damage...this sounds like a bad idea. One, Trump is like an idiot-savant when it comes to dodging and avoiding any accountability for new scandals that pop up on an almost daily basis. Second, none of the Democrats running appear to be sociopaths, meaning they would be moved by guilt associated with committing dishonest or even criminal acts. Trump does not seem able to feel such guilt.

    Warren and Sanders are running on extremely similar platforms, and seem to share very similar viewpoints. Why risk looking like an ass by going on personal attacks when you can just make strong arguments for why you are the best candidate and deserve the people’s votes?

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I must admit I never noticed that when the media has nothing to work with they just hype some nothing story.

    I guess it's hard to tell the difference when all the media has to cover the rest of the time is the Democrats and Republicans and the nothing they offer.

    But isn't writing about the media doing that and the story that the media is hyping doing exactly what the rest of the media is doing hyping this story?

    I guess that doesn't put as much of a bee in your bonnet as Democrats not attacking each other.

    But I am glad you believe that Democrats should be "attacked" now for their flaws to get them out in the open.

    But not so voters can get used to the flaws- but so the candidates can address the flaws and fix them.

    You could get the ball rolling by writing an article about small contribution candidates vs. small donor candidates, perhaps using my debate question for Bernie from last week's debate article comments.

    Or maybe you just prefer that citizens not be aware of the difference between the two kinds of candidates because you are afraid they might choose the real small donor candidates or even choose to demand, work and vote to achieve small donor candidates that may not currently be available rather than continue to support and vote for the big money candidates because that is all they are being offered.

    It is hard to argue that citizens (of which 80% say they want the big money out of politics) are choosing the big money candidates because that's what they
    want when they are not being informed of other choices. It's hard to choose a choice you don't know exists.

    Forget the fake debate between the big money progressives and the big money moderates.

    Let's make the debate between small donor candidates that would represent and legislate for ordinary citizens and big money small contribution candidates that do and will represent and legislate for the big money interests and see if any of the candidates are capable of addressing and fixing their biggest flaw that is absolutely real and not just a perception. This would make the Democratic nominee someone worth voting for that will not only be an improvement over Trump but will lay the groundwork to prevent another Trump as well as clean up our corrupt CONgress instead of repeating the same mistakes that led to Trump and our corrupt CONgress and will inevitably lead to another "Trump" that may be even worse and a more corrupt CONgress.

    Get Real and become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

  5. [5] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And our choices should not be limited to pie.

    The only thing that is important is that the big money deceivers get their just desserts.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I know that one candidate is not at all for big cake, not even a little bit.

    He is a pie man, through and through, especially ice cream pie!

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Pie is not a limiting thing ...

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don[5],

    Okay, I have to admit, that was pretty good comment, as it were. :)

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear [3] -

    Yeah, I'll admit it's a tough position to take. But I consider it as inoculation. Even before Trump, if a scandal (or a made-up "scandal") cropped up before the primaries, (like, say, Obama's minister), then the candidate could have a chance to react to it in whatever way they chose (strongly deny, brush off, fight back, laugh it off, apologize, call for new direction, whatever...) long before the general election. Democratic candidates likely wouldn't go for the jugular, but instead allow for another candidate's response ("I will take his apology at his word, but voters should remember that I've always been on the right side of the issue").

    Later, when it comes up in the general election, the now-nominee can present it as "old news" that has already been addressed. They've been inoculated by its exposure during the primary.

    However, if a Dem candidate decided not to use an issue they discovered during oppo research, the odds are pretty good that the GOP candidate will also dig it up, so what happens instead is that the public doesn't even hear about it until the general election fight. That puts the Dem on defensive in a much bigger way. And the Republican will use it as a bludgeon in a way a fellow Democrat probably wouldn't.

    I realize there's risk involved with this strategy, but I'm also tired of seeing a candidate become the nominee, and then after there's nothing the Dem voters can do about it, we all learn what their biggest weakness is (something from the dim and distant past, usually). To my mind, there's more risk with that strategy, in the end.

    But I realize not everyone's going to feel the same way about it. There's risk either way, and it's always impossible to tell after the fact "how it would have worked out if it came out earlier/later" because it is nothing but speculation.

    I thought I had written a whole article about this before, but I may be mistaken. I'll have to look...

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I agree with CW in that Democrat candidates should be "tested by fire" to put bad news in the rear view mirror and to prepare them for a billion dollar Republican onslaught.

    Another benefit is that the Democrats stay very much on the nation's radar with a robust and provocative primary. There's no equivalent on the GOP side. Trump filed to run for reelection the day he was sworn in and there will be no real GOP primary.

  11. [11] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    I guess I just worry that it might lead to Democrats needlessly airing their dirty laundry and letting the world know things that would not normally get discussed outside the family.

    And let’s face it, the GOP will take any little non-story event and warp it into a conspiracy theory that gets tons of free media exposure regardless of how baseless it is.

    Chris, they just reported that McConnell does not have the votes to have a trial without witnesses! Did you See Lawrence Lessig’s article in the WAPost where he said McConnell should not be allowed to take the oath because he will be committing perjury based on his own statements? He and Lindsey Graham both have made it clear that they will not be impartial. One senator during the Johnson impeachment trial had his oath challenged by a fellow senator, and these two definitely have made it clear that challenging their oath is completely justified.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    And let’s face it, the GOP will take any little non-story event and warp it into a conspiracy theory that gets tons of free media exposure regardless of how baseless it is.

    Oh and Democrats would NEVER do that, eh?? :D

    Once again, the bigotry shines thru.. :D

    Chris, they just reported that McConnell does not have the votes to have a trial without witnesses! Did you See Lawrence Lessig’s article in the WAPost where he said McConnell should not be allowed to take the oath because he will be committing perjury based on his own statements?

    Got any FACTS to support that bullshit claim, other than WaPoop??

    No??

    Of course not..

    Face reality, Russ.. Yer gonna lose.. AGAIN...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    Trump filed to run for reelection the day he was sworn in and there will be no real GOP primary.

    Facts to support?? Any at all??

    Even if factually accurate... So???

    That's just what Obama did when he first took office.

    Why is it a problem with President Trump??

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Note: As you can probably guess, this was written before the NEXT Warren-Sanders "spat" story appeared (the one about Bernie supposedly telling Warren he thought a woman couldn't win). Just to be clear, that's why I didn't include it in the article.

    So... What's yer take on the newest Sanders/Warren spat??

    Is it a case of the media over-hyping??

    Or did Sanders really say something sexist like that??

    What do you think the fallout will be to this latest revelation??

    Enquiring Minds want to know.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    All this Dem primary talk and shuffle is really quite moot..

    There is not a single Dem candidate that could even HOPE to best President Trump in the general election..

    With black and hispanic voters running from the Democrat Party by the millions, a rip-roaring economy that's only getting better (not worse, like the Trump/America haters predicted) and Dem's changing what they are all about every day???

    Rub all these FACTS together and what do ya get???

    A President Trump re-election.. :D

    Whoever the Dems nominate, he/she is going to be the Bob Dole of the Democrats.. A placeholder candidate who doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning.. :D

    It's gonna be 2016 all over again.. And ya'all remember how much fun I had then, eh!? :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps -- just perhaps, mind you -- this would actually lead to the long-overdue realization that progressive policies are not some sort of "fringe, extreme far-left" positions, but in fact the agenda that a growing majority of Americans actually largely agree with.

    Except it's not factually accurate..

    America is a center-right country, no matter how you wish it otherwise..

    Oh yea, sure.. You can cherry pick a poll here or there that would support the claim, but that's just dependent on how the poll questions are phrased..

    Democrats had total control of the country and they blew it...

    President Trump gets into office and things turn around... Economy is going like gang-busters and America is respected by her allies and feared by her enemies...

    There simply isn't ANY WAY that Americans, REAL Americans.. Patriotic Americans are going to want to go back to the dismal and incompetent Democrat way of doing things...

    America is back to being top of the food chain.. We're not going back to a government that insists we be at the bottom..

    It's really that simple..

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh.. And, since we're talking about Warren...

    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_iq

    Wonder why Warren didn't applaud President Trump for this??

    I mean, since she is...what was it?? 1/2045 American Indian?? :D

    Seriously though, there was a GREAT movie made about this.. WIND RIVER starring Jeremy Renner..

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5362988/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

    It's a pretty powerful movie made even more so by this at the end..

    "While missing person statistics are compiled for every other demographic, none exist for Native American women."

    President Trump deserves credit for doing what he did.. That's the reality here..

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh.. And, since we're talking about Warren...

    Trump signs executive order creating task force on missing and murdered Native Americans
    cbsnews.com/news/trump-native-americans-president-to-sign-executive-order-for-task-force-on-missing-murdered-native-americans/?fbclid=IwAR307jJmhg8BYVBchlU8gHE_0aur_hDPsX4mfoZ9cEbajVCu_iq

    Wonder why Warren didn't applaud President Trump for this??

    I mean, since she is...what was it?? 1/2045 American Indian?? :D

    Seriously though, there was a GREAT movie made about this.. WIND RIVER starring Jeremy Renner..

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5362988/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

    It's a pretty powerful movie made even more so by this at the end..

    "While missing person statistics are compiled for every other demographic, none exist for Native American women."

    President Trump deserves credit for doing what he did.. That's the reality here..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump, Melania Trump cheered by crowd at LSU-Clemson national championship game
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-melania-lsu-clemson-ncaa-cheers

    Ouch.. That's just GOTTA hurt.. :D

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Vince Vaughn faces liberal outrage after he was seen with Trump during national championship game

    Movie star Vince Vaughn, a self-described libertarian who has supported Republican candidates in the past, is facing backlash on social media after a video emerged on Twitter showing him with President Trump in a private box during the national championship game Monday in New Orleans, La., a video showed.

    Vaughn was seen chatting and laughing with the president as Melania sat between them -- before the pair shook hands and Trump appeared to point to the star's lanyard, according to a 31-second clip uploaded to Twitter.

    "Ellen thought she had it rough...Keep Vince Vaughn in your prayers tonight," user Alex Salvi said.

    "Sad. Vince Vaughn is one of my favorites," another user wrote. "I always knew he was Republican but this, so gross. I don't need a Wedding Crashers sequel anymore."

    Others spoke out on how the outrage was a bit over the top and reactionary.

    "So do Swingers and Wedding Crashers get taken off the air for all of eternity now after Vince Vaughn had a civilized conversation with the president at the Superdome tonight?" Joe Concha, a columnist with The Hill, wrote.

    "It's an amazing time to be alive when shaking the hand of the president is enough to get you canceled," user Jason Howerton said.

    This is ya'all's Democrat Party...

    No wonder Dems can't win elections.. They are such jerks and assholes.. :eyeroll:

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in the YA JUST GOTTA LOVE IT!!! department.. :D

    Cory Booker has dropped out of the 2020 race for president
    Booker’s exit means a once-diverse field is getting whiter.

    https://www.vox.com/2020/1/13/20887051/cory-booker-drops-out-of-2020-race-for-president

    For all the Democrat Party's talk of "diversity"???

    They are gonna nominate an old white guy as their champion.. :D

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Somebody STOP me!!"
    -Jim Carrey, THE MASK

    :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    McConnell crows on Senate floor that Pelosi's impeachment 'gambit' produced 'absolutely nothing'

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Monday tore into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., just days after the speaker backed down from her refusal to send the articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate, calling Pelosi’s delay a “strange gambit” that “produced absolutely nothing.”

    During a speech on the Senate floor, McConnell chastised Pelosi for ending what he called “her one-woman blockade” and questioned her strategy for holding off sending the articles to the Senate.

    The House in December voted to impeach Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for matters relating to his controversial July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the subsequent House inquiry.

    Pelosi had held up sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, citing concerns about McConnell’s objectivity and the lack of ability to call witnesses to testify in the trial in hopes of winning concessions from Republicans. But McConnell refused to give in.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-pelosi-impeachment-gambit

    Heh Some here... Actually, just one commenter here, is delusional and thinks that Pelosi's gambit produced desired results.. :D

    The FACTS, however, show that it accomplished NOTHING but turn Democrat against Democrat..

    Pelosi's moronic and bone-head play didn't extract ANY concession from McConnell.. In fact, the stoopid move actually provided the impetus for Republicans to swarm behind McConnell and got the vote McConnell needed to push this whole faux impeachment coup towards it's rightful ending..

    Dismissal of all the bogus charges (that aren't even crimes) and total vindication and exoneration of President Trump..

    The ONLY thing Pelosi has accomplished with this whole faux impeachment coup is to cement President Trump's re-election...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    In a television appearance over the weekend, Pelosi defended the delay, arguing Democrats were successful in making the case to the American people that the Senate trial should include witnesses.

    "What we think we accomplished in the past few weeks is that we wanted the public to see the need for witnesses,” Pelosi said during an appearance on ABC News' “This Week.”

    Pelosi also warned Sunday that senators will “pay a price” if they block new witness testimony with a trial that Americans perceive as a “cover-up” for Trump's actions.

    “It's about a fair trial," Pelosi said. “The senators who are thinking now about voting for witnesses or not, they will have to be accountable.”

    If Dumbocrats wanted witnesses, they should have called them when they had this faux impeachment coup in their control..

    They didn't call those witnesses because they knew they would LOSE in the courts...

    Today's Democrat Party..

    ALWAYS losing.. :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay..

    If Democrats want witnesses, let's have witnesses..

    First up should be the alleged "whistleblower"... Find out EXACTLY the relationship between him Schiff-head.. Then, the GOP will get Schiff-head on the stand and watch him squirm..

    Then, the GOP will drag Joe Biden off the campaign trail and quiz him on exactly what he knew about his extortion of the Ukraine regime...

    And when all THAT fun has settled, then the GOP will drag Hunter Biden in and really turn the screws.. :D

    So, hell yea.. Democrats want witnesses.. Let's have witnesses!! :D

    "Uh... er.. well.. Never mind.. We don't need witnesses.."
    -Democrats

    :smirk: :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Dumbocrats wanted witnesses, they should have called them when they had this faux impeachment coup in their control..

    Repeat after me:

    The GOP is in TOTAL and COMPLETE CONTROL of Senate Impeachment proceedings.. PERIOD... FULL STOP...

    Democrats, INCLUDING Pelosi, have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in the matter..

    The GOP will be just as fair and just as non-biased as House Democrats were..

    Ya'all can't ask for anything more than that..

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOJ35zXUYAA5Xjs.jpg

    heheheheh Now THAT is funny.. :D

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    UK's Boris Johnson welcomes replacing Obama-era Iran nuclear agreement with 'Trump deal'
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/boris-johnson-new-iran-trump-deal

    As I said.. New found respect between the USA and the UK..

    Repairing the damage that Obama had wrought...

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Warren says Sanders 'disagreed' with her belief a woman could win the White House race
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sanders-denies-warren-a-woman-couldnt-win-presidential-election

    Looks like the Sanders/Warren spat is not really the media creation ya'all want it to be.. :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny

    Trump impeachment trial fight for Bolton testimony echoes Monica Lewinsky
    http://news.trust.org/item/20200113102655-ka82i

    Strange how Democrats did **NOT** want witnesses during Clinton's impeachment...

    But, **NOW** Democrats are all in about wanting witnesses..

    More proof positive that it's all about the -D or -R after a person's name...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now I have to say...

    US Supreme Court refuses to 'Free the Nipple' in topless women case
    http://news.trust.org/item/20200113140914-x3iun

    I think the SCOTUS should have freed the nipple.. :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    So...

    DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Democrats are preparing for what could be their most contentious debate yet as the leading candidates gather in Iowa on Tuesday looking for a way to break out of the crowded top tier less than three weeks before the state’s caucuses kick-start the presidential nomination process.

    Some of the fiercest clashes could center on Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, fellow progressives who until now have largely avoided criticizing each other.

    But Warren chastised Sanders over the weekend following a report that his campaign instructed volunteers to speak poorly of her to win over undecided voters. The tensions escalated on Monday after CNN reported Sanders told Warren in a private 2018 meeting that he didn’t think a woman could win the election, a charge that Sanders vigorously denied but that Warren confirmed later Monday.
    https://apnews.com/f5501656793b95a3bc5c60e898810d74

    Explain to me exactly why this is all a "media construct"??

    As an aside to Russ..

    Turns out Democrats are **NOT** above personal attacks on fellow Democrats, eh? :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record..

    I am still waiting for that "dangerous escalation" ya'all promised in the aftermath of the Sillyman assassination..

    You see, this is EXACTLY what happens when ya'all confuse what you WISH to happen vs the facts that indicate what WILL happen.. Ya'all get egg all over yer faces.. :D

    It's why ya'all are always wrong... :smirk: :D

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (8)-
    thank you.

    Although the pie reference which was originated to equate One Demand with a pie in the sky idea. As CW keeps saying and said again in this article that so many things that were considered pie in the sky ideas are now mainstream ideas.

    So where do you stand on the small contribution candidate vs. small donor candidate debate in comment 3?

    As CW says, when a vast majority of citizens are overwhelming for or against something that makes it mainstream. 80% of citizens wanting the big money out of our political process is a vast majority.

    Here's your opportunity for a real discussion.

    Who knows, maybe even CW will finally man up and weigh in if we get a conversation going.

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Oops. comment 4.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Spartacus drops his sword in clash of crazy ideas
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/13/cory-booker-gives-fight-crazy-ideas/

    Heh.... :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden Doesn’t Deserve Black People

    My fiancée and I have developed somewhat of a routine for the Democratic presidential debates.

    We make dinner, mix a drink, sit in the living room, and she falls asleep as we watch the candidates try to sell us. When she wakes up, she asks me to give her a synopsis of what she missed and what the best parts were. Then she asks “How did Biden mess up on black people?”

    Each time she asks the Biden question, I have a new answer. Like my fiancée falling asleep, Joe Biden’s problematic debate answers and vision for black people has become routine.

    But if nothing else, Biden is consistent, as you can see from a supercut of his racial gaffes over the years.
    https://www.theroot.com/joe-biden-doesn-t-deserve-black-people-1840933963

    Black Americans are swarming to President Trump.. Right now, President Trump's support amongst black Americans is in the mid 20s... It's projected to get into the mid 30s, low 40s come election day...

    Democrats don't stand a chance...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump may have inadvertently picked a fight with Sanders Sunday when the president highlighted the 78-year-old's strong poll performance and posted online: "So what does this all mean?"

    "It means you're going to lose," Sanders tweeted back.

    That's funny.. Democrats said the EXACT same thing to Trump in the 2016 election...

    How'de that work out again?? :D

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting factoid..

    At the top of Disney's MATTERHORN in Anaheim there is a full basketball court..

    At the time that the MATTERHORN was constructed, city ordinances prevented ANY structure to be over a certain height...

    The only exception was sport's arenas, so Disney put in a basketball court at the very top... :D

    Now ya'all know.. :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    PELOSI CAVES!!!

    House prepares to vote Wednesday to transmit Trump impeachment articles to the Senate

    WASHINGTON – The House of Representatives is preparing a likely Wednesday vote to transmit articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate, NBC News reported Tuesday, citing several sources.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., faces mounting pressure not only from Republicans, but increasingly from fellow Democrats, to deliver the articles, which would then permit the Senate to begin preparations for a trial.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/house-vote-wednesday-to-transmit-trump-impeachment-articles-to-senate.html

    Amazing that there are still Weigantians out there who believe Pelosi's boneheaded moronic move was actually GOOD for Democrats.. :eyeroll:

  41. [41] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [13]

    Michale,

    Go look up "When did Trump file for reelection?" on this online source called "Google." Now I must warn you about Google: they are NOT Fox News! Fox news is the propaganda arm of oligarchs and Republicans who's paramount objective is to get people to vote against their own wallets. Google, on the other hand, deals with factual knowledge with footnotes and references. It'll be a little jarring for you at first, but it will open your eyes to a whole, new world.

    It's only relevant because it immediately scotched the notion that Trump would be only a one term President, and removed most of the newsworthy drama out of the "Republican primary."

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Go look up "When did Trump file for reelection?" on this online source called "Google."

    It's not up to me to search around for facts to validate your claims.. If you have the facts to support your claims, the onus is on you to substantiate them..

    Fox news is the propaganda arm of oligarchs and Republicans

    Just like WaPoop and NY GRIME is the propaganda arm of the Hysterical Trump/America haters..

    What's yer point???

    Google, on the other hand, deals with factual knowledge with footnotes and references.

    Actually Google is VERY biased in favor of the Trump/America haters.. This is well-documented by tests on their algorithms..

    It's only relevant because it immediately scotched the notion that Trump would be only a one term President, and removed most of the newsworthy drama out of the "Republican primary."

    No Trump supporter ever had that "notion".. I can only assume ya pulled it outta yer arse... :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Google, on the other hand, deals with factual knowledge with footnotes and references. It'll be a little jarring for you at first, but it will open your eyes to a whole, new world.

    Google is just another propaganda arm of the Trump/America haters..

    To get TRULY unbiased search results, I use DogPile..

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    ABC, CBS, NBC ignore CNN settlement with Covington student

    CNN settles student's suit

    Covington teenager targets other outlets.

    The news that CNN had decided to settle the high-profile, $250 million defamation lawsuit filed by Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann was completely ignored by ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and NBC, according to the Media Research Center.

    The settlement was significant and should impact outcomes of a variety of other defamation suits that stem from Sandmann and his classmates being swept up in a controversy after a 2019 video clip depicted the "MAGA" hat-wearing student smiling at Native American Nathan Phillips. The man was beating a drum and singing a chant as he was surrounded by Sandmann's peers, who had joined in on the chant in front of the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/abc-cbs-nbc-cnn-settlement-covington-sandmann

    See what I mean?? Leftist MSM is in the bag for Democrats..

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remind me about the peaceful and tolerant and respectful Democrat Party???

    "If Bernie doesn't get nomination Milwaukee will fucking burn"
    -Sanders Organizer Kyle Jurek

    I seem to have forgotten, what with all the facts to the contrary...

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    BERNIE VS LIZ
    Gloves come off in clash between far-left 2020 rivals, causing progressives to panic

    Warren, Sanders abandon truce as feud intensifies hours before Iowa debate
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/warren-sanders-abandon-truce-as-feud-intensifies-hours-before-iowa-debate

    It was inevitable...

    "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!"
    -Highlander

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    It seems to me that the latest revelation about Bernie's sexism totally negates your efforts in this commentary to claim it's all a media construct..

    I mean the facts show that there are really some heavy and hefty blows being traded..

    In light of the Bernie Misogyny revelation, do you feel you might have jumped the gun??

    As I said before.. Enquiring minds want to know.. :D

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jim Daly: Vince Vaughn, thanks for talking with Trump. Ignore the leftist mob and keep showing us civility

    There was a time when sports served as a unifying good in our culture but now even conversations in the stands are suspect and highly scrutinized – and criticized. Just ask Ellen DeGeneres and President George W. Bush – and now Vince Vaughn.

    Shaming people into behaving or believing is a mistake the church has made in the past. God wants our hearts and from it flows appropriate behavior.

    The left is repeating the errors of fascist governments whereby the mob determines what you will do and say, even who you are allowed to sit with.

    The political polarization of America has grown increasingly acute but maybe sports can once again serve as something akin to a balm on the burn.

    What we saw Monday night in the presidential box was refreshing and a snapshot of civility – something both sides should be able to agree on is needed more than ever before.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/vince-vaughn-trump-civility-jim-daly

    What *IS* it with you Demcorats?? Not only do ya'all have to HATE so deep and so hysterically, ya'all have to viciously attack those who don't hate as much as ya'all do??

    Is this a learned trait or does it come naturally to Democrats???

  49. [49] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    based on what i know about both candidates, i can tell you with 70% certainty what probably actually happened. bernie said, "liz, i don't think you can win," and warren paraphrased it into him saying "a woman" can't win.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    The left is repeating the errors of fascist governments whereby the mob determines what you will do and say, even who you are allowed to sit with.

    So it's the LEFT who are actually the new NAZIs... Who woulda thunked it.. :eyeroll:

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    based on what i know about both candidates, i can tell you with 70% certainty what probably actually happened. bernie said, "liz, i don't think you can win," and warren paraphrased it into him saying "a woman" can't win.

    Yea?? If President Trump "paraphrased" like that, ya'all would call it a lie..

    We both know that is factually accurate..

    So, either Bernie is lying or Warren is lying..

    Spin it all you want, but those are the facts..

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Europeans trigger dispute mechanism in Iran nuclear deal

    PARIS/LONDON (Reuters) - France, Britain and Germany formally triggered the dispute mechanism in Iran’s nuclear deal on Tuesday, the strongest step the Europeans have taken so far to enforce an agreement that requires Iran to curb its nuclear programme.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/europeans-trigger-dispute-mechanism-in-iran-nuclear-deal-idUSKBN1ZD13A

    Looks like the US and the three European countries are on the same page as far as the JCPOA goes..

    Thank the gods President Trump had the foresight and prescience to get out of that bad deal...

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    “If we’re going to get rid of it, let’s replace it and let’s replace it with the Trump deal.”
    -UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson

    SO much for the claim that President Trump is costing us ally support...

    Looks like there is no daylight between the USA and the UK... :D

    I'm just sayin'... :D

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    PELOSI CAVES!!!! :D

    Trump impeachment trial could start next Tuesday, McConnell says

    President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial could begin as soon as next week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday.

    McConnell, R-Ky., announced the tentative schedule just a few hours after Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi revealed she will send the two articles of impeachment against Trump to the Senate on Wednesday.

    “We hope to be able to achieve that by consent, which would set us up to begin the actual trial next Tuesday,” McConnell said.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/trump-impeachment-trial-could-start-next-tuesday-mcconnell-says.html

    I'm betting Pelosi is feeling 10 different kinds of stoopid today!! :D

  55. [55] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    To get TRULY unbiased search results, I use DogPile..

    DogPile uses results from all the other search engines, so depending on their algorithms, you might be getting even more biased results. I used to use DogPile, and I still do sometimes to find hard to locate websites, but I found that it often did not return easy to find sites. I am guessing that what makes it so good at finding the obscure sites is why it sucked at finding the most obvious ones.

    Personally, I prefer DuckDuckGo.com. They don’t collect or sell your data, so I figure they have less incentive to be biased one way or the other.

  56. [56] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    From previous:
    Michale,

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

    Bullshit..

    Prove it..

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-offers-rhetorical-support-to-iran-protesters-is-it-enough

    From your favorite site.

  57. [57] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [14] -

    My take is similar to the above article: small potatoes. Overall, I think the whole thing points to someone close to Warren getting desperate, personally. The call sheet leak was from the low level of Bernie's team, but the "can't be president" story had to have come from someone higher up on team Warren.

    My bet: they'll both gloss over this tonight, much to the disappointment of the moderators. If Bernie's on top of his game, he'll point out that Biden said something very similar in public recently, and team Warren didn't take much umbrage over it (Biden said he wouldn't have to counter the misogyny Clinton had faced).

    These aren't huge ideological differences between Bernie and Warren, after all. They're ginned-up non-scandals. Which is why I think both of them will essentially make nice tonight to each other, and thus defuse the issue entirely.

    Oh, that reminds me: no column today until after the debate finishes... just to warn everyone in advance...

    -CW

  58. [58] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [15] -

    Yeah, keep right on believing that. In fact, Trump's going to do so well in Florida that he won't even need your vote, so you can stay home on Election Day and avoid the lines and hassle.

    Heh.

    -CW

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    They don't even quote Obama..

    So, obviously he didn't say anything of note.

    NOTHING compared to President Trump's red line..

  60. [60] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [30] -

    Say what? I must have missed this one. Here's a blast from the past, though:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/06/23/in-honor-of-george-carlin-examining-nipplephobia-and-buttcrackphobia-in-america/

    :-)

    Oh, and thanks for that link, too.

    -CW

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    These aren't huge ideological differences between Bernie and Warren, after all. They're ginned-up non-scandals. Which is why I think both of them will essentially make nice tonight to each other, and thus defuse the issue entirely.

    Time will tell. :D

    Yeah, keep right on believing that. In fact, Trump's going to do so well in Florida that he won't even need your vote, so you can stay home on Election Day and avoid the lines and hassle.

    Lines?? Out here in Podunk, FL?? :D Shirley, you jest..

    The only hassle I got last election was when I forgot about the NO CONCEALED WEAPONS at polling places.. They had the signs faced the wrong way.. DUH...

    But I just showed my shield and it was all no big deal..

    But you would do wise to not underestimate President Trump's appeal to minorities..

    The *LOWEST* unemployment ***EVER***..

    What have Democrats done for minorities that even comes CLOSE to that??

    Hell, it was DEMOCRATS who fought the CIVIL RIGHT legislation...

    Democrats are toast with black and hispanic Americans..

    But, take heart.. Democrats have locked up the gay transgender pregnant vote... :D

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, and thanks for that link, too.

    Weekum.. :D

  63. [63] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [various] -

    Black Americans are swarming to President Trump.. Right now, President Trump's support amongst black Americans is in the mid 20s... It's projected to get into the mid 30s, low 40s come election day...

    You answered yourself, buddy.

    You see, this is EXACTLY what happens when ya'all confuse what you WISH to happen vs the facts that indicate what WILL happen.. Ya'all get egg all over yer faces.. :D

    How'd those midterms work out for you? Heh...

    -CW

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Obama offered "rhetorical support"...

    President Trump laid a bright & clear red line..

    You remember red lines, right?? Odumbo was fond of making red lines, but ran like a pussy when they were crossed..

    Personally, I prefer DuckDuckGo.com. They don’t collect or sell your data, so I figure they have less incentive to be biased one way or the other.

    I knew there was another one besides dogpile.. I just couldn't think of it at the time.. Yea, DDG is also a very good search engine that is not biased politically..

    Searching by GOOGLE?? You might as well search at DEMOCRAT.COM :eyeroll:

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    How'd those midterms work out for you? Heh...

    You mean the mid-terms where Democrats had to run as Republican lite to win??

    I don't have to tell you that the mid-term is not the general..

    Further, I didn't say minorities were flocking to the GOP.. I said minorities were flocking to President Trump..

    And THIS is well-documented..

    FACTS.. Not wish-casting.. :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    These aren't huge ideological differences between Bernie and Warren, after all. They're ginned-up non-scandals. Which is why I think both of them will essentially make nice tonight to each other, and thus defuse the issue entirely.

    Although this may be some wish-casting, I think we're gonna see some real fireworks tonight...

    Warren and Sanders are gonna be at each other's throats and at Biden's throat.. Biden will stumble worse than he did against Kamala I-SLEPT-MY-WAY-TO-MY-SENATE-SEAT Harris and Buttigig will appear to be the adult in the room and rise above it all..

    You heard it here first.. :D

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why tonight’s debate could be a doozy

    The reluctance to attack is now a vestige of the past. In its place is a spray of bullets in every direction.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/14/january-democratic-debate-doozy-attack-098376

    Apparently, I am not the only one who thinks this about tonight's debate.. :D

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yet Democrats are notoriously worrisome — about the quality of their candidates, about fundraising, about the electoral strength of Trump. And bellicosity is not unusual in the final stretch of a campaign.

    In fact, it was not the skirmishing itself, but the scattershot nature of the hostilities, that marked a new turn in the race. Defined until recently by an infrequent series of one-on-one confrontations, the contest is now becoming a melee.

    Just what we need!! An old-fashioned melee!!!! :D

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    I guess I just worry that it might lead to Democrats needlessly airing their dirty laundry and letting the world know things that would not normally get discussed outside the family.

    And, on top of all of that, the average American voter doesn't have the attention span required to understand why Biden voted for the AUMP in Iraq and that, in any case, it wasn't a vote, outright, for war.

    There won't be time enough in this debate tonight, either.

    I can almost predict how the asinine 'Biden voted for the Iraq war' nonsense will play out later this evening.

    Biden should just say, "That's a bunch of malarkey - I didn't vote for war in Iraq. Read the Senate debate transcripts - and that goes for you, the moderators, too ... respectfully."

    Actually, there was a surprisingly astute piece in the New York Times about this the other day … surprised the heck out of me, truth be known.

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, man ... AUMP should be AUMF … for the newcomers to the site and to national security politics, in general, you know ...

  71. [71] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [13]

    MC,

    Trump filed to run for reelection the day he was sworn in and there will be no real GOP primary.

    Facts to support?? Any at all??

    Even if factually accurate... So???

    That's just what Obama did when he first took office.

    Why is it a problem with President Trump??

    Michale, re FACTS

    I like to be factual, and you can be, too! Here's how to do it: Get yourself on the the interwebs and find this thing called "Google" and ask(!) your smartphone " When did Trump file for reelection?" And it will offer you something called " Wikipedia" and the answers are right there!But I gotta warn you: this could be a rough ride for you, my friend, for this is NOT Fox News! Fox is the unofficial prapoganda network of oligarchs, Christofacists and Racists who's main goal is to get folks to vote against their own wallets. Present company excepted, of course. Ahem.

    In contrast, Wikipedia has things like footnotes, references and so-called "links," and all you gotta do is read it. As Don Harris might say, easy as pie!

    Again, please be warned that you are about to leave your alternative facts universe and crossing into a universe where, "Facts have a well known Liberal bias."

    Obama filed for reelection on 4/7/2011 - 19 months before the election. So you were incorrect about that. Trump filed the day he was sworn in - 46 months ahead of time.

    What do you read in my post, above, that suggests that I "have a problem" with Trump being the first President to file immediatly? The point I was making was that once a Party settles on a nominee many people's focus naturally graduates to the Party that hasn't yet. Lighten up, Dude.

    "I do not think it means what you think it means."

    -Igino Montoya
    The Princess Bride

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    I like to be factual, and you can be, too! Here's how to do it: Get yourself on the the interwebs and find this thing called "Google" and ask(!) your smartphone "

    Once again.. GOOGLE is Left Wing bias..

    Trump filed the day he was sworn in - 46 months ahead of time.

    And yet, you have NO FACTS to support your claim.

    Why is that??

    What do you read in my post, above, that suggests that I "have a problem" with Trump being the first President to file immediatly?

    Tone.. Context..

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    What do you read in my post, above, that suggests that I "have a problem" with Trump being the first President to file immediatly?

    Tone.. Context..

    Plus the fact that you have established that you have a problem with EVERYTHING President Trump does..

  74. [74] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [72]

    Once again.. GOOGLE is Left Wing bias..

    OMG, Michale!

    Don't you understand that Google is a search engine? That it's not a destination but a way to get to whatever destination you want? That Google will get you to Daily Stormer or InfoWars just as readily as MSNBC or The Young Turks?

    Here's a "FACT" that verifies when Obama filed for reelection:

    https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/04/04/Obama-announces-re-election-bid/95081301905800/?dailybrief&ur3=1

    Michale you could have looked it up yourself
    so that at least your "whataboutism" was factually correct.

    What do you read in my post, above, that suggests that I "have a problem" with Trump being the first President to file immediatly?

    Tone.. Context..

    Plus the fact that you have established that you have a problem with EVERYTHING President Trump does..

    Oh, so you are a mind-reader! Otherwise, how can you know what I do and don't like about Trump?

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.]