Do the sheep ones work? I had always been told to use chicken entrails, but they just made a mess without saying much. I’ll try sheep the next time we have a full moon, thanks!

Mostly on what I've read (Magazines and newspapers), along with TV talk shows (Sunday morning type, not late-nite). That pretty much qualifies as something I've witnessed, does it not?

P.S. Oh, and I almost forgot, also on the anslysis of sheep entrails.

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/01/15/two-amusinghorrifying-suggestions-to-update-the-debate-format/

Be prepared to be horrified, though...

-CW

You didn't close the "end bold" command with an angle bracket. The "end italic" one was OK.

I have no idea why it actually performed the "end bold" though, I have to admit.

Either way, I went back and fixed it for you. You're welcome!

:-)

-CW

So you are saying your comment is not based on anything that you have witnessed, yourself, but on....,what? A hunch? Psychic reading from Ms. Cleo?

'nuff said..

Actually my source was the 35 documents the House Intelligence Committee released, I just linked the article to give context to my comment.

Yeah, it is...I couldn’t agree more! Iran only has one job opening thanks to Trump...China and Russia have countless hackers working to fulfill Trump’s orders.

Yep.. That's the consensus, even amongst Left Wingers..

It is however worth noting that that was pretty much the exact situation in 2016 - Hillary was destined to win unless she screwed up, and contrary to all the Weigantian rationalizers' claims that "The Russians screwed her" "Comey and the FBI screwed her", in fact, Hillary screwed up all on her own, so who knows, maybe the Orange Moron will somehow manage to emulate her!l

President Trump is way smarter than Hillary.. :D

Not just Iran! Think about how many hackers have been employed by China and Russia since Trump has requested their assistance in getting him elected!

False equivalency..

I have FACTS to support my claim..

You have none..

And based on the documents that Lev Parnas provided the Intelligence Committee, it looks as if Trump created a few jobs in the Ukraine — spies to monitor our ambassador and possible a hitman or two! And Trump and his administration will definitely be in the market for LOTS of defense attorneys in the coming months.

Yer source is WaPoop..

'nuff said..

It is however worth noting that that was pretty much the exact situation in 2016 - Hillary was destined to win unless she screwed up, and contrary to all the Weigantian rationalizers' claims that "The Russians screwed her" "Comey and the FBI screwed her", in fact, Hillary screwed up all on her own, so who knows, maybe the Orange Moron will somehow manage to emulate her!l

President Trump even creates jobs in Iran!!! :D

Not just Iran! Think about how many hackers have been employed by China and Russia since Trump has requested their assistance in getting him elected!

There will be a huge need for more oncologists in our country after Trump’s EPA stopped providing tracking of corporate dumping of toxic chemicals in our country...leaving communities completely in the dark about if they are at risk and making it easier for corporations to cover up their criminal activities!

And based on the documents that Lev Parnas provided the Intelligence Committee, it looks as if Trump created a few jobs in the Ukraine — spies to monitor our ambassador and possible a hitman or two! And Trump and his administration will definitely be in the market for LOTS of defense attorneys in the coming months.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/15/four-big-takeaways-explosive-lev-parnas-documents/

Turley similarly suggested that Pelosi pushed impeachment out of "vanity" and would pay a "high price" for doing so.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/jonathan-turley-pelosi-blunder-impeachment

Pelosi really scroo'ed da pooch...

As I said.. NOT Nth level 3D Chess...

Tiddlywinks...

Whaddya think 'bout them apples, huh?

Way ahead of ya, my friend.. :D

I disagree with President Trump...
-Michale, http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/01/15/snap-reactions-to-the-seventh-democratic-debate/#comment-151705

:D

That's truly funny,Dude! :D

Moments x 2.. :D

So you're still pretending you don't know the difference between a grand jury and a trial? C'mon, dude, you DO know the difference, you're just pretending you don't.

I know the difference between a grand jury/trial and impeachment, if that's what yer asking.. :D

The simple fact is, House Democrats had their chance to call the witnesses they wanted.. Why didn't they?? The bullshit excuse of urgency doesn't hold water in light of Pelosi's bone head play..

So, why not wait for the witnesses if Dems wanted them??

Because they know that, even with the witnesses, they don't have a case...

OK, credit where it's due... that straw rip was pretty funny!

Thank ya... I have my moments... :D

[since my head exploded when I read this, I'm standing back, just in case yours does too... heh]

Even Trump thinks the whole thing is a media-created non-story. Here's a quote from his rally last night:

"She said that Bernie stated strongly that a woman can't win. I don't believe that Bernie said that. I really don't. It's not the kind of thing Bernie would say."
-Donald Trump

Whaddya think 'bout them apples, huh?

-CW

Well, I sure hope Bernie stops trying to make it a big deal because whenever he does I have to stop and think what year we're in and then get jolted back to the present. Heh.

OK, credit where it's due... that straw rip was pretty funny!

[21] -

So you're still pretending you don't know the difference between a grand jury and a trial? C'mon, dude, you DO know the difference, you're just pretending you don't.

-CW

I agree this was a pivotal moment... or should be, at any rate. I sat up when he said this and responded: "He's right!" I don't recall doing that at any other point during the debate (although I'd have to check my notes).

I largely agree with the rest of your post, but would have said "Robert Reich" instead of Geithner, personally. He explains things pretty clearly most of the time and makes the case other Dems should be making.

[16] -

I hesitated to bring up the stuttering, but last time around a conservative (forget which one) tried to slam him for it, then learned he had an actual stuttering problem, then had to apologize. Maybe Huckasands? Could be.

Because the problem had arisen, I thought someone on the right might try to bring it up again, and wondered if it would have any effect. What I should have added: "I think making fun of a speech defect will backfire on anyone who tries, personally." Sorry I didn't add that, because that's what I really think.

[17] -

Personally I think the whole Iraq vote thing is fading in voters' memories and isn't nearly as big a deal as Bernie tries to make it. As Pete said, many voters alive today weren't even born when that vote happened (or if they were, they were still in diapers).

[18] -

After I wrote this, I heard a very good comment from someone on the teevee: "With fewer candidates, they really need to lengthen the time for each response, and give them 3 or 4 minutes." That's a great idea, and I think it might benefit Biden in two ways: he could get to the end of his thought, and he wouldn't be as rushed in making it.

-CW

Michale wrote...

Ya'all just HAVE to marvel at President Trump's uncanny ability to create jobs...

President Trump even creates jobs in Iran!!! :D

That's truly funny,Dude! :D

Were House Dumbocrats fair and impartial when they ran their faux impeachment coup??

HELL NO..

As I said.. The Senate will be just as fair and impartial as House Dumbocrats were...

If Dumbocrats don't like it.. They can shove it up their collective arses...

Apparently, things weren't as milquetoast as first thought, eh? :D

Biden did pick up on Tom Steyer's eagerness to take on Trump over the economy at the very end, stating that he too was equally as eager to do so.

Well, he should be eager!

Biden is the best positioned and equipped to make the argument I noted above and expose Republican economic policy for what it is - bad for America and for most Americans.

Biden, as usual, tends to get into the weeds of many issues he is asked about. This isn't necessarily a negative, because he usually shows what a deep understanding of such details he has. But with only limited time, he never has long enough to explain what he's actually talking about, which happened a few times tonight.

Precisely!

Which is why these fake debates are no way to choose a presidential nominee. Full stop.

Biden stumbled in his answers a few times and made a few minor misstatements (as when he started off his answer on the Iraq War by stating that "13 years ago" he was against the Iraq War? In 2007? Perhaps my notes were wrong, to be charitable. Biden did go on to fully admit that his Iraq War vote had been a mistake.

I think it's important to be precise about Biden's vote for giving President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq under certain conditions. Biden did not say that his actual vote was a mistake. What was a mistake was thinking that Colin Powell had any influence with the Bush administration and believing that Bush/CHENY et al. were being truthful in his meetings with them about Iraq in that they would exhaust diplomatic efforts to get UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq in a serious effort to avoid war, and that America's allies would be on board if it came to war. Biden also insisted in his meetings with president Bush that no foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people.

The AUMF in Iraq inspired a complicated debate in the Senate and it should not be given short shrift and rendered down to who voted for or against war. That only serves to obscure that debate and the context within which it occurred.

Biden was critical of the war in Iraq soon after it began when the Bush administration proved unable to win the peace.

Biden also had some moments of stuttering, but it's hard to say what effect this will have on the viewers.

What affect has this had on viewers who watched previous debates?

I think most voters know the history of Biden's stuttering and it has no effect on their analyses of Biden's debate performances.

In fact, I would wager that debate performances do not generally rank high in the factors that impact voters' preferences. Because, if they did, Biden wouldn't still be the frontrunner.

Steyer's best performance overall, though, was on how eager he was to "take Trump on on the economy." He quite correctly pointed out exactly how Trump is going to run against Democrats:
"Democrats will destroy the economy in 15 minutes," and laid out how he would counter such attacks." Trump is a fake and a fraud on the economy," said Steyer, and he seemed genuinely eager to do battle with Trump over the issue, which was very interesting to see. Other candidates will have to start picking up on this concept sooner or later, but Steyer led the way tonight.

This was the key moment in the debate last night and economic policy should be a critical part of the Democratic strategy in 2020.

The last three decades provide stark and ample proof of which political party offers the best stewardship of the economy. Republican economic policy and ideology have been anti-growth except for the top income tier, bad for the overall health of the economy and almost always lead to disaster, great and small.

Democratic economic policy and ideology, on the other hand, have been pro-growth, good for the economy as a whole with some caveats and generally mitigate against disaster.

Why Democrats can’t develop a winning message around these facts that overwhelms the Republican economic narrative is beyond my comprehension.

You know, the last person in a Democratic administration who could make this argument in a clear and concise manner was none other than Senator Elizabeth Warren's perceived nemesis and President Obama’s first treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, the guy who merely spearheaded the effort to save Main Street from the most destructive global financial crisis since the Great Depression.

And, now in this election cycle, it seems like Democrats are falling into a familiar trap as they continue to harp exclusively on the fact that the real economy is not as good as some number might suggest. Sure, they should start from that premise but then move on to what will get them elected.

And, that is to finally, at long last, develop a message that can persuade voters that it’s the Democrats who have, time and again, implemented the kind of tax and fiscal policies that are pro-growth and that the vast majority of Americans can see and feel.

If Democrats can’t do this, then I’m ready to make a prediction right here and now that president Trump will indeed be re-elected and Democrats will have deserved to lose.

Question for you, unrelated to any politics..

The "poet" in your moniker.. Is that a factual representation or just how you fancy yourself..

I am not setting you up for anything.. I have a sincere reason for asking unrelated to ANYTHING political...

On the other side of the argument, Third Way senior vice president Lanae Erickson tweeted this of the Sanders-Warren handshake-that-wasn't: "That moment when the dude who called himself a "feminist" on his profile shows his true colors on date 5...You hate to see it."

And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite
I saw Satan laughing with delight
The day the music died
-Don McClean, AMERICAN PIE

:D

"Well, as a matter of fact, I didn't say it. And I don't want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want. Anybody who knows me knows that it's incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be President of the United States."

You see how he sidesteps and deflects..

NO ONE is accusing Bernie of thinking or not thinking.. I am SURE Bernie doesn't believe a woman CAN'T be POTUS...

But the question before is, did Bernie **SAY** that a woman can't win in 2020...

As a way to try and dissuade Warren from running, I could easily picture Bernie saying it..

The issue is not what Bernie believes..

The issue is what Bernie SAID in 2018...

Uh, yeah. Watch it for yourself.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-debate-2020/index.html

I disagree with President Trump..

I could easily see Bernie saying something like that...

But, someone is lying.. Not "paraphrasing".. Not spinning.. LYING...

My money is on Bernie..

As an aside, I guess my prediction wasn't so much "wish casting" after all.. :D

Whistleblower.. Schiff-head... Joe Biden... Hunter Biden...

OR.....

Or the Senate can do what the House did and JUST call GOP witnesses and deny Democrats they ability to call THEIR witnesses..

That would be fitting, considering how House Dims ran their part of the impeachment.

Yea.. I can be on board with that...

Nancy Pelosi gambled and lost on the impeachment delay

Which left Pelosi hung out to dry. The leverage she imagined she possessed to get McConnell to accede to her wishes didn't exist. McConnell was perfectly happy waiting while Pelosi held on to the articles of impeachment, probably believing rightly that these sorts of delaying tactics would look like just more Washington funny business to the average person. And he knew that whenever she decided to send the articles over, he had a majority waiting to open the trial without any promises made on witnesses.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/politics/nancy-pelosi-mitch-mcconnnell/index.html

Poor Nancy...

She tried to play nth level 3D chess but found out all she could master was tiddlywinks.. :D

They are grasping at straws...

Too bad they banned straws..

Ba Da Da...

:D

Iran is in need of a new military general..

President Trump even creates jobs in Iran!!! :D

Federal judge rules in favor of Trump administration in family separation case
https://www.foxnews.com/us/judge-rules-trump-administration-within-rights-in-separating-children-at-border-from-parents-deemed-unfit

The hits just KEEP ON COMING...

Once again, Democrats lose in the courts... :D

Warren-Sanders clash ‘very dispiriting,’ Dems' debate like 'cold oatmeal,' CNN’s Van Jones says

It also left him thinking Democrats were unlikely to defeat President Trump in November, he said.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/warren-sanders-clash-very-dispiriting-little-hope-dems-can-beat-trump-cnns-van-jones-says

And another prominent Democrat sees the writing on the wall..

If ya'all don't curb your enthusiasm yer in for a world of pain come 4 Nov 2020....

Don't worry.. I'll be here to help ya'all thru it.. :D

https://twitter.com/i/status/1217299743854026752

Yep, there are some hard feelings there.. No doubt about it..

What an awesome idea!!! Stupendous!!! Excellent!!!

I wish I had thought of it..

Oh.. wait.. I *DID* think of it!!! :D

So, if Democrats want witnesses, then the GOP will get witnesses..

Whistleblower.. Schiff-head... Joe Biden... Hunter Biden...

Keep in mind, since the GOP is running the show, the GOP's witnesses will come first..

In other words, we'll find out BEFORE the Dem's witnesses that this whole thing was a setup from the word go... This will likely provide the impetus to dismiss all the charges even before the Dem witnesses are called.. :D

What ya'all think??

Do ya'all STILL want witnesses?? :D

"I love it when a plan comes together!"
-Hannibal Smith, THE A-TEAM

:D

Well, I *DID* say my prediction was likely wish-casting, eh? :D

Sanders was also pretty good on climate change, challenging some of the other candidates' plans. Bernie admonished them that we had to act "not by 2050 or 2040, but now!"

And yet, the FACTS don't support the urgency..

Why is that??

He did a fine job of expressing his willingness to take on Trump,

With ALL of the candidates, their willingness to take on President Trump is not the question..

The question is, can any one of them take on President Trump and WIN...

And the answer to that is a simple -NO-...

All in all and as before...

The biggest winner of this debate was President Trump..

Because NONE of the candidates showed ANY capabilities of beating President Trump...