ChrisWeigant.com

Black Swan Versus Black Swan?

[ Posted Monday, January 27th, 2020 – 18:08 UTC ]

Could the 2020 presidential election wind up being a contest between two black swans? Or, to put it another way, will we actually get to see a contest between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders?

A black swan, historically, was supposed to be an impossibility. The only swans anyone had ever seen were white, therefore black swans did not exist, period. Indeed, the phrase was used almost 2,000 years ago in Roman times to denote something which did not exist, and it continued to be used right up until Europeans actually saw black swans for the first time, in Australia. Since then the term has taken on a new meaning, as explained by Wikipedia:


The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.

By that definition, I think we'd all agree (whether you support him or loathe him) that Donald Trump's election was the ultimate political "black swan event." He simply was not supposed to win. He was, in fact, supposed to be the easiest candidate for the Democrats to run against. This did not turn out to be the case. Trump came as a complete surprise, he has had a major effect on American politics as a whole, and the rationalizations for why he won are still numerous and varied (and, quite possibly, all incorrect). He fits the definition perfectly, in other words. Black swan, thy name is Trump.

But now, in a rather surprising development, Bernie Sanders seems to be polling either out in front of Joe Biden or running a close second, and could very well take Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states to vote in the primary season. This is causing a fair amount of panic among the Democratic Party establishment, although they don't seem to have any idea what to do about it. Politico just ran a new article on what the moderates and centrists in the party are thinking:

With Bernie Sanders gaining steam a week before the Iowa caucuses, tormented Democrats are second-guessing what they say was a hands-off strategy against the Vermont senator in the 2020 primary.

They fear a repeat of 2016 is in the making -- when mainstream Republicans scoffed at the idea that Donald Trump could ever win the nomination, until he became unstoppable -- only this time from the left.

"The Republican money people were laughing at Trump when he came down the escalator and they kept laughing at him for way too long, until 'holy crap' he's winning primaries," Matt Bennett, co-founder of Third Way told Politico. Bennett said he's attempted for weeks to find an organized effort to combat Sanders' rise, so far, to no avail. "What I fear is one will emerge too late, as what happened with Trump."

Many Democrats say they respect the support behind Sanders but fear a self-described Democratic socialist would cede must-win battlegrounds to Trump.

"Swing states have a higher concentration of swing voters. We need a nominee who draws them to the Democratic column," said Rahm Emanuel, the former Chicago mayor and chief of staff to Obama. "Sanders' theory, like Trump's for the right, is based on the notion of a higher turnout of infrequent voters."

This, obviously, misses a rather large point: Trump wasn't just a black swan in the Republican primaries, he went on to win the general election too. His "notion of a higher turnout of infrequent voters" seems to have worked, in the end, which neither Rahm Emanuel nor Matt Bennett acknowledge in any way. When that inconvenient fact is added in, what emerges is the Democratic Party establishment being afraid not -- as they profess -- that Bernie would lose the general election, but rather than he would win. And that puts their comments in a very different perspective, doesn't it?

They're already in a quandary, as the article goes on to explain:

Sanders is in a strong position, based on recent polls, to win Iowa and then New Hampshire. A one-two punch in the first two states could make him hard to stop. Joe Biden's firewall -- his popularity among African-Americans in South Carolina and other Southern states -- would face a severe test.

But the Democratic establishment is caught in a catch-22: Attack Sanders and risk galvanizing his supporters and turning him into a martyr of the far-left. Or leave him alone and watch him continue to gather momentum.

Their bind unfolded in plain sight last week when Hillary Clinton complained that "nobody likes" Sanders and wouldn't initially commit to backing him if he were the nominee. (She later clarified that she would do so.) Clinton suffered a backlash, and Sanders' [sic] has only gained strength in recent days.

That's largely why Bennett's push for organized opposition to Sanders isn't gaining traction.

Attack him, and he may get stronger. Alas, what's a Democratic establishment mover and shaker to do?

Of course, I've been wondering what a matchup between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would look like since August of 2015, so I'm not entirely unbiased. Way back then -- many months before Iowa and New Hampshire would kick off the 2016 election cycle -- I wrote what I considered to be a "fun" thought exercise (I even titled it: "Sanders Versus Trump Would Be Fun"). But I was already taking Trump seriously even back in August of the year before the election, because I read the poll numbers at the time and actually believed them. The Democratic side wasn't anywhere near as clear-cut at the time, though, as the Hillary/Bernie race was just starting to really heat up in a big way. Here's what I wrote back then:

Could the next presidential election be one where both sides get the candidate who inspires the most passion among the base? It would have seemed almost ridiculous to suggest as recently as last month, but the possibility that America could be given the choice of Donald Trump versus Bernie Sanders doesn't seem so far-fetched nowadays. If these are the choices the two major parties coalesce behind, it'll certainly be one of the most unique presidential elections ever.

Of course, it's still way too early to assign any sort of probability for this particular matchup ever coming to pass. We're only in the dog days of August, and Iowa won't kick off the primary voting until next February. We've got a lot of debates to go, and a lot of campaigning remains before we get to that point. But, putting probabilities aside, it's certainly now within the realm of possibility.

. . .

Again, this is indeed nothing but the wildest speculation. I fully admit that. Call it a thought exercise, not a prediction of what's going to happen. I pose the question of a possible Trump-versus-Sanders matchup not because I think it's the most likely outcome, but rather because it would certainly be the most interesting one.

For once, the centrists and "serious people" in both parties would be left out in the cold. For once, the American public would get to choose between the most exciting candidates on both sides. The old argument of: "Well, this candidate's interesting, but he'd never win the general election" wouldn't work, because if the non-centrist candidate won in both parties, then the centrists would be the ones eventually holding their noses and voting for a candidate they really didn't approve of. Normally, this is what happens to the fervent base of both parties, when they have to choose between what they perceive as the lesser of two evils. The tables would indeed be turned -- and if they were turned in both parties during the same election cycle then there simply wouldn't be some "safe" alternative to choose.

American presidential elections have, in recent times, been contests between a Republican who disappoints a large fraction of their own base (who then inevitably labels the candidate a "RINO," or "Republican In Name Only") and a Democrat who equally disappoints a large slice of their own base's voters (who usually gets called a "DINO"). When was the last time a true believer was nominated by either party? Republicans would answer that with "Ronald Reagan," which explains why they have all but deified him. He won big victories twice, after all. But they also remember the disastrous campaign of Barry Goldwater, which is why they normally choose someone a little less pure (who can appeal to enough independents to win). On the Democratic side, the same caution is shown as they remember the crushing defeat of George McGovern. But what if McGovern had run against Goldwater? Now that would have been an interesting contest!

. . .

The bigwigs in both parties would be horrified -- that almost goes without saying. The parties' overlords (on both sides) would have virtually no influence over either man. Trump is, well... Donald Trump. And Bernie Sanders doesn't sound like he'd be willing to "tone down" issues he's been fighting his entire life for. The party hacks and overpaid consultants wouldn't know what to do with themselves -- on either side of the aisle.

Which is really why it's so fun to speculate about. America would, for once, get two candidates who refused to put on their party's usual muzzle. Issues the candidates champion simply couldn't be ignored by the mainstream media (they way they normally do for "populist candidates"). This is already happening over on the Republican side, mostly due to Trump's oversized personality. Trump overstates the case -- Republicans talked about immigration long before he entered the ring, after all -- but he does have a point. Because Trump's campaign is centered around "building a wall" (and all the rest of it), the entire Republican field has to measure their responses from the positions Trump is staking out.

Of course it also almost goes without saying that the populist base on both sides would be delighted with such a contest. Both sides would believe -- deeply -- that the other candidate couldn't possibly win, and that their candidate was an absolute shoo-in. Both would prematurely measure the Oval Office for new drapes, in other words. Both sides would be absolutely convinced of victory: "Are you kidding me? Do you really in your wildest nightmares actually see [Sanders/Trump] getting elected president?!? Ain't gonna happen!" The word "clown" would get tossed around with abandon by both sides, as well.

Of course, this time around things would be different, because Trump is now no longer an unknown quantity. He's been president for three years, after all. Which I addressed in the abstract, when wondering what the turnout would be like for such a contest:

The outcome of such a contest is impossible to predict, but I'd bet that whoever got beat wouldn't get beat by as big a margin as the winner's supporters predict. What's harder to predict is whether voter turnout would go up or down. I can see a scenario where all the centrists (including a large number of independents) got so disgusted by the choices offered that they all stayed home and refused to vote. Hey, welcome to the world of the true believers, where every four years the choice is to hold your nose and vote for someone who you know is going to disappoint you -- or watch the other team win. Especially with Trump as a major party nominee, a whole lot of people would just throw up their hands and say "this is ridiculous, the choice is between a socialist and a carnival barker." But I also wonder if the opposite might happen. If "the other guy" is seen as so apocalyptically catastrophic that America would be downright unlivable if he won, then a lot of centrists might vote out of sheer terror of the other guy winning. This could actually drive voter turnout to new highs. A vote cast in fear counts exactly the same as a vote cast with rampant enthusiasm, after all. And both Trump and Sanders would certainly give rise to an enormous amount of fear from their opponents.

That last bit hasn't changed at all. In fact, it has gotten even more poignant now that the country has seen what the words "President Trump" actually mean. But the part about the party bigwigs is certainly what we're about to see on the Democratic side (it's already happened over on the Republican side, with the "Never Trumpers"). As Rahm Emanuel and Matt Bennett are already proving.

While I still do think that Bernie Sanders versus Donald Trump would be the most interesting matchup, the stakes now are obviously higher. It is no longer a mere thought exercise. Donald Trump is running for a second term. He's got a real shot at winning, too.

But no matter the outcome, if Bernie Sanders does beat all the odds and takes the Democratic nomination this year, we will get a presidential election between two black swans -- two totally unexpected candidates whose presidencies would, each in their own way, have a major effect on America. Either one of them winning will cause an outpouring of rationalization from the other side -- most of which is quite likely to be incorrect. About the only part of what I wrote back then that seems much clearer now is that voter turnout would almost certainly be at record-setting levels. Democratic voters know full well what sitting this one out would mean for themselves, for their party, and for the country as a whole. Trump's base has stuck with him through thick and thin and will quite likely make the effort to vote for him again, come Hell or high water. The centrists would be forced to hold their noses and vote for one or the other of the black swans, and the result -- no matter who wins -- might just be revolutionary.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

85 Comments on “Black Swan Versus Black Swan?”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    hmm, interesting question. well, a sanders victory in the primaries would certainly suck for me, as i'd lose my bet and have to cast a ballot for donald j. trump. sigh.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, that right there is reason enough to hope that Sanders doesn't end up as the Democratic nominee … for sure!

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm going to suspend my usual aversion to commenting on old threads but, only because there are the beginnings of a very fine discussion on the previous thread, a rarity that I would very much like to have continue ...

  4. [4] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I’m scared we are heading for a repeat of the 2016 election...Sanders being celebrated for how great his campaign performs, but everyone ignoring just how far behind the first place campaign that his second place performance resides.

    Sanders’ supporters love to claim that Bernie would have won the nomination if the DNC had not worked to steal the primary from him. That’s such a beautiful dream....and utter bull ca-ca! Bernie ran a good campaign that excited a lot of people in 2016; and he’s doing that again, at least thus far, in 2020.

    But is the media making it seem like a much tighter race than what reality is telling us? Face it, a blow out in the primary does not make for news that captivates an audience for very long and that costs them what they covet most — $$$Dollar, dollar bills!$$$$

  5. [5] 
    dsws wrote:

    I voted for Bernie last time. Hillary was the worst general-election candidate imaginable. Bernie would not have been a good choice for the general, but no one is even in the same league with "basket of deplorables".

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    Sanders is in a strong position, based on recent polls, to win Iowa and then New Hampshire. A one-two punch in the first two states could make him hard to stop. Joe Biden's firewall -- his popularity among African-Americans in South Carolina and other Southern states -- would face a severe test.

    NOT a new scenario here.

    Sanders and Clinton virtually tied in Iowa and received approximately the same number of delegates; then Bernie won New Hampshire in a big way, and the more racially diversified South fell in line behind Bernie Sanders rather than their preferred candidate since he had the most delegates at that point. Oh, wait... no, they didn't.

    Those voters in the South who had an overwhelming preference for a more moderate candidate still voted their preference regardless of the outcome in the lily white North. The South isn't generally falling in line to vote for a self-described socialist in the primaries just because he won a few Northern states (to be honest).

    His "notion of a higher turnout of infrequent voters" seems to have worked, in the end, which neither Rahm Emanuel nor Matt Bennett acknowledge in any way.

    Probably because Trump didn't receive a whole lot more votes in 2016 than Mitt Romney did in 2012... about what would be expected due to our ever-expanding population:

    Romney 2012: ~61 million
    Trump 2016: ~63 million

    When that inconvenient fact is added in, what emerges is the Democratic Party establishment being afraid not -- as they profess -- that Bernie would lose the general election, but rather than he would win.

    I disagree. The statistical facts don't really bear that out.

    And that puts their comments in a very different perspective, doesn't it?

    No, what it actually brings to light is the Sanders' supporters still clinging to the conspiracy theory belief that there is an establishment boogieman who kept Bernie Sanders from winning the election when Bernie failed in spectacular fashion to carry the South. A candidate cannot generally win the nomination of the Democratic Party without carrying the South, and Bernie didn't do it and no one conspired against him to stop him from winning it. He just couldn't garner the support he needed and lost the primary on Super Tuesday because the support he needed from minorities just wasn't there.

    In 2020, Bernie is still miles behind the South's favored candidate... and no one is standing in his way to win them over. If he still can't appeal to minorities four years later, what do you say we don't blame it all on some kind of establishment conspiracy or fear of Bernie? Ball's in Bernie's court and always has been. It's up to Bernie to win the Southern voters, and he's had ample time to do so.

    Bernie Sanders lack of support in the South meant that the opposition research file on him never had to be deployed since the Democratic primary was never even close. The Republicans have a video of Bernie Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, "Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die," while their President Daniel Ortega was busy condemning "state terrorism" by the United States and Americans. Bernie looks into the camera and describes his supporting the Sandinistas as "patriotic." The Republicans have at least four other seriously damning videos. No, I won't tell what they contain.

    Could Sanders still win? Sure. Trump won, didn't he? But it wasn't because of some bigger turnout Trump inspired in 2016 versus the GOP turnout in 2012. Nope. Liberals put Trump in the White House by staying home in enough of the key states... less than 80,000 votes... and the rest is history. :)

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If this is what's happening within the Democratic establishment, then Democrats are in real trouble of repeating history and failing to learn valuable lessons of history.

    In other words, who needs the Russians when the Democrats are effective enough all on their own?

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    (From previous commentary)

    }}}}}But Democrats don't have the facts to support an actual crime..

    I disagree.

    Then please explain why, if Democrats actually had the FACTS to support an actual Impeachment Article CRIME, that they did not do so??

    It simply boggles the mind that, if Democrats had the facts to support an actual crime, that they would make up this stuff..

    And, remember, not all quid-pro-quos are created equally.

    Perhaps.. But since Quid Pro Quo is not a crime, it doesn't matter..

    The one used by vice president Biden with Poroshenko was one in which both countries benefited. Ukraine would get rid of the corrupt Prosecutor General who wasn't prosecuting corruption cases and the US would have a stronger ally in the overall effort to prevent further Russian aggression and subversion of democracies around the globe.

    And it's just a HUGE coincidence that it would also fade the heat from his son, eh?? :D

    Remember.. I was born AT night.. Not LAST night.. :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, with regard to Biden's take on all of this is to say that he doesn't hold a grudge, presidents can't hold a grudge, presidents need to be healers.

    I guess that sort of tack could work … I guess.

    Michale, what say you!?

    I would say that we **ALL** need to be healers..

    But it's plainly obvious that "healing" is not on the minds of Trump/America haters these days...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    I’m scared we are heading for a repeat of the 2016 election...

    HALLELUJAH!!!!!

    Russ has finally come around to MY way of thinking!!!

    Congratulations, Russ!!!

    How does it feel to join reality??

    Pretty eye opening experience, eh?? :D

    We'll want to ease you into it.. Start you off with a few facts at a time.. Nothing overwhelming..

    You'll be a normal person instead of a hater soon... :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    hmm, interesting question. well, a sanders victory in the primaries would certainly suck for me, as i'd lose my bet and have to cast a ballot for donald j. trump. sigh.

    Counseling will be available to you afterwards.. :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW

    By that definition, I think we'd all agree (whether you support him or loathe him) that Donald Trump's election was the ultimate political "black swan event." He simply was not supposed to win.

    Yes.. We can agree that ya'all thought that.. :D

    But some of us delved past the hate and looked at the facts and were not surprised at all.. :D

    Trump came as a complete surprise, he has had a major effect on American politics as a whole, and the rationalizations for why he won are still numerous and varied (and, quite possibly, all incorrect). He fits the definition perfectly, in other words. Black swan, thy name is Trump.

    Again, yes.. That was the general consensus by most people..

    It really doesn't matter who Democrats nominate..

    President Trump has a roaring economy, two failed coups, several Foreign Policy triumphs and a host of domestic/trade victories under his belt..

    Granted, some Democrats will lose more spectacularly than others...

    But the GLOAT factor of a Sanders' nomination is off the charts.. :D

    For all their claims of diversity, Democrats nominate an old white guy millionaire...

    The gloats simply write themselves.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I think most of Trumps lawyers have put on a pitiful defense of their client, mostly because they play too loose with the facts.

    Could you give me an example of this??

    Because, from where I sit, Democrats don't HAVE any facts to play loose with..

    It all comes back to one simple question..

    If Democrats HAD the facts of a crime, why not actually CHARGE that crime???

    A DA that has the facts to support a murder charge, but charges "OVERDUE LIBRARY BOOK" would be a complete and utter moron...

    Wouldn't you agree??

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    The question here is why did the House not pursue the courts in order to have their subpoenas enforced. The 'time' arguments fails, in my opinion. And, the course of this impeachment so far vindicates that view.

    In light of Pelosi's later actions, the 'time' argument does indeed fail.. Spectacularly...

    There is really only two logical reasons why Democrats did not want to wait for the courts..

    1. Democrats did not believe they would prevail in the courts..

    2. Democrats believed that, by the time this got to the Senate they would have won the hearts and minds of the GOP and the American people and no court ruling would be necessary..

    The latter is more likely as it shows the depth of the Democrat delusion brought about by their hate and bigotry..

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    hmm, interesting question. well, a sanders victory in the primaries would certainly suck for me, as i'd lose my bet and have to cast a ballot for donald j. trump. sigh.

    It could be worse..

    You could be Kevin Costner in that movie where his single vote will decide the Presidential Election..

    THEN it would be traumatic, eh? :D hehehehe

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    CNN Don Lemon panel faces intense backlash for mocking Trump supporters as illiterate 'credulous rubes'
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-don-lemon-wajahat-ali-rick-wilson

    What *IS* it about Democrats that they insisting on making the same bone-head mistakes time and time again???

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The arrogance, the dismissiveness, the smug cackling, the accents," Krakauer reacted. "If Donald Trump wins re-election this year, I’ll remember this brief CNN segment late one Saturday night in January as the perfect encapsulation for why it happened."

    Apparently, moron Democrats think that they can win the election without Trump voters...

    Hillary thought the same thing with her "deplorables" comment..

    Remind me again how well that worked out for Hillary???

    Keep it up, Democrats..

    As before, it will be President Trump and his supporters who will have the last laugh... :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Several members of the Trump campaign slammed the liberal network for mocking the president's supporters.

    "Deplorables. This Deplorable is ready," Trump campaign director Brad Parscale shot back with a flexing arm emoji.

    "This is a real segment from an actual program on a cable news network that asks to be taken seriously. Not subtle message to huge parts of America: THEY HATE YOU," Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh wrote.

    "The media hardly ever hides their contempt for @realDonaldTrump supporters but this clip is featuring CNN’s @donlemon, The New York Times’ @WajahatAli, and @TheRickWilson is ludicrous. This is one of the most offensive segments I’ve seen in a while," GOP rapid response director Steve Guest reacted.

    Nothing like motivating the American people AGAINST Democrats, eh?? :eyeroll:

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    CNN received strong condemnation across social media.

    "The smug political class hates the tens of millions of Americans who comprise our movement. They can cackle and grandstand...as we build a country based on sovereignty, economic nationalism, and the diffusion of power," former CNN commentator Steve Cortes reacted.

    "This isn't disdain or disagreement. What Wajahat, Don, & Rick showed was a disrespect, hatred, & mockery for their fellow man who disagree. I don't want to hear @JakeTapper, @AndersonCooper, @BrianStelter, @ChrisCuomo, or anyone on @CNN lecture about their higher level of decency," NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck wrote.

    CNN SETTLES NICK SANDMANN DEFAMATION LAWSUIT IN COVINGTON CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL CONTROVERSY

    "Don Lemon will laugh for a minute straight over Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali mocking Trump supporters and calling them stupid, but don't you dare make a meme or he will freak out," Washington Free Beacon media analyst Cameron Cawthorne quipped.

    "If you want to give people a reason to vote Trump as a screw you to the media, keep airing segments like these," Daily Caller editor Peter Hasson said.

    Democrats might as well just cancel the 2020 election and concede 4 more years to President Donald Trump..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    CNN,

    You forgot to mention the Obama Factor in your commentary..

    Obama has stated that he will come out of retirement and pontificate on the primary race if it looks like Bernie might win the nomination..

    How do you think that will impact the primary???

    On the other hand, Obama's activism always seems to have the opposite of the desired effect..

    So, Bernie might welcome and benefit from Obama campaigning against Bernie... :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    DOH!!!!!

    Reposted for clarity...

    **CW**,

    You forgot to mention the Obama Factor in your commentary..

    Obama has stated that he will come out of retirement and pontificate on the primary race if it looks like Bernie might win the nomination..

    How do you think that will impact the primary???

    On the other hand, Obama's activism always seems to have the opposite of the desired effect..

    So, Bernie might welcome and benefit from Obama campaigning against Bernie... :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dershowitz calls out House Dems in Trump's Senate impeachment trial after Bolton shock waves

    arvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, delivering a spirited constitutional defense of President Trump at his Senate impeachment trial Monday night, flatly turned toward House impeachment managers and declared they had picked "dangerous" and "wrong" charges against the president -- noting that neither "abuse of power" nor "obstruction of Congress" was remotely close to an impeachable offense as the framers had intended.

    In a dramatic primetime moment, the liberal constitutional law scholar reiterated that although he voted for Hillary Clinton, he could not find constitutional justification for the impeachment of a president for non-criminal conduct, or conduct that was not at least "akin" to defined criminal conduct.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-defense-hunter-biden-john-bolton-senate

    Every impeachment has had one over-riding parameter above all else..

    A CRIME... An actual chargable crime..

    Leave it to Democrats to scroo THAT up too.. :eyeroll:

    The Constitution says "HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS"..

    Abuse Of Power and Obstruction Of Congress, while sounding "scary" is not a High Crime nor is it a Misdemeanor...

    It's a bullshit focus-grouped "charge" that has nothing to do with anything impeachable...

    Democrats CLAIM to have the FACTS that PROVE the crime..

    Yet they do not charge any crime...

    If Democrats actually DO have the facts to support actual CRIMES, but then made up charges that are not criminal..

    Well, that would indicate that Democrats have taken INCOMPETENCE to hitherto undreamt of depths...

    "Did you seriously just say 'hitherto undreamt of'??"
    -Tony Stark, AVENGERS Infinity War

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I'm sorry, House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria. You picked the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as a precedent for how we supervise and oversee future presidents," Dershowitz told the House Democrats, including head House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

    He said that "all future presidents who serve with opposing legislative majorities" now face the "realistic threat" of enduring "vague charges of abuse or obstruction," and added that a "long list" of presidents have previously been accused of "abuse of power" in various contexts without being formally impeached.

    Leave it to Democrats to destroy the very fabric of our political process..

    Their actions are so short-sighted and solely based on hate and bigotry..

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know ya'all are gaga over the unsubstantiated Bolton manuscript...

    Responding to reports that former national security adviser John Bolton has written in his forthcoming book that Trump told him he wanted to link Ukraine aid to an investigation of the Bidens, Dershowitz argued that even an explicit "quid pro quo" would not constitute an impeachable "abuse of power."

    "Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power, or an impeachable offense," Dershowitz said. "That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using terms like 'quid pro quo' and 'personal benefit.'"

    Even if the Bolton manuscript is 1000% factually accurate (which it obviously is not) it doesn't matter..

    What is described in those pages of fiction is NOT impeachable..

    It purely comes under the heading of Foreign Policy which is the ***SOLE*** purview (sans 2 exceptions) of the President Of The United States..

    Not matter which way Democrats want to turn, they lose..

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    "It is inconceivable," Dershowitz said, that the framers would have intended such "politically loaded terms" and "subjective'" words without clear definitions to serve as the basis for impeachment.

    Fearing a partisan impeachment process, the framers had rejected the offense of "maladministration" as a basis for impeachment, Dershowitz noted, and "abuse of power" was similarly vague.

    Basically, the Democrats ENTIRE case can be summed up as "We hate President Trump and we hate the way he is running things.. THAT is the basis of our faux impeachment coup"

    The founding fathers are spinning in their graves...

    As I said, leave it to Democrats to destroy the very fabric of our political process...

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Wow. A blast from the past -the 2015 CW that was willing to explore what might be possible.

    That was the CW that brought me here.

    With apologies to Simon and Garfunkel-

    Where have gone 2015 CW? Our nation turns it's lonely eyes you.

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    to you.

  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    wooo,wooo,wooo.

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    That 2015 CW seemed to disappear right around the time that Hillary locked up the primary.

    It was as if (with apologies to the Beatles)-

    Suddenly, you weren't half the CW you used to be.

    It's time to step back out of the big money shadow hanging over you.

  30. [30] 
    John M wrote:

    [6] Kick

    "No, what it actually brings to light is the Sanders' supporters still clinging to the conspiracy theory belief that there is an establishment boogieman who kept Bernie Sanders from winning the election when Bernie failed in spectacular fashion to carry the South. A candidate cannot generally win the nomination of the Democratic Party without carrying the South, and Bernie didn't do it and no one conspired against him to stop him from winning it. He just couldn't garner the support he needed and lost the primary on Super Tuesday because the support he needed from minorities just wasn't there."

    I agree. This completely points out the heart of the matter. The Democratic candidate and winner in the general election will be the one who inspires the support of and can turn out in large numbers, minority voters in the way and the same coalition that Obama did. This is especially true of Michigan and the Milwaukee urban area of Wisconsin, as well the area around Philadelphia in Pennsylvania.

    It's also why, outside of Iowa and New Hampshire, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigeg, and Elizabeth Warren have not gained any traction. It also explains why Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and the rest have fallen by the wayside. None of them has ever gotten sustained minority support yet.

    The ONLY one to garner such support so far has been Joe Biden. That, along with his white working class support, goes a long way to explain Trump's and the Republican panic focus of trying to portray Biden and his son Hunter as somehow corrupt in a big scandal. It's their obsession with destroying Hillary Clinton all over again writ large. That's what makes Biden the perceived threat, in other words, Biden as the heir to the Obama legacy and coalition.

    Unless minority support suddenly switches to someone else who looks like they can win, other than Joe Biden, it's the tortoise and not the hare who will win this race and the nomination.

  31. [31] 
    John M wrote:

    For Bernie to win the nomination, he would not only have to win Iowa and New Hampshire in a blow out. He would also have to start picking up SIGNIFICANT African American support, and start winning states in the South like Kick said on Super Tuesday, like Virginia, Texas and Alabama. This would also mean that Biden's support would have to collapse among minority voters, who would no longer see him as the "winning" candidate.

  32. [32] 
    John M wrote:

    If Biden winds up being the Democratic nominee, absolutely the best thing he could do in my opinion in order to win the general election would be to choose an exciting and inspiring oratory speaker of color as a running mate.

  33. [33] 
    John M wrote:

    Someone younger would help also and not too controversial. Think more Stacey Abrams or Cory Booker, or Julian Castro and NOT Beto O'Rourke or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They are too much of a lightning rod for the right already. And we also already know that Biden has a Trump target on his back.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Since yer here, do you want to address the issues raised at your last drive-by??

    For example..

    What facts do you have to support a President Trump loss in Nov??

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even with Bolton, case against Trump too small for impeachment: Goodwin
    https://nypost.com/2020/01/27/even-with-bolton-case-against-trump-too-small-for-impeachment-goodwin/

    Even if Bolton's claims are 1000% true, it matters not..

    Democrats STILL have a problem with several FACTS that cannot be reconciled with their fantasy story..

    1. Foreign Policy is the SOLE purview of the POTUS

    2. Even if Quid Pro Quo was discussed, no Quid Pro Quo was enforced...

    3. Even if Quid Pro Quo was enforced, see fact #1...

    Until such time as Democrats can reconcile those FACTS with their delusion??

    President Trump will remain in office...

    I won't even bother pointing out that the lack of bipartisan support means that this impeachment is not legitimate, according to Democrats..

    So, no matter which way ya'all want to spin it, it all ends the same..

    With President Trump still in office and probably (per Joe Biden) stronger in Nov than before the faux impeachment coup...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Someone younger would help also and not too controversial. Think more Stacey Abrams or Cory Booker, or Julian Castro and NOT Beto O'Rourke or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

    You DO realize that Occasional Cortex is not authorized to be VP due to her age, right???

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    4

    This! Spot on.

    But is the media making it seem like a much tighter race than what reality is telling us?

    They got to have their horse race even if it's an imaginary one.

    Face it, a blow out in the primary does not make for news that captivates an audience for very long and that costs them what they covet most — $$$Dollar, dollar bills!$$$$

    Can I get a witness? Amen. :)

  38. [38] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    "So, no matter which way ya'all want to spin it, it all ends the same."

    Absolutely correct.

    Unless real Americans stand up now and demand better no matter who wins the Democratic nomination or who wins in November it will be a big money candidate that wins the presidency and big money candidates winning Congressional and Senate elections.

    That is the one and only goal of both CMPs.

    And the one and only goal of any true American should be to do everything and anything possible to make sure that the big money interests and CMPs do not achieve their goal.

    You (and everyone here) has a choice to boost your ego by "predicting victory" and/or gloating over being stupid enough to pick one side or the other or taking real action like a true American.

    At this point you have not chosen wisely.

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, I must say how encouraging it is to read posts here, days before the Iowa caucuses, about who Biden should pick as his running mate.

    But, those of us who are familiar with Biden's thinking on who he would pick as his running mate know that the names mentioned in this thread are not likely candidates.

    I think his pick, should it come to that, will surprise all of you!

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    John,

    If Biden winds up being the Democratic nominee, absolutely the best thing he could do in my opinion in order to win the general election would be to choose an exciting and inspiring oratory speaker of color as a running mate.

    Do you really think Obama would want to get into the fray, again? Heh.

    Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if he picked an African-American who is also a sane Republican though I can't think of one right now. :)

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sanders allies in new uproar over DNC convention appointments
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/480174-sanders-allies-in-new-uproar-over-dnc-convention-appointments

    Democrat civil war.. LOVE IT! :D

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I must say how DIS-couraging it is that to read posts here about about who Buyed'im should pick as his running mate.

    It is ridiculous to come to what is supposed to be a reality based blog and discuss fantasy politics.

    Big money politicians doing anything other than legislate to benefit the big money interests is a fantasy.

    If you don't understand that Buyed'im is a big money politician then you don't understand Buyed'im's thinking.

    The only Democrat in the primaries that could mobilize the infrequent voters is Bernie and the only way he can do it is to declare now that he will be running a small donor only campaign in the general election.

    Small contribution Bernie might be able to squeak out a victory over Trump, but a small donor only Bernie could mobilize/inspire many infrequent voters and even some non-voters resulting in a blowout victory over Trump.

    A victory by small contribution Bernie over Trump would be a fantasy revolutionary moment.

    A victory by small donor only Bernie would be a reality revolutionary moment.

    So how about it, CW?

    Are you finally ready to Get Real and write a speculation article about Bernie declaring to run a small donor only campaign in the general election or just continue to speculate about fantasy revolutionary possibilities?

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:
  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oh, the hypocrisy!

    Witnessing all the manufactured outrage generated from the ever aggrieved hysterically whining Righty snowflakes over Don Lemon is sincerely priceless. The hypocrisy and utter lack of self-awareness is absolutely mind blowing.

    Those Righties want you to get all worked up about a non Democratic candidate's insults, but pay no attention whatsoever to their Orange Worship's mocking tone, sexist language, and insulting rhetoric toward a multitude of voters... too numerous to count, in fact... but, hey... who has time for political correctness!?

    The "grab them by the kitty" crowd is outraged, I tell you! Outraged! *laughs*

    Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and what was his name... oh, Donald Trump are doling out the insults on a regular basis on Fox News, Righty Radio, and the Trump twitter feed is on Trumpertantrum overload with wall-to-wall insults, name calling, and bullying of anyone who even dares not holster Donald Trump.

    Remember that time Don Lemon was on Hannity/Fox News, and said: "To me, they're not even people." Oh, wait! That was Eric Trump... but they're outraged, I tell you, that Don Lemon (not a candidate or a relative of a candidate) would call them a name. *shakes head*

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Those Righties want you to get all worked up about a non Democratic candidate's insults, but pay no attention whatsoever to their Orange Worship's mocking tone, sexist language, and insulting rhetoric toward a multitude of voters... too numerous to count, in fact.

    For example....????

    If they are "too numerous to count" providing examples should be easy, right? :D

    Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and what was his name... oh, Donald Trump are doling out the insults on a regular basis on Fox News, Righty Radio,

    As usual, the point is missed...

    Democrats claim that they are BETTER than Republicans..

    BETTER than Limbaugh.. BETTER than Hannity... BETTER than President Trump...

    If Democrats want to admit that they are no better than all of the afore and more..

    Let them admit that and no one will say BOO about these moments..

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    John M
    6

    I agree.

    Me too! ;)

    This completely points out the heart of the matter. The Democratic candidate and winner in the general election will be the one who inspires the support of and can turn out in large numbers, minority voters in the way and the same coalition that Obama did. This is especially true of Michigan and the Milwaukee urban area of Wisconsin, as well the area around Philadelphia in Pennsylvania.

    Well, now you've done it, JM; you've gone and proven you know longstanding facts about getting out the vote and statistical norms and exactly where it matters... dead on accurate right down to the localities. :)

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting History Lesson.. :D

    https://youtu.be/lgz3p4cEXZU

    Perhaps delving into this more in depth would be a worthwhile Weigantian Commentary... :D

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton admits she feels the 'urge' to run against Trump and says she would win - as she doubles down on Bernie criticism, imploring voters to examine his record

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton believes she could win against President Donald Trump were she to run in November's election

    She believes Trump's 'broken promises and the failed actions of this current administration' should ensure the Democrats have a path to victory

    Clinton has said she was not thinking about the 2020 Democratic primary or the effect on voters when she said 'nobody liked' Sen. Bernie Sanders

    Clinton said her comments about Sanders's likability and whether she would support him if he's the Democratic nominee, were made more than a year ago

    She claims that she was not thinking about the 2020 election when she spoke

    New Hulu docu-series about 2016 campaign contains interview in which Clinton was critical of Sanders, a top contender for the 2020 Democratic nomination
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7936395/Hillary-Clinton-believes-win-ran-2020-renews-attack-Bernie-Sanders.html

    Oh please please PLEASE ***PLEASE*** Hillary!!!

    PLEASE RUN!!!

    Turn in a Hat Trick of losses... :D

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    OH, BOLLOCKS! EDIT 46

    John M
    30

    I agree.

    Me too! ;)

    This completely points out the heart of the matter. The Democratic candidate and winner in the general election will be the one who inspires the support of and can turn out in large numbers, minority voters in the way and the same coalition that Obama did. This is especially true of Michigan and the Milwaukee urban area of Wisconsin, as well the area around Philadelphia in Pennsylvania.

    Well, now you've done it, JM; you've gone and proven you know longstanding facts about getting out the vote and statistical norms regarding exactly where it matters... dead on accurate right down to the localities. :)

    It's also why, outside of Iowa and New Hampshire, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigeg, and Elizabeth Warren have not gained any traction. It also explains why Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and the rest have fallen by the wayside. None of them has ever gotten sustained minority support yet.

    You are correct again, JM, and the statistics on the support for any other candidate not named Biden are dismal. Bernie Sanders, to his credit, has made some headway in the South but primarily due to the younger voters who aren't generally reliable voters but are showing signs of holding their own in the "follow-through department" of actually going to the poll and voting.

    The ONLY one to garner such support so far has been Joe Biden. That, along with his white working class support, goes a long way to explain Trump's and the Republican panic focus of trying to portray Biden and his son Hunter as somehow corrupt in a big scandal.

    Yes, sir... that and the aforementioned Pennsylvania where elections are won and lost based on a multitude of factors.

    It's their obsession with destroying Hillary Clinton all over again writ large. That's what makes Biden the perceived threat, in other words, Biden as the heir to the Obama legacy and coalition.

    Did you see Joni Ernst yesterday, JM. She pulled a Kevin McCarthy and gave away the ballgame and said the silent part on camera.

    Iowa caucuses, folks... Iowa caucuses are this next Monday evening, and I'm really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters...those Democratic caucus goers. Will they be supporting President... Vice President Biden at this point? ~ Joni Ernst (Ruh-Roh) Iowa, scoring a goal for the other team because stupid is as stupid does, particularly the kind of stupid that burns and/or penetrates all the way into the bone

    Unless minority support suddenly switches to someone else who looks like they can win, other than Joe Biden, it's the tortoise and not the hare who will win this race and the nomination.

    Unless statistical norms are somehow turned absolutely on their heads, you are again correct.

    And, of course, it isn't "foreign policy" for Donald Trump to illegally have his personal attorney/fixer along with representatives associated with the Russian mob -- whom your former lawyer takes them as a client and describes them in writing (Comic Sans font) as working for you and your personal attorney/fixer and whom you then lie and then claim you don't know) --- all in order to shakedown two different leaders of a foreign nation to announce an investigation into your most feared political opponent.

    That is abuse of power, and the cover-up of that is obstruction, and the facts will come out either now or later.

  50. [50] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[43],

    or we could just trust each other. a radical concept i know.

    JL

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    or we could just trust each other. a radical concept i know.

    Oh, I am not talking about confirmation for you or I..

    We have trust..

    I am talking about the invariable rabble-rousing from the Weigantian peanut gallery (WPG) who demands confirmation on EVERYTHING I say.. :D

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Or we could just trust each other."

    Or we could stop putting our trust in the big money politicians to live up to their empty promises of future action which they have historically, consistently and without question have done for the last few decades.

    We could demand they take real action now by running small donor only campaigns to earn our trust before we vote rather than continue to accept empty promises of future action.

    We need to trust democracy as well as each other in achieving a real democracy.

    We need to change Weigantia from a place of We-Can't-ia have a real democracy to a place where We-Can't-ia wait any longer to join together and unite against the big money interests that are destroying our country and democracy.

    Wise up, wake up, grow up and man up.

    Up is the only way to go from here, but it will not happen on it's own and without a demand.

  53. [53] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    ...a radical concept, I know.

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    pie, pie, pie, pie, pie.

  55. [55] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    This, obviously, misses a rather large point: Trump wasn't just a black swan in the Republican primaries, he went on to win the general election too.

    Black swans are the result of genetic mutations that occur in nature...Trump was the result of foreign interference into our elections.

    He’s not truly a “black swan”....

    Trump is a more like a white swan in blackface!

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump was the result of foreign interference into our elections.

    Of course, that's what you WANT to believe..

    But it is WELL DOCUMENTED that EVERY DEMOCRAT who chimed in on the issue was very clear.

    Foreign interference had "NO IMPACT".. "NO EFFECT" on the outcome of the election..

    You just refuse to believe the facts..

    You ran a shitty candidate and she got her ass handed to her..

    Trump is a more like a white swan in blackface!

    And yet, recent history PROVES that it's DEMOCRATS and LEFT WINGERS who are in blackface..

    Once again, isn't it funny how the FACTS always prove you wrong.. :D

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is a more like a white swan in blackface!

    And WHICH Party was it that was the Party of the KKK??

    I mean, ya'all go on and on about how legacies are forever..

    The Democrat Party legacy is that it was the Party that gave the world the KKK...

    THAT is your Party's legacy...

    And THAT is forever..

  58. [58] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Democrats claim that they are BETTER than Republicans..

    And Republicans claim that they are BETTER than everyone who they don’t identify with! Your point?

    BETTER than Limbaugh.. BETTER than Hannity... BETTER than President Trump...
    There are few people in history that I would say AREN’T BETTER than this trio of greed and dishonesty! I do find it interesting how personally you take criticisms of Trump or the GOP, but yet you have no qualms with calling anyone who disagree with you an “America hater”. This whole “you think you are better than us” mentality is generally more about your own feelings of inferiority than anything someone else is saying. “White victimhood” at its best!

    It’s like those who claimed Hillary called all Republicans “deplorable”; ignoring the criteria Hillary laid out for determining whether a person fit that description or not. If you claim that you aren’t racist, homophobic, or xenophobic, then your being upset over the deplorable comment might be an indication that your subconscious doesn’t think you were being honest in your denials of bigotry.

  59. [59] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    pie,pie.pie,pie,pie is better than lie,lie,lie,lie,lie.

    Your attempts to ridicule me only serve to ridicule yourself.

    But since you need to buy into the lie to rationalize your fantasy politics and have no rational justification of such nonsensical beliefs your feeble attempts at ridicule are all you've got.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Republicans claim that they are BETTER than everyone who they don’t identify with! Your point?

    Facts to support??

    None.. Generally speaking, Republicans don't bother with such comparisons..

    There are few people in history that I would say AREN’T BETTER than this trio of greed and dishonesty!

    Thank you for proving my point for me. :D

  61. [61] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The problem with Democrats thinking they are better than Republicans and Republicans thinking they are better than Democrats is the definition of better.

    While better is form of good ({good, better, best), it is not always a form of good.

    When it comes to Republicans or Democrats being better than the other the less bad is better than more bad- but it is still not good or even adequate.

    The which big money CMP is better argument is the equivalent of deciding whether it is better to be burned at the stake or drawn and quartered.

    No matter which you choose you will get an unsatisfactory result.

  62. [62] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Facts to support?

    The last forty years (at least) of elections and legislation.

  63. [63] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And WHICH Party was it that was the Party of the KKK??

    And WHICH Party is NOW the Party of the KKK??

    WAS = Democrats....IS = Republicans

    Which president defended those in the KKK by claiming some mighty “fine folks” were members?

    The Democrat Party legacy is that it was the Party that gave the world the KKK...

    THAT is your Party's legacy...

    And THAT is forever..

    Yep. It is the Democrats legacy that their party members once held such racist beliefs. I realize that you are not used to hearing a party accepting responsibility for their past actions, but it isn’t a source of shame today because we can show how those people were run out of the party.

    Those Democrats that supported the KKK will forever have it a part of THEIR legacies. Just like today’s Republicans support of a president that believes that there are “fine people” in the KKK, spits in the face of those working in our intelligence agencies by saying he has more faith in Putin than he does in them, and who supports infants being taken from their families and put in cages simply because their parents sought help from our country will be YOUR legacies!

  64. [64] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump now claiming to have secured a peace agreement in the Middle East between...both of the political parties in Israel! Look Trumpkins.....a shiny object!

    Desperation is setting in with Trump!

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    And WHICH Party was it that was the Party of the KKK??

    And WHICH Party is NOW the Party of the KKK??

    We're talking about legacies sunshine.

    Even though your claim that the GOP is the Party of the KKK is total bullshit, it's simply UNDENIABLE that it was the Democrat Party who CREATED the KKK..

    That is YOUR Party's legacy..

    NOW..

    And forever..

    Deal with it, fuckface..

    Just like today’s Republicans support of a president that believes that there are “fine people” in the KKK,

    Except that is not factually accurate...

    It's only in your fevered and delusional imagincations..

    those working in our intelligence agencies by saying he has more faith in Putin than he does in them,

    Considering that the intelligence agencies were in on the coup, that is not so farfetched..

    And let's not forget, it was your ODUMBO who promised fealty to Putin.. It was YOUR messiah who denied weapons to Ukraine and let his butt-buddy Putin just waltz into The Crimea..

    Funny how you want to ignore that..

    JUST like you want to ignore that it was the Democrat Party who gave us the KKK..

    Desperation is setting in with Trump!

    Yea.. You always claim that.. And, yet.. you are ALWAYS wrong..

    Trump now claiming to have secured a peace agreement in the Middle East between...both of the political parties in Israel!

    At least PRESIDENT Trump is dealing with the good guys..

    Yer buddy Odumbo liked to fellate the terrorists on the other side.. :eyeroll:

    Moron..

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    Trump's lawyers are trying keep the House’s calling of witnesses to the impeachment trial unless Defendant Trump gets to use the trial to keep perpetrating the plot that he’s on trial for, and now a Trump tweet being read at an impeachment trial by his lawyer is somehow supposed to be accepted as some kind of testimony? Donald Trump refuses to allow anyone to give a single document or allow any testimony... yet has his lawyer read a Trump tweet to a Senate full of a lot of lawyers as some kind of testimony. Unreal! *laughs*

    There is no legal defense of Trump by his legal team... simply hysterical whining that Trump is a victim because he was investigated by the FBI while a private citizen. Meanwhile, Trump has bypassed that same FISA system and utilized his private lawyer and their henchmen to conspire to shake down two leaders of a foreign government to investigate the former Vice President of the United States, and they're referring to that shakedown as a "policy difference." Nonsensical!

    I am sincerely gobsmacked that an attorney would read a tweet of his client at any kind of trial as some kind of quasi testimony, but thanks go out to Jay Sekulow for waiving executive privilege regarding Trump's conversations with John Bolton... right after one of the other lawyers had claimed it was impossible for people to know what someone's motive without their -- wait for it -- testimony.

    Meanwhile, they want no more -- wait for it -- testimony... no witnesses. They're fine wiCth a POTUS having his personal lawyer conspire to shake down a foreign government to intervene in our democracy for his own personal gain. *shakes head*

    The cover-up will fail, and the facts will emerge; they always do.

  67. [67] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    John M & Kick

    The ONLY one to garner such support so far has been Joe Biden. That, along with his white working class support, goes a long way to explain Trump's and the Republican panic focus of trying to portray Biden and his son Hunter as somehow corrupt in a big scandal. It's their obsession with destroying Hillary Clinton all over again writ large.

    Spot on!

    I know Liz won’t agree with this, but I feel almost 99.9% sure that Stacy Abrams is going to be his VP choice. It’s been tossed out as a possibility in the press I know, but people back in Georgia are much more certain that it is going to happen. Abrams has not backed any candidate, thus far, but I am guessing that she will be making that announcement prior to the primary votes in Southern states. She is the “yang” to Biden’s “ying” as far as a well-rounded ticket is concerned.

  68. [68] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    67

    I know Liz won’t agree with this, but I feel almost 99.9% sure that Stacy Abrams is going to be his VP choice.

    We were in unison saying this about Biden over a year ago, and Liz was calling us crazy for it. Remember? We speculated these running mates for Biden (in this order):

    * Stacey Abrams
    * Kamala Harris
    * Elizabeth Warren

    depending on how the debates and everything in between played out, of course. I haven't changed my mind about it either. Biden's best choice (should he need to make it) would still be Stacey Abrams. I could see them flipping Georgia or making the GOP spend a whole lot of money to defend it. :)

  69. [69] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It's only in your fevered and delusional imagincations..

    Says the person foaming at the mouth and hurling insults because his arguments are so laughably weak! A person screaming about someone else’s “imagincations” sounds far more likely to be “fevered and delusional”.

    it's simply UNDENIABLE that it was the Democrat Party who CREATED the KKK..

    Yet, here I am denying that to be the case. There might have been members of the Party that started the KKK (again, no one denies that unless you now do since I am saying it is true), but find me where in the Party’s past platforms that the KKK was officially created by the Party. Oh wait, you can’t! But your rhetoric sounded so great in your head, I’m sure!

    And let's not forget, it was your ODUMBO who promised fealty to Putin..

    Are you referring to when a hot microphone picked up President Obama telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev he would have more flexibility to negotiate on issues like missile defense after the 2012 election? Putin wasn’t involved at all, so clearly your accusation is based not on the facts, but on your own RACIAL BIGOTRY.

  70. [70] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    Oh it’s only getting better! The Republicans know that the John Bolton news has put the screws on them to have Bolton testify. So how are they hoping to avoid Bolton on the witness stand??? By having Senate members read the transcript from his upcoming book to see if what he claims in the book is legit! For all they know, Bolton might have written a fan-fiction novel involving hardcore gay sex — Trump in ass-less chaps — well there went my lunch! Yet they think reading what Bolton says in a book (that he is hoping to profit from) is just as good as hearing testimony from him when he is under oath!?!

    Weren’t these the guys screaming that accepting hearsay testimony was always wrong? Why wouldn’t it be wiser to just let Bolton testify if Republicans are actually interested in the truth? Opps, think I answered my own question there!

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Says the person foaming at the mouth and hurling insults because his arguments are so laughably weak! A person screaming about someone else’s “imagincations” sounds far more likely to be “fevered and delusional”.

    If hurling insults is the sign of a weak argument, then you have never had ANYTHING BUT weak arguments.. :D

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Let's face reality, though..

    You have ALWAYS been wrong about EVERY President Trump prediction you have ever had..

    And there are NO FACTS to support anything but the idea that you will CONTINUE to be wrong..

    :D

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just after President Trump’s defense lawyers ended arguments in their Senate trial Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein suggested she could vote to acquit him, despite serious concerns about his character.

    “Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.”

    Democrats are wavering!!! :D

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    All these comments and STILL no one has been able to answer one basic question..

    If Democrats HAVE the *FACTS* to prove a crime beyond ANY doubt..

    WHY did they not charge President Trump with an actual crime!!???

    Funny how NO ONE can answer that question with ANYTHING approaching logic and reason..

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Betting Odds Upset: Bernie Blows Past Biden, Bloomberg In Third
    https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/28/betting-odds-bernie-biden-bloomberg-third/

    Some wise Weigantian said to watch the betting markets...

    :D

    Wonder where Stig is now???

    Oh, that's right.. He bailed..

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    70

    Oh it’s only getting better! The Republicans know that the John Bolton news has put the screws on them to have Bolton testify.

    It doesn't matter whether Bolton testifies or not. I cannot fathom how they believe they can acquit Trump of obstruction when he has refused to allow any documents and any witnesses and hasn't invoked executive privilege. In other words, Trump obstructed the entire investigation and he can't actually invoke executive privilege because of the crime/fraud exception, wherein he'd have to explain the facts, wherein Trump and his lawyer/fixer (the one not already in prison) and their paid thugs were using taxpayer dollars to shake down Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens. Full stop. Executive privilege for criminal activity does not exist, and there have been criminal indictments of Trump's henchmen on their way out of the country after meeting with Rudy Giuliani but not before meeting with their attorney John Dowd, Trump's former attorney, whom Jay Sekulow green-lighted said representation with Trump's approval.

    The facts will emerge.

    So how are they hoping to avoid Bolton on the witness stand???

    "Heads on pikes" allegedly... and "repercussions" as stated by Mark Meadows; they are being bullied/threatened by Don "take her out" Con. Fall in line or suffer the consequences.

    By having Senate members read the transcript from his upcoming book to see if what he claims in the book is legit!

    Why would they actually need to read it if they say it doesn't matter what's in it? Which is, of course, a lie.

    For all they know, Bolton might have written a fan-fiction novel involving hardcore gay sex — Trump in ass-less chaps — well there went my lunch!

    Oh, there goes my drink. *laughs*

    Yet they think reading what Bolton says in a book (that he is hoping to profit from) is just as good as hearing testimony from him when he is under oath!?!

    They'll be bullied by Trump into being complicit in his cover-up... facts be damned... but it doesn't matter either way because the facts will come out.

    Lots more coming, and we still haven't even gotten to the part about the graft yet. Calling Rick Perry! :)

    Weren’t these the guys screaming that accepting hearsay testimony was always wrong?

    And then Sekulow reads a Trump tweet wherein he claims Bolton is lying into the impeachment trial record as if it's a substitute for testimony... oops -- they're helping make the case for witnesses while attempting to testify for Trump via Twitter... and... oops... there goes that privilege that doesn't apply to criminal acts anyway.

    Call their bluff, Democrats. They can't go to Court and ask for privilege without presenting their case, and then they're screwed by the facts already in evidence. It's hogwash that they want fairness by allowing a witness-for-witness trade-off. If they want Hunter or Joe Biden to testify, all they have to do is call them. It's bullshit that they need a witness trade-off; call their bluff. :)

    Why wouldn’t it be wiser to just let Bolton testify if Republicans are actually interested in the truth Oops, think I answered my own question there!

    Yep. They're planning to wait and then corral them into voting against witnesses.

    I could tell you why that's not going to work either, but then I'd have to reveal something I ain't supposed to tell. :)

  76. [76] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    When the Democrats moved away from the KKK, politicians that wanted to appeal to those voters moved to the Republican Party.

    But it did not happen overnight.

    The politicians of both CMPs are currently in bed, however, with a greater threat to our democracy- big money.

    Purging big money from our political process also will not happen overnight.

    But the sooner we start the sooner it can be accomplished.

    If we had started in 2016 or even 2018 we would be in much better shape already.

    Instead we have the same old bullshit show in 2020.

    And all the news coverage and comments sections like this are having the same old bullshit arguments about the show we had in 2016, 2018 and just about every election since I started voting.

    Maybe if citizens stopped looking for someone else to blame and took a minute to consider that repeating the same actions that have not worked for decades is to blame and they should consider other approaches we wouldn't still be regurgitating the same old bullshit.

    Maybe if citizens stopped accepting the same promises that are never fulfilled and demand action now for politicians to earn our votes we would get politicians that would follow through on their promises.

    Maybe if citizens would take on the responsibility of taking action themselves to demand better and vote against the politicians making empty promises instead of passing off that responsibility to the politicians and continue to vote for them because this time they really will keep their promises that we would get politicians that follow through on their promises.(That's how democracy works- if politicians don't do what they are supposed to do you vote for someone else)

    Maybe citizens will stop looking for confirmation that what they are doing and/or believing is right and actually try to find out if it is right.

    Until that happens nothing will change.

    A maybe is only a maybe, but a maybe is better than never.

    That's why I keep coming here.

    Maybe CW will (with apologies again to the Beatles) will get back to where he once belonged.

    We need the 2015 CW that considered and speculated about maybes now more than ever.

    The 2016-2020 CW seems to have devolved(as in the Mario Bros movie).

    It's time to begin reversing that process.

  77. [77] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So.....when are we going to see Trump’s tax returns?

    It’s been over 3 years, is Trump going to claim that he is STILL being audited by the IRS?

    Are we supposed to believe that this president —a man that cannot stand anyone investigating any aspect of his life — ordered the IRS to not turn over his tax returns to Congress as the law instructs them to do, but he did not tell them to end the multi-year audit he’s been forced to endure?

    Trump oddly seems to hold the IRS audit in high esteem...something that is sacred that should not be tarnished by crude name-calling... Very different reaction by Trump, at least compared to what EVERY OTHER THING that might be used to judge Trump typically receives. Fake NEWS, Witchhunts, coups...you name it, he’s slammed it! But not that audit!

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I must say that all the endless talk around here about Senator Biden and VP picks - in the same breath, no less - puts a cautious smile on my face whenever I read it.

    I'm hoping it last through the summer … or next week, at the very least!

  79. [79] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Off topic Star Trek news:

    Patrick Stewart was on the View today to offer Whoopi a place in Picard season 2!!! This was one of the few times I have seen Whoopi go speechless with joy, and it was beautiful to see. She brought up a good point that I believe few people (including myself) know...Guinan was Gene Roddenberry’s last character that he personally created for the StarTrek universe. And while Whoopi has chosen to go with gray with her braids, skin wise she has barely aged in the last 20 years! Picard looks 18 years older...because he is 18 years older; but Guinan is hundreds, if not thousands of years old.

    I woke my dogs up cheering so loudly when I saw it! Her character was one that I always believed they never took full advantage of her backstory and that of her race. I never read any of the StarTrek novels (I was too busy reading the entire StarWars library) but I always wanted to see more about her people, and maybe I’ll finally get my wish!

    Rewatched the 2nd season of Discovery over the last few days.. it’s been fun!

  80. [80] 
    dsws wrote:

    Biden isn't picking a VP. He's picking a running mate.

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm just glad you think he's picking at all. Heh.

  82. [82] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Don't be so quick to imagine bizarre outcomes impossible in 2020. Trump will no doubt trumpet 100% exoneration over the Ukraine, while Bolton's book soars the right wing charts saying the opposite, and more besides. Giuliani, once shown a few bus routes running adjacent to 1600 Pen ave and the ease at he could find himself moments early for one and a good push likely, might adopt a more 'Parnas-like' self preservation stance. Let's not forget Michael Cohen's last free breath to spill his guts in a full throated recap of Trump' activities during the period they were laundering cash for Kazakh oligarchs and Uke/Ruski mobsters...Throw in a few more disgruntled former Trump acolytes, a whistleblower, an Anonymous, a partially and by no means amazing China, Middle-east agreement and the outright North Korean, Iranian and Kurdish debacles, you have an incumbent president on such thin ice, he'd wish he'd given global warming more consideration
    Trump is spectacularly precariously placed, for re-election, any combination of a few of these swords choose to swing, and given his universal loathing by all things not his base...Any skillfully picked Dem Ticket will take him to the cleaners.

    Biden-Klobuchar...
    Warren-Booker...
    Sanders-Buttigieg...
    Bloomberg-Bennet...

    It's all speculation until the cherubs hymn.

    LL&P

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm pretty sure there are at least three more paragraphs in there that would make it a lot easier to read.

  84. [84] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [79] Indeed, it's a good time to be in the Trek camp, Picard has the potential to be a rich mix of drama and action, that only Sir Pat can deliver. Add the so-far brilliant Discovery angles. Should be a good year to.......................................................

    LL&P

  85. [85] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    you still think it is about you? i just like pie.

    JL

Comments for this article are closed.