ChrisWeigant.com

Snap Reactions To The State Of The Union Speech

[ Posted Tuesday, February 4th, 2020 – 22:02 UTC ]

As I sit down to write my reactions to the State Of The Union speech and the Democratic response, votes from Iowa are still trickling in. That's a rather bizarre overlap, caused by the total breakdown of the Iowa Democratic Party's reporting system. The spectacular failure of the whizzy new app taken together with the equally spectacular failure of the backup phone hotline reporting system meant it was almost 24 hours from when the caucuses started to when any results were made publicly available. And the only saving grace was that there was indeed a full paper trail to follow, so the votes themselves (we are assured) will all be counted accurately.

Obviously, something's got to change. This is a screwup of epic proportions. If Iowa had been a state voting on Super Tuesday, it wouldn't have been such a big deal (although it still would have been the butt of plenty jokes), but with their "first in the nation" status, it is nothing short of absolutely unacceptable.

Now, the breakdown could be fixed by a better reporting system -- whether technological or just having enough people available to answer the phones. But it brings into question two much larger points -- should Iowa change from a caucus to a primary, and should Iowa still be allowed to go first? Those weighty issues are now solidly on the table for discussion, as they should be. The case against caucuses has always been pretty easy to make, which is why almost every state has now moved to a primary system. The case against Iowa going first is a trickier one, but "You had your chance and you blew it" will now be a big part of that argument.

But given that the Democratic Party has four years to figure all of this out before the next one happens, let's get back to the big speeches tonight instead.

 

The State Of The Union

Most of President Trump's speech tonight was fairly standard stuff, at least to my ears. About 80 percent of it could have come from any Republican president, in fact. The other 20 percent was mostly about illegal immigrants, and a few other Trump bugaboos.

Overall, I have to say Trump has gotten better at reading his big speech each year off of a TelePrompTer. He sounds a lot less bored, and a lot more interested in reading the words. That's a notable change, for him. Instead of sounding like a fifth-grader reading from a textbook in a class he doesn't much care about, Trump now can manage to sound like an average politician reading a speech off a TelePrompTer. That's progress, of a sort.

Trump being Trump, there were plenty of "made for television" moments, such as when the First Lady draped a Presidential Medal of Freedom around Rush Limbaugh's neck. The expected callouts to various attendees sometimes were interesting and inspiring (as with the former Tuskegee Airman) and at other times very emotional. Trump did a much better job of introducing these this year, refraining from going off script with his usual ad-libbing. Trump only flubbed one word during the entire speech (when he spoke of California being a "stank-tuary" state), which is also pretty good for him.

Overall, the audience performed as they always do at these speeches, with half the chamber leaping to its feet to loudly applaud and the other half sitting in protest. Pretty much par for the course, although when Trump first entered he did get a chant of "four more years!" which was a bit unusual (but probably not unprecedented -- I'd have to check).

Democrats mostly behaved themselves during the speech, at least from what the microphones picked up. At one point all the women Democrats in suffragette white stood up and started chanting something, but it was drowned out by the general background noise, so I have no idea what it was (I believe it came during Trump speaking on lowering prescription drug prices, but they could have been protesting something else). There was one point when someone tried to disrupt things, but again I could not hear what they were saying and they were hustled out pretty quickly.

But overall, I found the speech as a whole pretty standard stuff for a president in an election year. Trump ran down his list of accomplishments, and managed to do so with minimal patting himself on the back (much more subdued than in years past). Then Trump had a very loose laundry list of things he asked Congress to pass -- all of which is pretty formulaic for a president hoping to be re-elected.

Trump only really got animated in a few places during the speech. He delights in saying "Space Force" for some reason, although that was easily overlooked because the shoutout to the Tuskegee Airman came next.

Trump's shoutouts were more impressive than most because he bestowed goodies on just about everyone he could. There was the medal for Limbaugh, a school voucher for a fourth-grader, a promotion to brigadier general for the Tuskegee Airman, a promotion for a Border Patrol agent, the reunification of a family when a soldier entered back from deployment, and probably a few I've forgotten to list. There were one or two people used how presidents usually use such examples -- to ask Congress to pass some new proposal. But for the most part, people got presents bestowed on them either earlier in the day or right there in the chamber. This could actually set a precedent for State Of The Union speeches that future presidents (of either party) will doubtlessly follow. Each of these moments worked pretty well as made-for-television vignettes, but then Trump's always been a showman at heart.

Trump also got rather animated talking about the horrors of socialism ("Socialism destroys nations") and socialized medicine ("We will never let socialism destroy American healthcare!"). These were all clear shots at Bernie Sanders, and a warning for all the Democratic presidential candidates what they're going to face in the general election campaign. Of course, I'll be looking to the fact-checkers to see how much of what Trump tried to brag about on the healthcare subject turns out not to be true (like his boast that he's dedicated to preserving healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions while in reality he's fighting in court to end all of that, along with the rest of Obamacare).

As always, though, Trump got most excited when talking about illegal aliens, or (as he likes to call them) "illegals." He warned of the "radical American left," boasted about the border wall, and got downright graphic about the crimes committed by immigrants (a "gruesome spree" by a "vile criminal" who "murdered in cold blood"). This, as always, is not the usual language of presidential speeches, but then again it's not the first time Trump's tossed such red meat into his State Of The Union speeches.

All around, except for such moments of excess, this was a pretty standard Republican speech. Trump managed to deliver it probably better than he's read any of his previous speeches, showing he is capable of learning, given enough time.

One notable thing was what Trump didn't say during the speech. The White House leaked in advance that Trump was going to tone it down, and I have to say this time they weren't lying. Not once during the entire speech did Trump even mention the impeachment trial or Democratic investigations of him and his administration. Usually he plays the victim card at some point, but in only the second State Of The Union speech given during an impeachment trial, Trump refused to address it -- to his credit. The other thing notable for its absence was any taunting of Democrats after the whole Iowa caucus fiasco. I thought we'd get at least one off-the-cuff joke about it from Trump, but he managed to restrain himself and not bring it up -- again, to his credit.

For all the made-for-television moments during Trump's speech, however, he was trumped (pun intended) at the very end by none other than Nancy Pelosi, who slowly ripped up her copy of Trump's speech, sitting right behind him. I must admit I didn't notice it at the time, but I'd be willing to bet that this becomes the most-viewed clip of the entire night. Pelosi absolutely owned Trump, and as with her previous "clapback" moment, she didn't even have to utter a word to do so. One year ago, some Democrats were nervous about making Pelosi speaker of the House once again, because they thought new blood was needed. You don't hear anyone saying that anymore, and tonight was just one more reason why.

 

The Democratic Response

Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan was chosen to give the response to Trump's speech tonight, and it was pretty easy to see why. Her short speech (around 20 minutes) was better, in fact, than almost every presidential campaign speech I've heard yet during this election cycle. She spoke in a no-nonsense fashion and made a point I've begged Democrats to make for a long time now: "This is what Democrats are for, and this is what Republicans are against." This was absolutely fitting for a politician who got elected on the strength of the campaign slogan: "Fix the damn roads!"

She sprinkled references to other Democratic governors throughout her speech, pointing out all the good things they had gotten done for their citizens. Whitmer repeatedly made the point that Democrats actually are getting a whole lot of very good bills passed in the House only to have them die on Mitch McConnell's desk. This is an important thing to point out, as often as possible, because not only does it showcase what Democrats not only stand for but have gotten done, but it also makes a clear and convincing case for voters to turn the Senate blue as well so that stuff like this will actually become law.

Whitmer did take a few shots at Trump ("Bullying people on Twitter burns bridges, it doesn't build them"), but overall mostly ignored Trump to focus on the vast difference in the way the two major political parties see what needs to be done right now. The best line of the night was when she pointed out "every Democrat running for president has a plan to improve health care," while Republicans are fighting to make it worse for millions. This puts all the squabbling about which plan is better into the proper context -- a context that has been missing in pretty much every Democratic presidential debate so far. To put it another way, the differences between Democrats are minor when compared to the difference between what Democrats want to do and what Republicans are fighting against. Whitmer drove this point home better than I've seen in years: "Democrats are trying to make healthcare better; Republicans are trying to make it worse." That's it in a nutshell, and I really wish more Democrats would put it just as bluntly.

Whitmer had one great home-state shoutout moment when she pointed out: "Michigan invented the middle class!" But right after that she got back to the long list of things Democrats have passed in the House which would make millions of Americans' lives better (the best example being the 29 states where Democrats or the voters have achieved a raise in the minimum wage).

As I said, this was an excellent speech. It clearly defined the differences in agenda between the two parties, and showed America exactly what could be achieved with a Democrat in the White House and in charge of the Senate once again.

Whitmer did close on an awfully harsh note, though, with a clear warning to Republican senators who are going to vote in the impeachment trial tomorrow. Some of this was rousing ("The truth matter. Facts matter. No one is above the law.") but my guess is that this part of the speech will be second-guessed by some pundits. It was a departure from the theme of the rest of the speech, which was made more notable because it was the closing paragraph. Closing on a more positive note might have been the better choice rather than focusing on the impeachment.

But overall, the delivery was great and the subject matter was outstanding. This is the first time I've ever heard Whitmer speak and it's pretty easy to understand why she won her election in Michigan. She was down-to-earth and practical, she spoke to all the kitchen-table issues voters love to hear, and she was absolutely right about what Democrats stand for versus what Republicans fight against. I would expect her to get a speaking slot at the national Democratic convention after delivering such a strong response to Trump's State Of The Union speech.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

69 Comments on “Snap Reactions To The State Of The Union Speech”

  1. [1] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Oh c'mon here for Gawdsake, all you guys know damn well that Trump colluded with the Russions to sabotage the Iowa primary, right!!!

    Now Schiff and Nancy can add that to sins justifying impeachment.

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Trump also got rather animated talking about the horrors of socialism ("Socialism destroys nations") and socialized medicine ("We will never let socialism destroy American healthcare!"). These were all clear shots at Bernie Sanders, and a warning for all the Democratic presidential candidates what they're going to face in the general election campaign.

    Trump really wants to run against Bernie. The GOP cancelled their primary in South Carolina so no one could challenge Trump and are planning to "vote for Trump" by voting for their preferred candidate, Bernie Sanders in order to sabotage Biden.

    https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/upstate-gop-leaders-plotting-to-meddle-in-sc-democratic-primary/article_f1e7abd2-4788-11ea-aa9f-33a1d262994c.html

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: As always, though, Trump got most excited when talking about illegal aliens, or (as he likes to call them) "illegals."

    You misspelled "employees." :)

  4. [4] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    I think we are witnessing the Last of the Republicans story playing in real life. The party had that autopsy of their party run after the 2008 loss, and the one thing that could possibly save the party — welcoming Hispanics into their fold — has been completely rejected by the Party leadership. It’s not surprising that a party that has used fear-mongering of other races to rally its base for decades could not just turn off the racism and xenophobia that are so deeply rooted in their party’s DNA.

    If Republicans acquit Trump tomorrow, they will have shown the world that they only care for this nation as long as they are in charge... and they will do whatever it takes to stay in power — regardless of the consequences that their actions might cause. Much like how they were willing to damage our country by refusing to vote for any legislation that Obama supported, regardless of the damage their opposition resulted in; they have shown that they are willing to piss on the Constitution if it will help them stay in power.

    And it’s pretty obvious that Trump is their best hope for there to be a Republican in the White House after 2020. They know he is attempting to have outside help get him re-elected, and they are willing to turn a blind eye to his misconduct. If Trump is not acquitted, they know that Pence wouldn’t have a chance in the 2020 election.

    It’ll be interesting to see how many Republicans vote in SC’s primary. It’s impressive, even if it is pathetic, how hard Republicans will work to avoid facing Democrats that they are afraid of losing to in the general election.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pretty much your commentary says President Trump did "OK" in his SOTU speech..

    That's DemocratSpeak for he knocked it out of the park!! :D

    ("The truth matter. Facts matter. No one is above the law.")

    Which rings quite hollow when ya consider the Democrats position on illegal immigrant criminals..

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    The party had that autopsy of their party run after the 2008 loss, and the one thing that could possibly save the party — welcoming Hispanics into their fold — has been completely rejected by the Party leadership.

    Except the FACTS prove that hispanics are joining the GOP by the tens of millions..

    If Republicans acquit Trump tomorrow, they will have shown the world that they only care for this nation as long as they are in charge...

    Which could also be said of the Democrat Party.

    Why else would Democrats be wishing and hoping for thousands of American dead at the hands of Iran??

    Why else would Democrats be wishing and hoping for a middle-class crippling recession??

    There are no facts that the GOP only cares about this country when they are in charge.

    There are a plethora of facts to prove that DEMOCRATS only care about this country when THEY are in charge..

    They know he is attempting to have outside help get him re-elected, and they are willing to turn a blind eye to his misconduct.

    Facts to support?? None?? Yea.. Figures..

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

    RCP is reporting that Bernie is on top.. Buttagig is second and Biden is way WAY down on the pole..

    So, saying Buttagig is a clear winner is a lie..

  8. [8] 
    John M wrote:

    C.W. Wrote:

    "At one point all the women Democrats in suffragette white stood up and started chanting something, but it was drowned out by the general background noise, so I have no idea what it was (I believe it came during Trump speaking on lowering prescription drug prices, but they could have been protesting something else)."

    What they were chanting was "HR 3" and trying to point out was that it is a bill lowering prescription drug prices that has already passed the House with bipartisan support.

    If Trump really wants to lower drug prices, the bill is already there.

    All Trump has to do is force Mitch McConnell to stop sitting on it and let it come to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

  9. [9] 
    dsws wrote:

    [2]
    ... in order to sabotage Biden.

    That doesn't sound like an attempt to sabotage Biden. It sounds like an attempt to delegitimize Bernie's vote total.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's best week as president

    As the president delivers the State of the Union, his approval ratings are at historic highs and the Democrats look hopelessly divided. He couldn’t have scripted a better outcome.
    https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/704395?unlock=1IJ16VYS0WK15RJV

    Democrats are going to get their asses handed to them in Nov...

    :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    All Trump has to do is force Mitch McConnell to stop sitting on it and let it come to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

    Which McConnell would have been happy to do if Democrats had not pushed the ridiculous faux impeachment coup that totally damaged Democrats and let President Trump have a HUGE political win...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Scenes from the Democratic Meltdown in Iowa

    Two parties — one at a Marriott, one at a dive bar — reveal a deep divide in the Democratic base
    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-joe-biden-iowa-caucus-democratic-meltdown-947545/

    President Trump couldn't ask for a better (for him and this country) Democrat Primary if he scripted it himself.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rumors about the results of the scuppered Des Moines Register poll — the hotly anticipated barometer for Democratic candidates that was shelved the day before due to data-collection hiccups were flying around the bar. The poll’s results supposedly were good for Bernie and bad for the centrists, particularly those they call Uncle Joe and “Mayo Pete.” Upon hearing the gossip, one canvasser began twerking to scattered applause.

    Another hopped on stage and grabbed a microphone for a call and return with the crowd.

    “When I say ‘Fuck,’ you say ‘Biden!’”

    “Fuck,” he yelled. “Biden,” the crowd roared back.

    “When I say ‘Fuck,’ you say ‘Warren!’”

    “Fuck,” he yelled. “Warren,” the audience answered back.

    And so it went with Buttigieg, Steyer, and even Tulsi Gabbard, the poor thing. So much for party unity

    This is the "unity" of the Democrat Party... :smirk: :D

    So much for the claim that Democrats are above personal name-calling and attacks.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "...and showed America exactly what could be achieved with a Democrat in the White House and in control of the Senate once again."

    Only if you believe speeches and campaign promises.

    A better way to see what could be achieved with the Dems in control again is to look at what they accomplished the last time they were in control- the big achievement was passing a Republican health care plan.

    Another better way to see what will be achieved is by looking at how they finance their campaigns.

    In that regard there is not only no clear difference between the parties- there is no difference at all. They both work for the big money interests.

    Enough with the articles and the voting based on speeches and promises.

    It's time to concentrate on what they DO.

    They take big money and promise to do things they have no intention of doing.

    Then when you point out to people they did not live up to their promises, people that voted for them because of those promises say well all politicians do that.

    It doesn't make sense to say you voted for someone based on their promises and turn around and say you didn't expect them to live up to those promises.

    And it doesn't make sense to vote for them AGAIN based on the same promises that you don't expect them to keep this time or that you do expect them to keep this time but will claim later that you really didn't.

    So PLEASE, CW, let the rest of the week go by without further reaction to Iowa and the SOTU. The snap reactions are sufficient for now. Allow those things to play out this week and write about it next week instead of spending this week speculating about how it could play out this week and then writing again about it again next week when you have the actual information available.

    Instead spend the rest of this week writing about the stuff that the big money interests want to not be covered.

    A good example would be the DNC's change in the debate criteria to allow Bloomberg in, seemingly timed to be overshadowed by the impeachment, Iowa primary and SOTU.

    You could speculate in this article about how the DNC could also change the debate criteria to only allow small donor candidates in the debate.

    You could speculate what would happen if millions of people angry at this decision were to write to the DNC or sign a petition saying they want the DNC to change the debate criteria to only allow candidates in the debate that commit to running a small donor only campaign in the general election.

    You could speculate about what might happen if millions of citizens wrote to the Democratic candidates saying the candidates will not get their primary or general election votes if the candidate does not make this commitment.

    You could even speculate about what could happen if millions of citizens also signed up for One Demand, but since you obviously are afraid to inform citizens about One Demand because you have no rational argument against One Demand (at least you have not presented any yet) just speculating about the first two would be a good start on returning to covering actual reality.

    You could speculate about which candidates might decide based on citizens making such a demand to commit to run a small donor only campaign in the general election and how it might effect the primaries and general elelction.

    You could point out how just 3% of presidential election voters contributing an average of 100 dollars to a candidate making this commitment would total around 500 million dollars so there is no need to take more than 200 dollars from any one donor.

    And you could point out that then voters would be voting based on action the candidates are taking NOW, instead of voting based on promises of future action that you don't really believe will happen because they are already doing the one thing that guarantees they will not fulfill their promises- taking big money to run their campaigns.

    It's time to Get Real.

    The state of the Union is rapid decline.

    The proof is that Trump delivered the SOTU.

    The state of this blog is in rapid decline.

    The proof is you keep rationalizing the bullshit instead of providing information to citizens about how ordinary citizens can utilize the tools provided to gain control of our political process that is currently controlled by the big money interests.

    The premise that having the big money Democrats in control instead of the big money Republicans in control ignores the obvious FACT that either way the big money interests will be in control so any change of power between the two parties does not change who controls our government.

    It's time you presented more than just much ado about nothing.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am surprised you didn't mention Pelosi's immature childish actions of tearing President Trump's speech in half..

    That's right up there with Joe Wilson's "YOU LIE!!!" outburst...

    Which, if I recall correctly, ya'all resoundingly denounced..

    Actually, I am not surprised you didn't mention it..

    Pelosi has a -D after her name so she gets a pass..

    If this was Weigantia pre-HHPTDS, Pelosi would definitely receive the DISAPPOINTING DEMOCRAT award this Friday..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    John Fund: Pelosi's SOTU tantrum was also an acknowledgment of defeat
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/pelosis-sotu-tantrum-was-also-an-acknowledgment-of-defeat-john-fund

    Yep..

    Pelosi couldn't have chosen a BETTER tantrum to show how utterly defeated, decimated and demoralized she and the Democrats are.. :D

    Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of Jackasses..

    :smirk: :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wasn’t just mad at President Trump last night when she tore up a paper copy of his State of the Union message on national television. She was also probably mad at herself and her fellow Democrats as well for being outmaneuvered by the ostentatiously theatrical president. The man her party impeached just two months ago is now about to be acquitted, has a record-high 49 percent approval rating and could well win reelection and even endanger her House majority.

    What a difference a year makes. At last year’s State of the Union, Pelosi was riding high. Democrats had just retaken the House, emerged victorious from a government shutdown and Pelosi had an iron grip over her fellow House Democrats. She mocked Trump last year, snickering as she gave him a sarcastic sideways clap.

    Pelosi forgot the age old adage..

    HE WHO LAUGHS LAST... LAUGHS BEST...

    :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    After a Senate trial during which President Trump’s numbers only went up, Pelosi sat in the Speaker’s chair last night realizing that Democrats had lost political momentum to Trump. She grimaced throughout the speech, shook her head and refused to even applaud a fourth-grader in the audience who was awarded a scholarship so she attends a better school.

    After she was captured ripping up Trump’s speech on national TV, Pelosi explained her action as “the courteous thing to do considering the alternatives.” For political observers, it looked more like an exercise in frustration by a political leader who rejected a smatter alternative in resisting impeachment. Now she and her party have surrendered the upper hand to President Trump.

    Once again..

    President Trump rules...

    Democrats drool... :D

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    So... Today is the big day..

    President Trump is completely and 1000% EXONERATED and VINDICATE...

    Once again... :D

    Democrats PROVE that President Trump is 1000% innocent of all charges.. :D

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "He who laughs last....laughs best."

    No one is laughing last.

    But your acting as if anything Trump said or Pelosi did is important made me realize something I have in common with the big money interests.

    We are both laughing at you, other Trump supporters/Republican voters and the Democratic voters that buy in to the show which causes all of you to laugh at each other.

    The big money interests are laughing at all of you for being so stupid that you buy in to their lie and because all of you keep voting for their candidates.

    I laugh at you because the only other choices are getting angry or crying about it which are not in any way productive and usually just make things worse.

    Laughing about someone else being duped when you are also being duped doesn't fool anyone but yourself.

    And even if at the moment you are laughing last that won't last and therefore is not laughing best.

    Laughing best would be when all of you finally wake up to reality and all of us are laughing together at the big money interests for spending hundreds of millions of dollars supporting candidates that can no longer get elected because citizens will only vote for small donor only candidates.

    Once that happens the big money interests will stop spending the money.

    It's called supply and demand. It's also called democracy.

    And when it comes to democracy, citizens control the supply of the votes.

    It's time we stepped up and demanded candidates worthy of our votes instead of just accepting the false choices offered by the big money interests.

    It's time that citizens engaging in the childish behavior of trading bullshit talking points from whichever team's bullshit they are buying and claiming to be laughing last grew up and stood up against the big money interests.

    Just a small portion of the effort all of you put in to swallowing and regurgitating the bullshit put in to getting CW to write about and other citizens to participate in One Demand would do more to move our democracy and country forward than how you currently waste your time providing laughter, amusement and most importantly conceding control of our political process to the big money interests.

    The founding fathers seeing what wimps and morons Americans have become would not just turn over in their graves- they would EXPLODE!

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    No one is laughing last.

    Speak for yerself, bud..

    I am laughing my ass off..

    I mean SOOOO many times Weigantians (NEN) proclaimed that "TRUMP IS TOAST"...

    And SOOOO many times they were 1000% WRONG in every prediction..

    I mean, com'on.. THAT is funny as hell!! :D

  22. [22] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i think we're overlooking the big change for amy klobuchar. i think it's her first time ever in double digits, and she's done more than just scratch the surface.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    i think we're overlooking the big change for amy klobuchar. i think it's her first time ever in double digits, and she's done more than just scratch the surface.

    I see her taking support away from Biden and Buttagig..

    But Democrats are too misogynist and sexist to think she has a change against President Trump..

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Not nearly as funny as you doubling down on the ridiculous contention that somehow the commenters being wrong about Trump being toast equates with Trump not being an asshole and a tool of the big money interests just like the big money Dems.

    But that is not funny as hell.

    That is the kind of funny that is leading us to hell on Earth.

    Only the ignorant boast of their ignorance.

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I think you're overlooking the LACK of ANY CHANGE in the Democrats regarding their dependence on big money.

    At least any change for the better, when you consider how the DNC was bought off by Bloomberg.

    But hey, the show must go on.

    At least until citizens wake the fuck up and stop buying tickets.

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Maybe this could be Yang's slogan if he becomes a small donor only candidate:

    "No ticket- no laundry!"

    Nah. Even without the the Chinese accent it's too racist. :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    somehow the commenters being wrong about Trump being toast equates with Trump not being an asshole and a tool of the big money interests just like the big money Dems.

    I never made any such contention...

    Trump *IS* an asshole..

    But that doesn't change the fact that the Democrats and Trump/America haters here were completely and utterly WRONG in every TRUMP IS TOAST prediction they have ever made...

  28. [28] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    There are no facts that the GOP only cares about this country when they are in charge.

    You are correct. When you really look at the big picture, there are no facts that indicate that the GOP cares about this country at all! Good point, Michale!

  29. [29] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Try that again....

    There are no facts that the GOP only cares about this country when they are in charge.

    You are correct. When you really look at the big picture, there are no facts that indicate that the GOP cares about this country at all! Good point, Michale!

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And that doesn't change the fact that Trump toast predictions are not of any importance or your childish boasting about it is anything to boast about.

    Not to mention your Trump/America haters nonsense.

    I love America. At Least I love what America could be.

    But I do not like Trump, the big money Republicans or the big money Democrats.

    While it is difficult to not also not like their enablers, I keep trying to convince them they are being duped as citizens stopping giving away their votes for nothing and starting to use democracy to save democracy is the only way democracy and the America that could and should be can be achieved.

    It's time for real Americans to start acting like adults and standing up to the bullies rather than act like little children cowering behind the false bravado of picking one of the deceptions.

  31. [31] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    What was with Trump treating the Freedom of Medal like it was a door prize for one lucky audience member? I half expected Trump to pull an Oprah and say, “Everyone....look under your chairs!!! Who is the lucky winner?”

    Usually there is a big event for the Medal of Freedom where their accomplishments and the events in their life that made them worthy of such an honor were presented for all the world to see... oh wait, now I see why Trump decided against doing that! Better to just use Rush as a side show act for the State of the Union. Face it, Trump cannot allow anyone to be in the spotlight for too long, he needs it on himself!

    If he thought Rush Limbaugh deserved one, then I’m surprised Trump chose not to give one posthumously to Jeffery Epstein — for his work in employing so many young women and teaching them the art of massage.

    The number of jobs these young girls were tasked with and what they took away from the experiences (carpel tunnel, PTSD after witnessing the image of Trump’s nude body with it’s contrasting orange and white skin sections, various STD’s, etc.) will be with these young ladies for life — which actually won’t be very long based on the suicide rates for sexual assault victims.

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    There are no facts that indicate that the big money Democrats care about this country at all.

    If they did they wouldn't take big money.

    "That's a fact, Jack!"
    -Bill Murray
    -Stripes

    And any person that cares about this country would not vote for a big money candidate.

    "That's a fact. Jack!"
    -the rest of the soldiers
    -Stripes

  33. [33] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So if you are against One Demand you are against our soldiers. :D

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Come to think of it, there are no facts that the big money Democrats or Repubilcans care about this planet at all.

    As big money corrupting our political process is the major obstacle to implementing available, affordable solutions to the War on Habitat by taking big money they provide proof they don't care about the planet.

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Come to think of it, there are no facts that the big money Democrats or Republicans care about health care for the same reason they don't care about the planet or our country.

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Come to think of it, there are no facts that the big money Democrats or big money Republicans care about income inequality for the same reason they don't care about health care, the planet or our country.

  37. [37] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Come to think of it, there are no facts that the big money Democrats or Republicans care about democracy for the same reasons they don't care about the above items listed.

    Do any of you ever think about it?

    It sure seems more like all of you are the Matthew Brady character in Inherit the Wind:

    "I don't think about the things I don't think about."

    And at the same time a young Henry Drummond believing in Golden Dancer.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    What was with Trump treating the Freedom of Medal like it was a door prize for one lucky audience member? I half expected Trump to pull an Oprah and say, “Everyone....look under your chairs!!! Who is the lucky winner?”

    Jesus, Russ.. Is there NOTHING that President Trump does that you WON'T whine like a little bitch about??

    This is exactly why it's IMPOSSIBLE to take you seriously about anything..

    Because you cry like a little bitch about EVERYTHING...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    f he thought Rush Limbaugh deserved one, then I’m surprised Trump chose not to give one posthumously to Jeffery Epstein — for his work in employing so many young women and teaching them the art of massage.

    Epstein??

    Oh that's right.. Bill Clinton's best bud..

    Funny how you forget that..

    Once again, proof that yer nothing but a Party slave...

  40. [40] 
    dsws wrote:

    So apparently Mitt Romney just announced his retirement.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    So apparently Mitt Romney just announced his retirement.

    hehehehe

    "It's funny because it's true.."
    -Homer Simpson

  42. [42] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    I’ve got a pretty busy day ahead of me, so could you throw out one of your “But you were OK with Obama when he did...” false equivalencies? Luckily for me, you’ve already knocked out four boxes on my Michale’s Bullshat Bingo card before noon... bravo!

  43. [43] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I was wrong, a set of GOP bollocks does exist...

    Behold.., https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/05/mitt-romney-impeachment-vote-speech-transcript-110849

    While I have no truck with this bolshy notion that a person of faith must be 'to thine own self be true'. Romney makes a decent effort to slide it past those of us who don't happen to think one has to be covenanting with a personal deity in order to be a decent human being.

    So refreshing.

    LL&P

  44. [44] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Epstein??

    Oh that's right.. Bill Clinton's best bud..

    Funny how you forget that..

    Oh, I didn’t forget it...it just would have made no sense to ask why Bill Clinton didn’t award Epstein the Medal of Freedom during last night’s State of the Union address.

    Epstein was besties with Trump...but I am just basing that on Trump’s own statements...which means you have to believe it’s true if you want to remain in the cult! I am pretty sure you aren’t allowed to think for yourself and instead must take anything Trump says as if it were the Gospel! You’ve been doing that for the last 3 years, anyway.

  45. [45] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [25]

    At least until citizens wake the fuck up and stop buying tickets.

    Mr. Harris this is my all-time favorite quote of yours, to date, of course - there's always more of where that came from. Keep up the good work!

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    I’ve got a pretty busy day ahead of me, so could you throw out one of your “But you were OK with Obama when he did...” false equivalencies?

    And yet, you have NO FACTS to support your claim that they are false..

    Funny how that ALWAYS is the case, eh? :D

    Epstein was besties with Trump..

    Facts to support??

    Clinton was besties with Epstein a lot more recently than ANY contact you can point to with President Trump..

    I am pretty sure you aren’t allowed to think for yourself and instead must take anything Trump says as if it were the Gospel! You’ve been doing that for the last 3 years, anyway.

    Says the moron who has been ***WRONG*** on ***EVERY*** Trump/America hating prediction you have made..

    :D

    So, it's obvious from the FACTS who can think for hisself and who is nothing but a Trump/America hating whiney little bitch..

    Just in case yer too stoopid to figure it out.. I am the former and you are the latter..

  47. [47] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Facts to support??

    Clinton was besties with Epstein a lot more recently than ANY contact you can point to with President Trump..

    While Trump wasn’t able to visit Epstein in prison himself, he did have AG Barr send someone over to give Epstein a neck massage.

    And Trump tried to get Ivanka that internship with Epstein, but her mother wouldn’t allow her to do it. Bill never did that to...I meant...for Chelsea.

    Bill’s involvement with Epstein doesn’t give Trump a free pass, sorry. They should both be ashamed of their ties to him...but only Bill is. Trump denies that he ever knew him, or he only took a photo with him, flew to Epstein’s island by mistake when he mistook Epstein’s new jet for his flying trashcan, or whatever Trump claims this hour.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    While Trump wasn’t able to visit Epstein in prison himself, he did have AG Barr send someone over to give Epstein a neck massage.

    Facts to support?? None?? Figures..

    And Trump tried to get Ivanka that internship with Epstein, but her mother wouldn’t allow her to do it. Bill never did that to...I meant...for Chelsea.

    Facts to support?? Clinton WOULD be the kind to pimp out his daughter...

    Again all you have is fact-less hysterical and bigoted rants..

    Not a single fact to support..

  49. [49] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [48] Pictures speak a thousand words....

    https://binged.it/2OrPBNC

    Those pesky facts.

    LL&P

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Those pesky facts.

    Lemme know when ya'all have any relevant ones..

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    But yer right, 'Nuck

    https://tinyurl.com/y49youto

    A picture *IS* worth a thousand words..

  52. [52] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Here's a fact: it's the first of history's 3 presidential impeachments with a vote to convict from the president's own party. Also the first of the 3 where not a single member of the opposition party voted to acquit.

  53. [53] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Make that 2 facts. Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's a fact: it's the first of history's 3 presidential impeachments with a vote to convict from the president's own party. Also the first of the 3 where not a single member of the opposition party voted to acquit.

    So??

    President Trump is still completely and 1000% vindicated and exonerated..

    Romney's a moron. Ya'all have said so yourselves back in 2012..

    NOW he's a Democrat hero??

    Figures...

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump is forever innocent of all charges..

    Here's a fact: it's the first of history's 3 presidential impeachments with a vote to convict from the president's own party. Also the first of the 3 where not a single member of the opposition party voted to acquit.

    "A difference which makes no difference IS no difference.."
    -Commander Spock

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    4

    Yes, sir. :)

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump is forever innocent of all charges..

    Even if Dumbocrats actually accused him of REAL criminal charges.. :D

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's this??

    Doth my eyes decieve me??

    NOT GUILTY!!!!

    VINDICATED!!!!

    EXONERATED!!!

    Trump acquitted of both charges in Senate impeachment trial
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/05/trump-acquitted-in-impeachment-trial.html

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this outcome!! :D

    CW, LIZ, JL, DSWS, CRS and myself.. :D

    Looks like all the others struggle to find 2 brain cells between them...

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Trooper Joseph Bullock
    Florida Highway Patrol, Florida
    End of Watch: Wednesday, February 5, 2020

    Police Officer Nick O'Rear
    Kimberly Police Department, Alabama
    End of Watch: Wednesday, February 5, 2020

    And remind the few......
    When ill of us they speak.....
    We are all that stands between......
    The monsters and the weak.....

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's a fact: it's the first of history's 3 presidential impeachments with a vote to convict from the president's own party.

    Sorry, JL.. That is NOT factually accurate....

    Five Democrats (Virgil Goode, Ralph Hall, Paul McHale, Charles Stenholm and Gene Taylor) voted in favor of three of the four articles of impeachment, but only Taylor voted for the abuse of power charge.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iowa Might Have Screwed Up The Whole Nomination Process
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/iowa-might-have-screwed-up-the-whole-nomination-process/

    Once again.. Best thing for Democats to do is to 'cede 2020 to President Trump and save all that money and angst and hysteria for 2024 when they are NOT running against President Trump... :D

    But since when have Democrats ever done what's best....

  62. [62] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    From August 31, 2012 comments:

    This is what I have always thought was so funny about ideologues...

    The heap mounds and mounds of praise on people they like. Their "heroes"...

    But when the hero says something that goes against the beliefs of the ideologue, all of the sudden he's an "extremist" and a "fool"...

    The ideologue NEVER stops to consider that their hero is right and it's THEY who are frak'ed up...

    Call me silly, but if someone I admired and respected took a position that I didn't agree with, the first thing, the VERY first thing I would do before ANYTHING else, is I would examine *MY* position and see if it has any flaws, if maybe my "hero" is right....

    It's just funny to hear Left Wing (and Right Wing) fanatics go on and on about someone as if they are the greatest thing since frozen pizza..

    Then it's like, "He said what!!! What a coward, what a fool, what an extremist!!!!" etc etc ad nasuem...

    Judge Harry Stone: "There is no place in decent society for book-burning fanatics like you!! I feel it's my responsibility to set an example by fining radical extremists like you with every ounce of power that this state has seen fit to grant me!!!"
    Court Clerk Mac Robinson: "The Genius of Barry Manilow."
    Judge Harry Stone: "One dollar!!!"
    -Night Court

    Ya gotta know the show to understand the context. But trust me.. It's funny! :D

    Michale.....

    This is so sweet that it has to be fattening!

  63. [63] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It’s so telling how far the GOP has fallen under Trump!

    John McCain, the GOP’s 2008 leader, stood up to and opposed Trump until his dying breath.

    Romney was the standard bearer of the Republican Party in 2012 and now stands alone against Trump’s corruption.

    The Republican Party is lost.

  64. [64] 
    dsws wrote:

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this outcome!

    Since my name has been mentioned, I will point out that I described this, back when it was merely an all-but-certain prediction, as a "bogus exoneration". He has been acquitted, but it was a political decision rather than a judicial one, sure as it was in the cases of Johnson and Clinton. And even judicial acquittal is not a statement of innocence, only a finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    dsws
    9

    That doesn't sound like an attempt to sabotage Biden. It sounds like an attempt to delegitimize Bernie's vote total.

    I'll take "Things a Bernie Supporter Would Claim" for $500, Alex.

    So with Donald Trump being impeached in perpetuity for interfering in our election by shaking down Ukraine in order to kneecap Joe Biden and with Biden leading in every poll in South Carolina for over a year now, you read the article wherein their stated aim was to "boost Bernie" over Biden and decided it wasn't to sabotage Biden?

    The Republican plan to impact the Democratic race, emerging just weeks before the “First in the South” primary, has two goals: Boost the candidate who the Republicans believe presents the weakest general election threat to President Donald Trump and pressure Democrats to support closing state primaries in the future.

    https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/upstate-gop-leaders-plotting-to-meddle-in-sc-democratic-primary/article_f1e7abd2-4788-11ea-aa9f-33a1d262994c.html

    M'kay. But it's simple English... not too complicated.

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    15

    I am surprised you didn't mention Pelosi's immature childish actions of tearing President Trump's speech in half..

    No one is surprised you have reading comprehension and lying problems. If only you could see your way fit to extricate your head from being jammed firmly up Donald Trump's ass, you might find a little illumination versus your constant display of complete and devoted dipshittery, total dumbfuckery, and devoted Trump slavery.

    That's right up there with Joe Wilson's "YOU LIE!!!" outburst...

    Which, if I recall correctly, ya'all resoundingly denounced..

    But you have a demonstrable inability to recall things and a definite penchant for lying... witness the fact that you're either lying about CW not mentioning Pelosi's silent protest or failing to recall that he most certainly did.

    Actually, I am not surprised you didn't mention it..

    Liar, liar; it's both blindness and brainless to claim it wasn't mentioned, but you be you.

    Pelosi has a -D after her name so she gets a pass..

    You're dumb/blind with your head up D. Trump's ass.

    If this was Weigantia pre-HHPTDS, Pelosi would definitely receive the DISAPPOINTING DEMOCRAT award this Friday..

    If you were CW, you could decide what he should write about. Hell, if you were CW and vice versa, you could write about the stupid dumbfuck with his head so far up Donald Trump's ass that he's claiming you didn't write about something you wrote about.

    It's not to late to pull your head out of Trump's ass, but if you insist on remaining there, tell Sean Hannity that Weigantia says "hello." Idiot.

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    42

    Luckily for me, you’ve already knocked out four boxes on my Michale’s Bullshat Bingo card before noon... bravo!

    You're too late, Russ. I already got a blackout on my card when Mike whined incessantly like the Human Pussy that he is about CW not mentioning Pelosi. You came in second, though. :)

    Love you!

  68. [68] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ

    Epstein was besties with Trump..

    But, but, but... Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, blah, blah, blah.

    Have you ever noticed how much Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are suddenly the besties of Mike the Human Pussy when he needs them to cover the ass of the Fat Bastard wherein his head resides?

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    Here's a fact: it's the first of history's 3 presidential impeachments with a vote to convict from the president's own party. ~ JL

    That is totally correct. Good form!

    Sorry, JL.. That is NOT factually accurate....

    Five Democrats (Virgil Goode, Ralph Hall, Paul McHale, Charles Stenholm and Gene Taylor) voted in favor of three of the four articles of impeachment, but only Taylor voted for the abuse of power charge. ~ Moron Mike

    So what part of the word "convict" was confusing to the board troll and most flagrant poster of fiction on the board known as "Moron Mike" the Human Pussy?

    We've been over this multiple times, but reading comprehension isn't exactly the strong suit of the rubes, and Moron Mike seems permanently clueless... so stupid, in fact, that he is quite intent on proving it by attempting to correct facts, which by definition are in no need of correction because that's what a fact actually is... a fact.

    One more time for the demonstrable dipshit:

    The House has the sole power to impeach, and the Senate has the sole power to try the accused. While the members of the House of Representatives you listed voted to impeach a president of their own Party, not a single one of them is a Senator with the power to vote to convict a president like Willard Mitt Romney, the Senator who brought about the first of American history's three presidential impeachments with a vote to convict from the president's own Party.

    So to recap: Representatives vote to impeach, but only Senators can vote to convict.

    Idiot.

Comments for this article are closed.