ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Constitutional Crisis Of The Week

[ Posted Friday, February 14th, 2020 – 18:31 UTC ]

It was a fairly quiet week in politics, since we only had one new constitutional crisis erupt from the White House. OK, that's only partially tongue-in-cheek, but at least it wasn't one of those weeks where multiple such crises arise, we suppose.

Before we get to Donald Trump's continuing subversion of justice, though, we'd much prefer to first reflect on the Democratic presidential race instead. New Hampshire voted this Tuesday, and in doing so proved that what happened in Iowa was either (1) a fluke, (2) the result of having a Byzantine caucus system, or (3) just the Iowa Democratic Party's incompetence. Take your pick, but for whatever reason on the night the New Hampshire polls closed, we actually got numbers in real time and there were no noticeable screwups at all. Hopefully the Iowa mess will fade into the background as other states prove they can also hold a primary (or even a caucus) without it all blowing up in their face.

One further thing that New Hampshire proved this week was the enthusiasm of Democratic voters, as the state set a new record for turnout in the Democratic primary. More people turned out to vote than in 2016, and (more notably) than in 2008 as well. After disappointing turnout numbers in Iowa, this was another welcome change.

The mainstream media focused on two big stories out of the Granite State: Amy Klobuchar's surprisingly good finish and the surprisingly disappointing finish of Joe Biden. But the real story of the night was that Bernie Sanders won his first uncontested victory, putting him on a par with Pete Buttigieg (with one first place and one second place each). The two are now seen as neck-and-neck frontrunners, which simply was not the case before Iowa and New Hampshire voted. All eyes are now turning to Nevada and South Carolina, which both have much higher proportions of voters of color. The question now becomes how the candidates can all do with, respectively, Latino voters and African-American voters. Up until now, Joe Biden has been claiming he has an absolute lock on the black vote, but that is about to be put to the test in a big way.

From this point on, the schedule speeds up considerably. Once Nevada votes there will be a very short gap before South Carolina follows, and then only three days before the big day, when a third of all the national delegates will be decided on Super Tuesday. This will all kick off next week, when the next debate happens. This will likely be the first debate with Michael Bloomberg on the stage, which will be interesting to watch because up until now he's gotten a free ride by being largely unchallenged and having the airwaves in most of the Super Tuesday states all to himself. This is a good thing, because if Bloomberg were to be excluded from the upcoming debates then he would remain unchallenged right up until Super Tuesday (something we wrote about yesterday at length). Bloomberg has very quietly been rising rather dramatically in the national polling, and he's now in third place in a number of these polls. In other words, his ad blitz is paying off big time. Finally some other Democrats have begun to notice this, as several stories appeared this week documenting Bloomberg's past views on both "stop and frisk" police tactics and his further views on the tactic of banks "redlining" certain minority neighborhoods, so we'll see if this has any effect on Bloomberg's poll standings in the next week or so.

After disappointing finishes in New Hampshire, the Democratic field lost three candidates (Andrew Yang, Michael Bennet, and Deval Patrick), winnowing it down to single digits for the first time. There are now only eight Democrats still in the race: Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, and Tulsi Gabbard. This is a much more manageable group, considering that to get here we've seen a whopping 21 other candidates drop out. The field will no doubt shrink further immediately after Super Tuesday, as more and more of the candidates realize that they have no realistically viable path to the nomination. At some point, the question is going to become who gets the endorsements of the candidates who drop out, which could indeed be a crucial question if any of them have any actual delegates to the convention. It's going to be very hard in such a multiple-candidate field for any one person to amass an outright majority heading into the convention, so this could wind up being a deciding factor.

This will all be weighing on the minds of the candidates on the debate stage next week, and more than one of them will have reached the point of desperation. When that point is reached, anything can happen -- because they'll have nothing left to lose. So the sparks may fly, and they may be flying in different directions than we've seen previously. Bloomberg, obviously, is going to have the biggest target on his back, but so will Amy Klobuchar after her surge in New Hampshire. But then we wrote earlier this week about the realignment in the Democratic race, so we'll just note it and move along for now.

Two things we didn't comment on previously about the race are both pretty ugly. But not entirely unexpected, sadly. The first was the opening salvo in what will undoubtedly be a campaign of rampant homophobia from Republicans, which was launched at Pete Buttigieg by none other than Rush Limbaugh. This was, in fact, almost inevitable after Pete's rise in the standings on the Democratic side. You just knew it was coming, didn't you? And while Rush is smart enough to couch his gay-bashing in "deniability" language, there will doubtless be a lot worse to come from Republicans who aren't as artful in their hatred and fearmongering. The more Pete does well in the primaries, the more of this we can all expect. However, this time around it is almost guaranteed to backfire, since the American public has come a long way from the days when Republicans successfully wielded homophobia as a political weapon (see: the "defense of marriage" era).

The second ugliness came from a deacon of the mainstream media, Meet The Press host Chuck Todd. Here is what he said, when he for some reason decided it was time to echo a ring-wing pundit:

Hey I want to bring up something that Jonathan Last put in The Bulwark today. It was about how -- and Ruth, we've all been on the receiving end of the Bernie online brigade -- here's what he says. He says: "No other candidate has anything like this sort of digital brownshirt brigade."

For the record, members of Bernie Sanders's family were executed by Nazis because they were Jewish.

Now, we realize that slamming "Bernie Bros" is a favorite game of mainstream media pundits, but this was clearly the wrong way to do it. And Chuck Todd really should know better. "Brownshirt brigade"? Really, Chuck? Seriously? That's how you describe supporters of a man who could become the first Jewish president ever?

But let's get back to that constitutional crisis we mentioned, before we say something about Chuck Todd that we'll regret.

This week, President Donald Trump publicly strongarmed his attorney general to overrule some Justice Department prosecutors who had recommended to a federal judge a sentence of seven to nine years for Roger Stone, a Trump henchman who was convicted of not only lying to Congress but also witness tampering. Those are both serious crimes, but not to Trump (of course). Trump can't understand why anyone would want to be so mean to a guy who actually has a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his skin. William Barr, who has completed his transformation into total Trump toady, complied by refiling a sentencing recommendation to the judge which didn't call for any particular sentence at all.

All four of the prosecutors on the case immediately quit the case in protest. One of them actually quit his Justice Department job because he was so disgusted at the cronyism. None of this mattered to Trump, however.

Barr did seem a little stung at the criticism that was immediately heaped upon him, and subsequently gave an interview in which he sanctimoniously claimed that Trump's tweet had nothing to do with his intervention in the case. He was shocked -- shocked!!! -- to find gambling going on in here, in other words. Barr also attempted to publicly rebuke Trump, saying that Trump's tweets about "the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending here, and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors and the department that we're doing our work with integrity." This all would have been pretty impressive stand for what is proper if Barr had a shred of believability left, at this point. Which he obviously doesn't. He went on to state: "I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me," which was just as laughable.

Trump then fired a tweet back at Barr, stating that he, as president has "the legal right" to interfere in any case he felt like interfering in, and to publicly comment on anything that popped into his head.

Again, if Barr had an ounce of credibility or integrity at all, this is the exact point where he would have handed in his resignation. He didn't, of course, which put the lie to his all his huffy indignancy. "I cannot do my job" in a pig's eye, in other words. Tell us another funny story, Bill!

Thankfully, though, as we said, that was the only constitutional crisis of the week. Progress, of a sort!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have to begin by handing out an Honorable Mention award to the New Hampshire Democrats, both for a flawless primary night (whew!) and for the record-breaking turnout of the actual voters. This went a long way towards erasing the fiasco in Iowa from memory, and hopefully all the other states' voting will go as smoothly as it did this week.

We considered two of the Democratic candidates for the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award, and wound up unable to choose between them, so we're going to go ahead and give it to both Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar for their performance in New Hampshire. This may annoy Pete Buttigieg supporters, but frontrunners are supposed to do well, so we felt his very close second-place finish wasn't as impressive as that of the other two candidates.

Bernie Sanders heads into the next two contests (and Super Tuesday) in a much better position than if he had lost to Mayor Pete by a slight margin. By doing so, he has forced the mainstream media to do something they have been loath to yet do: take Bernie's candidacy seriously. The media loves to dismiss Bernie or (even worse) ridicule him. They did so pretty consistently throughout the 2016 campaign, and they were all set to repeat this in 2020. Now, if Bernie stumbles in the next few contests, the pundits will all likely revert to form, but for the time being Bernie's frontrunner status simply cannot be denied.

This, of course, is causing the Democratic Party establishment to freak out in a rather large way. To them, Bernie being the party's nominee equates to Donald Trump winning a second term. There is no doubt in this assumption -- it is taken as gospel. They also believe that if Bernie is the standard-bearer of the party, it will result in lots of down-ballot losses as well, meaning the dream of taking back control of the Senate will also not be realized.

This may or may not turn out to be true, of course. But this is not 1972, and Bernie is not George McGovern. Times have changed. In 2016, a candidate won the Electoral College that nobody thought had a chance, precisely because the voters just did not do what the pundits and party insiders predicted. That could happen again, and this time around Bernie may be the surprise winner at the end of the day. This is in no way guaranteed, but then again neither is the result they're all predicting, either. Grappling with all of this simply would not have happened (or not to the same degree) if Bernie hadn't won New Hampshire. Which is why his victory was so impressive.

Amy Klobuchar only came in third in New Hampshire, and traditionally third-place finishers are given short shrift by the chattering classes. But Amy's finish was so unexpected, and her rise after the last debate so dramatic, that it was also a very impressive feat to pull off. If Klobuchar had placed fifth or even fourth (more in line with the pre-vote polling, in other words), then she would right now be agonizing over whether to drop out of the race or try to hang on for a few more weeks. Her campaign would also likely be broke.

Instead, she's been raising money in a big way and has rocketed into contention in the race. That is a stunning turnaround for just one debate performance, you've got to admit. We'll have to see in the next debate whether she can handle being in the front ranks or not, because up until now she's gotten very little in the way of attacks from the other candidates (with the exception of Buttigieg, who has gone toe-to-toe with Klobuchar a number of times already). Both Amy and Pete will also have to prove that they can indeed get voters of color to back them, in the next two state contests. So Klobuchar could either capitalize on her New Hampshire finish in a big way or quickly fade. But even having that chance was not really considered a possibility until the New Hampshire votes were counted. While the returns were coming in, at one point it even seemed like Klobuchar might best Buttigieg and wrest a second-place finish from him, but even though this did not happen her finish was still pretty downright impressive.

So for different reasons, we have to award the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week to both Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar, for their performance in the Granite State.

[Congratulate Senator Amy Klobuchar on her Senate contact page, and Senator Bernie Sanders on his Senate contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts. As usual, we do not provide contact information to actual campaign sites, so if you'd like to donate to either campaign you'll have to find their sites on your own, sorry.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Andrew Yang certainly disappointed all of his supporters (the "Yang Gang") on Tuesday night, when he announced that there simply was no viable path forward for his candidacy. We would say the same about Michael Bennet and Deval Patrick, but we are unaware of any actual supporters either one of them had, so the level of disappointment was far less.

Michael Bloomberg certainly caused a lot of disappointment when the opposition research on him finally started to appear this week, but then again this stuff has been around for years, for anyone who cared to look, so it's really not that surprising to us.

The House committee chairmen were missing in action in a big way this week as they refused to issue a subpoena to John Bolton. They signaled that perhaps in a few weeks they might get around to it, but this sort of thing has a political shelf-life, and (to mix up the metaphor a bit) will turn into a pumpkin on St. Patrick's Day, when Bolton's book is released to the public. This window is closing fast, in other words, which was why the inaction this week earns the committee chairs (and Nancy Pelosi, for that matter) a (Dis-)Honorable Mention, at the very least.

But we're sticking with the New Hampshire theme and instead handing the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to both Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. Both candidates finished a long way behind the pack this Tuesday, which may be a rather grim omen for both their candidacies.

Biden now has a fourth-place finish and a fifth-place finish under his belt. That is not exactly where he had hoped to be at this point. Not winning Iowa and New Hampshire is one thing, but doing so badly in both is downright shocking when you consider that Biden has been leading in the national polling since before he even announced his candidacy. He has had first place all to himself for a full year, but this dominance is now at an end. It just crashed into two brick walls, to be absolutely blunt.

Biden's candidacy has been centered around two basic themes: electing him would return us all to the normal we enjoyed under Barack Obama, and Biden was the most electable candidate to take on Donald Trump. Perhaps Trump's grand scheme (to undermine Joe by smearing him with his son Hunter's obvious cashing in on his last name) actually worked. Perhaps Biden's lackluster campaigning was what left the voters unimpressed. But for whatever reason, the voters have indeed been fleeing from the Biden camp in droves. Most of them wound up pulling the lever for either Pete Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar, in the end.

Biden's talk of a firewall in South Carolina now has more than a whiff of desperation about it. His support nationally among African-American voters sank in the past month from 49 percent to 27 percent, while Michael Bloomberg rose to 22 percent -- the exact number that Biden fell by. That can't be very reassuring to Biden supporters, whatever the color of their skin. Especially considering Bloomberg's "stop and frisk" record, as well as those redlining comments.

We'll see what happens in Nevada and South Carolina. There's still time for Biden to launch himself right back into the fray. He was polling very well in both states before Iowa and New Hampshire voted, but because state-level polling in both states is so thin on the ground it is now impossible to predict whether Biden's support has stuck with him or not. If Biden doesn't come in at least second place in South Carolina, then his candidacy may be toast, which would be as dramatic a collapse as Jeb Bush's back in 2016.

Elizabeth Warren isn't in as dire straits as Biden, at least not yet. She claimed third place in Iowa, after all, which is more than Biden can say. But her fourth-place finish in New Hampshire was disappointing for two big reasons. The first is that she's from a bordering state, which is supposed to give candidates an edge (although this metric may be overvalued, these days). The second is how far behind Klobuchar in the vote totals Warren finished. If the two women were neck-and-neck (like Buttigieg and Sanders were), then there would be a lot less disappointment among Warren supporters today. But they weren't even close. Klobuchar got roughly twice the votes Warren did. That was a body blow to Warren's candidacy.

Again, we've only had two states vote and there's still time for a comeback, but Warren would have to turn in the debate performance of her life next week in order to achieve this. Which is somewhat doubtful, since to date she's preferred to stay in the background while the other candidates mix it up during the debates. The biggest thing that could help Warren at this point would be for Bernie Sanders to stumble badly somehow in the next week or so, but that's a pretty thin reed to cling to at this point.

Warren's change in fortunes has not been as dramatic as Biden's, but it's still pretty notable. She had been the only candidate in the race who had bested Biden in the national polling average, but this peak came far too early for her, and it only lasted one day before her numbers receded once again. Other than that spike, she had been neck-and-neck with Sanders for months, but in the closing weeks Bernie has risen while she stayed stagnant in the polls. And this may only accelerate in the next week or so after her disappointing finish in New Hampshire. At this point we had been fully expecting Warren to be ascendant while watching Bernie Sanders struggle, but in actual fact the opposite has happened. This has been a rather large disappointment to her followers, to state the obvious.

Which is why we have to give both Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award, for doing so badly in the New Hampshire primary.

[Contact Senator Elizabeth Warren on her Senate contact page, to let her know what you think of her primary record. And once again, we do not provide contact information to campaign websites, so you'll have to look up Joe Biden's contact information for yourself, sorry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 561 (2/14/20)

We've got the usual mixed bunch of talking points this week, but before we begin we have to issue a call for every Democrat everywhere to denounce a little-noticed event that happened recently down in Florida. A man who fully admitted to the cops that he was motivated by hatred of Donald Trump drove his car into a booth where Trump supporters were registering people to vote in a parking lot. Thankfully, no one was hurt because people were able to get out of the way before the impact, but that doesn't lessen the severity of the action at all.

This is completely and utterly unacceptable, period. Republicans were pretty quick to denounce the man, even before it became clear that he was not just some madman but was actually motivated by political hatred. But to date, few Democrats have added their voices to this chorus of condemnation. This needs to change, because this is so completely abhorrent to American democracy. Violence is not the answer, and more Democrats need to state this in unequivocal terms. Like we said, this is not really a talking point, because it is really more important than that. And Democrats should say so, loudly and without reservation. Violence is unacceptable in politics no matter which side it comes from, and when it comes from your own side then you have a heightened duty to call it out and swiftly condemn it, period. There are no excuses for not doing so.

OK, with that ugly business out of the way, let's get back to our political talking points for Democrats to use in the next week or so.

 

1
   E.R.A. now!

This will only be a potent political motivator if it is pointed out, every chance Democrats get.

"The House of Representatives just voted to remove the deadline which a previous Congress artificially put on the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, and we now call on the Senate to follow suit and do the same. When Virginia recently ratified the amendment, it became the thirty-eighth state to do so, which means that now three-fourths of the states have ratified the amendment, just as the Constitution calls for. In this day and age it is hard to justify not guaranteeing equal rights for women in our nation's founding document, but Republicans somehow still don't want to see this happen. This should be a major issue in every Senate race that happens this year, because Republican candidates should be asked point-blank why they oppose guaranteeing everyone's mothers, wives, and daughters the same rights enjoyed by America's fathers, husbands, and sons. The Equal Rights Amendment was first proposed a full century ago, and it is long past time for it to be added to the United States Constitution. Every female voter in the country should know which political party is fighting to make this happen and which party still opposes granting them the same equal rights that men enjoy."

 

2
   Vindman's brother?!?

The media has largely ignored the most glaring question that arose when Donald Trump decided to retaliate against those who spoke the truth about him last week. So ask it!

"I certainly don't agree with Donald Trump firing Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman last week, but at least I can understand why he did so. Trump was so peeved that people who work for the White House should have the temerity to point out his wrongdoing that he decided to retaliate against them. Like I said, that's pretty disgusting behavior from an American president but you can at least understand his warped reasoning for doing so. But there's one question that I have yet to hear anyone ask, and that is why Vindman's brother was also fired. Lieutenant Colonel Yevgeny Vindman didn't testify against Trump in the impeachment hearings. He didn't say anything against Trump at all that I am aware of. I've never even seen him interviewed in the media, personally. But even though he had nothing to do with his twin brother's actions, he was also fired from the White House. What possible justification does Trump have for doing so? This isn't even logical retaliation, it is nothing short of vindictiveness writ large. While the media had plenty to say about Sondland and Alexander being let go, there was absolutely no outcry over the most bizarre aspect of Trump's retaliation -- he fired a guy that had nothing to do with his impeachment whatsoever. This is beyond reprehensible, it is downright inexplicable."

 

3
   Come mister tally man...

Daylight come and me wanna go home.

"Welcome to the Banana Republic of America, folks. That's what we have now officially become, when the president feels it is his right not only to sic his Justice Department on his political enemies but also to strongarm them into going lightly on his own henchmen. Trump is now blatantly claiming that he has every right to demand his attorney general investigate who he feels should be in jail and to ease up on the convicted criminals who helped him get elected in the first place. I don't know what else you'd call it other than a banana republic, at this point. Trump isn't even trying to hide any of this any more, because he is convinced that he is now above any law but the ones he makes up in his own head. Is that Harry Belafonte I hear singing in the background?"

 

4
   Pardons to follow...

Please don't be surprised at Trump's next move, either.

"With Trump now completely unchained and feeling unbound by any sort of constitutional constraint whatsoever, you just know that his next move is going to be to start issuing pardons for all his minions who have been convicted in federal courts of serious crimes. Up until now, others have convinced Trump how bad this would look for him politically, but at this point Trump is obviously not listening to any such sane advice. So please, everyone, don't be shocked or even surprised when Trump starts pardoning all those criminals he has surrounded himself with -- and there's already a long list of them behind bars serving time. It's not just going to be Roger Stone, that's my guess. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Trump starts issuing pro-active pardons for cronies of his who haven't even been convicted of their crimes yet."

 

5
   Trump lies (part 19,872 and counting...)

Democrats need to hit this one especially hard, out on the campaign trail.

"Donald Trump just released his White House budget proposal, and once again it puts the lie to two major campaign promises he made. First, he won't be balancing the budget any time soon. He assumes wildly optimistic growth figures -- at levels he hasn't been able to yet achieve, mind you -- for years to come, but even with this voodoo math he won't be able to balance the budget for the next 15 years. Remember him promising that he'd not only balance the annual budget but also retire the national debt? Yeah, that was a funny one, wasn't it? But that's not even the worst lie, because in his budget proposal Trump is also pushing to slash Medicare spending even though he has been promising over and over again that he'd never do such a thing. Want Medicare slashed to the bone? Vote for Trump and his Republican enablers. Want Medicare preserved? Vote Democratic, because when we say we'll protect it, we are not lying like a rug."

 

6
   Trump lies (part 19,873 and counting...)

The king of "just makin' stuff up" gets caught, for the umpteenth time.

"Donald Trump told a moving story during his State Of The Union speech about a formerly-homeless and drug-addicted veteran turning his life around, and the crowd dutifully gave Tony Rankins a standing ovation. That was all fine and good, but Trump flat-out lied when he tried to steal some of the credit for this impressive turnaround. Trump swore that Rankins was able to put his life back in order due to a construction job created by an 'Opportunity Zone' tax break. This was nothing short of a despicable lie, folks. Rankins got his job in Nashville two years ago -- four months before the Treasury Department even published its list of neighborhoods eligible for the tax break. Adding one lie to another, the area where Ranking got his job didn't even make this list, so even without the calendar problem he simply did not benefit at all from the tax cut. But that didn't stop the president from claiming all the credit for this success story, even if he had to blatantly lie about it."

 

7
   Just imagine if Obama had tried such a thing

Another episode in this continuing series....

"Donald Trump just announced he will be stealing money earmarked to buy aircraft for the Pentagon and instead using it to build his southern border wall. That's right -- Trump is denying the troops almost four billion dollars that was supposed to buy planes and helicopters for the military to use. Now, can we all just imagine for one tiny moment what Republicans would have said if Barack Obama had taken four billion dollars away from the Pentagon and used it to fulfill some campaign promise he had made? I think the words 'traitor' and 'unconstitutional' would certainly have been used, and those are just the politest things the GOP likely would have said. American troops are currently deployed in several combat zones around the world, and yet when Trump denies the Pentagon money for planes, what do we hear now from Republicans? Total silence. Craven sheepishness. Utter spinelessness. But then again, this is really just par for the course for them, because anything their Dear Leader does simply cannot be criticized. After all, you never know when Trump will sic the Justice Department on any of them, these days."

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

155 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Constitutional Crisis Of The Week”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The Democratic Party establishment is not panicking because they are afraid Bernie would lose to Trump.

    That is merely a public front to portray Bernie as unelectable.

    The Dem establishment is more concerned with Bernie being elected than Trump. It is their job to provide just enough leeway to Bernie and his supporters to keep them under control and in the party without letting them have any real power and to keep them from forming or joining a third party.

    There is no doubt about that. That the Dem establishment takes your ridiculous assumtion as "gospel" is as about as believable as L.Ron Hubbard actually believing his bullshit about Scientology.

    Are you really stupid enough to believe the Dem estasblishment believes that nonsense?

    Pitiful.

    The only thing more pitiful would be if you didn't really believe it and wrote it anyway.

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Sorry. The most disappointing Democrat is the one that wrote an article this week about Bloomberg and some cockamamie theory on Bloomberg getting a free pass being somehow the real issue instead of him buying his way into the debates and trying to buy the election.

    I'm surprised you missed this article. You must have missed it because if you had seen it you would have recognized it was even more ridiculous than Scientology.

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    There's just no way you would have given that author a free pass on that. Would you?

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I think klo's force and eloquence surprised a lot of folks.

  5. [5] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    In the earlier debates her lines all sounded canned and fell flat. With fewer candidates competing for oxygen she came off as very competent and seemed to do a lot more thinking on her feet.

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: FTP 3. Come mister tally man...

    Daylight come and me wanna go home.

    Not gonna lie, CW; I saw your title to FTP 3 and thought it was going to discuss the Great Iowa Caucus Debacle of 2020. :)

  7. [7] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [1] [2]

    So Don,

    Two questions:
    (1) I believe that since Reagan (or maybe much longer) the Dems have largely gone along with Big money, letting the majority of us fight over social issues (abortion! guns! gays!) while a fraction of us get fatter and fatter. Do you agree?

    (2) Whether or not you agree with the above, is Bernie part of the scam or is he for real?

    Signed-
    Curious Bernie Bro on the Left Coast

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    First some old business..

    Russ,

    “Elite” ICE agents? Elite? Really? This from an agency that the majority of its employees are individuals who were rejected by local police departments...gotta love that!

    Gotta love your ignorance..

    How many PDs require an officer to speak 3 different languages fluently??

    Border Patrol agents go thru 10 times the training that regular police academies give..

    Quit wallowing in your ignorance..

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    This week, President Donald Trump publicly strongarmed his attorney general to overrule some Justice Department prosecutors who had recommended to a federal judge a sentence of seven to nine years for Roger Stone, a Trump henchman who was convicted of not only lying to Congress but also witness tampering.

    Not factually accurate..

    President Trump simply rendered an opinion, much as Barack THE COPS ACTED STUPIDLY Odumbo did.. As Americans such is their right...

    AG Barr read President Trump's opinion and, after checking into it, AGREED with President Trump's opinion...

    I realize that for those who suffer from HHPTDS, that is "strongarming"...

    But, since this is (or WAS) a reality-based forum, it's my duty to put forth the FACTS and REALITY..

    The House committee chairmen were missing in action in a big way this week as they refused to issue a subpoena to John Bolton.

    And WHY do you think chicken-shit Democrats refuse to subpoena anyone??

    Because they KNOW they will lose in the courts.. They KNOW that there subpoenas will have even LESS weight, now that President Trump has been fully and completely vindicated and exonerated of Dumbocrats faux impeachment coup..

    Things aren't looking too good for Democrats... :D

  10. [10] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-
    I would agree that the Dems have been working for the big money interests and worked with Republicans to divide and conquer by getting people worked up over the social issues. (though I did add the part about working with Republicans).

    Bernie is part of the scam because he is a big money candidate when there is no reason to be.

    How Bernie is part of the scam I really can't be sure about.

    He may believe that he is not part of the scam and is not a "willful" participant.

    I could be sure about Bernie if he ran a small donor only campaign.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sources close to the Bloomberg campaign tell DRUDGE REPORT that the candidate is considering Hillary Clinton as a running mate, after their polling found the Bloomberg-Clinton combination would be a formidable force...

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


    Sources close to the Bloomberg campaign tell DRUDGE REPORT that the candidate is considering Hillary Clinton as a running mate, after their polling found the Bloomberg-Clinton combination would be a formidable force...

    BBBBBBBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    BBBBWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    My gods.. THAT is hilarious!!!!

    Is Bloomberg TRYING to lose the election????

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    How many Democrats would just like Hillary to go away???

  13. [13] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I have almost no interest in arguing/debating/discussing politics, which raises the obvious question Liz used to bring up, "What the hell am I here?", and the answer is, I am a hobby economist, and thanks to Chris's incidental mantion of Bloomberg's "redlining problem", I get to chime in.

    Can anybody remember the big congressional ruckus of the last yrs of the 1900s and the first yrs of the 2000s, when the Democratics, led by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, were SCREEEMING over the "poor" folks (read 'black') being denied mortgage loans as a risk-free (in those days, everybody thought that because house prices hadn't decline in 75 yrs that they never would decline ever) means of moving into the middle class thru home ownership?

    So, then the banks relented, did away with redlining, and replaced it with "A mortgage for anybody who can fog a mirror". That created a housing bubble (thousands of people were buying houses intending only to "flip"), the bubble burst, and hundreds of thousands of "poor folks"
    defaulted on their loans.

    Then, quicker than you can say "rampant hypocrisy", along came Elizabeth Warren and her fellow Democratics, SCREEEMING "Predatory Lending"!!!

    The salient point being, for you guys, your economics is informed by your political ideology, not by the laws of the science.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Many of ya'all have accused me of ignoring what President Trump does..

    When ya'all bring it up, it's 1000% factual. I DO ignore all ya bring up.. Other than to ridicule and laugh at it..

    WHY do I ignore it??

    Because with ya'all, ***EVERYTHING*** President Trump does is bad..

    With VERY few exceptions (I can count them on one hand after losing 3 fingers..) NO ONE here will give President Trump credit for anything..

    It's all just white noise because of the hatred and bigotry...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    The salient point being, for you guys, your economics is informed by your political ideology, not by the laws of the science.

    As it is with the Global Warming con...

    Funny how, for Democrats, their Party ideology is their first and foremost priority...

    All other considerations are a far far second and flows from their Party slavery...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's Daytona 500 appearance could include lap in presidential limo

    Trump is planning to take a lap in the presidential car known as "The Beast"
    https://www.foxbusiness.com/sports/trump-daytona-500-nascar

    Ya'all just HAVE to know the crowd is going to go crazy!!!

    :D

  17. [17] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    How many PDs require an officer to speak 3 different languages fluently??

    Border Patrol agents go thru 10 times the training that regular police academies give..

    And what three languages must they be fluent in? I live on the Canadian border and have a good friend who has been with ICE for years — back when it was the INS —so I called him to verify your claims. He said that he is fluent in English, baby gibberish, and Canadian. Then he busted out laughing and asked what asshat said ICE agents had to be fluent in 3 languages! He said that they are so desperate to fill job openings that they are lucky to find applicants that are fluent in ANY language.

    No police department in this country REQUIRES its officers to be fluent in any other language except for ENGLISH! Officers may receive bonuses for being fluent in a different language, and some specialty positions may require knowing a second language (interpreters must be fluent in multiple languages), but English is the only language our government agencies require of its employees.

    But thanks for once again showing the world your ignorance when it comes to matters of law enforcement!

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what three languages must they be fluent in?

    English, Spanish, French..

    I live on the Canadian border and have a good friend who has been with ICE for years — back when it was the INS —so I called him to verify your claims.

    By all means, look like an ass. :D It's yer normal look anyways..

    Of course, when he tells you that I am factually accurate, you lie about what he says..

    He said that they are so desperate to fill job openings that they are lucky to find applicants that are fluent in ANY language.

    Did I call that or what!?? :D

    Your "friend" even if he does exist, is full of shit..

    No police department in this country REQUIRES its officers to be fluent in any other language except for ENGLISH!

    That's what I said, dumb ass..

    But thanks for once again showing the world your ignorance when it comes to matters of law enforcement!

    Says the moron who has no facts to back up his claims..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    He said that they are so desperate to fill job openings that they are lucky to find applicants that are fluent in ANY language.

    Fine.. Have him login here.. Establish his bona fides..

    And THEN I might listen to him..

    What's the matter Russ?? Why are you running away so hard??

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  20. [20] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [18]

    Don-

    Why is Bernie a "big money candidate?" Is it because he accepts up to the $2800
    max? Is it because he has Our Revolution PAC working for him? Some other reason?

    Bernie's online fundraising is prodigious. Condemning Bernie as just another "big money candidate" would be letting "the perfect be the enemy of "the good" we have in this life-long progressive. Considering the amount of Establishment money already up against Bernie, he would be comiting political suicide if he turned down what "big money" he can raise.

  21. [21] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    From ICE’s recruitment page:

    All newly hired ICE agents must complete two training courses: a five-week Spanish language training program and the Basic Law Enforcement Training Program. These programs help candidates gain a basic understanding of Spanish and incorporate skills training in physical fitness, first aid, firearms, and law enforcement driving maneuvers. Agents must pass a total of seven written examinations and the Physical Abilities Assessment (PAA).

    Now why would a person need a five week course to achieve a “basic understanding” of a language that they are supposed to be fluent in?

    Once again, you highlight the fact that you lie all the time! Your bona fides are all in bullshit.

  22. [22] 
    dsws wrote:

    Someone on HuffPo, paraphrasing Bloomberg substantively but with the opposite spin:
    It’s been well documented that the 2008 crash was caused by unethical, predatory lending that deliberately targeted communities of color

    It was part of the cause, but only a relatively minor factor. It would have been perfectly possible to switch from excluding those communities from homeownership to defrauding them, without causing a crash. And it would have been perfectly possible to cause the crash while still excluding them.

    CW wrote:
    This is completely and utterly unacceptable, period. ... But to date, few Democrats have added their voices to this chorus of condemnation.

    Ok. Here's what I put on my FB wall:
    Should specific acts of violence be condemned, when the perpetrator was seeking notoriety? I guess I'll do so, without mentioning the name of the perpetrator. The guy who drove into a voter registration tent should be prosecuted, and should be last in line for the kind of supportive rehabilitation that should be available to convicts in general. I don't want to know any details about him. I don't even want to know specifically whether he was seeking fame; it's enough that high-profile perpetrators generally are.

  23. [23] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    there are a lot of things that are unacceptable and now happening regularly. when was the last time any high level executive branch official weighed in on a justice department investigation that involved people he knew? obama didn't do it. bush didn't do it. clinton didn't do it. hell, even dick cheney didn't do it. ever. i hate dick cheney and everything he stands for, but when his buddy ken lay got indicted, the vice president knew better than to get himself or anyone in his circles involved.

    how far have we fallen as a country that now dick cheney is the exemplary model for appropriate executive behavior?

  24. [24] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [12]

    Michale wrote:

    How many Democrats would just like Hillary to go away???

    The answer is most of us Democrats want her to just go. First she lost to a black man(!) and then she lost to a New York Douche-bag, so she's electoral poison, methinks.

    Yes, all Democrats besides the establishment Dems who fear Bernie/Elizabeth.

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @mtncaddy,

    that's overstating the case. although she is widely hated on the right and left just as donald is, hillary has a legit fan base just as donald does. there are actually quite a few similarities. yes, she's not helping the democratic cause by staying in the public eye, but she is now a private citizen and doesn't owe us anything. if she feels like spouting off, that's her choice.

    JL

  26. [26] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Chris, re: the guy in Florida 'motivated by political hatred'
    If we were living a normal world, I would agree with you. Instead, the reality is that the President of the United States pardons a war criminal and awards a Medal of Freedom to a racist pig; his supporters either remain silent or applaud him. Democrats do not need to bring unwarranted attention to the horrible actions of a single person, no matter his/her motivation (especially when the body count was lower than any of the daily 'mass shootings').
    We know by now that the MSM has a short attention span -and- will breathlessly report every Trump tweet, under the excuse of 'let the viewer separate the wheat from the chaff'. When any Democrat has the spotlight, s/he must denounce Trump and the Republican Party for mowing down our democracy.

  27. [27] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    The House Democrats don't merit a dishonorable mention for 'The House committee chairmen were missing in action in a big way this week as they refused to issue a subpoena to John Bolton.'
    1) Several subpeonas have been ignored by those who received them or have been blocked by the Trump administration. This blatant obstruction of justice/contempt of Congress is working its way through the courts, so what would adding another one to the pile accomplish?
    2) I am sure that the House and Bolton's lawyers have been in contact. If Bolton were interested in telling his story before Congress, nothing prevents him from doing so, without subpoena. Of course, this will suppress book sales, so setting aside the optics of Mr Bolton being the 'hero of the story' to Democrats, he's no doubt more interested in his bank account.

  28. [28] 
    John M wrote:

    C.W. #7

    "Another episode in this continuing series....

    "Donald Trump just announced he will be stealing money earmarked to buy aircraft for the Pentagon and instead using it to build his southern border wall. That's right -- Trump is denying the troops almost four billion dollars that was supposed to buy planes and helicopters for the military to use."

    Not only did part of Trump's newly constructed "wall" fall over into Mexico on a very windy day last month 100 miles east of San Diego, but whole parts of the "impenetrable" wall are now being climbed over by newly constructed ladders being made out of cheap rebar being bought for $5.30! at the local hardware store in Juarez, Mexico. Barrier sections have also been sawed through with a cordless power tool easily purchased in those very same hardware stores, then fit back into place for the next person to come through.

    Great use of that 4 Billion dollars!!!

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now why would a person need a five week course to achieve a “basic understanding” of a language that they are supposed to be fluent in?

    What does it matter?? Your "friend" already told you I was wrong?

    Why do you pursue it?

    Because you and I both know your "friend" doesn't exist and you were lying when you mentioned him..

    BBBBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    there are a lot of things that are unacceptable and now happening regularly. when was the last time any high level executive branch official weighed in on a justice department investigation that involved people he knew? obama didn't do it.

    Way to make the parameters so narrow solely to address your one point.. :D

    Obama did, indeed interfere is in legal/justice activities all the time..

    how far have we fallen as a country that now dick cheney is the exemplary model for appropriate executive behavior?

    What part of THERE'S A NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN do you not understand???

    Is President Trump wielding a LOT more executive power???

    Of course he is...

    Who do we have to thank for this??

    Look no further than Odumbo and the Dumbocrats...

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T Kirk

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    MTC,

    The answer is most of us Democrats want her to just go.

    See!? We CAN agree on things. :D

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-
    Yes. Bernie is a big money candidate because he takes up to 2800 dollars from a single donor for his presidential campaign.

    While Our Revolution is not a Bernie for president PAC, it is probalbly also helping his campaign. I wonder if Our Revolution has a limit on how much it will accept from one donor.

    Demanding a small donor only campaign is not at all the perfect being the enemy of the good.

    Accepting a candidate that is capable of raising the money needed from small donors only taking money from big money donors is letting that candidate pass off not as bad as being good.

    Bernie would not be committing political suicide by making this commitment.

    When just 3% of presidential election cycle voters can raise 500 million dollars by averaging 100 dollars in contributions of 200 dollars or less that is plenty of money to run his campaign.

    And a candidate such as Bernie making this commitment at this point would easily inspire at LEAST 3% of citizens to make a small contribution, including many that have never contributed because they felt their 50 or 100 dollars would be insignificant compared to a 2800 dollar donor.

    In fact, Bernie is more likely to commit political suicide by NOT making this commitment.

    Making this commitment could get some of the 40% that don't vote to vote in 2020.

    Just one in ten of these citizens voting for Bernie (and the down ballot Dems that also make this commitment) added to the voters he would get without it would add an additional 6% of the total vote.

    It could even help him in the primaries if he made the commitment now for the general election.

    Bernie took a small step for democracy in 2016. It's time for him to a giant leap for democracy-kind in 2020.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's overstating the case. although she is widely hated on the right and left just as donald is

    Hillary is hated on the Left far FAR more than President Trump is hated on the Right.. By a factor of 10,000.

    Let's try to reign in those false equivalences, eh?? :D

    yes, she's not helping the democratic cause by staying in the public eye, but she is now a private citizen and doesn't owe us anything

    Troo.. And the American people don't owe her anything in return.. So, if she screws up the Democrat Party's chances in Nov, she deserves all the scorn she receives..

    Ain't America Great!!!??? :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    We've got the usual mixed bunch of talking points this week, but before we begin we have to issue a call for every Democrat everywhere to denounce a little-noticed event that happened recently down in Florida. A man who fully admitted to the cops that he was motivated by hatred of Donald Trump drove his car into a booth where Trump supporters were registering people to vote in a parking lot. Thankfully, no one was hurt because people were able to get out of the way before the impact, but that doesn't lessen the severity of the action at all.

    This is completely and utterly unacceptable, period. Republicans were pretty quick to denounce the man, even before it became clear that he was not just some madman but was actually motivated by political hatred. But to date, few Democrats have added their voices to this chorus of condemnation. This needs to change, because this is so completely abhorrent to American democracy. Violence is not the answer, and more Democrats need to state this in unequivocal terms. Like we said, this is not really a talking point, because it is really more important than that. And Democrats should say so, loudly and without reservation. Violence is unacceptable in politics no matter which side it comes from, and when it comes from your own side then you have a heightened duty to call it out and swiftly condemn it, period. There are no excuses for not doing so.

    I skimmed over the FTP and missed this little gem..

    THANK YOU CW....

    That is EXACTLY the kind of thing that made Weigantia so much fun in the past..

    That is EXACTLY the kind of thing that needs to be done EVERY TIME an incident such as this occurs..

    But, as you can see from the comments, Weigantians are illustrating their acceptance of this kind of violence perpetrated by the Left against the Right..

    ItalyRusty's "yea, it's a bad thing, BUT..." is a perfect example......

    There is no "BUT".....

    But credit where credit is due..

    CW, you condemned the incident as clearly and unequivocally as it SHOULD be condemned...

    Apparently yours is the SOLE voice of condemnation here... Sad..

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "There are a lot things that are not acceptable and now happening regularly."

    Because citizens keep voting for those candidates even though they are doing things that are not acceptable like accepting big money to run their campaigns.

    Accepting big money to ruin* their campaigns is a HUUUUUUGE red flag that tells voters that the candidate will be doing things that are not acceptable if they are elected.

    *ruin was a typo- but it fits so I left it. :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    ItalyRusty,

    Chris, re: the guy in Florida 'motivated by political hatred'
    If we were living a normal world, I would agree with you. Instead, the reality is that the President of the United States pardons a war criminal and awards a Medal of Freedom to a racist pig; his supporters either remain silent or applaud him. Democrats do not need to bring unwarranted attention to the horrible actions of a single person, no matter his/her motivation (especially when the body count was lower than any of the daily 'mass shootings').

    So what you are saying is that it's perfectly OK to rape a 14 yr old girl, if she was wearing a low cut top and a mini mini skirt...

    I am glad I don't live in Italy.. :^/

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    The House Democrats don't merit a dishonorable mention for 'The House committee chairmen were missing in action in a big way this week as they refused to issue a subpoena to John Bolton.'

    Yep.. It's as I have been saying since Sep...

    Democrats HAVE the impeachment power to enforce their subpoenas.. Granted, it was an illegitimate impeachment.. A faux impeachment coup..

    Nevertheless the courts would have honored that impeachment power based on the SCOTUS Nixon ruling..

    So WHY didn't Democrats go to court??

    Because they knew they would lose...

    Because their faux impeachment coup had no real standing...

    "Simple Logic"
    -Captain Spock

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    2) I am sure that the House and Bolton's lawyers have been in contact. If Bolton were interested in telling his story before Congress, nothing prevents him from doing so, without subpoena. Of course, this will suppress book sales, so setting aside the optics of Mr Bolton being the 'hero of the story' to Democrats, he's no doubt more interested in his bank account.

    Ya think?? :eyeroll:

    And THAT is why John Bolton is not a credible witness.. Because he is simply saying what ya'all want to here to make book sales..

    You don't believe me that John Bolton is a liar and not credible???

    Don't take my word for it.. Just read all the quotes from Democrats about John Bolton BEFORE he got shit-canned...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democratic rivals sharpen attacks as Bloomberg rises

    White House hopefuls are unloading on Mike Bloomberg in an effort to draw him into the fray amid uncertainty over whether the former New York City mayor will be on the Democratic debate stage next week in Nevada.

    At town hall events, on social media and at meetings with donors, Bloomberg’s 2020 rivals are sharpening their attacks against him, underscoring his growing strength in the fluid primary race.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/483185-democratic-rivals-sharpen-attacks-as-bloomberg-rises

    BUt.... But... But....

    Democrats don't attack other Democrats..

    Russ said so!!

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  40. [40] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    I said a long time ago that I condemn all such acts by anyone from any side.

    Just because I don't reiterate it for every single event doesn't mean that my position does not remain the same.

    I prefer to spend my time commenting on eliminating the cause of such incidents, the divide and conquer strategy the big money parties use to keep citizens angry at each other instead of being angry at the politicians fomenting this anger that leads some to take violent action.

    I seem to be the only one here condemning the cause of the problem and the people causing the problem instead of just condemning the individual perpetrators that are in a way victims themselves (though it is not an excuse).

  41. [41] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So could we PLEASE ask the candidates this question at the next debate?

    "Just 3% of presidential election cycle voters contributing an average of 100 dollars in contributions of 200 dollars or less to your general election campaign should you win the nomination would total around 500 million dollars.

    If 3% of citizens will not support a candidate that commits to run a small donor only campaign in the general election then we do not deserve to get the big money out of our political process.

    You are asking voters to trust you. One way to earn that trust is to show that you trust voters.

    Do you trust voters enough to step up and make small contributions to your general election campaign to commit to run a small donor only campaign for the general election?"

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    If you're thinking of an article about what WON'T but should be asked at the next debate see comment 41.

  43. [43] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I wonder if Bloomberg would react to my debate question by shorting out like the androids on Star Trek on that planet with Harry Mudd.

    This episode also ties in nicely with the when will Hillary go away discussion.

    "Shut up, Stella!"
    -Harry Mudd

    And

    Wouldn't it be great to take all those big money Dems and leave them stranded on a remote planet with 500 Hillarys that won't shut up?

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    I said a long time ago that I condemn all such acts by anyone from any side.

    Just because I don't reiterate it for every single event doesn't mean that my position does not remain the same.

    And yet, Trump/America haters DEMAND that President Trump denounce Right Wing haters time and time again..

    Bit o double standard there, eh?? :D

    I seem to be the only one here condemning the cause of the problem and the people causing the problem instead of just condemning the individual perpetrators that are in a way victims themselves (though it is not an excuse).

    That's because the "cause" of the problem is outside anyone's control..

    It's like the sun rising in the east causes problems for me at my shop...

    I can't do anything about it so I have to work with what I CAN do... CAN change..

  45. [45] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "...the cause of the problem is outside anyone's control."

    That's the real American can do attitude. :D

    Everyone has control of what they do.

    Perhaps you can't stand up against the big money interests and rationalize that by saying you can't do anything about it and you can't change yourself, but that does not mean everyone else is subject to your personal limitations.

    The only way that standing up to the big money interests is like the sun rising in the east causing problems at your shop is that CW allowing the sun to shine on this idea would cause problems in his "shop" so he he blocks the sun keeping citizens in the dark.

    Just because you see a bright light doesn't mean it is coming from the sun.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's the real American can do attitude. :D

    Everyone has control of what they do.

    Yes.. Of what THEY do.. They have no control over what OTHERS do or what REALITY is..

    If I can be brutally hones (and still maintain civility with you) it seems you are a tad impatient..

    You want to happen and you want it to happen NOW..

    That's not how one steers this huge cruise ship called AMERICA..

    You make long and time consuming turns until it's heading in the direction you want..

    If your idea ever catches on, it will happen with your children.. Or your children's children... Or your children's children's children..

    Perhaps you can't stand up against the big money interests and rationalize that by saying you can't do anything about it and you can't change yourself, but that does not mean everyone else is subject to your personal limitations.

    Big money interests is like the sun.. It's a constant.. It cannot be changed..

    Only something radical as a black hole or supernova will affect big money interests..

    If you accept this reality and work within the system, you have a much better chance of success...

    Like I said.. Find an established group that is similar to yours, make friends with the leadership, pitch your idea and co-opt that group to your needs..

    That is infinitely easier than creating your own movement from scratch and you actually MIGHT see success within your lifetime..

    The only way that standing up to the big money interests is like the sun rising in the east causing problems at your shop is that CW allowing the sun to shine on this idea would cause problems in his "shop" so he he blocks the sun keeping citizens in the dark.

    Again, being totally honest here, I honestly don't see CW as really opposed to your idea.. At least in theory..

    CW, like most self-aware Americans, definitely oppose big money in campaigns.. No one, Left OR Right, wants to see someone BUY an election..

    (Which is ironic considering they are perfectly OK with Bloomberg buying the Dem nomination.. But that's another debate :D)

    "The country's going down the drain because of the special interests. We need someone rich in the White House who doesn't have to listen to anybody. When I'm in office, it's gonna be like the 80's.
    The top 90% will get richer, the rest can emigrate to Mexico, live a better life."

    -Senater McComb, TIME COP

    It's just that you are trying to co-op THIS group to your needs and CW et al are resisting..

    So, while you ARE following my advice, it's simply not working with THIS established group... :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sources close to the Bloomberg campaign tell DRUDGE REPORT that the candidate is considering Hillary Clinton as a running mate, after their polling found the Bloomberg-Clinton combination would be a formidable force...

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    That STILL cracks me up...

    If factually accurate, Bloomberg has chosen the ONE Democrat that GUARANTEES a YYUUUGGGEEEE GOP turnout.. :D

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    No, the big money interests are not like the sun.

    The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

    The big money interests shine from all directions at once and have been rising 24 hours a day for decades.

    And you cannot treat this like the War on Habitat and try to blame the rise on natural occurrences over which humans have no control.

    The big money interests are 100% man-made.

    Accepting big money as a reality to deal with will not make it go away. That is how to make sure it remains.

    I have seen CW change before. He has changed from the CW that brought me here in 2015.

    He may someday change again.

    And I do want it to happen now.

    But that doesn't mean that I don't recognize that it will not happen right away.

    No one seems to remember that I often say it will take more than one election cycle to be fully effective when they repeat that debunked claim.

    But rather than using it can't be fully successful right away as an excuse to not take action now to make it happen I see that as a reason to start it now so it can be successful sooner.

    Your argument reminds me of those here that argued that 2018 was not the time to start this for that reason (this election is too important to deal with that now because it can't be successful in 2018) but somehow even though the Dems could not gain control in 2018 of the White House and Senate that was okay to not be fully successful in 2018 because the Dems could build on the 2018 gains in 2020.

    Again. There are no similar groups.

    There are groups with similar goals that are dedicated to the wrong approach that will not work and they will not change their approach because validating their approach is more important than succeeding in their goals.

    Similar to the Dems being more concerned with preserving the status quo than beating Trump which is the only believable reason for them to not support One Demand.

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Why did president Trump extend his travel ban to include Nigeria, of all places!?

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why did president Trump extend his travel ban to include Nigeria, of all places!?

    I don't have the intelligent assets to make a fact-based guess...

    Could be coronavirus related, could be terrorism related...

    Only President Trump knows..

    I could research it and probably come up with a reasonable answer, but I don't really care.. I trust President Trump to do the right thing by this country.. And he hasn't let me down to date..

    Why do YOU think he did it???

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's kinda funny.. I usually pop in here after doing a few rounds of Modern Warfare 2019..

    I find myself hurrying to type out a comment before I get sniped or shot or blow'ed up.. :D

  52. [52] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    And thanks for the best news I've read all week: 'and for the record-breaking turnout of the actual voters.'
    Nothing strikes terror in a Republican's heart like a high voter turnout. :)

  53. [53] 
    dsws wrote:

    Here's something I posted elsewhere, and thought that people here might also be interested in:

    My impression is that the main conflict in US politics has never been haves vs have-nots, but some rich vs other rich. Specifically, it's been the rich who own real assets (especially land) and owe money, against the rich who own financial assets (including the debt of the land-owners). The interest payments had been fixed at the time the land was purchased, so unexpected inflation makes the payments less valuable while preserving the value of the assets.

    Thus, a major point of contention was monetary policy: how much silver or paper (if any) to include in the money supply. Another major issue was how to transfer land stolen from the descendants of plague-survivors to the descendants of plague-bringers. If most people were small farmers who owned the land and owed money, they would have the same incentives as the plantation owners, at least as far as the politics of monetary policy were concerned. If they owned the land free and clear, or if they were farm-hands working for wages on large farms, they wouldn't.

    In the twentieth century, that changed: new financial arrangements were developed, so that any rich person could hedge against inflation or against fluctuations in the value of real assets; and the have-nots were more likely to be industrial workers rather than farmers. That meant that the longstanding issues of land transfer and monetary policy faded into relative insignificance. That opened the door for the realignment of the Solid South from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican. The way that realignment happened, in turn, set the stage for the current extreme polarization.

    If there's a stable set of voters whose political opinions are distributed in a bell curve along one dimension, then winner-take-all plurality voting allows for only one equilibrium: two major parties that vie for the median voter. (And maybe a handful of minor parties that express the aspirations of the fringes, but never win any elections.) This stability enabled the US to mostly avoid major internal conflict from 1794 (Whiskey Rebellion, last gasp of independence-era political violence) to 1854 (Bleeding Kansas, first major foreshock of the Civil War), and again from about 1877 (end of Reconstruction) to 1964. Since the rise of the Southern Strategy, we've depended on different sources of stability.

    When the forces faded that had stabilized the rich-vs-other-rich axis, we had disequilibrium. In the middle of the twentieth century, the Democratic party was an uneasy coalition that included the most virulent racists in the South, but also included many of the advocates of racial justice in the north. Instead of having the median voter as the deciding swing vote, we had the realignment of the Solid South.

    And since then we've had the turnout vote. Instead of competing for the swing vote of the median voter, the major parties vie to bring people to the polls -- people who don't usually vote, but if they do there's no doubt which way they'll vote. That's a recipe for polarization.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    IR..

    Nothing strikes terror in a Republican's heart like a high voter turnout.

    Yea.. The GOP was TERRIFIED in 2016.. :smirk: :D

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS,

    Interesting read.. I even understood it...

    Well, SOME of it, anyways.. :D

    Tell me.. What do you think the solution is??

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats Weigh Whether to Pursue New Investigations as Election Looms

    Some call for probe into Roger Stone sentencing, while others are wary of another drawn-out fight with White House
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-weigh-whether-to-pursue-new-investigations-as-election-looms-11581861601

    Absolutely Democrats should launch ANOTHER Witch Hu.... I mean, investigation...

    I mean, it's worked out SO WELL for the 2 previous cou... investigations.. Hell, maybe third time WILL BE the charm for Democrats...

    Investigate away... I have always thought that that Barron guy was REALLY suspicious!

    Democrats should investigate him!!

    Yes.. Demcorats should DEFINITELY launch TONS more investigations..

    I fully support Democrats doing just that!! :D

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Democrats are trying to manufacture more ‘investigations.’ At some point you’d think they would take a page out of the president’s book and devote themselves to working for the country, but I guess not.”
    -Stephanie Grisham, White House Press Secretary

    Yes.. One WOULD think that Democrats wouldn't be stoopid enough to CONTINUE their witch hunts and coups...

    But, we ARE talking about Democrats... So being stoopid and stoopid and stoopid over and over again, expecting a different result??

    Well, that's just today's Democrat Party.. :smirk: :D

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I do believe as it pertains to impeachment that we are past that now. That now it is up to the American people. I don’t think I could be clearer than that.”
    -Rep. Max Rose (D., N.Y.)

    It's ***ALWAYS*** been up to the American people, dipshit...

    ALWAYS....

  59. [59] 
    dsws wrote:

    Tell me.. What do you think the solution is?

    That's a big question. I don't have a whole solution. But as it happens I was just coming back with another repost-from-elsewhere that addresses a small part of it.

  60. [60] 
    dsws wrote:

    Another repost from elsewhere --

    I don't think there's anything special about a majority. I really don't think there's anything special about a majority of a legislative chamber. I think both sub-majority and supermajority thresholds have their uses. I'll get to that, but it will take me a while.

    There are always situations that have to be dealt with. There are always many different beliefs and desires that shape different people's opinions about how to deal with them. And there are always multiple ways in which those differences could be dealt with.

    When people largely agree about goals, but disagree about what means will advance those goals, what's needed is deliberation.

    When people largely agree about what actions will have what effects, but have different goals, what's needed is negotiation.

    When no one bothers to agree or disagree substantively about anything, it's clear who's on what side, and everyone just tries to win, what we have is conflict. Unlimited conflict within a group leads to disaster pretty reliably, so much of the organization of societies throughout history (and presumably before) has been about making sure conflict happens in ways that are prescribed and limited. One major way to limit conflict is to suppress it: one side wins and all other sides lose, but probably not as badly as they would have lost if overt conflict had happened.

    When conflict can be suppressed, and there are many issues in play, the decision comes down to a matter of picking sides and letting the strongest side win (after some sort of measuring contest to ascertain which is strongest). This is politics. No deliberation, except within the winning side after the main event is over. No negotiation between sides, only between each side and its prospective members or prospective defectors, before the main event happens.

    Politics stinks. We need institutions that will result in less politics, more negotiation, and more deliberation.

    This requires a means of identifying which issues require negotiation and which require deliberation. It requires a means by which all sides can jointly deliberate. And it requires a means by which all sides can negotiate.

    None of that is new. I've said it before, and presumably I will say it again. What varies is what follows. I like to imagine hypothetical systems of civic participation, and I favor different ones from one day to the next.

    Today I think that deliberation should be split into two kinds: one embodied in the enactment of a category of laws, and the other in executive action; while negotiation is channeled into the enactment of another category of laws.

    That's pretty similar to what I think most days. But now I finally get to the new item, to what I wanted to say. Today I think that a negotiation-oriented legislative body should have either three chambers or three modes of operation. First, a set of issues are identified. Second, each of those issues is taken up in turn, and a bunch of alternative pieces-of-a-law are passed by sub-majority vote, maybe really small, like 10%. Third, those pieces are bundled into final bills, which require a supermajority for passage, maybe a really big supermajority like 90%.

    To get a supermajority, you have to include something for (almost) everyone. The sub-majority process provides a formal means of identifying what different people want, even rather small groups.

    Then there's the question of how to choose representatives for a negotiation-oriented legislative chamber. But this is already getting too long for one post.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    One major way to limit conflict is to suppress it: one side wins and all other sides lose, but probably not as badly as they would have lost if overt conflict had happened.

    AND (assuming you are talking about a conflict within the group) Group cohesion, by and large, remains intact..

    To get a supermajority, you have to include something for (almost) everyone. The sub-majority process provides a formal means of identifying what different people want, even rather small groups.

    OR...

    Or the alternative to a SuperMajority is to horrible to contemplate, let alone allow..

    Very informative comment..

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    House Democrats will also need to decide whether to issue a subpoena to former national security adviser John Bolton. In his forthcoming book, Mr. Bolton writes that Mr. Trump told him he wanted to hold up aid to Ukraine to pressure the country to open investigations into Democrats, a charge at the center of the impeachment inquiry. Mr. Trump denied wrongdoing, and called impeachment a politically motivated attack designed to overturn the will of the voters.

    BOTH could be true...

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    BOTH could be true...

    Scratch that to read, BOTH could be factually accurate

    One is not exclusive to the other..

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    53 (brought forward)

    How odd for someone to realize that the Republicans — whom she “never” liked — are really great folks, unlike the Democrats who are all horrible people suddenly!

    I didn't even read it, Russ; I didn't have to. After reading the comments section, it sounds like the very common propaganda technique where someone suddenly has an epiphany and "turns on a dime" and is "delivered from evil," etc. Right-wing types are especially susceptible to falling for the redemption story, the "I saw the light" and have been instantly reborn appeals to emotion versus logic, knowledge, and/or science.

    She started off talking about people attacking knitters online, but never bothers to offer why they were being attacked or any evidence as to how she knew it was Democrats attacking them.

    Did she? Well, you know darling, a knitter can always tell the best yarn. ;)

    And let me guess from the title that "a Trump rally" was attended and now the "evildoer" telling the yarn has been delivered from what she once was... "saved" from a life of demonic existence in a single revival... I mean rally... on a single evening, praise Cheeto Jesus... a MAGA church redemption. *laughs*

    The yarn knitter should spend some time in Weigantia and write an article about how she was treated by the Trump faithful:

    They indiscriminately and routinely refer to others as America haters, Dumbocrats, ignorant, bigots, slaves and make up fake quotes no one ever said and lie and troll incessantly while interrupting the flow of dialogue of others by devolving any genuine political discussion into personal discussion about posters. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseam.

    That Democrats demand purity, but Republicans are so welcoming to different opinions!?!? Do the names Mitt Romney or Justin Amash sound familiar?

    I know, right!? Talk about purity test: We are the Trump drones. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

    And WTF that YOU would post this??!! YOU, who constantly claims to know what every Democrat thinks or believes — because anyone who disagrees with you (actually, it’s not what you think, but whatever Trump tells you that you think) all share the same views on every subject matter.

    Exactly. Rather than a rally or a single article, we here in Weigantia have years and years of examples of what it means to be a Trump supporter and know exactly how Trump supporters behave toward Democrats, non Democrats, and anyone who doesn't suck the baby carrot of the Orange Manbaby <--- one of your best, still.

    So to recap:

    * The idea that one political rally could reverse years of a person's political beliefs is as equally asinine and nonsensical as the ridiculous notion that posting one article would/could alter the opinion of anyone with an Internet and a keyboard who reads CW's comments section.

    * After years and years of observation, everyone here in Weigantia knows exactly what a Trump supporter is like; it ain't exactly rocket science.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    “{Democrats} do not have facts. All they have is a mission to impeach.”
    -Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.)

    Yep.. Exactly...

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    After years and years of observation, everyone here in Weigantia knows exactly what a Trump supporter is like; it ain't exactly rocket science.

    Mark this day down, CW...

    I actually completely and utterly agree with Victoria..

    Everyone here DOES know exactly what a Trump supporter is like..

    He's the one who is ALWAYS dead on ballz accurate about President Trump.. He is the one who is ALWAYS winning here.. :D

    In sharp contrast to all the others who have been WRONG WRONG WRONG every time about President Trump... The ones who are ****ALWAYS**** losing.. :SMIRK:

    :D

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Since it is seriously beginning to look like I will win the Biden/Anyone Else bet, I hereby officially release you from the bet obligation.

    A vote is a very personal, very important thing and I had no right to cajole you into betting it..

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Way to make the parameters so narrow solely to address your one point.. :D

    If I didn't, you'd have a ready made excuse to interpret so broadly that your response would be about something completely unrelated. it was anyway, so I suppose you're right and I shouldn't have bothered, but it's something very specific that hasn't happened since nixon.

  69. [69] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[68],
    I will absolutely honor my wager, because I'd have expected you to do the same.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    If I didn't, you'd have a ready made excuse to interpret so broadly that your response would be about something completely unrelated. it was anyway, so I suppose you're right and I shouldn't have bothered, but it's something very specific that hasn't happened since nixon.

    Yes, if yer talking specific.

    But it's factually accurate that Obama LOVED to stick his nose into legal matters he should not have...

    You can't be OK with that and condemn President Trump for doing something more specific, but essentially the same thing.

    In other words, yours is a distinction, not a difference..

    I will absolutely honor my wager, because I'd have expected you to do the same.

    Up to you....

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    17

    Correcto. Yo solía entrenarlos. Deben tener fluidez en uno idioma... Inglés.

  72. [72] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Dsws-
    The part about the CMPs only trying to get the vote in non-voters that they know are reliably theirs is only partly true.

    They only want to get out the vote in non-voters that they can get to buy in to their big money candidates.

    If the Dems were interested in getting non-voters to vote that would be reliably theirs they would commit to small donor only campaigns to get the 6% or more of the vote from non-voters (One in ten of the 40%) in addition to the voters they already have, very few of which would abandon the Dems for taking this position.

    Come on all you Dem supporters here. Which one of you would abandon the Dem candidate for president or your congressional or senate candidate if they ran a small donor campaign?

  73. [73] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It is absolutely a difference. If it weren't, somebody since nixon would have done it. Nobody did, because it's significantly worse than anything dick Cheney did for Ken Lay

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ: And what three languages must they be fluent in?

    Mike: English, Spanish, French..

    English? Obviously.
    Español? No fluido, ciertas frases.
    Française? Mon dieu, non... hystérique.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is absolutely a difference. If it weren't, somebody since nixon would have done it. Nobody did, because it's significantly worse than anything dick Cheney did for Ken Lay

    We'll just have to disagree...

    Simply because no one has done doesn't factually indicate it's something special or different.

    At it's base, it's a POTUS sticking his nose into legal/justice matters..

    You have a distinction on the same theme, not a difference...

  76. [76] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Dsws makes a good point about when people agree on goals what is needed is deliberation.

    And we need more institutions that focus on deliberation instead of politics and conflict.

    Then there's the question on how to pick representatives.

    I just had a radical thought. (wow. it's been a looooong time since that happened :D)

    What if we got things started by making this comments section an institution where we actually discuss all ideas.

    We could start with a discussion on the Dems running small donor only campaigns and if it could get them that 6% of the vote from non-voters that will not vote for big money Dems. Most people here say they agree on the goal of getting big money out of politics so let's have a real discussion of how we can do it.

    I'm pretty sure CW wants the big money out of politics- so how about it CW?

    Would you abandon the Dem candidates if they committed to a small donor only campaign?

    Do you think many other Dems voters would?

    Is it possible that making that commitment could get the one in ten non-voters to vote that would give the Dems an extra 6% of the vote?

  77. [77] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Hiring an AG because they share your philosophy is one thing, and every president does it. Exerting pressure on the department of justice to treat an individual differently based on personal or political animus is the red line that executives are not supposed to cross, and between 1974 and now, they haven't.

  78. [78] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "Simply because no one has done doesn't factually indicate it's something special or different..."

    Unless the REASON no one has done it is BECAUSE it is special and different.

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    21

    All newly hired ICE agents must complete two training courses: a five-week Spanish language training program and the Basic Law Enforcement Training Program. These programs help candidates gain a basic understanding of Spanish and incorporate skills training in physical fitness, first aid, firearms, and law enforcement driving maneuvers. Agents must pass a total of seven written examinations and the Physical Abilities Assessment (PAA).

    Exactly this.

    Now why would a person need a five week course to achieve a “basic understanding” of a language that they are supposed to be fluent in?

    You're right, of course, and I'm probably preaching to the choir to point it out, but just as English in America versus English in Britain have their notable differences... so too does the Spanish spoken by those in America versus those from Mexico versus those from Honduras versus those from Guatemala versus those from Ecuador, etc.

    Go to many parts of Britain where they speak quickly and with an "English accent," and discover how fluent you are in English. Likewise, the vast majority of Scots speak English, but just try to keep up. Canadian English? I'd wager a loonie, a toonie, a two-four, and a mickey you already know exactly what I'm talking 'bout, eh? :)

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Exerting pressure on the department of justice to treat an individual differently based on personal or political animus is the red line

    Except all we have is APPEARANCES...

    There are no facts to support your claim that pressure was exerted..

    Just like the APPEARANCE of Hunter Biden's activities is bad.. But there are no facts to support that Hunter Biden did anything wrong or illegal..

    I believe those are your own words...

  81. [81] 
    dsws wrote:

    And another --

    Proportional representation is normally assumed to involve having citizens vote for a party rather than a candidate. But it doesn't have to. Logically, the term applies to any system that has a multi-party equilibrium in which seats in a legislature (or in principle, in some other elected group such as an executive council) are held by members of various parties roughly in proportion to the number of citizens who favor those parties. And I've thought of a new one.

    A longstanding favorite of mine is to let citizens choose which seat to vote for, and let parties try to organize their supporters to choose the same seat. If there are 50 seats, for example, and you have 2% support that's dedicated enough to get organized and register to vote for the same seat, then you can expect to win a seat.

    Another is the tier system I like to imagine. Tier 0 is all citizens. For each tier, everyone gets to designate one other member of that tier. Anyone who is so designated by ten people advances to the next tier. Any tier can enact legislation by unanimous agreement, and legislation by a lower-numbered tier overrides legislation by a higher-numbered one. So any group of ten people can choose one of themselves to be in tier 1, if they can agree on whom to designate. Any group of a hundred people can get one member into tier 2, if they're organized enough. Any group of a thousand, tier 3. But most groups wouldn't be that organized, and lots of people in tiers 2 to 4 either wouldn't form their groups of ten, or would have extra members. So tier 5 would be small enough to function as a legislative chamber, passing bills by consensus. And tier 6 would be effectively be an executive council, also making decisions by consensus but within the restrictions set by previous decisions of tier 5. It would probably be best to modify the rules for tier 5, allowing it to pass legislation without unanimity.

    My new idea today is that we could get to proportional representation with only winner-take-all plurality election, if we assume there's some acceptable alternative to secret ballots as a way to protect against voter coercion. We make districts (or some sort of non-geographic constituency) that are big enough to have fifteen representatives each. First we elect one person by plurality. Then we elect two people: one by plurality vote of everyone who voted for the first winning candidate, and one by plurality vote of everyone who voted for others in the first election. Then we split each of those sets of voters the same way, and elect four more. One more round gives us another eight.

    Of course, I'm just thinking about this for fun, not spending ages in the non-circulating collection of obscure books at the library. This idea is new as far as I know, but someone may already have suggested something similar and I would be unlikely to know about it.

  82. [82] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    We have more than appearances, we have actual cases that were actively nterfered with by the a.g. and career prosecutors who resigned said cases rather than follow his orders. The only question of "appearance" is whether these acts were taken based on the president's orders as it appears, or by the a.g. on his own initiative on the president's behalf, which is the only other plausible possibility.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    We have more than appearances, we have actual cases that were actively nterfered with by the a.g. and career prosecutors who resigned said cases rather than follow his orders.

    It's more likely the prosecutors resigned because they didn't want to be questioned on why they imposed such a harsh sentence.. They new they were dirty and wanted to get the hell out of Dodge...

    But you STILL don't have any facts to support your claim that A> President Trump exuded pressure and B> That AG Barr succumbed to that pressure..

    ALL you have is appearances.. Just like Hunter Biden..

    The only question of "appearance" is whether these acts were taken based on the president's orders as it appears, or by the a.g. on his own initiative on the president's behalf, which is the only other plausible possibility.

    No.. The OTHER possibility, which is the likely one is that AG Barr decided on his own that the sentence was excessive...

    Since you have NO FACTS beyond the APPEARANCE of impropriety, that possibility is the likely one..

    "We can't discard the possibility just because we don't happen to like it.."
    -Martin Sheen, THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    At WORST, what you have is President Trump stating an OPINION that the sentence was excessive..

    You have AG Barr say, "OK, let's take a look at it. Why, yes.. That sentence is ridiculously excessive."

    You also ignore the FACT that the SENTENCE ***WAS*** excessive and was likely so to strike at President Trump thru his friend...

    But I know, I know..

    ANYTHING President Trump does MUST BE INVESTIGATED AT ALL COST...

    It's the Witch Hunt Democrat Party at it's finest..

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I said.. Obama rendered his opinion on legal things LOTS of times...

    And MANY times AG Holder followed up on that opinion with prosecutions..

    It's not ANY different than what President Trump and AG Barr has done..

    OTHER than the fact that one pair has a -D after their names and one pair has a -R after their names..

    What you have is a DISTINCTION, not a difference...

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Juror 1261 in Roger Stone's case: Was justice undone?
    https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/483210-juror-1261-in-roger-stones-case-was-justice-undone

    The forewoman of the jury is a RABID Trump/America hater..

    She should NEVER have been on that jury and Stone should be exonerated and given a new trial...

    And ya'all complain about President Trump and his fantasy pressure???

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    More worrisome are her direct references to Stone, including a retweeted post, in January 2019, from Bakari Sellers, again raising racist associations and stating that “Roger Stone has y’all talking about reviewing use of force guidelines.” She also described Trump supporters such as Stone as racists and Putin cronies.

    This is the FOREWOMAN of the Stone Jury???

    She should ***NEVER*** have been impaneled...

    Once again, ya'all have NO moral authority to complain about ANY of President Trump's actions, considering the FACTS...

  88. [88] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [64]

    You are spot on that it was just a propaganda piece. The funny thing is that the author never bothers to explain why she was ever supportive of Democrats when her opinion of them throughout the piece is how horrible they are. But, I guess the piece isn’t meant to win over Democrats to Trump as much as it is to reaffirm to Republicans that they aren’t the bad ones simply for supporting a narcissistic bigot and habitually lying psychopath!

    Hope you are having a great weekend!

    Russ

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    82

    We have more than appearances, we have actual cases that were actively interfered with by the a.g. and career prosecutors who resigned said cases rather than follow his orders. The only question of "appearance" is whether these acts were taken based on the president's orders as it appears, or by the a.g. on his own initiative on the president's behalf, which is the only other plausible possibility.

    Exactly right, of course, and not Trump's first interference in DOJ and DOJ subsidiary issues, for instance:

    * Fully aware of Mike Flynn's multiple lies denying having talked to Russian Ambassador Kislyak about Russia's election interference, Trump intervened directly and asked then FBI Director Comey to "let Flynn go."

    * Trump instructed White House counsel Don McGhan to stop then AG Jeff Sessions from recusing himself from election-related investigations; Trump was angry that then AG Sessions disobeyed his order, telling advisors that his AG should “protect” him.

    * Trump ordered then AG Sessions to “un-recuse” himself multiple times.

    * Trump contacted multiple US intelligence agency leaders and ordered them to publicly dispel any suggestion that he was connected to the election interference, including then DNI Coats, then NSA Director Rogers, and then FBI Director Comey.

    * Trump met with then AG Sessions privately and asked him to investigate Hillary Clinton.

    https://www.justice.gov/storage/report_volume2.pdf

    Trump has been directly intervening in DOJ issues for a long time. This isn't new behavior and is heavily documented via direct testimony. What Trump is doing today is more of the same and is also directly related to the same issues.

    Is it surprising at all that the same people who were infinitely clear-eyed in their outrage and disparagement of the meeting between a former president and another president's attorney general [Clue: Clinton and Lynch, in the airplane] can't see their way clear to find nary even a wee small issue of any kind with the current President of the United States and his repeated and multiple provable instances of direct intervention into the affairs of the Department of Justice? *shakes head*

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    84

    At WORST, what you have is President Trump stating an OPINION that the sentence was excessive..

    Nah. It's not even a sentence; it's simply a recommendation to the Court based on long-established predetermined guidelines that apply to all convicted criminals. The judge decides the sentence regardless based on the same guidelines.

    Bill Barr's supplemental memorandum basically states that the convicted criminal Roger Stone has a far too advanced age to be going to prison.

    https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.203583/gov.uscourts.dcd.203583.286.0_9.pdf

    Nice tacit admission that Trump being much older is far too advanced in age to be attempting to run a bigly ol' country like America. Hey, don't look at me... Bill Barr.

    You have AG Barr say, "OK, let's take a look at it. Why, yes.. That sentence is ridiculously excessive."

    The sentencing recommendation fell within the long-established predetermined guidelines for convicted criminal Roger Stone's obstruction of a congressional inquiry, perjuring himself to investigators under oath, and witness tampering via death threats in order to block the testimony of a witness who would have exposed Stone's perjury. The crimes carry a maximum prison term of 50 years so a recommendation of 7-9 doesn't exactly qualify as excessive.

    Trump seems awfully worried that Roger mightn't want to spend a long time in prison and his lying lips might get less tight and start doing some fact telling versus all those multiple perjuries and death threats he did in order to protect Donald Trump. Say, you don't think that Trump might have a vested personal interest in keeping Roger Stone from fact telling, do you?

    Regardless of all that, it's definitely the Court who will ultimately determine the sentence and not Bill Barr, federal prosecutors, or the current POTUS whom Stone was protecting via his multiple crimes that can't be counted on one hand unless you have multiple extra fingers.

    You also ignore the FACT that the SENTENCE ***WAS*** excessive and was likely so to strike at President Trump thru his friend...

    Nope. The Court is well aware that the convicted criminal committed his slew of crimes in order to protect his friend, Donald Trump. Also, you sound like Trump whining that he couldn't get a fair trial by a "Mexican" judge... except the judge was an American born in Indiana.

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    85

    As I said.. Obama rendered his opinion on legal things LOTS of times...

    Your false equivalency is alive and well.

    And MANY times AG Holder followed up on that opinion with prosecutions..

    Facts to support?

    It's not ANY different than what President Trump and AG Barr has done..

    Sure, it's exactly like that time Obama's convicted criminal friend was being sentenced for lying to Congress under oath more times than you can count on one hand and then making death threats to another witness who could expose his lies... exactly the same thing. *shakes head*

    OTHER than the fact that one pair has a -D after their names and one pair has a -R after their names..

    You are conveniently omitting the fact that the convicted criminal committed the multiple perjuries and death threats in order to coverup for the President of the United States who is attempting to now have his sentence lowered... his co-conspirator.

    What you have is a DISTINCTION, not a difference...

    What you have is amnesia, not an equivalency.

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    86

    The forewoman of the jury is a RABID Trump/America hater..

    Prove it.

    She should NEVER have been on that jury and Stone should be exonerated and given a new trial...

    Stone should sue his lawyers from inside his prison cell. He'll likely have lots of time for it, and he insisting to the Court he is flat broke... which explains his lousy legal team... one of those "Catch 22" situations.

  93. [93] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    88

    You know it!

    :) XOXOXO

  94. [94] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    this is just the opening salvo. sure as i'm sitting here, stone will be pardoned for his crimes. so will flynn, manafort, and anybody else who didn't flip. it's going to happen, probably a week or two after this november's election.

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    this is just the opening salvo. sure as i'm sitting here, stone will be pardoned for his crimes.

    Considering what we know about the tainted jury, that's the LEAST that should happen..

    You ever read the book RUNAWAY JURY???

    so will flynn, manafort, and anybody else who didn't flip.

    Again, considering the malfeasance and outright vindictiveness of the Flynn persecution, that's the LEAST that should be done..

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    NYC subway thief thanks Democrats after his 139th arrest, release: 'Bail reform, it’s lit!'

    A New York City man who’s now been arrested 139 times thanked Democrats for guaranteeing his immediate release despite repeatedly swiping hundreds of dollars from unsuspecting subway commuters since the state’s new bail reform law went into effect Jan. 1.

    Charles Barry, 56, has been arrested six times since the start of this year. He’s been released each time without having to post bail under New York’s new bail reform law since his alleged offenses were nonviolent, the New York Daily News reported. In the past, Barry’s served several stints in state prison and has a lengthy record, including six felonies, 87 misdemeanors and 21 missed court hearings, the newspaper reported, citing court records.

    “Bail reform, it’s lit!” Barry yelled to reporters Thursday outside the NYPD Transit District 1 headquarters in the Columbus Circle station before officers transported him to Manhattan Central Booking. “It’s the Democrats! The Democrats know me and the Republicans fear me. You can’t touch me! I can’t be stopped!”
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-bail-reform-law-nyc-subway-thief-thanks-democrats-139th-arrest

    Yep.. The Democrat Party...

    The Party of and for career criminals...

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stone Case Exposes the Arrogance of the Administrative State

    This abuse of law enforcement and our legal system for political purposes is, in many ways, the ultimate end of the permanent bureaucracy.
    https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/14/stone-case-exposes-the-arrogance-of-the-administrative-state/

    This is why President Trump's "meddling" in legal/justice affairs (JUST as Obama did) is perfectly justified..

    With Trump/America haters trying to use the justice system to attack and bring down President Trump, his "meddling" is nothing more than balancing the scales..

    "And if the Klingons give their side even more?"
    "Then we arm our side with exactly that much more. A balance of power. The trickiest, most difficult, dirtiest game of them all, but the only one that preserves both sides."

    -STAR TREK, A Private Little War

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    With the latest news surrounding the Roger Stone case and the press to send him to jail for nine years, we can apparently now add the Fourth and Sixth Amendments to the growing list of our constitutional rights flying out the window.

    Stone’s sentencing, the definition of cruel and unusual punishment for a first-time offender on a process crime, is the latest episode in an ongoing series where liberal fanatics use their power to punish political opponents, the rule of law be damned.

    To be honest, I’ve never been the biggest fan of Roger Stone or Paul Manafort. I’ve even had my doubts about former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. But you can’t convince me that it is pure coincidence that only one side of the political aisle is routinely hauled into court on flimsy charges. Especially when we have Andrew McCabe, who the Justice Department has now decided to not prosecute, walking free despite doing the exact same thing Stone and Flynn have been charged with doing.

    Exactly..

    All these persecutions at the hands of Trump/America haters is totally and unequivocally one-sided..

    Yet Trump/America haters like McCabe and the Podestas walk free...

    ANYTHING President Trump does to maintain the balance of justice is FULLY and COMPLETELY justified..

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    With reports now coming out that the lead juror in the Stone case was openly anti-Trump, and potentially perjured herself in denying knowledge of who Stone was and then tweeting about him, this has been a rigged process. Yet Judge Amy Berman Jackson, a Barack Obama appointee, did not see any reason to bar jurors with apparent bias. She has sworn to uphold the equal application of the law, but apparently, that oath only extends to those who share her political leanings.

    But this issue of Roger Stone is about far more than the fate of one man. It is the principles instilled by the Founders that are at risk of collapse—the principles that state unequivocally one is guaranteed a fair trial, due process, an impartial jury, and legal protections under the law regardless of party affiliation—in short, the very principles denied to Stone.

    More facts to support President Trump's justification of "meddling" in the Stone case..

    Trump/America haters stacked the deck against Stone from the start... Like they did against Flynn.. Like they did against Manafort...

    They totally perverted our system of justice in ***ANOTHER*** vain attempt to nullify a free, fair, legal, duly, democratically and Constitutional election...

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh.. By the bi...

    How'z that subpoena for John Bolton going??

    BBBBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Do ya'all **EVER** get tired of being wrong?? :smirk: :D

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Campaigns warn of chaos ahead of Nevada caucuses

    LAS VEGAS - With the Nevada caucuses days away, campaign officials and Democratic activists are increasingly alarmed that they might prove a debacle as damaging as the vote in Iowa, further setting the party back in its urgent effort to coalesce around a nominee to take on President Donald Trump.

    Campaigns said they still have not gotten the party to offer even a basic explanation of how key parts of the process will work. Volunteers are reporting problems with the technology that's been deployed at the last minute to make the vote count smoother. And experts are raising serious questions about an app the party has been feverishly assembling to replace the one scrapped after the meltdown in Iowa.
    https://www.thehour.com/news/article/Campaigns-warn-of-chaos-ahead-of-Nevada-caucuses-15061369.php

    Looks like Democrats have another IOWA in the making. :D

    Couldn't happen to a more deserving group.. :D

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    CW

    Mark this day down, CW...

    I actually completely and utterly agree with Victoria..

    Everyone here DOES know exactly what a Trump supporter is like..

    No, you don't agree with me; you're simply lying to the author of this political blog, which falls right in line with your near daily obvious standard modus operandi in the comments section of his political blog. This inveterate lying of yours is generally followed by additional fabrication wherein you routinely hijack the thoughts of others and maneuver them to fit your own agenda -- not at all unlike the advice you gave to Don Harris who's been flailing for years in his attempts to hijack CW's work.

    Your best bet is to find an existing and established group that has similar goals that you have. Work your way into THAT system and then co-opt it for your own purposes..

    That would be the FASTEST way to achieve your ends.

    That's my honest opinion...

    As I said, yer best bet would be to co-op an existing group that is established and is similar to what you want, work your way up and slowly maneuver it to One Demand.. ~ Michale

    So Mike's "honest" advice is to glom on and manipulate, but I digress. Where was I? Right!

    What generally follows the inveterate lying is additional fabrication that misstates and manipulates in order to achieve the ever-present agenda.

    He's the one who is ALWAYS dead on ballz accurate about President Trump.. He is the one who is ALWAYS winning here.. :D

    In sharp contrast to all the others who have been WRONG WRONG WRONG every time about President Trump... The ones who are ****ALWAYS**** losing.. :SMIRK:

    I rest my case.

    The inveterate pathological fabrication isn't "winning;" it's simply lying... shortcuts for the lazy and/or those whose own plans failed or produced no lasting results... a big con job as well as breathtakingly shitty advice that only fools spectacularly stupid people [with the possible exception of the con himself]. I would wager neither CW nor the vast majority of his regular readers are remotely that daft, and Honey Badger sure isn't. :)

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thanx for the luxury accommodations in your head, Victoria...

    80% of your comments are about me or too me..

    BBBBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    "It feels like the [state party is] making it up as they go along," said one Democratic presidential aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the process. "That's not how we need to be running an election."

    Adding to the challenge is the complexity of Nevada's caucuses. Unlike in Iowa, where caucuses are conducted in one evening, Nevadans have the option of voting early. At sites across the state, Democrats can rank their top presidential choices on a paper ballot.

    On Saturday, caucus day, Democrats can gather at one of about 2,000 sites to vote for their preferred candidate. If their first choice doesn't get enough backing, voters can throw their support behind someone else, a second round of voting known as "final alignment." Early voting preferences will be treated the same way, as though the voter were attending in person.

    The party had planned to use two specially designed apps for reporting results, developed by political technology firm Shadow, the same company that designed the vote-recording app blamed for the chaos in Iowa. A coding error in the Iowa app made it impossible to tally results, prompting confusion and delays. Shortly afterward, Nevada Democrats announced that they were scrapping the Shadow products.

    WOW... Democrats are totally frak'ed in NOV :D

  105. [105] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    94

    this is just the opening salvo. sure as i'm sitting here, stone will be pardoned for his crimes.

    But were you sitting? ;)

    so will flynn, manafort, and anybody else who didn't flip. it's going to happen, probably a week or two after this november's election.

    Trump has been/is being advised strongly and repeatedly by advisors not to yet again use the office of the presidency to achieve his personal ends. Pardoning his co-conspirators could be the catalyst for devastation litigation; however, not pardoning his co-conspirators could prove equally as devastating for Trump... another one of those "Catch 22" situations.

    The power of the pardon wasn't granted to the president to be used to clear his co-conspirators of their crimes committed with his knowledge and participation and/or on his behalf.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    The power of the pardon wasn't granted to the president to be used to clear his co-conspirators of their crimes committed with his knowledge and participation and/or on his behalf.

    Bill Clinton and Mark Rich..

    Hypocrite....

  107. [107] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    marc rich wasn't pardoned for committing crimes on clinton's behalf. rich committed his own crimes, then donated a bunch of money to hillary's campaign and the clinton library, and was subsequently pardoned. there was certainly the appearance of a quid pro quo, although it would be very hard to prove post hoc.

    not a good look for clinton, but not the same thing as what a roger stone pardon would entail, since his crimes were committed specifically to benefit donald.

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    marc rich wasn't pardoned for committing crimes on clinton's behalf.

    Once again, even if it WAS factually accurate, it's a distinction, not a difference..

    You tap dance with the best of them.. :D

  109. [109] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    95

    Considering what we know about the tainted jury, that's the LEAST that should happen..

    Bullshit. Stone's lawyers knew the juror in question was a Democrat who ran for office and active on social media. It was fully disclosed on her juror form and in voir dire. Whining after the fact that a Democrat was on the jury and it wasn't stuffed to the gills with Trump sycophants doesn't a tainted jury make.

    Nevertheless, it appears the judge is at least considering a Stone's lawyers second request for a new trial for him regardless of the fact that they allowed said witness with full access to her juror questionnaire and their unfettered ability to question her in voir dire:

    MINUTE ORDER as to ROGER J. STONE, JR. An on-the-record scheduling telephone conference call is set for February 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before Judge Amy Berman Jackson. In a separate email from the Deputy Clerk, counsel for the parties will be supplied with both the dial in telephone number and pass code to give them access to the call. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 2/16/20.

    Perhaps the Court is reviewing said second motion for a new trial and the requisite juror's documents and might grant him a new trial.

    I don't think a new trial will help him since he lied to investigators and committed easily provable perjury under oath on multiple occasions, and the witness tampering and death threats are equally easily provable. Stone is a convicted criminal on multiple counts based on slam-dunk evidence that isn't going anywhere. A new trial would simply delay the inevitable and might prove a bonehead move on his lawyers' part since Stone admitted under oath that the picture he chose himself and posted on social media that contained Judge Jackson with crosshairs could have a malicious impact regardless of whether or not that was Stone's intent. Repeat: Stone admitted under oath that he posted a picture of Judge Jackson with crosshairs:

    The defendant himself told me he had more than one to choose from. And so what he chose, particularly when paired with the sorts of incendiary comments included in the text, the comments that not only can lead to disrespect for the judiciary, but threats on the judiciary, the post had a more sinister message. As a man who, according to his own account, has made communication his forté, his raison d’être, his life’s work, Roger Stone fully understands the power of words and the power of symbols. And there’s nothing ambiguous about crosshairs. ~ Judge Amy Berman Jackson

    If I was the prosecutor in a new trial of Roger Stone, I would certainly arm myself with that fact and might even avail myself of the chance to prosecute him for another crime that carries a stiff sentence.

    So to recap: In case Stone's lawyers haven't been proven stupid enough already, give the prosecutors another reason to charge Stone... for a crime he's already confessed under oath. Stone posted a picture of the Judge overseeing his trial complete with crosshairs... knowing full well it put her life in danger... another slam dunk case.

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sanders and Bloomberg exchange blows as Democratic race heats up
    https://news.yahoo.com/bloomberg-bernie-bros-unite-energy-democrats-trump-153510095.html

    But!!! But!!! Russ said that Democrats would NEVER stoop so low as to attack the other candidates!!!

    Was Russ.....LYING????

  111. [111] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    committing crimes for yourself, versus committing crimes on behalf of the president of the united states, is a monumental difference. even moreso if the president decides to pardon you for said crimes.

    therefore, the marc rich pardon is nothing more than slimy, while a roger stone pardon (this is a guy who posted a picture of the judge presiding over his own case in the crosshairs of a rifle sight) will go down in the history books as a national disgrace.

  112. [112] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    103

    Thanx for the luxury accommodations in your head, Victoria...

    It was indeed you who co-opted my post discussing the behavior of Trump supporters. Besides and also, if Honey Badger had a head, it would definitely provide "luxury accommodations" that would pale in comparison to the stench of your swamp trailer.

    80% of your comments are about me or too me..

    Eighty percent of your own comments are about you too.

    So to recap:

    * Those who post the most generally receive the most responses. Not complicated.

    * Rather than actually discuss political issues, you respond to the vast majority of political discussion in the comments section by devolving it into a discussion about yourself.

    * Those who respond then bail on their political points and discuss what you've devolved the conversation into, a discussion about yourself or the other poster. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    * Much like intelligence, self-awareness isn't your strong suit... very much like the orphan who murdered his parents and then whined to the Court for leniency because he didn't have any parents.

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    committing crimes for yourself, versus committing crimes on behalf of the president of the united states, is a monumental difference.

    But as you said, Rich's crimes benefitted Clinton thru monetary donations.

    I see no difference..

    Further, Stone's "crime" was not a REAL crime like Rich's...

    Stone's crime was a mere PROCESS crime..

    therefore, the marc rich pardon is nothing more than slimy, while a roger stone pardon

    I understand why you would think that..

    (this is a guy who posted a picture of the judge presiding over his own case in the crosshairs of a rifle sight)

    Which has nothing to do with ANY alleged "crime" that Stone committed.

    You don't like him, pure and simple.. So you side against him..

    It's purely understandable..

    will go down in the history books as a national disgrace.

    As much as Clinton's was..

    IE, not so much at all..

  114. [114] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    106

    Bill Clinton and Mark Rich..

    It's Marc Rich, and I wasn't talking to you; nevertheless, your false equivalency is as alive and well as ever.

    Hypocrite....

    False equivalency and/or ignorance of facts on your part doesn't constitute hypocrisy on anyone else's part.

    Marc Rich didn't receive a pardon for a single crime he committed on Bill Clinton's behalf. He was, however, a Clinton supporter who received the favor of a pardon of the President of the United States, which you've made quite clear from your comments on this very commentary that you're absolutely fine with... and that makes you the actual hypocrite in this scenario... which I wouldn't have had to point out but for your co-opting my post.

  115. [115] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [112]

    How exactly can an orphan "murder his parents"???

  116. [116] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @crs

    how do you think he got to be an orphan?

  117. [117] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    107

    marc rich wasn't pardoned for committing crimes on clinton's behalf. rich committed his own crimes, then donated a bunch of money to hillary's campaign and the clinton library, and was subsequently pardoned. there was certainly the appearance of a quid pro quo, although it would be very hard to prove post hoc.

    This. Endorsed 100%.

    not a good look for clinton, but not the same thing as what a roger stone pardon would entail, since his crimes were committed specifically to benefit donald.

    Yes, sir... at least the perjuries, of course. The witness tampering via multiple death threats -- the crime with the most potential prison time -- was designed to keep witnesses against Stone from talking under threat of bodily harm.

    The President of the United States is systematically using the AG's office to summarily attempt to erase those crimes heavily documented via testimony contained in the Mueller investigation... and all that that entails.

    Imagine how ill-advised if not criminal those pardons would be for Stone as well as the others you previously discussed. You've asked how low this country has sunk... so low that the power of the pardon is being considered to de facto tamper with witnesses that could potentially be called to testify against a president in his own multiple crimes. Bring a shovel.

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    how do you think he got to be an orphan?

    An orphan CANNOT murder his parents because, by definition, his or her parents are already dead...

    "Simple logic"
    -Captain Spock

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick [112]

    How exactly can an orphan "murder his parents"???

    You'll have ta forgive Victoria..

    Her crack-addled brain can't really process things logically..

  120. [120] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    it's an old tv trope, the kid who offs his parents and then begs the court for leniency because he's an orphan.

  121. [121] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But as you said, Rich's crimes benefitted[sic] Clinton thru monetary donations.

    that is not what i said. in fact, it's the exact opposite of what i said. the donations were not connected with the crimes in any way.

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    108

    Once again, even if it WAS factually accurate, it's a distinction, not a difference..

    It is irrefutably factually accurate, and it's a huge difference to grant a pardon as a political favor versus using the presidential power of the pardon in order to tamper with witnesses and obstruct justice in your own crimes as heavily documented via sworn testimony and documents compiled for all posterity.

    It's not unlike Trump using that Sharpie to redraw a weather map for his own benefit... just on a much grander scale and using the Office of the Attorney General in order to rewrite that 10-lane road map to obstruction highway known as the Mueller Report.

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    it's an old tv trope, the kid who offs his parents and then begs the court for leniency because he's an orphan.

    And it's funny too.. :D

    But an orphan cannot kill his parents because they are already dead...

    If he or she DID kill their parents then it was not done as an orphan... :D

  124. [124] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    they're a self made orphan.

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    111

    committing crimes for yourself, versus committing crimes on behalf of the president of the united states, is a monumental difference. even moreso if the president decides to pardon you for said crimes.

    A pardon used to de facto witness tamper in the President's own crimes as outlined and heavily documented via witness testimony and documents in the Mueller Report. I can just hear Dershowitz now claiming that a president cannot commit a crime if he believes it's in the best interest of the country. Utter codswallop.

    therefore, the marc rich pardon is nothing more than slimy, while a roger stone pardon (this is a guy who posted a picture of the judge presiding over his own case in the crosshairs of a rifle sight) will go down in the history books as a national disgrace.

    Exactly correct. Also, a crime for which Mr. Stone has confessed under oath that hasn't been tried... which could be easily remedied should his ignorant lawyers choose to press for a new trial. Of course, it would have to be tried by another Court since the judge would obviously be a witness in the new trial with the old charges as well as the new charges.

    If I were his prosecutor, that's what I'd do should be choose to forego his current verdict in favor of some new ones that aren't likely to change one iota due to the slam-dunk evidence that made him the now 7-count convicted criminal he currently is. Would you like another? No problem... you got it coming, and you asked for it.

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    they're a self made orphan.

    AFTER the fact..

    But they were NOT an orphan when they killed their parents..

    THAT is factual...

  127. [127] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    113

    But as you said, Rich's crimes benefitted Clinton thru monetary donations.

    When did he say that? He didn't say that.

    If you think Rich's crime of tax evasion was performed so that he could make money in order to buy himself a pardon for that tax evasion, you just might be operating on zero cylinders.

    I see no difference..

    Zero cylinders.

    Further, Stone's "crime" was not a REAL crime like Rich's...

    So honest debate doesn't interest you? Because lying under oath to Congress multiple times is obviously multiple crimes.

    Stone's crime was a mere PROCESS crime..

    Death threats to witnesses are not a mere process crime. Threatening a judge... not a process crime.

    You don't like him, pure and simple.. So you side against him..

    Your devolution of this political discussion into a personal one is again duly noted. You've got no legal argument so it's obvious why you must constantly resort to that BS. Trump's own lawyers had no legal defense of him using the presidency and taxpayers' money for his own personal gain... so they whined in similar fashion.

    It's purely understandable..

    Yes, it is. When you devolve every legal or political issue into a discussion about the commenter rather than the actual issue, you avoid honest debate.

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    112

    How exactly can an orphan "murder his parents"???

    You're taking the subject out of its original context. Read the whole sentence, and quit your whining. :)

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT [128]

    C. R. Stucki
    115

    How exactly can an orphan "murder his parents"???

    You're taking the subject out of its original context. Read the whole sentence, and quit your whining. :)

  130. [130] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    116

    how do you think he got to be an orphan?

    ^^^^^^^^^^That too.^^^^^^^^^^

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Also, Victoria cannot admit when she is wrong..

    Again.. A factor of her crack-addled brain...

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Officer David Kellywood
    White Mountain Apache Tribal Police Department, Tribal Police
    End of Watch: Monday, February 17, 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

  133. [133] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Once again, even if it WAS factually accurate, it's a distinction, not a difference..

    You tap dance with the best of them.. :D

    Once again, he cannot defend, so he deflects!

  134. [134] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    118

    An orphan CANNOT murder his parents because, by definition, his or her parents are already dead...

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Stucki took the term out of context and asked a stupid question. I said:

    ... very much like the orphan who murdered his parents and then whined to the Court for leniency because he didn't have any parents. ~ Kick

    It's a qualified noun which obviously changes meaning when removed from its context. The noun "orphan" is qualified by the pronoun "who" contained in the modifying clause "who murdered his parents."

    Also, I never said it was his biological damn parents. He could have been an orphan and then murdered his adoptive parents. He would still be an orphan who murdered his parents. Stop assuming and making asses out of yourselves.

    So to recap:

    Y'all's biggest problems on this board are twofold:

    * taking stuff out of context

    * the habitual predisposition and routine propensity to assume facts not in evidence.

  135. [135] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "When you devolve every legal or political issue into a discussion about the commenter rather than the actual issue, you avoid honest debate."

    "You've got no [legal] argument so you resort to that BS."

    I couldn't have said it better myself.

    In fact, I have. About you.

    But at least you are able to recognize it and will perhaps someday be able to recognize it in yourself when it occurs and strive to do better.

    Even if you don't succeed at first, it's worth taking a crack at it. :D

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Once again, he cannot defend, so he deflects!

    You really are a sad and pathetic person, aren't you.. :eyeroll:

    I answered JL's point directly and unequivocally..

    Don't blame me because you have shit fer brains..

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    In fact, I have. About you.

    Yea, it's very noticeable..

    Russ has shit fer brains and Victoria has crack fer brains...

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump campaign fires back after Obama claims credit for economic boom
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-campaign-fires-back-after-obama-claims-credit-for-economic-boom

    OK.. Trump/America haters are on record as saying that the economy really isn't that good..

    NOW they are saying that the economy IS good, but Odumbo did it??

    ODUMBO!!??? They moron who said that 2.0 GDP is the new norm??? Odumbo?? The dipshit who said that jobs are NOT coming back???

    The frakin' dumb ass DENIED that the economy could EVER get that good again..

    And NOW Trump/America haters want to give dumb ass Odumbo the credit!??

    BBBBBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  139. [139] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    135

    This isn't about you, Don... because everything isn't about you, and I will go you one better: Nothing CW posts is about you, but that doesn't stop you one iota from trying to glom onto whatever you can scrounge from his commentaries and/or his comments section that you can turn into some kind of whine fest about your ever-present personal political crusade.

    Eff off, you ignorant lazy-ass wanna-be. Go attach yourself to your own website and leach off somebody who gives a shit. :D

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re: The planned Lynch/Clinton meeting on the tarmac...

    “I thought, you know, I don’t know whether I’m more offended that they think I’m crooked or that they think I’m stupid.”
    -Bill Clinton

    Oh, what's to know, Bubba...???

    Yer both...

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    Don't EVEN think I am going to share any of my space in TazerFace's (Victoria) head...

    I have things arranged very nicely with the large space she provides me... :D

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny...

    McCabe also lied, just like Stone allegedly did..

    Wonder why ya'all don't condemn him??

    Oh, that's right... McCabe is on YA'ALL'S side, so he gets a pass...

    :eyeroll:

  143. [143] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    137

    Russ has shit fer brains and Victoria has crack fer brains...

    So you're living rent free in shit and crack and referring to it as "luxury accommodations," but, hey, if I was an angry bald-headed fat bastard with man boobs living in a doublewide trailer in the swamps, I'd be just as desperate as you are to bullshit my way out of that pathetic reality. :)

  144. [144] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick is right!!! Her noun is "qualified"!!! We could only wish that she HERSELF were also, but alas . . .

  145. [145] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    142

    Funny...

    McCabe also lied, just like Stone allegedly did..

    Even funnier: You needn't keep whining that "Stone allegedly did" since he's now been convicted of multiple counts of perjury via slam-dunk proof including documents, eyewitness testimony, etc.

    Stone isn't an alleged liar; he's a criminally convicted liar... multiple counts. :)

  146. [146] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    144

    Kick is right!!! Her noun is "qualified"!!! We could only wish that she HERSELF were also, but alas . . .

    I must be doing something right; every troll on the board is falling all over their keyboards to insult me, but it's just like my old friend Stucki has been known to say:

    No one can insult you if you don't give a shit.
    ~ C. R. Stucki

    And to that I simply say: It's even harder to insult you if you don't give two shits. :)

  147. [147] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    When you're right you're right. And you are right it is not all about me.

    In fact, my comment was all about you.

    And it was not at all about CW.

    I didn't think you would succeed right away, but it appears you are not even trying.

    And yet at the same time you seem to be trying to be trying.

    Michale- it's all yours.

  148. [148] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    For those adults that may have came here for a political discussion instead of Springer, as none of you has said they would abandon the Dem presidential nominee or your congressional or senate candidate if they were to commit to run a small donor only campaign for the general election does this mean that you would not abandon the candidates for making this commitment?

    Note: This is also not about me. It is a reasonable question for an adult political discussion that is no different than whether people would vote for a Socialist or anything else about the candidates.

    Are there any adults here to provide a positive example for the children?

    Isn't time to give them a piece of pie and send them off to bed?

  149. [149] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    147

    When you're right you're right. And you are right it is not all about me.

    In fact, my comment was all about you.

    No, it wasn't, you ignorant shit. Are you so totally damn mentally deficient that you can't even recognize when you're discussing yourself and your prior effing comments you've made toward others?

    I couldn't have said it better myself.

    In fact, I have. About you. ~ Don Harris

    Allow me to dumb it down to your level in bold one-syllable words that even an obvious inveterate moron like yourself might understand:

    The word "I" that you used means "Don."
    Since you did write "I,"
    Your claim that your post is "all" on me
    Is false and a fake and a con.
    And not just that, you wrote it twice,
    Which makes you as dumb as a rock and
    As blind as a bat and all the blind mice.

    And it was not at all about CW.

    No shit, dipshit, but my comment was definitely about CW's commentaries and the comments that follow thereafter and how you scrounge from them both for something to glom onto in whatever way you can in order to turn one or the other or both into a whine or a bitchfest about how nobody has a good argument against your "One Demand" -- that is actually several demands -- and so they resort to BS. It's not rocket science, Don; you're like a broken damn record saying the same damn thing over and over while you glom and flail repetitively onto something not about you in order to make it about you and your personal crusade... like you've done to CW and everyone else on a regular basis at one point in time or the other... including me.

    So, CW and all the vote blue on matter who the only thing that is important is beating Trump commenters stop the bullshit and prove you really mean what you say by demanding the Democratic candidates declare to run a small donor only campaign to earn your votes and beat Trump.

    OR you can keep bullshitting yourselves, making pie jokes, snarky replies when you reply at all and try to hide in the bathroom from reality and lose to Trump again because you won't admit that backing the big money Democrats was and is the wrong choice. ~ Don Harris

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/02/12/democratic-realignment-continues-apace/#comment-153567

    So don't even try the utter asinine bullshit that you weren't talking about yourself and your prior comments regarding your personal crusade. Nobody else on this forum is that effing stupid... but you.

    So to recap:

    Eff off with your pathetic attempts to glom onto CW's and everyone else's words and maneuver every damn commentary and/or post into a discussion about your personal crusade, you stupid repetitive shit stain: Everything. Isn't. About. You.

  150. [150] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    148

    For those adults that may have came here for a political discussion instead of Springer, as none of you has said they would abandon the Dem presidential nominee or your congressional or senate candidate if they were to commit to run a small donor only campaign for the general election does this mean that you would not abandon the candidates for making this commitment?

    I would abandon Don Harris.

    Note: This is also not about me.

    Fact check: False.

    In conclusion: Stop quoting my words as a tool to peddle your ridiculous repetitive candy-ass bullshit on this forum... you effing lazy-ass inveterate muppet.

  151. [151] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    hey, don't debase the muppets by comparing them to dh!

    "nothing really matters, but moi!"
    ~m.p.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbNymZ7vqY

  152. [152] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    what hard evidence is there that mccabe perjured himself or committed any other crime? the DOJ never secured an indictment (much less a conviction) in multiple attempts, so it couldn't have been all that strong.

    i keep hoping that CW will come around to the pie point of view. but alas...

  153. [153] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I guess the last time Kick pulled the stick out of her ass her brain came out along with it and fell off before she put the stick back in.

  154. [154] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    151

    hey, don't debase the muppets by comparing them to dh!

    *laughs*

    Why, I would never!

    muppet
    noun
    [C] UK informal

    a stupid person

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/muppet

    I see what you did there ---> confused a "Muppet" with a "muppet." Must get that keyboard of yours fixed to keep that from happening. ;)

  155. [155] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    153

    It's beyond pathetic that you can't seem to grasp the obvious fact that you are the living embodiment of the brainless stick attempting to glom onto everyone else here.

    Bugger off, prat... cease and desist in nicking my words to solicit your failed political venture on this forum.

Comments for this article are closed.