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.

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. ;)

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...

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

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.

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.

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. :)

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. :)

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. :)

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:

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

“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...

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

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

Yea, it's very noticeable..

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

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..

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.

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

Once again, he cannot defend, so he deflects!

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

Also, Victoria cannot admit when she is wrong..

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

how do you think he got to be an orphan?

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

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. :)

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. :)

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.

AFTER the fact..

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

THAT is factual...

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.

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

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.

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.

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

You'll have ta forgive Victoria..

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

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

"Simple logic"
-Captain Spock

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.

how do you think he got to be an orphan?

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

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.

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..

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

Bill Clinton and Mark Rich..

Hypocrite....

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.

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

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

BBBBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Mark this day down, CW...

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. :)

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

How'z that subpoena for John Bolton going??

BBBBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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

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...

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..

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

“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...

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..

You know it!

:) XOXOXO

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.

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.

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.

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*

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

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...

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???

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...

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..

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

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.

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...

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? :)

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

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...

Mike: English, Spanish, French..

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

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

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....

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.

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..

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

Yep.. Exactly...

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.

Scratch that to read, BOTH could be factually accurate

One is not exclusive to the other..

BOTH could be true...

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..

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.

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.

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

ALWAYS....

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

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

Interesting read.. I even understood it...

Well, SOME of it, anyways.. :D

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

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

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

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.

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

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???