ChrisWeigant.com

Bloomberg Debate Will Be Pivotal

[ Posted Tuesday, February 18th, 2020 – 17:03 UTC ]

Today, Michael Bloomberg placed in double-digit support in his fourth national poll, just before the deadline. As a result, he will be on tomorrow's debate stage. This could be a pivotal moment for the entire Democratic presidential race, no matter what the outcome.

Up until now, Bloomberg has had the freedom to carpet-bomb the airwaves -- with little or no opposition -- in almost every state in the Union. No other candidate has had a such bottomless supply of money (Bloomberg, by some reports, has now spent over $400 million in advertising alone -- a staggering number, considering that it's only February). In most of the states Bloomberg's been up on the airwaves, viewers have seen zero opposition ads to counter any of his message. This has allowed him to make the best possible first impression on millions upon millions of voters. But that's going to change tomorrow night, because for the first time Bloomberg will have to face all his Democratic opponents on free television for a few hours. So while his ads may have paved the way, this will really be the first time many voters will get the chance to see Bloomberg live and in person, rather than in heavily-scripted ads.

I wrote last week that time was running out for the other candidates and the media to start seriously vetting Bloomberg by bringing up some of the less-rosy aspects of his political career. Thankfully, this began happening almost immediately (and in a big way) and now the attacks on Bloomberg are appearing on an almost-daily basis. All of these are previews of what we can expect to hear on tomorrow night's debate stage. While there may be some sniping between all the other candidates on stage, Bloomberg definitely now has the biggest target painted on him. How he deals with these attacks will be his real first impression to a whole lot of voters.

At this point, the only real question is which Democratic candidates will attack Bloomberg on which issues. There are some obvious avenues for just about all of them to do so, although there will probably also be a whole lot of overlap. Bernie Sanders, of course, will lead the argument off by denouncing Bloomberg as a "billionaire who is trying to buy an election." My guess is that this line will appear within the first five minutes of the debate, personally. It's the obvious attack line from Bernie, although it could be levelled by a number of the other candidates in varying forms as well, throughout the night.

Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren both have more personal cases to make against Bloomberg. Biden will doubtlessly point out that Barack Obama has not actually endorsed Bloomberg, no matter how many times Bloomberg puts him in his ads. Warren will almost certainly remind everyone that Bloomberg donated to Scott Brown's campaign in the election where she defeated the incumbent Republican senator. Both will serve to point out a very obvious fact that has not gotten much attention: Bloomberg used to be a Republican, and while he may have supported Democrats more recently, he used to donate to GOP politicians on a regular basis. That, obviously, is something Mike's ads have failed to so far mention.

It's less obvious how Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg will attack Bloomberg. Klobuchar will likely bring up those dozens of times he and his company were sued for sexism in the workplace, and how many of these resulted in non-disclosure agreements which are still in force. "Why won't you let these women speak?" is a question which will almost certainly be asked, if not by Klobuchar then surely by someone else. Mayor Pete may go after Bloomberg's New York City background and argue that his own Midwestern values will pull in more votes in the heartland. Or he may choose a different tack, it's hard to say.

What should be obvious is that there are a lot of avenues to attack Bloomberg's candidacy, and that many of them will arise tomorrow night. This, as I argued last week, is a good thing, because if it didn't happen then Bloomberg would have continued to enjoy a free pass in all those states he's been advertising in. He needs to be tested by fire, and that is precisely what is likely to happen tomorrow night.

How Bloomberg will react is an open question, precisely because he has not been in any of the previous debates. The other five candidates on stage now all have multiple debates under their belts, and have learned from their mistakes and sharpened their debate performances as a direct result. So far, Bloomberg has not -- this will be his first such appearance. However, unlike all the other self-financed campaigns by wealthy Democrats so far, Bloomberg is an actual politician. He has debated opponents before, back when he was running for mayor of New York City. And from all reports, he's been doing a whole lot of debate prep to get him ready for prime time.

From his previous debate performances, Bloomberg has one big strength and one big weakness. He does his homework, and can be expected to have facts and figures to cite to make his case. He has a sharp mind, and this should be on display tomorrow night. However, he also has a fairly prickly demeanor and can appear awfully elitist at times. Most billionaires who run large businesses aren't exactly used to people forcefully challenging their opinions, to put it mildly. Bloomberg is no exception, meaning that getting challenged is not something he's had to deal with much since he left the mayor's office. Will he appear condescending -- or worse -- tomorrow night? That could take a whole lot of the shine off his candidacy, in one night. Especially if all the other candidates gang up on him and launch a steady stream of attacks his way. He might be able to brush them off at the start, but by the end of the debate we'll have to see whether anyone can truly get under his skin or not.

Lest I be accused of being anti-Bloomberg, let me also state that Bloomberg could surprise everyone and dominate the debate in a positive way tomorrow night. At this point, we just don't know, because he has not been tested yet. While a negative debate performance might just halt his upward climb in the polls, a commanding performance could serve to accelerate it. If voters who have only seen Bloomberg in his introductory ads like what they see of him live on stage tomorrow, then he may head into Super Tuesday even stronger than he already now is. The race could even become a two-person contest of Mike versus Bernie (which some are already predicting).

The real point I'm making here is that we just don't know. We don't know how Bloomberg will do on a debate stage, and we don't know how the voters will react to whatever they see from him tomorrow night. Anything could happen, from a collapse in Bloomberg's support to him being launched all the way into the front of the race. Or anything in between, for that matter. Because he hasn't been in any of the debates yet, nobody really has an idea how good a debater Bloomberg will turn out to be. But one thing is for sure -- it's high time we all found out.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

97 Comments on “Bloomberg Debate Will Be Pivotal”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    None of the candidates have been tested yet.

    Every one of them has been given a free pass on whether they will commit to a small donor campaign for the general election in 2020.

    Who gives a shit whether Bloomberg or anyone impresses citizens with the same old bullshit better than the rest of the candidates bullshit?

    What kind of moron makes up their mind over a debate performance?

    Why do you keep pretending any of this is important?

    No matter what the candidates say in the debates or commercials or on the campaign trail, what matters is WHAT THEY DO.

    And what they do is take big money to finance their campaigns when they could easily finance their campaigns with small donors only.

    Why do you keep giving them a free pass on this?

    When are you going to step up and take a stand for democracy by informing citizens about the opportunity to demand small donor only candidates that could blow Trump and the Republicans out of the water by bringing many non-voters back into the voting booth to vote for small donor Dems?

    How can you say beating Trump is the most important thing and not explore every possible option that could help beat Trump, especially one that would also help get the big money out of politics and bring non-voters back into the voting booth to vote for Dems?

    It is unlikely that very many Dem voters that feel beating Trump is the most important thing would not vote for the Dem nominee (or their congress or senate candidates) if those candidate made the small donor commitment.

    Would you not vote for the Dem nominee if they made the small donor commitment?

    The small donor commitment is unlikely to hurt and very likely to help the Dem nominee and even down ballot candidates.

    This election is too important too risk losing to Trump again by repeating the mistakes of 2016.

    No guts, no glory.

    No risk, no reward.

    No One Demand again in 2020, Trump and no democracy in the future.

    There's no FUCKING way I'm giving you a free pass on that.

    You have been tested repeatedly since 2015.

    Isn't it time you finally got a passing grade?

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Still waiting for that biopic on warren g harding

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    Where is my effing story about President Roosevelt!?

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    also, why haven't you responded to my effing treatise on pie? if you fail to meet your journalistic responsibility to cover pie with something other than drizzled honey, you can expect to be held fully accountable.

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    What do you mean, "Which President Roosevelt"?

    Both of them, damn it!

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    I can vote already. :P

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC

    Russ,

    But they are impeachable offenses that got Trump impeached

    If that's what you have to tell yourself to make it thru your sad and pitiful existence, go for it.

    But, since they are not a "HIGH CRIME" nor are they a MISDEMEANOR, they are not impeachable offenses..

    This is FACT..

    Dumbocrats' faux impeachment coup was an illegitimate impeachment from the word GO..

    You can try to rewrite history all you want to try to remove the truth of what a dumpster fire of corruption Trump’s presidency has been,

    Of course, you would call it that.. But your opinion is based on bigotry and hate, so it's meaningless..

    Unfortunately the next gop Congress would be within their authority to redefine abortion as a high crime and impeach someone for it, but every other form of response is limited by the constitutional rights of a woman to control what goes on inside her body.

    Women HAD control of what goes on inside her body when she choose to take a dick inside her body..

    Now she has to live with the consequences..

    Why doesn't it surprise me that you support infanticide.. :^/

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC

    JL,

    which literally means they can at any time redefine any act they think is wrong as a high crime or misdemeanor. Rightly or wrongly, they have that authority.

    So, you are saying that that "sole power" includes rewriting or ignoring the Constitution to suit their political agenda??

    I don't think so, my friend..

    The House has the "sole power over impeachment" WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE US CONSTITUTION....

    And confines of the US CONSTITUTION clearly state that a President can ONLY be impeached over HIGH CRIMES or MISDEMEANORS...

    Since the articles the Dumbocrats chose weren't even crimes, let along HIGH crimes and misdemeanors, the faux impeachment coup was illegitimate from the word GO..

    These are the facts and they are factual whether you acknowledge the facts or not...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unfortunately the next gop Congress would be within their authority to redefine abortion as a high crime and impeach someone for it,

    And WHO will we have to thank for setting the precedence, dumb-ass???

    That's right. Yer venerable Dumbocrat Party...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mike Bloomberg Once Again Called Transgender People “It” And “Some Guy Wearing A Dress”

    Bloomberg suggested transgender rights would sink Democratic campaigns in comments recorded last year in New York. He’s tried to distance himself from similar comments he made in 2016.
    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/michael-bloomberg-2020-transgender-comments-video

    Yea...

    You Dumbocrats sure have a GREAT champion in Bloomberg... :smirk: :D

    But ya'all will vote for ANYONE against President Trump.. Even if it was a Josef Stalin or an Adolph Hitler..

    Such blinded bigotry & hate is so sad and pathetic....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bloomberg used to be a Republican, and while he may have supported Democrats more recently, he used to donate to GOP politicians on a regular basis

    And President Trump used to be a Democrat..

    What's yer point??

    How Bloomberg will react is an open question, precisely because he has not been in any of the previous debates.

    It's easy to predict how Bloomberg will react.. He's a billionaire with a huge chip on his shoulder because of his diminutive height. Unless they get him a box to stand on, the other candidates will literally tower over Bloomberg..

    Bloomberg is going to be Trump-mean and Trump-nasty. At least at first..

    It will be interesting to see if Bloomberg's follow thru is as good as President Trump's is...

    Will he press the attack?? Or will he fold like a cheap suit..

    THAT is going to be the question of the night..

    Lest I be accused of being anti-Bloomberg, let me also state that Bloomberg could surprise everyone and dominate the debate in a positive way tomorrow night.

    Sure would be nice if you could show that kind of fairness and reality-based demeanor when discussing President Trump..

    Yea, yea.. You did it once.. But that was an outlier..

    Anything could happen, from a collapse in Bloomberg's support to him being launched all the way into the front of the race. Or anything in between, for that matter.

    And then you go back to non-reality-based by ignoring all the bad things that Bloomberg has said about black people and women and transgender people...

    Yer actually entertaining the idea that a racist sexist old white man billionaire is the best the Democrat Party can produce...

    Has yer Party ***REALLY*** dropped that low??

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC

    JL,

    You have no idea whatsoever what I think it is.

    I know exactly what you think it is..

    You believe that Democrats have the right to make up laws as they go along while ignoring the US Constitution and then enforcing those made up laws by impeaching the President Of The United States using those made up non-existent laws..

    Howz dat??

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL

    My apologies..

    The last half of my comment #9 should have been addressed to you in a lot more polite of a manner...

    Had I realized it was you and not Russ, I would have dropped the last line..

    Again, my apologies..

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    “If your conversation during a presidential election is about some guy wearing a dress and whether he, she, or it can go to the locker room with their daughter, that’s not a winning formula for most people.

    And so you can understand where somebody like Trump comes from. You can understand when you look at the Democratic Party, they are so far left that two years ago there was nobody on their side who would take these positions, and today virtually all the candidates for president of the Democratic Party are so progressive. I don’t know what progressive means.”
    -Mike Bloomberg, March 2019

    THIS is the guy you Democrats want to be your champion??

    And, lest ya'all forget, this was not some long ago statement in Bloombergs past.. This is not some youthful indiscretion..

    This was less then a frakin' YEAR ago!!

    You people are so filled with hate and bigotry, ya'all will violate every principle and modicum of integrity ya have in order to take down President Trump??

    Where IS ya'all's red line in this?? What step would be a step too far in your hatred-filled pursuit of President Trump's demise??

    How low will ya'all go???

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Electrical Tape on Sign Tricked a Tesla Into Speeding in a Test
    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/electrical-tape-sign-tricked-tesla-090000044.html

    Hehehehehe

    I have to show my son this article.. He has a Tesla 3..

    And I have to admit. After driving it, it IS everything it's cracked up to be..

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    No problem, "dumas" heh. Anyhow the point you made is what I was hinting at in the first place. One check on a congressional absolute like impeachment is the potential of future congresses to abuse the precedent.

    you'd like it, it's about a prison break
    ~the shawshank redemption

  17. [17] 
    dsws wrote:

    I still think there's not enough money overall in electoral politics, because there's not enough participation. There are about 300M Americans, so $400M is about $1.33 each. If we all were involved, that amount of money would about cover bus fare to one meeting, or part of the refreshments at the event. It's only against a background of non-involvement that $400M is an oversized amount of campaign spending.

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    dsws (17)-
    That is a point that I have been trying to make.

    When I was working on the precursor to One Demand one slogan I used was:
    The problem isn't the money going into politics, the problem is the money that isn't.

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "What step would be a step too far in your hatred-filled pursuit of President Trump's demise?"

    Apparently running small donor campaigns.

    It's not how low they will go- it's how low they will stay.

    And while the Dem establishment promotes "hatred" of Trump for their base, the Dem establishment is just using the "hatred" to manipulate their base the same way Trump and the Republicans manipulate their base.

    It's part of the the divide and conquer strategy that the show is based on.

    You are as bad as CW if think the show is real.

    Perhaps that was a step too far.

    You are just a commenter and CW is supposed to be a journalist that provides reality-based commentary.

    CW is supposed to be smart enough to not be fooled by the show and expose the deceptions rather than perpetuate the lies.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are as bad as CW if think the show is real.

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..

    As far as being "as bad as CW"??

    Thanx.. That's quite a compliment..

    You are just a commenter and CW is supposed to be a journalist that provides reality-based commentary.

    CW is not a journalist.. A journalist reports the FACTS, where ever those facts take him, irregardless of any political spin or persuasion..

    CW is a political pundit.. An activist..

    CW is supposed to be smart enough to not be fooled by the show and expose the deceptions rather than perpetuate the lies.

    HHPTDS has a LOT on consequences..

    This is one of them..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fired Bloomberg worker claims company lied to her, coerced her into signing NDA

    Michael Bloomberg's company is facing a lawsuit from a woman claiming she was subjected to a hostile and discriminatory work environment when she returned from cancer treatment -- and was ultimately fired and pressured to sign a nondisclosure agreement days after she was hospitalized for mental illness.

    The suit comes amid mounting reports of workplace discrimination concerning the now-Democratic presidential candidate and his company.

    Laurie Evans, director of custom content for Bloomberg L.P.’s Business Week department, claims that she signed a separation agreement that included a release saying she would not sue after the company claimed her termination was part of the elimination of her entire division. Now she says the company lied to her.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-bloomberg-employee-claims-she-was-fired-made-to-sign-nda-during-bout-with-mental-illness

    THIS is the guy ya'all would vote for???

    I guess integrity and principles go out the window when one suffers from HHPTDS...

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The bottom line is that the Dems and Republicans have much more hatred for democracy and honesty than they do for each other.

    They are PARTNERS in the good cop/bad cop show they put on for the rubes. They may not like everything about their partners, but they remain loyal to their partners and the establishment that keeps them separated from the rubes they exploit safely behind the Thick Green Line.

    And if you buy into one side or the other you are one of the rubes.

    And if you LIE in support of one side or the other (even a lie of omission of other choices) then you are one of the enemies of Democracy and our country and have no right to claim to be providing a reality-based blog.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    One check on a congressional absolute like impeachment is the potential of future congresses to abuse the precedent.

    Apparently, not so daunting of a check since Democrats bypassed it with ease...

    Impeachment has become simply another tool in the Political Bias arsenal.. To be deployed on a whim over a simple policy disagreement..

    Between Democrats allow Obama to expand executive power to unheard of heights and Democrats getting rid of the filibuster for judges and Democrats now making impeachment just another policy dispute based process...???

    Democrats have royally scrooed up our political process beyond all belief.....

    And Democrats want Americans to give them MORE Power???

    Shirley, they jest...

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Not sure how you meant the walks like a duck thing.

    The show walks like the show and talks like the show.

    Too bad Rubio isn't running this time.

    "Rubes for Rubio" sounds like a great slogan. :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not sure how you meant the walks like a duck thing.

    In the realm of intangibles, reality is what the majority decides is reality..

    In the current reality, our politics are a two-party system that runs on money... Not integrity, not commitment.. Money.. Rhymes with honey..

    If we ever face an apocalyptic world (REVOLUTION, TERRA NOVA, etc etc) a new system will likely take it's place...

    Until that {sic} blessed event takes place, we're stuck in the reality we have, not the reality we wish it would be..

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats' Bernie Sanders problem: They are damned if they nominate him and damned if they don't

    If Bernie Sanders is nominated, a major political party would have put a socialist on a plausible path to the White House.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/18/democratic-primary-bernie-sanders-poses-real-problem-democrats-column/4795074002/

    Go ahead, people.. Nominate a nominal communist as the Democrat Party champion..

    I double dog DARE ya!! :D

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    One check on Congress and the president not doing what they are suppossed to do is citizens not voting for candidates that are not doing what they are supposed to do- like taking big money to run their campaigns.

    "This is America. There's not one single thing we can't do if we work together."
    -Joe Biden

    Citizens have a choice. They can act like real Americans and take action using the basic tools of democacy to improve our country and democracy by demanding small donor only candidates and enforce that demand with their votes or they can continue to buy into the show and spend their time battling with the rubes from the "other side" in places like WeCAN'Tia.

    Wake up. Wise up. Rise up.

  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    At least you admit that you have admitted defeat. :D

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    At least you admit that you have admitted defeat. :D

    If by "admitting defeat" you mean "accepting reality", then I bear that cross with honor.

    "I'll bear that cross with honor..
    Cuz freedom don't come free..."

    -Toby Keith, AMERICAN SOLDIER

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (26)-
    All candidates have pros and cons. Even a small donor only Bernie would not be perfect.

    But for some of the 40% that don't vote, a small donor only Bernie might be worth returning to the voting both as this would be a real change instead of the superficial small contribution campaign Bernie we have as the current choice. Just one in ten of those voters would add 6% to the vote for Dems, not to mention any of the voters that did not vote for president in 2016 and even some that vote for third parties because they want to vote but don't want to vote for the big money CMPs.

    Unfortunately for the country and democracy the Dems are more interested in preserving the status quo than preserving and improving our political process or beating Trump.

    It is fortunate for you and the Dem supporters here however, as you get to gloat about how the Dem voters have been fooled by the Dems establishment and they get to point out how you have been fooled by Trump and the Republicans.

    You are right that reality is what the majority decides it is.

    And Joe Biden seems to agree with me that citizens can decide to do anything and can do it.

    So citizens can decide to accept the current reality and surrender as you have done or take action to change the current reality to a better one.

    Wake up. Wise up. Rise up.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    What’s worse: choosing a socialist for your party’s presidential nominee, or taking the nomination away from one at a contested convention?

    With the presidential primaries underway, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. In a fragmented field featuring several ambitious, funded and hard-headed candidates, Sanders stands the best chance of leading the delegate chase by the time Democrats hold their convention in Milwaukee in mid-July.

    Why? His small-dollar donor army is stable, unmoved by news cycles and the ups and downs that befall other campaigns. The Bernie Bros stick through thick and thin, unlike, for instance, the fickle supporters of Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. Party rules require a candidate to win 15% of the vote in any state to qualify for pledged delegates, and Sanders’ is the only candidacy guaranteed to do that in almost every state.

    Again, go ahead Democrats..

    Nominate Bernie...

    Or take the nomination away from Bernie..

    I double dog dare ya!! :D

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    You are again correct.

    Freedom does not come free.

    You have to stand up and demand it and enforce that demand with your votes and your fortune (in small donor only contributions).

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is fortunate for you and the Dem supporters here however, as you get to gloat about how the Dem voters have been fooled by the Dems establishment and they get to point out how you have been fooled by Trump and the Republicans.

    I am not "fooled".. I understand your position..

    I just don't agree with it..

    But even separate from that, I am hardly "fooled" by the GOP..

    I am a TRUMP supporter, not necessarily a GOP supporter..

    I am a registered as an NPA (Independent) and President Trump governs as an Independent...

    So we're a perfect match.. :D

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bernie does not have a small DONOR army.

    Bernie has a small contribution army with many large donors.

    In this you are not correct.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have to stand up and demand it and enforce that demand with your votes and your fortune

    I really don't.. :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Sanders gets close but falls short, all hell could break loose. After the first ballot, the Democratic “superdelegates” (establishment party leaders and elected officials) get involved and could turn the convention toward a more establishment-friendly candidate.

    Can you imagine the absolute pandemonium if Sanders shows up in Milwaukee with the most delegates and leaves without his party’s nomination? All immediate chaos aside, a key political question emerges: Will Sanders supporters show up in November to support a Democrat who, in their eyes, stole the nomination?

    MC?? Yer a Bernie Bro??

    What's yer take?? If Bernie wins the primary by having the most delegates or highest popular vote but does not walk out with the nomination...

    How will you feel about that??

    Will you stay home in Nov???

    Or {gasp} vote Trump in a pique of fury??

    Enquiring minds want to know.. :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    This would be a dream scenario for President Trump and the Republicans. In 2016, although Hillary Clinton won more popular votes than Sanders during the primary, many of his supporters felt the nominating process was unfairly rigged against them. And then in the fall, one large study of voters found that 12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump, enough, at least on paper, to have swung the election away from Clinton in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

    If the Sanders people felt violated in 2016, this scenario would put that emotion on steroids in 2020.

    Aha!!!

    So, it was Bernie Bros that handed President Trump the election..

    NOT the Russians!!

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    All this time ya'all so hysterical about ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion..

    And it turns out, it was DEMOCRATS, in the guise of Bernie Bros, that made President Trump the winner.. :D

    Ya'all just HAVE to laugh at the irony. :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remarkably, all of Sanders’ serious opponents for the nomination have adopted some or all of his extreme positions, gifting Trump the ability to call them all socialists. But while a more pragmatic Democrat might be tempted to walk back the “insanity” in a general election campaign against Trump, Sanders will double and triple down.

    I tend to think it would be worse for Democrats to take the nomination away from Sanders, although choosing someone with such warm feelings for the Soviet Union seems downright crazy, too. But there’s no doubt that the energy in the Democratic Party is with Sanders and the young left-wing radicals who support him, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. To deny them would splinter their party and suck the energy right out of the Left’s fall campaign at a time when Trump’s supporters are already more excited to vote, according to Associated Press polling.

    Socialism is a harsh mistress. Democrats are damned if they indulge and damned if they don’t.

    No matter *WHAT* Democrats do vis a vis Bernie, they are scrooed.. Royally and utterly scrooed...

    Uncannily, President Trump has, ONCE AGAIN, maneuvered Democrats into a LOSE-LOSE situation..

    The genius of President Trump is truly a marvel to behold..

  39. [39] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Sanders and others sniping at Bloomberg over him "trying to buy the election" is pure sophistry, a simple case of one Jewish millionaire complaining that another Jewish millionaire has more money than he does.

    EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE GUYS is "trying to buy the election" (a nod here to Don "Quixote" Harris), the only difference being that the 'rich' one is trying to buy it with his own money, and the "poor" ones are trying their best to buy it with other people's (donors) money!

    Well I for one would infinitely prefer the guy who is NOT beholden to reciprocate to greedy donors to the economic detriment of us REALLY poor folks!! Any of you fumducker democratics smart enough to recognize the wisdom of that attitude??

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    @CRS

    I see your point...

    It's like denigrating mercenaries because they fight for money..

    When, in reality, ALL soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines fight for money..

    Or, more basically, they all get paid for fighting..

    Well I for one would infinitely prefer the guy who is NOT beholden to reciprocate to greedy donors to the economic detriment of us REALLY poor folks!!

    "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

    :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:
  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar's been gone for a while.. :(

    But I really miss Liz.. I hope she's not too depressed over Joe Biden...

  43. [43] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While 12% of 2016 Bernie primary voters voted for Trump in the general election, that is not why Hillary lost.

    In 2008 24% of Hillary primary voters voted for Bush in the general election, but that did not effect the outcome because Obama was a better candidate and had a different type of opponent.

    The main reason Hillary lost is because the Dems ran an establishment candidate against a false populist candidate in an anti-establishment election cycle.

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I miss Liz , also.

    I would really like to hear her opinion on Joe Biden saying that we can do One Demand if we work together.

    Where the fuck are you, Liz? :D

  45. [45] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I don't see a relevant difference between getting big money from someone else and using your own big money anymore than there is a relevant difference between taking 2000 dollars from one donor in one contribution or taking 2000 dollars from one donor in many small contributions.

    It is not a relevant difference- it is merely a distinction of no importance used to rationalize not taking action to stop it.

  46. [46] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Don Harris

    You REALLY don't see the difference between taking big donor's money (mostly de facto bribes) and spending your own money??? Like you think the guy spending his own money simply somehow MUST have greedy motives, because he otherwise wouldn't be running??

    Sweet Jesus, and I thought I was a cynic!!

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    18

    The problem isn't the money going into politics, the problem is the money that isn't.

    Then you should definitely stop vilifying those who contribute the individual federal maximum and the candidates who'd accept it. Necessity is the mother of invention.

    Lowering the federal maximum to the "magic number" you're advocating isn't likely to get more money into politics; it's actually likely to produce the exact opposite effect because many people just aren't interested in participating. We know this is a fact because it doesn't cost a thing to volunteer your time to campaigns all across the country yet only a very small portion of the electorate participate.

    Of course, some people have more "free time" to volunteer to political campaigns -- we all have the same time, of course, 24 hours a day -- but they don't or won't or can't do it... no different than participating with a monetary contribution.

    Why aren't more people participating when it's free? Thoughts to ponder.

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The point is that we don't know what the motives are of a candidate that uses their own big money or uses other people's big money.

    A small donor only candidate clearly represents the small donors.

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    19

    You are just a commenter and CW is supposed to be a journalist that provides reality-based commentary.

    Good point, Don. You too are just a commenter on another man's blog, and many of us cannot fathom why you incorrectly believe that the author owes you a thing.

    Also, it is no secret and quite abundantly clear why he writes:

    This blog's purpose is to present to the public one man's view of politics. ~ Chris Weigant

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/about-this-blog/

    In case that statement is confusing at all:

    * You are the public.
    * Chris is the man.

    Any questions?

  50. [50] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Don Harris [48]

    Au contraire. While we may not "know", it's pretty damn certain that the billionaire's motive is NOT to get rich and the (relatively) poor guy's motive IS hopes of getting rich.

    And no, we do NOT know that the small donor guy "represents small donors". We may assume that he's beholden to small donors, but he can still be first and foremost representing himself.

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    20

    CW is not a journalist.. A journalist reports the FACTS, where ever those facts take him, irregardless of any political spin or persuasion..

    Fact check: False

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Necessity is the mother of invention.

    But there is no necessity to take big money to run a campaign with candidates taking up to the federal maximum.

    Just 3% of presidentiail election cycle voters contributing an average of 100 dollars to a presidential campaign would total around 500 million dollars.

    Just 3% of presidential election cycle voters contributing 200 dollars to a presidential candidate and 2600 dollars in contributions of less than 200 dollars to many small donor only candidates instead of one presidential candidate as part of a maximum contribution would total 6.5 billion dollars for congressional and senate candidates.

    I am not at all concerned with the federal regulations and am not advocating lowering the federal regulations or that citizens can't contribute and candidates can't accept contributions up to the federal limit.

    I am simply saying that citizens can choose to not vote for candidates that take big money.

    You made a great argument there against something- but it wasn't One Demand.

    Why aren't people participating when it's free?

    Because when it's free you take what you're offered. When you pay for it you can demand that they offer you what you want.

    Freedom is not free.

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    22

    And if you LIE in support of one side or the other (even a lie of omission of other choices) then you are one of the enemies of Democracy and our country and have no right to claim to be providing a reality-based blog.

    You keep forgetting it's his reality.

    One person's craziness is another person's reality.
    ~ Tim Burton

  54. [54] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CRS-
    Yes, because most billionaires become billionaires by accident. Very few become billionaires because they are motivated to be rich. :D

  55. [55] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Yes. It's CW's blog.

    Yes. I am just a commenter.

    I have never made any other claim.

    It has nothing to do with CW owing me anything, it is merely a commenter commenting on the content of the blog.

    "Any questions?"

    Yeah.

    What makes you think arguing against things that One Demand is not and I am not does anything but expose the flaws in your arguments?

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    23

    Impeachment has become simply another tool in the Political Bias arsenal.. To be deployed on a whim over a simple policy disagreement..

    Simple policy disagreement?

    Trump's illegal freezing of nearly $400 million in aid to our allies in Ukraine in exchange for an announcement by its president into criminal investigation of his chief political rival isn't a "simple policy disagreement."

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's illegal freezing of nearly $400 million in aid to our allies in Ukraine in exchange for an announcement by its president into criminal investigation of his chief political rival isn't a "simple policy disagreement."

    "Amazing. Everything you said right there is wrong."
    -Luke Skywalker

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    33

    ... President Trump governs as an Independent...

    Fact check. False.

    Trump governs as a Republican because he's a Republican.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, cuz a Republican would pardon/commute a corrupt Democrat..

    Do you even THINK before you spew yer bullshit???

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or is your brain too crack-addled to bother with actually THINKING??

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why Bloomberg Can’t Beat Trump

    It’s hard to imagine a Democrat less able to win working class votes.
    https://prospect.org/politics/why-bloomberg-cannot-beat-trump/

    The progressive wing will stay home if an old white guy racist and sexist billionaire is the Dem's chosen champion...

    FACT CHECK: FACTUALLY ACCURATE

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    This should be a happy time for former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Right now, his ads are drowning the airwaves in the 14 states that will vote on Super Tuesday, March 3, while in most of those states, the campaigns of his non-billionaire opponents for the Democrats’ presidential nod have barely begun.

    As the campaign rolls on, however, Democratic voters will learn more about Bloomberg’s actual record. The mass incarceration in black and brown communities that resulted from police practices he put in place as mayor; the pre-emptive arrests he authorized of people who sought to protest the 2004 Republican convention in New York (for which the city had to pay hefty fines for false arrests); his defense of Wall Street bankers in the wake of the 2008 financial panic (he termed the fines levied against banks for misconduct “outrageous”)—these are just some of the many Bloomberg policies and positions that should give Democrats pause.

    Even so, some Democrats may be willing to overlook that Bloomberg governed and in many ways still thinks like a Republican because they believe he has the best chance to unseat President Donald Trump next November.

    But he doesn’t. Indeed, he can’t.

    It’s hard to imagine a Democrat less able to win working class votes—those of young black and Latino workers, and those of the white workers who swung the 2016 election to Trump. Minority voters are unlikely to look kindly on his mayoral record: intensifying stop-and-frisk, vetoing legislation that banned predatory lenders from doing business with the city, and opposing city legislation to raise the living wage. Now that he’s running for president he says he backs a minimum wage hike, but in 2014, he told Fox News, “I’ve always thought that this impetus to raise the minimum wage is one of the most misguided things we can do.”

    Bloomberg's is the Dim's Champion???

    REALLY???

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    For those white workers who pushed Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania into Trump’s column, Bloomberg is the personification of everything they can’t abide. On one hand, he’s perhaps America’s biggest-spending proponent of gun control and a prominent advocate for other socially liberal positions—those the right denigrates as heralding “the nanny state.” On the other, he’s been a constant advocate for deepening economic globalization, for the very trade deals many American workers believed decimated manufacturing here. To this very day, he remains, with Henry Kissinger, the American public figure most supportive of the Chinese regime.

    In each of the past two years, his company (Bloomberg LP) has hosted a conference highlighting China’s growing and indispensable role in the new world economy, and last year, the gathering was held in Beijing. Bloomberg has defended the Chinese Communist Party as quasi-democratic (“they listen to the public”) and when asked whether President Xi Jinping is a dictator, answered, “No, he has a constituency to answer to.”

    Bloomberg’s interest in China is also financial. As Josh Rogin has reported in The Washington Post, Bloomberg LP doesn’t only sell its terminals there, but through the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Bond Index, it enables U.S. investors to buy Chinese bonds. Last year, Rogin noted, “the index began a 20-month plan to support 364 Chinese firms by directing an estimated $150 billion into their bond offerings, including 159 [companies] controlled directly by the Chinese government.”

    That’s the same government that’s locked up at least one million Uighur men, women and children and seeks to eradicate Hong Kong’s democracy. This is the same government that subsidizes its steel industry, allowing it to undersell the American steel industry with devastating effect. It has done the same with solar panels, at a time the U.S. industry was gearing up. And on and on.

    Does anyone think that, if it comes down to a Trump-Bloomberg race, the president won’t attack Bloomberg’s ongoing role in boosting China’s industries, while touting his own economic nationalism? Does anyone think that Bloomberg could carry the industrial Midwest with a record like that?

    Bloomberg has consistently put China's interests before US interests..

    Ya'all whine and cry with your TRUMP IS A PUTIN PUPPET lies and bullshit.

    Yet yer ready to elect Xi's puppet..

    Funny how that is, eh??

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    39

    Sanders and others sniping at Bloomberg over him "trying to buy the election" is pure sophistry, a simple case of one Jewish millionaire complaining that another Jewish millionaire has more money than he does.

    I better check my temperature; if you remove the "Jewish" connotation, I actually agree with you, Stucki.

    EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE GUYS is "trying to buy the election" (a nod here to Don "Quixote" Harris), the only difference being that the 'rich' one is trying to buy it with his own money, and the "poor" ones are trying their best to buy it with other people's (donors) money!

    Correct.

    Well I for one would infinitely prefer the guy who is NOT beholden to reciprocate to greedy donors to the economic detriment of us REALLY poor folks!! Any of you fumducker democratics smart enough to recognize the wisdom of that attitude??

    I'm not a Democrat, but I agree with your general sentiment (not the expletive part). It obviously depends on the candidate, of course, and whether they're a candidate who lies about self-funding while actually raking it in.

    Money "is what it is" and can obviously be used for good or ill, but it's not remotely inherently "evil" in the way the "Berners" and Bernie keep insinuating for decades that it is.

    Case in point: Bernie Sanders has spent decades deriding Wall Street and the "millionaires and billionaires" while at the same time repeatedly referring to FDR as "one of the great presidents in the history of this country..."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3W9SthxzsI

    Franklin Roosevelt came from a family that was spectacularly wealthy, whose immigrant patriarch owned about 50 acres of what is now known as "Midtown Manhattan" -- you know Manhattan, where Wall Street is. Franklin himself was dependent upon his family's fortune and trust fund until the day his mother died... and he inherited it. Roosevelt was known as a politician who routinely won by outspending his opponents 5-to-1 for a job that paid practically nothing.

    So spare me the bitching about "millionaires and billionaires" and demonizing those who come from wealth when your idol is the living embodiment of what you're deriding. Judge them by their deeds and misdeeds, not their bank accounts. :)

  65. [65] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Don Harris [54]

    Disagree again. Most billionaires do NOT become billionaires by being lucky NOR by being "motivated to be rich". Most billionaires become so by being damn talented. Think Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Cuban, Michael Dell, etc etc etc.

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    48

    The point is that we don't know what the motives are of a candidate that uses their own big money or uses other people's big money.

    So you can obviously see why it's ridiculous to lump them in categories and vilify them... like you do.

    Nice breakthrough.

    A small donor only candidate clearly represents the small donors.

    Not necessarily, though. There are many other ways besides money in which a candidate can receive a campaign contribution... another problem with your purity test. Also, no one exists that meets your "small donor" purity test, and until that happens, a person that doesn't exist in the universe doesn't "clearly represent" anybody... just to state the clearly obvious.

  67. [67] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [64]

    Yeh, have somebody feel your forehead, you gotta be delerious.

    Re last para, hope you don't think I'm "bitching about (or 'deriding') millionaires and billionaires". If you have that impression, we're not understanding each other. An I sincerely hop you don't think Trump is my idol. I despise and disrespect Trump. I call you out on claiming he's somehow not entitled to be pres, by virtue of collusion and/or other bogus transgressions based on your partisan political ideology, but defending him against bogus shit does NOT translate to me liking him, much less idolizing him.

  68. [68] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    50

    I checked my temperature and decided this just must be one of those days you and I agree.

    Au contraire. While we may not "know", it's pretty damn certain that the billionaire's motive is NOT to get rich and the (relatively) poor guy's motive IS hopes of getting rich.

    Factor in powerful, though, Stucki.

    And no, we do NOT know that the small donor guy "represents small donors". We may assume that he's beholden to small donors, but he can still be first and foremost representing himself.

    Oh, you did just factor in powerful. Good form!

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    52

    But there is no necessity to take big money to run a campaign with candidates taking up to the federal maximum.

    Well then, I regret to inform you that you don't decide what "big money" is and isn't. As I pretty much outlined above, you're not the man, and it's ridiculous on it's face that you seem to believe you are.

    I am not at all concerned with the federal regulations and am not advocating lowering the federal regulations or that citizens can't contribute and candidates can't accept contributions up to the federal limit.

    Bullshit. You vilify those who do with labels and advocate not voting for them... which means not voting for the vast majority of Americans where write-ins aren't even counted and/or aren't even considered viable candidates.

    I am simply saying that citizens can choose to not vote for candidates that take big money.

    And therein lies your problem, Don: People don't need your political venture in order to not vote. As you already pointed out, a whole bunch of them are already not doing it... without your help. No one needs your help to not vote.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michael Conway Trump's Twitter attacks on Judge Amy Berman Jackson show his disrespect for the rule of law

    But the repeated insults and attempts to interfere may not sit well with the Supreme Court, which can yet limit his authority to flout norms.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-twitter-attacks-judge-amy-berman-jackson-show-his-ncna1138406

    You mean, like Odumbo did at his SOTU speech???

    "Oh.. er.. well.. uh... THAT'S different!!!"
    -Sputtering Moronic Trump/America Haters

    :eyeroll:

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    55

    Yes. I am just a commenter.

    A commenter who is soliciting your political venture on his website via repeatedly trolling and who has stated on more than one occasion that CW has a responsibility to inform the public about what you're soliciting/advocating.

    I have never made any other claim.

    False. See above.

    It has nothing to do with CW owing me anything, it is merely a commenter commenting on the content of the blog.

    You're contradicting yourself now. See above.

    What makes you think arguing against things that One Demand is not and I am not does anything but expose the flaws in your arguments?

    I am very much like Chris Weigant in that I don't have any flaws in my arguments, dipshit; that's my reality. :)

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    59

    Yea, cuz a Republican would pardon/commute a corrupt Democrat..

    And yet, a Republican just did that very thing.

    Do you even THINK before you spew yer bullshit???

    Said the dipshit insisting the Republican who just pardoned a Democrat isn't a Republican.

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    And yet, a Republican just did that very thing.

    Because he is NOT governing as a Republican, shit fer brains

    He is governing as an Independent..

    Said the dipshit insisting the Republican who just pardoned a Democrat isn't a Republican

    And once again you lie your ass off and make claims of something I never said..

    So, I ask again.

    Do you even THINK before you spew yer bullshit??

    Or is your crack-addled brain to fried to think?

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    60

    Or is your brain too crack-addled to bother with actually THINKING??

    Take a good long look around you. You're a fat, bald, uneducated, penniless, angry bastard with an easily searchable public and criminal record... and for whatever reason I cannot fathom, you seem to honestly believe that others on this blog are concerned with your personal opinion of others.

    That is hysterical beyond measure. :)

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    65

    Disagree again. Most billionaires do NOT become billionaires by being lucky NOR by being "motivated to be rich". Most billionaires become so by being damn talented. Think Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Cuban, Michael Dell, etc etc etc.

    The fact is, Stucki is correct here. Most billionaires are self-made. Ditto for most millionaires. It wasn't always that way in America, but it is now. :)

  76. [76] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    64

    Yeh, have somebody feel your forehead, you gotta be delerious.

    *laughs*

    Re last para, hope you don't think I'm "bitching about (or 'deriding') millionaires and billionaires".

    Oh, I think I thought it was obvious that I meant the guy who's vilified "millionaires and billionaires" for nigh on four decades:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69w_CXFR7tE

    If you have that impression, we're not understanding each other.

    I don't whatsoever have that impression; I was quoting Bernie Sanders.

    An I sincerely hop you don't think Trump is my idol.

    No one who reads your posts could possibly have that impression since you've "tore him a new one" on a quite regular basis.

    I despise and disrespect Trump.

    On a spectacular regular basis.

    I call you out on claiming he's somehow not entitled to be pres, by virtue of collusion and/or other bogus transgressions based on your partisan political ideology, but defending him against bogus shit does NOT translate to me liking him, much less idolizing him.

    I never said Trump wasn't "entitled" to be president, I was merely stating that he committed several crimes in the doing it, and he did... and he knows it and therefore had to take steps to obstruct the investigation of it... crimes to conceal crimes. The facts will emerge; they always do.

    Also, I don't have an ideology that fits into either one side or the other... exactly why I'm neither. :)

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT to [76]

    Did it again.

    Above is in response to [67], Stucki.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is hysterical beyond measure. :)

    And yet, it's ALL bullshit and you have NO FACTS to support your bullshit claims.. :D

    Not a single solitary FACT whatsoever...

    Funny how that is ALWAYS the case with you..

    Another aspect of yer crack-addled brain..

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    No one who reads your posts could possibly have that impression since you've "tore him a new one" on a quite regular basis.

    Awwwww the crack whore found herself a new sugar daddy..

    Iddn't dat speeshal... :D

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats Still Haven’t Come to Terms with 2016

    Their excuses for Hillary Clinton’s loss are familiar and convenient — but don’t pass the smell test.
    In an otherwise excellent Politico article advising Democrats how to avoid the fate of 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, former Obama staffer Dan Pfeiffer offers his team some self-soothing revisionism regarding the 2016 election:

    When all is said and done, the 2016 election might end up being a black-swan event. The combination of Russian interference, Comey intervention and multiple third-party candidates make that election a hard one to extract guidance from.

    Guess what? Every election is conducted under a unique set of circumstances. Every election is a black-swan event. But that doesn’t mean you should rewrite history to excuse your side’s performance.

    The so-called “Comey intervention” has become a security blanket for Democrats unable to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton was merely acting in the same reckless and corrupt manner she always had. In reality, Democrats were incensed that the FBI director didn’t bury evidence pertaining to an ongoing congressional investigation of their preferred candidate. They had demanded Comey operate as a political actor even before Trump won.
    https://tinyurl.com/wt9l3tj

    Democrats are repeating a LOT of the mistakes from 2016 plus a whole plethora of NEW ones..

    ANYONE who thinks that Democrats will actually take the White House is living in a dream world..

    It's really THAT simple..

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Comey, a bureaucrat who likely had zero interest in angering the consensus front-runner for the presidency, had no choice but to inform Congress of this evidence. Not only because Department of Justice rules stipulate that relevant congressional committees should be apprised of new evidence when it appears, but because Comey had promised Congress after letting Clinton off the hook in July 2016 that he would notify it if new evidence emerged.

    New evidence did emerge, and there was nothing Comey could do about it. A high-level Hillary staffer, Huma Abedin, was in possession of classified emails that should have been handed over to the FBI. Moreover, her high-profile husband, Anthony Weiner, then under investigation for carrying on with an underaged girl, had access to those emails. If Comey had kept silent and that story had leaked out in bits and pieces later, it surely would have destroyed his career (and badly damaged Clinton).

    What’s more, it takes some chutzpah to claim Comey doomed Clinton by revealing that story when he had previously intervened in the campaign to save her from becoming the first major-party presidential candidate to have to run under an indictment. The mass of evidence in the broader Clinton email scandal showed, at the very least, that her staff had engaged in lawlessness and obstructed justice in ways that make the actions of George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn look piddling in contrast.

    As I said before.. When it's YA'ALL'S guys, everything is great and legal and perfect as the driven snow.

    When it's TRUMP'S guys???

    It's an execution...

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    73

    Because he is NOT governing as a Republican, shit fer brains

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it through your sad and pathetic existence of entire shit.

    He is governing as an Independent..

    He is governing as a Republican because he is a Republican. The GOP kicked out a Republican who couldn't pass their purity test; that guy is governing as an Independent.

    If you think giving a pardon to a Democrat somehow means you're "governing as an Independent" when you oppose abortion, you attach yourself to the "evangelical" GOP, you've given tax cuts that benefit primarily corporations moreso than the middle class, you're attempting to kill the ACA without abatement, your budget proposes cuts to Medicaid and Medicare, you've appointed two far-right justices to the Supreme Court, and you've appointed a multitude of far-right Republicans to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench, then nothing can help your willful ignorance.

    And once again you lie your ass off and make claims of something I never said..

    Said the guy who lies his ample ass off and makes up fake quotes and claims that nobody on this board ever said. Besides, did I really do that? Nope. You're just splitting hairs about semantics like you always do.

    So, I ask again.

    Well, you are nothing if not terminally repetitive as well as infinitely ignorant and totally delusional if you think I give a shit about your personal opinion of me.

    Your personal opinion of those you regularly denigrate here in Weigantia doesn't change the fact that we are all bad-ass exceptional human beings. :)

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whoopi Goldberg confronts AOC over comments about older Democrats: 'Bothered the hell out of me'
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/whoopi-goldberg-aoc-pelosi-dems

    Rut Roh..

    Do NOT make Guinan angry..

    You wouldn't like Guinan when she's angry...

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    78

    And yet, it's ALL bullshit and you have NO FACTS to support your bullshit claims.. :D

    I have the facts you supplied on this website among other resources. Everyone on Earth does. Nothing changes that reality or your reality.

    Those are the facts.

    Not a single solitary FACT whatsoever...

    Multiple facts are definitely not solitary.

    You will definitely always have my pity because of your pathetic reality; however, I'm not among those who give two shits regarding what Bubba in his doublewise trailer thinks about me personally, and if anyone else here does, I can assure this lying sack of shit isn't worth a scintilla of your concern.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have the facts you supplied on this website among other resources. Everyone on Earth does. Nothing changes that reality or your reality.

    Those are the facts.

    Bullshit..

    As usual, you lie like crazy..

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Always catching the crack whore in a lie...

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just like when you claimed I said that Trump was not a Republican..

    I said nothing of the sort...

    As usual, you are full of shit..

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    67

    I call you out on claiming he's somehow not entitled to be pres, by virtue of collusion and/or other bogus transgressions based on your partisan political ideology, but defending him against bogus shit does NOT translate to me liking him, much less idolizing him.

    Just to clarify further, Stucki, I was quoting Bernie Sanders vilifying "millionaires and billionaires" just for having money and his constant whining about "buying an election" when on the other hand Bernie's idol is Franklin D. Roosevelt... a multi-millionaire during the Depression (who would be a billionaire today, adjusted for inflation) who regularly outspent his opponents by massive amounts and who couldn't pass Bernie's purity test to save his life. It is amazing to me that Bernie can't connect the dots that his idol Roosevelt is the poster boy for that which he's demonized for decades.

    It's mind-boggling in its duplicity.

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just to clarify further, Stucki, I was quoting Bernie Sanders vilifying "millionaires and billionaires" just for having money

    Why do you find that so surprising??

    You Democrats have been doing that since before Weigantia was founded..

    It's a STAPLE of the Democrat Party...

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    88

    Why do you find that so surprising??

    I never said I found it so surprising.

    You Democrats have been doing that since before Weigantia was founded..

    You need to get over your ignorant obsession with Democrats. I'm not a Democrat, and Bernie isn't a Democrat... probably about the only thing we have in common.

    It's a STAPLE of the Democrat Party...

    No, it is not. Throughout history, the Democratic Party has routinely had wealthy individuals and those from some of America's wealthiest families as leaders of their Party:

    Thomas Jefferson
    Andrew Jackson
    James Madison
    Lyndon Johnson
    Franklin Roosevelt
    John Kennedy

    But then, you're not a "history buff" by your own admission... so it's obvious why you'd continue to post bullshit that is spectacularly stupid.

  90. [90] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (66,69,71)-
    Too many dubious conclusions, misinterpretations and nonsense to bother with a point to point rebuttal. It seems your only purpose and your comments are just making stuff up and misinterpreting things to keep yourself entertained.

    If you ever want to have an adult political discussion I will participate.

    Until then you will just have keep entertaining yourself with Michale or playing with whatever you find in your diaper.

    Though you really should stop spreading it around here as you did in 66, 69 and 71.

  91. [91] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Yea, cuz a Republican would pardon/commute a corrupt Democrat..

    Probably not...

    But there is no doubt that a CORRUPT Republican would pardon/commute a CORRUPT Democrat — because one just did!

    You left out the most important factor that bonded the two, I corrected it for you.

    The progressive wing will stay home if an old white guy racist and sexist billionaire is the Dem's chosen champion...

    Well, the conservative wing rushes to support/worship the old white guy racist, sexist, and xenophobic “wanna-be-billionaire” compromised con man that is the Repugs chosen champion!

    I love that you are arguing that working class Democrats won’t relate to a billionaire, yet white trash Republicans believe Trump is one of them and has their backs!

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    86

    Just like when you claimed I said that Trump was not a Republican..

    I said nothing of the sort...

    Nothing of the sort?

    [59] Michale wrote:

    Yea, cuz a Republican would pardon/commute a corrupt Democrat..

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/02/18/bloomberg-debate-will-be-pivotal/#comment-153936

    [Permalink] [Wednesday, February 19th, 2020 at 10:51 UTC]

    You mean that wasn't you who implied in your post that a Republican wouldn't pardon/commute a corrupt Democrat? I got bad news for you, dumb-ass, that is definitely not the "nothing of the sort" that you're claiming it to be.

  93. [93] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    90

    Too many dubious conclusions, misinterpretations and nonsense to bother with a point to point rebuttal. It seems your only purpose and your comments are just making stuff up and misinterpreting things to keep yourself entertained.

    I accept your concession. I said nothing that misrepresented anything, and for the record, you are not the least bit entertaining... far from it.

    Do you deny that you refer to Democrats and Republicans as "big money" and infer that those who won't meet your purity test aren't real Americans? Didn't you refer to this website as "WeCAN'Tia"? Do you read your own posts? Check [27] because it's you doing exactly what I said in the posts you're whining about.

    If you ever want to have an adult political discussion I will participate.

    Your discussions don't qualify as either "adult" or "political." I would characterize them as "trolling," "soliciting," and "elementary."

    Until then you will just have keep entertaining yourself with Michale or playing with whatever you find in your diaper.

    Like I said, "elementary."

    Though you really should stop spreading it around here as you did in 66, 69 and 71.

    So you're seemingly denying that you've claimed repeatedly that it was Chris Weigant's responsibility to inform people about your political venture, and that's just bullshit. You've trolled the entire forum for years with this shit.

  94. [94] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    91

    Well, the conservative wing rushes to support/worship the old white guy racist, sexist, and xenophobic “wanna-be-billionaire” compromised con man that is the Repugs chosen champion!

    And make excuses for Trump's every move! Meanwhile, they're rushing to take down Bloomberg by disparaging him for that which they praise in Trump... all the while they are planning to vote for Bernie Sanders in South Carolina where there are open primaries and the GOP has cancelled democracy so Hair Dick Tater won't have to face a challenger and potentially look bad.

    I love that you are arguing that working class Democrats won’t relate to a billionaire, yet white trash Republicans believe Trump is one of them and has their backs!

    They're afraid of Bloomberg. They want to run against Bernie Sanders. You know it. :)

  95. [95] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    “Rod Blagojevich did not sell the Senate seat. He served 8 years in prison, with many remaining,” Trump wrote in a tweet tagging Fox News. “Thank you to @LisaMarieBoothe who really ‘gets’ what’s going on!”

    Blagojevich served 8 years of a 14 year sentence. Trump is correct: Rod did not sell the Senate seat...because he got busted before he could close the deal. And this is part of the reason why Trump wanted to commute his sentence — to send the message that simply attempting to commit a crime is not that big of a deal, especially if you aren’t successful.

    Trump has been attempting to normalize corruption — to paint it as “not that big of a deal” — since before he took office! He has convinced Republicans that corruption is not big enough of a deal that it warrants removing him from office; that is for sure!

  96. [96] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    ....It's never-ending with these crooks, Trump and the entire GOP should taken out and shot.

    https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/donald-trump-offered-julian-assange-a-pardon-if-he-denied-russia-link-to-hack/ar-BB10aC9G?ocid=spartandhp

    LL&P

  97. [97] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
Comments for this article are closed.