ChrisWeigant.com

Final Tuesday Predictions?

[ Posted Tuesday, March 17th, 2020 – 14:54 UTC ]

Conventional wisdom, when it comes to politics, is usually proven wrong. If you don't believe me, go look at anything anyone was saying about the Democratic primaries about a month or two ago. The primary season was going to be endless. It was going to go right down to the wire. A brokered convention was a real possibility, or perhaps even inevitable. There were so many candidates in the field that the vote would be impossibly split. The candidates were all so well-funded that they'd stay in the race for a very long time. Bernie was too strong and would sweep everything. Amy was surging. Pete was surging. The nomination would surely come down to the last primaries in June.

Well, here we are on St. Patrick's Day (which reminds me: Beannachtaí na Féile Pádraig! everyone...) and the race may be over tonight. Joe Biden, once given up for dead, has all but secured the nomination, and the only real question remaining is when Bernie Sanders is going to drop out -- tonight, or perhaps later on? That's a stunning turnabout in political conventional wisdom in a very short period of time.

But since it isn't over quite yet, we've got to go through the motions. First, an update. Last week, I called six races on Tuesday and one on Friday. My Tuesday predictions turned out to be mostly right, as Bernie Sanders did win one state out of six. Unfortunately for me, I picked the wrong state -- he won North Dakota, but lost Washington. That gives me 4-for-6 for the night. I then failed to realize that the Northern Mariana Islands still had a caucus, and called that one for Biden. Bernie took it instead. So for the week that puts me at only 4-for-7. So let's check the big board...

Total correct 2020 primary picks so far: 27 for 40 -- 68%.

Heading downward, it seems. Oh, I should mention as a footnote that there are still no announced results from Democrats Abroad, so I've got one prediction still out there hanging in the breeze. But even so, if everything wraps up tonight, it'll be one of the shortest primary prediction seasons ever. Normally, I've made predictions for at least 50 or 60 races throughout the course of the season, but this time it's looking like that final number will be less than 45.

Looking forward, we have only three primaries to call today instead of four, since the Ohio governor successfully shut down voting due to the coronavirus threat. Ohio's primary will be postponed until much later, which likely means it will be irrelevant when it happens. This leaves us with three big ones to call tonight.

This Sunday we saw a rather bizarre debate between Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. The debate itself wasn't the bizarre part, though, it was the circumstances. In the midst of the coronavirus crisis, for what is reportedly the first time since Richard Nixon debated John F. Kennedy, there was no live audience in the studio. The two candidates were positioned six feet apart, and instead of shaking hands at the start, they bumped elbows. The coronavirus pandemic has dominated the news for the past few weeks, and it also dominated the debate, overshadowing everything else that was being discussed. It was interesting to see the first one-on-one debate in the Democratic primary cycle, but at the end of the night, I seriously doubt anyone's mind was changed by what went on. Neither candidate had a defining moment, good or bad. And Bernie's last real hope was that Biden somehow self-immolated, which did not actually happen.

So even after the first one-on-one debate, little changed in the lineup for today's primaries. Except, of course, that Ohio pulled out and will not be voting until much later. But politically, the races are all pretty easy to call, so this will be a very short column.

 

Arizona

If the race had been closer up until now, Bernie Sanders might have had a real shot at winning Arizona. He's doing much better with Latino voters than Joe Biden, and there are a lot of Latino voters in Arizona.

However, it's pretty clear that Bernie's so far back that Biden is going to eclipse him here, at least if the polling is any indication. Biden will win Arizona, but by the time he does nobody's going to care. Arizona is further west than the other two (meaning their polls close later), and the other two are going to have already provided the main storyline, so Arizona will be treated as an afterthought.

 

Florida

This is where the biggest news is going to come from. Florida is going to go overwhelmingly for Joe Biden. Bernie probably never had much of a chance here, since the voters are older and skew heavily towards Biden anyway. Add to that Bernie's decision to say nice things about Fidel Castro, and he torpedoed any chance of picking up the Florida Latino vote (which is a lot different than Latinos elsewhere, it bears pointing out). When people look back at this primary election cycle, Florida is going to be seen as the state which killed off any remaining chance Bernie had of winning. That's going to be the big story tonight, guaranteed.

 

Illinois

Illinois is also likely to go for Biden in a big way. Bernie may wait until the Illinois vote is called to speak, but then again he may offer up his concession speech before the polls close in the Land of Lincoln, knowing it is not going to bring him any good news. But whenever Sanders chooses to speak, Illinois will wind up in the Biden column.

 

Conclusions

My guess is that Bernie is going to throw in the towel tonight. He'll give his final speech as a candidate and congratulate Joe Biden as the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. He could hang on if he wanted to (he's got plenty of campaign cash left), but my guess is that he's not going to enjoy leading a hopeless campaign from this point on, and so he'll take the hint and gracefully bow out.

In a way, this loss will be even more disappointing for his supporters than 2016. Back then, he was close enough to keep going for the entire campaign. This time, the nomination is already so far out of reach that it would be pointless to continue. But last time, Bernie was never in the lead -- Hillary led from start to finish, so Bernie was always the underdog. This time, however, Bernie had one brief shining moment as the frontrunner, which ended abruptly when the votes were counted in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday. That, in a way, is tougher. This time around, it was almost within reach and then snatched away. Bernie's supporters had their hopes raised extremely high, and then they were dashed to the ground. That was never really as true four years ago.

I'm going to end by making the meta-prediction that this will be the final one of these columns for the 2020 presidential primary season. If Bernie soldiers on after tonight, then I'll play along and continue to call the races as they happen. My rules have always been to continue calling races up until either one candidate wins the magic number of delegates to secure the nomination or until all the candidates but one withdraw from the race. Which is where I expect this night to end, with Joe Biden crowned the Democratic nominee to take on Donald Trump in November.

 

[Previous states' picks:]

[AL] [American Samoa] [AR] [CA] [CO] [Democrats Abroad] [IA] [ID] [ME] [MA] [MI] [MN] [MS] [MO] [NH] [NV] [NC] [ND] [Northern Mariana Islands] [OK] [TN] [TX] [SC] [UT] [VT] [VA] [WA]

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

133 Comments on “Final Tuesday Predictions?”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I guess in times of crisis, the cream can sometimes rise to the top, eh?

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC,

    JL,

    As for the trope that racism is over... tell that to the family of heather heyer

    Heather Hayer had NOTHING to do with racism.. Heyer was a terrorist or a terrorist groupie.. Either way, her removal from the gene pool is a PLUS for society.. Much in the same way that Michael Brown's and Trayvon Martin's removal was a GOOD thing..

    Your claim that Hayer's removal has something to do with racism simply illustrates the problem of bullshit movies like ATTK amid bogus claims of racism like Jussie Smollett, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin and Tawana Brawley...

    With the exception of Affirmative Action, institutionalized racism is dead in the US.. It died the day we elected a black man as POTUS...

    Other than both being court dramas, the two films have too little in common to be compared.

    Except the novels they were based on were both written by the same author..

    Other than that.. Yea.. NOTHING in common.. :^/

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    This time around, it was almost within reach and then snatched away.

    Was it, really? I mean, could anyone really say that the nomination of Sanders was within reach before the results of the South Carolina primary, the first contest that would be representative of the country as a whole?

    If things go the way you predict, then I'll be looking for Senator Sanders to begin the process of uniting - and, yes, even energizing - the Democratic party and all of its eligible voters.

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess in times of crisis, the cream can sometimes rise to the top, eh?

    Yea... "cream"....

    http://sjfm.us/pics/FrontRunner.jpg

    As in "Joe Biden is gonna get CREAMED by President Trump in November"...

    :D

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [I remain hopeful that comments like #2 will be completely ignored, if not eliminated, from this space.]

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Was it, really? I mean, could anyone really say that the nomination of Sanders was within reach before the results of the South Carolina primary, the first contest that would be representative of the country as a whole?

    Really???

    In SC, black Americans make up 27%...

    In the US black Americans make up 13%...

    You might want to re-state your claim..

    And yes.. Not only could people really say that Bernie had a shot, many Weigantians DID say that, not only did Bernie have a shot... They said he would likely win.. A wager was all but conceded.. :D

    If things go the way you predict, then I'll be looking for Senator Sanders to begin the process of uniting - and, yes, even energizing - the Democratic party and all of its eligible voters.

    Good luck with that..

    Perhaps 2016 might ring some bells...??? :D

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, Michale, Hillary Clinton is no Joe Biden. Not on her best day.

    So, I'd advise against a simple comparison to 2016.

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: My Tuesday predictions turned out to be mostly right, as Bernie Sanders did win one state out of six. Unfortunately for me, I picked the wrong state -- he won North Dakota.

    Future hint: North Dakota was a stupid caucus. Wyoming will be a stupid caucus. :)

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: I then failed to realize that the Northern Mariana Islands still had a caucus, and called that one for Biden.

    Oh... should have read further before posting [8]. Exactly!

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Which is where I expect this night to end, with Joe Biden crowned the Democratic nominee to take on Donald Trump in November.

    You think Bernie will quit? He won't. He enjoys the campaign contributions. Enough said.

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (1)-
    That was sarcasm, right? :D

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How do you mean?

  13. [13] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [3] -

    That was indeed what people were saying before SC voted. Like I said, conventional wisdom has swung wildly this primary season. At the time, the only challenger considered with a chance to beat Bernie was Pete, who had won IA and come close in NH. Biden wasn't even in the running, according to the pundits at the time. The prevailing storyline was: "Can anyone stop Bernie?"

    And SC isn't representative of the country as a whole, really. It's representative of the South, but not the whole country. For example: there are now more Latino voters than there are African-American. But SC didn't represent that...

    Michale [6] -

    OMG, I'm agreeing with you (on SC). A clear sign of the impending apocalypse!

    LizM [7] -

    And this time, Dem voters know full well that Trump could win. That's another big difference.

    It'll be closer to 2018 than 2016, that's my guess at any rate. The 'burbs will deliver the win for Biden, across the country, just like they delivered the House to Pelosi.

    Kick [8] -

    Yeah, but it was very primary-like. A primacaucus, if you will. Heh.

    [10] -

    Yeah, I do think Bernie'll quit. Mostly because there is no chance of manufacturing any sort of upset in the next two or three weeks. If there were states he thought he had a chance in voting next Tuesday, then I might think differently, but there just aren't. I think Bernie has his eyes clearly on the goal, which is to beat Trump. Which, as I said, I think he'll announce either tonight or possibly tomorrow morning.

    OK, gotta go check the returns now...

    -CW

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I know they were saying it! But, did they have any basis to believe it!!!

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Obviously, I'll have to work on making myself clear around here.

    For instance, I understood that the nomination was NEVER within reach for Senator Sanders and certainly not based on the first three contests.

  16. [16] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    You're not being a very gracious winner, I have to say.

    Yes, there was a chance for Bernie. If Biden had beaten Bernie in SC, but only by 8 or 9 points, that would have been seen as weakness, and ST might have gone very differently.

    Most Dem voters have one -- and ONLY one -- criteria for this primary season: beat Trump. That's it. So whoever looked strongest was going to get some serious coattails from that. And that could very easily have been Bernie. It turned out to be Biden, much to your approval, but that wasn't written in stone from the start of the race in any way. The first three contests were: Bernie 2nd, 1st, 1st -- Biden 4th, 5th, 2nd. Historically, nobody has ever won the nomination without placing at least 2nd in either IA or NH. Biden will be the first to do it. It's a comeback for the ages, that's for sure, but it was in no way guaranteed, sorry.

    -CW

  17. [17] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Looks like the networks are waiting to call FL until the panhandle counties close their polling booths at 8:00 ET. That's the only reason I can figure why nobody's called the state for Biden yet, as he's obviously running away with it...

    -CW

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm not saying it was guaranteed for Biden, just that it was too early to seriously think that it was within reach for Bernie based solely on the first three states.

    Maybe it is time to shake up the primary calendar and, as Kick has implied, do away with the caucuses.

    In any event, we are where we are and this is too silly a topic to continue, given the state of play in the world.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm very sorry if that came across as being an ungracious Biden supporter - that's the very last impression I'd ever want to leave.

  20. [20] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    ... and everyone calls FL for Biden at the top of the hour.

    No surprise there.

    -CW

  21. [21] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Oh, OK. Sorry, it's been a rough couple of weeks. Now that everything's essentially over, I can reveal that I voted for Bernie. I don't like to do this beforehand, because no matter who I support I try to remain at least somewhat evenhanded in my columns.

    I wasn't saying I thought Bernie was running away with it, but there were indeed plenty of people out there saying that, that's all I was saying... this was the main reason Amy and Pete dropped out before ST, in fact.

    But it is what it is, so count me among the Biden supporters now. I too am all about beating Trump, because nothing else really matters at this point.

    -CW

  22. [22] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    18

    Maybe it is time to shake up the primary calendar and, as Kick has implied, do away with the caucuses.

    Bloody well right... kill all those stupid caucuses. Die caucuses die! Let all the people vote, and let them vote by mail, and let them eat... pie. :)

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [21,22]

    Indeed!

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now that everything's essentially over, I can reveal that I voted for Bernie.

    Yeah, well, that appears to be a trend, of sorts. :)

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I would agree that Biden is personally more likeable than Hillary, but they also share many of the same qualities that cost the Dems votes in 2016.

    As I said in 2016 if Hillary has declared she would run a small donor only campaign in the general election I would vote for her.

    Hillary did not want to do what it takes to beat Trump in 2016.

    Despite their differences Biden is poised to repeat enough of the same mistakes in 2020 to put the outcome in November at risk.

    Biden could also step up now and do what it takes to earn the votes of people like me by making the small donor only commitment.

    Couldn't he what could be 2 or 3 million people that voted for third parties just to vote and not vote big money CMPs but are not part of third parties? (out of the nearly 7 million 2106 third party voters)

    Couldn't he use another few million non-voters that might be inspired by the small donor only commitment?

    There is no way that Biden as the nominee should not be able to get one in five to eight registered Dems to contribute an average of 100 dollars in contributions of 200 dollars or less from any one donor to his general election campaign and raise 500-800 million dollars. And that's not even counting independents and many Bernie contributors.

    If he can't then he and the Dems are worthless and not deserving of my vote and the votes of many other citizens that do not vote for the big money Dems for that reason.

    For decades big money Dems have said not now because you have no other choice.

    It's time to put the onus on the big money Dems so that if they want to beat Trump they have no other choice but to take action now by committing to small donor only campaigns.

    It is indefensible for responsible citizens and journalist/pundits (oooh. it was so tempting to leave the typo pundirts in there) to allow the Dems to get away with not taking this action again which is clearly within their reach and could benefit more than just the Democratic Party.

    Wake up. Wise up. Rise up.

    But it will take someone to put pressure on Biden to to be more than just the SOUR CREAM he is now.

    It will take Nader (or Brady :D) running now as a small donor only independent candidate to put the onus on Biden to take action.

    If Biden makes the commitment then Nader drops out and works to help defeat Trump.

    If not, Nader stays in and Biden risks losing to Trump.

    That's how democracy is designed to work.

    You, CW, can set a positive example for Biden and the Dems by joining the call for Nader to put pressure on Biden.

    Show that you are willing to do what it takes to beat Trump by putting the pressure on Biden to do the same.

    Otherwise your claim of beating Trump being the most important thing about this election is a lie.

  26. [26] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Politico just called IL for Biden, but others have yet to. Looks like he's running away with it, as expected.

    -CW

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Well I am in agreement we should do away with the caucuses.

    But the primary process needs more than a schedule shakeup and elimination of caucuses.

    There is no valid reason to have different states voting at different times.

    There may have been reasons in the past but at this point it just shuts too many people out of the process even beyond the independents and third party voters that do not get to participate in some places.

    No one in New Jersey ever gets to vote before the primary election is decided.

    If we need a primary season to ween out candidates then there should be one preliminary election in all states in January. Another preliminary in all states to gauge the candidates and whether they have progressed or not in April and one final one in all states that counts to determine the nominee in June.

    The current process is pure bullshit.

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    27

    There is no valid reason to have different states voting at different times.

    Of course, there is: The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 4.

    Duh.

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If the Constitution says that presidential primaries have to be held in different states at different times then we can change the Constitution to fix that so all states have to vote at the same time.

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    After reading article 1, section 4 I don't actually see any if that the Constitution mandates anything regarding the scheduling of primaries.

    And Congress is given the power to change regulations which would include the timing of primaries.

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    29

    If the Constitution says that presidential primaries have to be held in different states at different times then we can change the Constitution to fix that so all states have to vote at the same time.

    Sure, no problem... and while you're at it, get them to add your bullshit into the Constitution and allow all the unicorns farting rainbows to vote also.

    Chop, chop... get a move on skippy.

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    29

    presidential primaries

    Interesting way to characterize the primaries that are primarily held by each state in order to elect that state's representatives.

    And Congress is given the power to change regulations which would include the timing of primaries.

    Who is it that you think Congress is, and how stupid do you think they would have to be in order to collectively agree to strip their respective states of the power granted to them by the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 4?

    Duh.

  33. [33] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    It seems that by now you have clearly established with your nonsensical comments enough evidence to show you deserve a refund from your college.

    Or is there some other reason for posting your comments?

    Liz was referring to the presidential primaries in regard to shaking up the primary calendar.`

    I don't expect the current Congress to do anything, but the Constitution clearly gives them the power to if we had a Congress that worked for ordinary citizens instead of the big money interests.

    A Congress taking this action would not be stripping any power from the states regarding the presidential primaries in question.

    Congress would be exercising it's power under the Constitution.

    Unusual but not out of the question.

    At least you got the DUH right, even if you don't realize it was a Freudian slip.

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I am beginning to expect that Michale and Kick are the same person with two alter egos so they can argue with each other when no one else wants to bother with their bullshit. :D

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    ooops. suspect not expect.

    But I suspect that is to be expected after enduring all the bullshit. :D

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    As problems go, I'd say the Democrats have one here - do you want to leave or do you want to get closer - to, you know, quote a favourite PRiSM lyric.

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ooops. paraphrase not quote.

    I suspect the original gang of PRiSM would have been feeling the Bern, so to speak.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, I'd have expected that they'd come around, eventually.

  39. [39] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    29

    So to recap: The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 4 gives each respective state the right to decide for themselves when and how their state's representatives are to be chosen, and I would wager -- without even reading the minutiae of the multitude of differing rules and regulations from all over the United States -- that every single one of them is different. Additionally, any of these states' legislatures can vote to change those voting regulations as prescribed by their individual state statutes and likely whenever they choose to do so.

    As I and others have reiterated to you many times, there are only 10 states in the entire country plus DC where ballot access is unrestricted and voters are completely free to write in a candidate as prescribed by your "idea":

    * Alabama
    * District of Columbia
    * Iowa
    * New Hampshire
    * New Jersey
    * Mississippi
    * Oregon
    * Pennsylvania
    * Rhode Island
    * Vermont
    * Wyoming

    Every other state has various assorted rules that restrict ballot access wherein "write ins" can't be freely made and aren't counted unless the "write in" becomes an official write in candidate and jumps through a plethora of hoops/rules/regulations, and then there are eight states that don't allow any write ins of any kind.

    If a bunch of people decided collectively not to vote, no one would care because they already don't care because they restrict ballot access.

    The United States Constitution grants the states the right to determine how their representatives are chosen, and those representatives that are chosen make up the Congress... which Congress isn't collectively bloody likely to strip themselves of those constitutional rights unless they lose their damn minds. :)

  40. [40] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    If you are referring to Bernie voters it is a problem, but not so much leaving or getting closer.

    A good portion of Bernie voters were already Dems and will not be leaving as in 2016. But there was also many that were not Dems and don't consider it leaving to not vote for Biden.

    While many of those did vote for Hillary in 2016, it is possible that as many or even more will not vote for Biden this time, even if they do not personally dislike Biden as much has they disliked Hillary.

    The old "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice- we won't get fooled again" (GWB) effect.

    The bigger problem Dems and Biden have is they don't have the integrity and courage to do what it takes to beat Trump by appealing to the people they need to beat Trump by providing a stark choice of a small contribution candidate against big money Trump.

    Do not expect these voters to come around in 2020 for the same old bullshit.

    I suspect if you do you will once again be disappointed in the results of the election.

    Did you watch the Cuomo speech you provided again?

    This call to put pressure on Biden to end his dependence on big money is valid criticism of Biden. Why can't you address it?

    There is no question it is possible.

    Unless you can explain why not.

    You may be one of the few here that on occasion can actually discuss without dodges and nonsense.

    So please explain why Biden is not taking this necessary action that he could easily accomplish?

    Why should anyone support/vote for him if he does not?

    Remember, beating Trump is not a valid answer unless you can explain how making the small donor only commitment would not improve Biden's chances of beating Trump and he can easily raise enough money unless you can explain why he couldn't.

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's that old timing issue, Don. I think there's a PRiSM song for that, too … I just can't recall it right now ...

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    … well, yes I can but, I'm not that cruel. :)

  43. [43] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Impressive, but it still has nothing to do with presidential primaries.

    Again with the voters can't do it everywhere in the manner that you think it needs to be done that is not how One Demand is done and even though you are wrong about write in votes not being counted having an effect on the purpose for casting those write in votes?

    If ever you come up with anything that I haven't already previously explained and debunked and is serious discussion instead of bullshit designed to entertain yourself I will respond.

    Otherwise, I will continue to insult your intelligence in the same way your comments insult the intelligence of other commenters without repeating point by point responses already provided multiple times to your childish nonsense.

    You will have to be satisfied with tormenting your alter ego. :D

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    34

    I am beginning to expect that Michale and Kick are the same person with two alter egos so they can argue with each other when no one else wants to bother with their bullshit.

    I think you meant you are "beginning to suspect"... blah, blah, blah... followed by your usual nonsensical spew.

    I am beginning to suspect you're uneducated. If your bio hadn't given it away, we'd still have all your ridiculous repetitive drivel that reeks with the stench of stupidity without abatement ad nauseam.

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don, Biden has never been a very good fundraiser. It's not his thing.

  46. [46] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So the time to question and or put pressure on a candidate is not during an election?

    Then why do we have elections?

    Never heard of Prism, but they must suck if bringing up their song is cruel. :D

    Is that really all you've got?

    I expected more from you. Maybe you could use some more positive examples here.

    "I thought you'd be bigger."
    -everybody to Snake Pliskin

  47. [47] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    LIz-

    sigh.

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    If Biden has never been a very good fundraiser then a small donor only campaign is perfect for him.

    It does not require any dinners or phone calls just asking citizens to contribute during some speeches and like the over a million citizens that contributed to Bernie's small step toward small donor campaigns and the many that responded to the watered down knock off of One Demand Collins Fund citizens should respond to the Dem nominee calling on citizens to do their part as in the Cuomo speech your provided.

    How could they not in such a time of emergency?

    So what possible reason could there be for now not to be the time to discuss it, much less do it?

    Come on, Liz. You can do this all on your own, even without any positive examples.

    Have one of those real discussions you often pine for.

    Or are we once again going to be left with a new Patriot Act from this crisis (even though the old one was just continued).

    Oh when will they ever learn?
    Oh when will they ever learn?
    -probably more appropriate than whatever Prism song you didn't mention

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Everything's going to be okay, Don. We'll all get through it together ...

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    33

    It seems that by now you have clearly established with your nonsensical comments enough evidence to show you deserve a refund from your college.

    I recognize this as one of those all too frequent exercises of yours wherein you disparage education because you're quite obviously too ignorant to grasp the truths that are self-evident to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

    Or is there some other reason for posting your comments?

    Right back at you, Don. Give us your reason. You keep professing your right to comment on the posts of others in whatever manner you wish while screaming hysterically like a stuck pig if anybody deigns to exercise their right to do likewise.

    Liz was referring to the presidential primaries in regard to shaking up the primary calendar.`

    Maybe it is time to shake up the primary calendar and, as Kick has implied, do away with the caucuses. ~ Elizabeth Miller

    Liz didn't say anything about a "presidential" primary, Don; that handiwork was all yours. Also, Liz has definitely proven time and time again to grasp the concept of America and the individual states' primaries than you ever have.

    I don't expect the current Congress to do anything, but the Constitution clearly gives them the power to if we had a Congress that worked for ordinary citizens instead of the big money interests.

    Our Congress already does work for "ordinary citizens," although I admit without hesitation that some of the less than average among the "ordinary" seem completely incapable of grasping that general concept.

    A Congress taking this action would not be stripping any power from the states regarding the presidential primaries in question.

    The primary function of the state primaries that you keep referring to as "presidential primaries" isn't to choose a Party's presidential candidate but rather for the states to choose who will represent them at the state and federal level. The people choosing the President of the United States is a modern-day "afterthought"... for want of a better word.

    Congress would be exercising it's power under the Constitution.

    If any Congress were to collectively mandate the manner in which their individual states were required to choose its own representatives to Congress, they would be stripping their state legislatures of their constitutional rights granted to them therein.

    So to recap: I reiterate... with props to CW: The United States of America will become Don's dream of a Utopia and some fantasyland where unicorns fart rainbows and the pixies frolic in the meadow when angels fly out of Don's ass.

    Unusual but not out of the question.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to keep your purity fantasy alive.

    At least you got the DUH right, even if you don't realize it was a Freudian slip.

    Oh, FFS, another dipshit without a degree attempting to equate an unambiguous comment with parapraxis and Freud. *shakes head*

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    43

    Impressive, but it still has nothing to do with presidential primaries.

    Again with the term "presidential primaries" as if the object of the states' primaries and (stupid) caucuses is to merely determine the candidate of the Democratic Party! *shakes head*

    If ever you come up with anything that I haven't already previously explained and debunked and is serious discussion instead of bullshit designed to entertain yourself I will respond.

    You've neither debunked a thing nor accomplished a scintilla of anything for all your repetitive expletives and exertions, and perhaps you are here to entertain yourself, but I can assure you I suffer no such ridiculous affliction.

    Otherwise, I will continue to insult your intelligence in the same way your comments insult the intelligence of other commenters without repeating point by point responses already provided multiple times to your childish nonsense.

    If your aim here was to insult someone's intellect, you accomplished that the minute you published your bio to all the commenters on this forum and every person on Earth with a keyboard, an Internet connection, and a mastery of the English language at about a third-grade level. As far as insulting me, you've done nothing remotely whatsoever of the sort, and I reiterate that for all your expletives and exertions, you have acquired bupkis.

    You will have to be satisfied with tormenting your alter ego.

    And you are demonstrably gleefully and happily accepting of having spent your life accomplishing absolutely nothing as confessed in your bio -- and, of course, as witnessed by your repetitive exertions on this forum -- and not bloody likely to learn anything from that either. Fucking moron. :)

  52. [52] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Yeah Liz, I'm with you. Sometimes the comments around here simply get too toxic.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    [I remain hopeful that comments like #2 will be completely ignored, if not eliminated, from this space.]

    Yer the one who is always questioning why people post in past commentaries.. :D

    Don't blame me because I am following your rules.. :D

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Well, Michale, Hillary Clinton is no Joe Biden. Not on her best day.

    So, I'd advise against a simple comparison to 2016.

    Yer right...

    Hillary had such a HUGE'er following of groupies than Biden does today..

    Don't kill the messenger.. Facts are facts

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    OMG, I'm agreeing with you (on SC). A clear sign of the impending apocalypse!

    "It's already here..."
    -Bill Paxton, TWISTER

    :D

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, OK. Sorry, it's been a rough couple of weeks. Now that everything's essentially over, I can reveal that I voted for Bernie.

    Aha!!!

    So I was right!!!! :D

    I knew it!! :D

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the Constitution says that presidential primaries have to be held in different states at different times then we can change the Constitution to fix that so all states have to vote at the same time.

    Yea.. It's called a GENERAL election..

    As far as changing the Constitution??

    You sure are the patron saint of lost causes, aintcha... :D

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    But it is what it is, so count me among the Biden supporters now. I too am all about beating Trump, because nothing else really matters at this point.

    So, to sum up... For all the talk of equality and fairness and diversity and intersectionality (STILL don't know what the frak THAT is!!)...

    For all the talk of Democrat principles and foundations..

    It all goes out the window because hate is now the primary motivator and Democrats NOW just want to win... Diversity and fairness and equality and intersectionality be damned..

    Hay, don't get me wrong.. I love it.. It's just more proof of what I have always said...

    When it comes down to it, when the rubber meets the road, Democrats are EXACTLY like they accuse Republicans of being...

    For all the talk of diversity blaa blaa blaaa, Democrats would rather win and they think that ONLY an old white guy millionaire can win...

    I just find that.... hilarious... : D

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    You must be believing Michale's propaganda.

    You misspelled "FACTS", Don...

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC,

    Russ,

    Actually, hospitals don’t use that as their “determining factor” for who gets medical treatment!

    Given the brave new world we are entering, the world of VERY limited health services and options..

    They will...

    I completely agree...which is why I didn’t make the claim....YOU ARE THE ONE DOING THAT!

    You are the one who brought up suspended license in the context of this discussion..

    Man up.. Take responsibility, ya pussy...

    Oh goodie! Michale’s “FACTS” are back — those utterly bullshit lies that Michale repeats to himself

    Yea, you have ANY facts to back the claim up??

    No?? Of course not.. You NEVER do..

    I don’t care about the millions murdered, assaulted, raped and killed by illegal immigrants

    WOW.... I mean, I knew you always felt this way, but I never expected you to come right out and SAY it..

    "I don’t care about the millions murdered, assaulted, raped and killed by illegal immigrants"
    -Russ

    That's going into the quote-keeper fer sure..

    I have to congratulate you on your honesty, Russ..

    If nothing else, you proudly admit your Trump/America hate...

    Like you take in all of those babies you stopped from being aborted, right?

    I would in a heartbeat...

    But you and your fellow Dumbocrats KILLED them all before I could be given the chance...

    Asshole...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    Yeah Liz, I'm with you. Sometimes the comments around here simply get too toxic.

    Then DO SOMETHING about it!!

    You only speak up when it's someone you don't like, politically...

    Take a stand against the toxicity, no matter WHERE it comes from... Even if it's someone you politically agree with...

    If you don't, yer part of the problem, no part of the solution...

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Unlike Michale, I don’t blame the President for the deaths caused by this or any other illness.

    Unless that President happens to be President Trump...

    Asshole...

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Take a stand against the toxicity, no matter WHERE it comes from... Even if it's someone you politically agree with...

    If you don't, yer part of the problem, no part of the solution...

    Sorry if that sounds harsh, but Liz is dead on ballz accurate..

    If we want a cleaner, friendlier Weigantia, like it was in the beginning, it's up to us to police our own borders, so to speak..

    Let someone know when they cross a line, no matter WHO it is.. Apply the standards fairly and equally no matter WHAT the political beliefs..

    Since the Grand Poobah obviously has a hands off approach (not knocking him, his house, he can do as he wishes) it's up to us to step up..

    Simply complaining about the toxicity or applying community standards unfairly and/or punitively based on partisan standards makes things worse.. Not better..

    I am willing to do my part, but it's GOTTA be a group effort... No one person can make a difference in here.. Nor even a couple or a few..

    I'm just sayin'..

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, THIS is a switch...

    Christian doom-sayers and fear-mongers are preaching calm and rational thought...

    This is not the end of the world, according to Christians who study the end of the world
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/this-is-not-the-end-of-the-world-according-to-christians-who-study-the-end-of-the-world/ar-BB11jYQm

    And the GOVERNMENT is preaching hysteria and END OF THE WORLD panic...

    CW nailed it..

    Surely a sign of the End Of Days

    :D

  65. [65] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (49)-
    We will not get through this together if you refuse to do what it takes to achieve togetherness.

    That means actually discussing everyone's ideas and positions.

    Together does not mean that some poeple are included and others are not.

    Frankly, your refusal to engage in rational discussion of valid issues regarding Biden and the Dems does more to harm the quality of this comments section than all the dirty words and vitriol exchanged between commenters.

  66. [66] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Has anyone considered the possibility that Bernie knew all along he would not be allowed to win the Dem primary in 2016 or 2020 and all he was doing was putting in the time to try twice to legitimize running as an independent or third party small donor only candidate in the 2020 general election?

  67. [67] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Times of crisis call for action (see Cuomo speech).

    Yet all you seem to want to offer is Mrs. Doubtfire saying "Now, now, dearie. Let's just have a cup of cocoa and let the people that fucked everything up make i'taaaaaaall better. Everything will be juuuuust fine."

    Why do you still doubt it is time to fire Biden and the rest of the people responsible for creating the problems that have left us in the position we are now?

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Has anyone considered the possibility that Bernie knew all along he would not be allowed to win the Dem primary in 2016 or 2020 and all he was doing was putting in the time to try twice to legitimize running as an independent or third party small donor only candidate in the 2020 general election?

    Oooohhh Now THAT is an interesting theory.. :D

    Would serve Democrats right!!

    Why do you still doubt it is time to fire Biden and the rest of the people responsible for creating the problems that have left us in the position we are now?

    And replace them with..... who, exactly??

    "Russians don't take a dump without a plan, son..."
    -Fred Dalton Thomas, THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER

    It seems to me that it's best to have your assets in place and a plan BEFORE firing Biden et al..

    Eh???

  69. [69] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    By the way, what is this conventional political wisdom that everyone here relies on to rationalize their failure to take action?

    "Why is it called conventional political wisdom when it is so often mentioned turning about in a short period of time or just being plain wrong?"
    -what George Carlin would write if he was still alive and commenting here

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the way, what is this conventional political wisdom that everyone here relies on to rationalize their failure to take action?

    200-odd years of history and precedent..

  71. [71] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The plan is in place. Replace Biden with the new and improved small donor only Biden by getting Ralph Nader to pressure him into becoming a small donor only candidate.

    All it will take is for people to stop listening to the Mrs. Doubtfire Liz's and listen to the clip Liz provided of Cuomo and step up like true Americans.

    Not conventional political wisdom, but simply conventional application of the basic principles of democracy.

  72. [72] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    200-odd years of history and precedent is an incomplete answer.

    That is just the facts.

    Conventional political wisdom is how those facts are interpreted (Deja vu?).

    The question is why is it relied on and treated as gospel that cannot be questioned when it is so often wrong?

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    200-odd years of history and precedent is an incomplete answer.

    That is just the facts.

    Substantiation???

    The question is why is it relied on and treated as gospel that cannot be questioned when it is so often wrong?

    Human nature..

  74. [74] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Substantiation?

    "Conventional political wisdom is how those facts are interpreted."

    That is a definition of conventional political wisdom that substantiates that history and precedents are just facts.

    Is there some way you can substantiate they are not facts and that conventional political wisdom is not interpretation of those facts?

    Or are you only capable of claiming that what you ask for has not been provided to avoid addressing it?

    Human nature. A Mrs. Doubtfire answer if there ever was one.

    eyeroll.

  75. [75] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Though I must admit human nature was a surprise as I was expecting the usual fallback of that's just what Democrats do. :D

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is a definition of conventional political wisdom that substantiates that history and precedents are just facts.

    So the facts substantiate themselves as facts...

    Can you provide a single example??

    Is there some way you can substantiate they are not facts and that conventional political wisdom is not interpretation of those facts?

    Didn't you say you can't prove a negative???

    Human nature. A Mrs. Doubtfire answer if there ever was one.

    Mrs Doubtfire is a fictional character. Like Professor John Gill...

    Human nature is a real and tangible thing..

    eyeroll.

    You have to put it in colons or it's just an errant word that is meaningless....

  77. [77] 
    John M wrote:

    [2] Michale wrote:

    "With the exception of Affirmative Action, institutionalized racism is dead in the US.. It died the day we elected a black man as POTUS..."

    This has got to be the MOST IDIOTIC thing ever said! It just goes to show how CLUELESS you are as an older white male!

    Just because ONE person of color manages to get elected to ONE office does not mean institutional racism is gone. One Black manager or one Black police chief doesn't change a whole organization's culture over night!!!

    Ask ANY of your fellow African American citizens if they feel like institutional racism is dead in this country, and see what kind of response you get, I DOUBLE DARE YOU.

    Just because we had one Black president doesn't end ENTRENCHED BIAS in places like many small town law enforcement sheriff's offices, prosecutor's offices. etc. spread out across a vast continental country of over 300 million.

    For you to insist on believing otherwise is pure fallacy.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    This has got to be the MOST IDIOTIC thing ever said! It just goes to show how CLUELESS you are as an older white male!

    Fine..

    I am open to being corrected with FACTS..

    Give me an example of institutionalized racism that is supported by FACTS..

    Put up or shut up and go away..

  79. [79] 
    John M wrote:

    [33] Don Harris wrote:

    "Kick-
    It seems that by now you have clearly established with your nonsensical comments enough evidence to show you deserve a refund from your college.

    Or is there some other reason for posting your comments?

    Liz was referring to the presidential primaries in regard to shaking up the primary calendar.`

    I don't expect the current Congress to do anything, but the Constitution clearly gives them the power to if we had a Congress that worked for ordinary citizens instead of the big money interests.

    A Congress taking this action would not be stripping any power from the states regarding the presidential primaries in question.

    Congress would be exercising it's power under the Constitution"

    Actually, this is NOT correct. The Constitution gives Congress the Power over how to CONDUCT FEDERAL elections.

    Primaries are a different animal entirely!

    Primaries are how a PRIVATE group, in this case a POLITICAL PARTY CHOOSES it's REPRESENTATIVE.

    As such, Congress actually has NO SAY in HOW that is done. The DNC or RNC could just say our candidate will be..insert name here...for national office WITHOUT HOLDING ANY PRIMARIES AT ALL.

  80. [80] 
    John M wrote:

    [78] Michale wrote:

    "I am open to being corrected with FACTS..

    Give me an example of institutionalized racism that is supported by FACTS..

    Put up or shut up and go away.."

    FINE, but I doubt you will READ any of it, change your mind, or even consider the evidence without dismissing it because of your own bias against the sources:

    Andrews, Edmund. "Stanford researchers develop new statistical test that shows racial profiling in police traffic stops." Stanford News, June 28, 2016.

    Greenberg, Daniel. "Increasing Support for Religiously Based Service Refusals." Maxine Najle, Ph.D., Natalie Jackson, Ph.D., et al., Public Religion Research Institute, June 25, 2019.

    Tello, Monique, M.D., MPH. "Racism and discrimination in health care: Providers and patients." Harvard Health Publishing, Harvard Medical School, January 16, 2017.

    Yan, Holly. "This is why everyday racial profiling is so dangerous." CNN, May 11, 2018.

    URBAN WIRE
    50 years after Martin Luther King’s death, structural racism still drives the racial wealth gap
    Summary: The difference between the average wealth of white families and that of African American families has expanded.
    April 6, 2018 | Kilolo Kijakazi

    URBAN WIRE
    New York City’s school attendance boundaries encourage racial and ethnic segregation?
    Summary: New York City’s new school chancellor Richard Carranza has vowed to enact policies that will alleviate school segregation.
    September 17, 2018 | Tomas Monarrez

    URBAN WIRE
    After 50 years of progress and protest, America is still a land of unequal opportunity
    Summary: Fifty years ago, the Kerner Commission said we were “moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal.”
    September 19, 2018 | Margaret Simms

    URBAN WIRE
    Say African American or Black, but first acknowledge the persistence of structural racism
    Summary: Black History Month is an opportunity to confront racism and structural disadvantages faced by black people in the United States.
    February 8, 2018 | Margaret Simms

    URBAN WIRE
    LeBron James says “being black in America is tough.” He’s correct.
    Summary: In response to an abhorrent act of vandalism, James offered a reflection on the intersection of race and class in America.
    June 2, 2017 | Justin Milner, Steven Brown

    URBAN WIRE
    White privilege is a routine traffic stop
    Summary: Data on police and public encounters isn't always clear, but several studies provide insight on how race might influence the outcomes.
    July 22, 2016 | Elaine Waxman

    URBAN WIRE
    Is American criminal justice color-blind? The statistics say no
    July 16, 2013 | John Roman

    There is TONS MORE from other sources, IF you only BOTHER to look.

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    I ask for FACTS.. You give me statistics that have multiple interpretations..

    Epic fail..

    Point to me incidents, not statistics..

    Incidents of institutionalized racism in the manner of Affirmative Action..

    You can't because none exists..

    As I said.. Epic Fail..

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    FACTS...

    Like the hoaxes that tried to show institutionalized racism but were nothing but bullshit hoaxes..

    Jussie Smollett... Trayvon Martin... Michael Brown... Tawana Brawley...

    Any claim of institutionalized racism is a hoax because no such institutionalized racism exists..

  83. [83] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JM-
    States can pass regulations on how the parties conduct their primaries.

    Congress can pass regulations on the presidential primaries as presidential elections are federal elections as president is a federal office.

    States would have to conform to those regulations in their state law just as they cannot pass state constitutions that violate the US Constitution.

    Just because Congress has not exercised their power does not mean they don't have it.

  84. [84] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    MIchale-
    Racism aside, when the forensic evidence and the officer's statements clearly shows that the officer that shot Michael Brown shot him in the head when he was no longer a threat and the prosecutor did not put witnesses on the stand to testify to this that were at the scene while admitting he put a person on the stand to testify that Michael Brown was charging the officer that the prosecutor admitted he knew was not at the scene, would you admit whether or not that was caused by racism it is a problem?

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    COVID-19 SURVIVAL TIP #256

    If you run out of food, look for homes that have Democrat Party signs..

    They don't have any guns...

    :D

  86. [86] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It seems Tom Brady is thinking ahead (like a true Patriot :D) and working to secure the battle ground state of Florida for his presidential run in 2024 by signing with the Bucs. :D

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Racism aside, when the forensic evidence and the officer's statements clearly shows that the officer that shot Michael Brown shot him in the head when he was no longer a threat

    Complete and utter bullshit..

    EVEN if it were true, do you have ANY facts that PROVE race was a factor..

    ANY facts at all??

    No you do not..

    Go ahead.. Mention Trayvon Martin.

    I double-dog DARE you!!! :D

  88. [88] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (85)-
    But they do not provide any nutritional value no matter how you cook them. :D

  89. [89] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Why would I need facts to prove it wasn't racism if we I am asking a question that removes the question of racism from the equation?

    I have seen the evidence in a documentary on the shooting.

    You can as always have a different interpretation of the evidence but it is available or even make another ridiculous demand that it be provided for you.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, you are under the mistaken (some might even say delusional) impression that, just because it's a black person who gets the short end of the stick, it MUST be racism..

    You are in error... Or delusional...

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have seen the evidence in a documentary on the shooting.

    Please provide links to this "evidence"... I am betting we'll find it's nothing but Left Wing propaganda..

    You can as always have a different interpretation of the evidence but it is available or even make another ridiculous demand that it be provided for you.

    You are entitled to your own interpretation but you are not entitled to your own facts..

    It's not allowed..

  92. [92] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    What part of I am not talking about whether the motivation is racist or not I am asking if the generically colored officer shooting the generically colored victim/perpetrator (depending on your interpretation) and the evidence provided in the documentary about the officer and prosecutor's action are a problem do you not understand?

    Look up Micheal Brown shooting movie/documentary. It will probably pop right up.

    The documentary did not get their facts from me.

    "It's not an argument. Your just contradicting me."
    "No I'm not."
    -Monty Python

    Though you seem to be trying to keep it on the level of Pee Wees Playhouse. :D

  93. [93] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [60]

    Oh goodie! Michale’s “FACTS” are back — those utterly bullshit lies that Michale repeats to himself

    Yea, you have ANY facts to back the claim up??

    No?? Of course not.. You NEVER do..

    I don’t care about the millions murdered, assaulted, raped and killed by illegal immigrants

    If you are gonna quote me, the least you could do is be accurate!

    Oh goodie! Michale’s “FACTS” are back — those utterly bullshit lies that Michale repeats to himself to help him reach orgasm. By all means, share the numbers and where your data comes from! I don’t care about the millions murdered, assaulted, raped and killed by illegal immigrants because they ONLY EXIST IN YOUR SCARY MASTURBATION FANTASIES ABOUT DONALD TRUMP!

    God, you are pathetic! You can’t even tell lies that aren’t easy to refute and that don’t expose your own dishonesty!

    FPC:

    It’s been over ten years since I worked as a 911 call receiver,

    Liar... You have never worked as a 911 receiver..

    If you had, you would realize that NO ONE calls it a "911 Receiver"..

    It's either "911 Operator" or "911 Dispatcher"...

    The HARDWARE used by 911 Operators or 911 Dispatchers is called a 911 Receiver...

    NOT the person themselves..

    Andy Spears, director of government and external affairs at the Tennessee Emergency Communications Board, says every 911 district in the state will receive at least one digital Next Generation 911 receiver.

    The technology should allow dispatchers to locate cell phone users much quicker than the current analog system.
    https://www.wrcbtv.com/story/13139890/tn-911-upgrade-to-allow-texts-photos-video

    Again, your own dishonesty is so obvious that it is almost funny. I never referred to myself as a “911 receiver”; I was a “911 CALL receiver”! My official job title was “Level IV Communications Officer/Operator”, but my job was best described as a “call receiver” or “call taker”.

    You had to really work to find a ten year old story that supported your stupid claim! The hardware is not technically referred to as “receivers”, either. Typically it is referred to as “trunks” — a computerized system that takes the ANI (caller’s phone number) and matches it to the ALI (automatic location identification — from databases for landlines and from GPS or triangulation from cell towers for cell phones.)

    Once again, you and your lies got shut down!

  94. [94] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    DH [84]

    Racism aside, when the forensic evidence and the officer's statements clearly shows that the officer that shot Michael Brown shot him in the head when he was no longer a threat and the prosecutor did not put witnesses on the stand to testify to this that were at the scene while admitting he put a person on the stand to testify that Michael Brown was charging the officer that the prosecutor admitted he knew was not at the scene, would you admit whether or not that was caused by racism it is a problem?

    Sorry, but this is one of those unique instances where Michale is correct! It is such a rare occasion that we should all take a moment of silence to celebrate the significance of Michale having anything to do with the truth!

    The prosecutor chose to allow the grand jury hear from EVERY person who claimed to have been a witness to the incident, regardless of whether they were considered a reliable witness in the hopes of avoiding being accused of denying people the right to testify on Brown’s behalf.

    The prosecutor allowed witnesses that came forward to offer whatever they wanted to tell the grand jury, and once they said everything that they wanted to be on the record, he then asked the witnesses questions that caused the witnesses to show that they were lying. The woman that you described DID lie, but that was made abundantly clear to the grand jury so that they could ignore her testimony when they made their decision on the charges.

    Interesting fact (not FACT) about the witnesses: those that claimed that Brown was trying to turn himself in when the officer shot him did not witness the entire incident — they only became aware of it after the first shots were fired. Those witnesses who said Brown was charging the officer when he was killed all had witnessed Brown trying to disarm the officer through the officer’s driver side window prior to the first shot being fired.

    Those that saw the entire conflict play out saw it very differently than those that only caught a glimpse of what occurred — which is why witness testimony should be considered far less reliable than hard physical evidence is.

  95. [95] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Not sure if you saw this as I posted it on the previous article before realizing CW had posted this one, but I did want you to see it...so here it goes:

    FPC [58]

    Liz,

    Demanding more testing seems a bit quaint at this point. The virus is winning and it needs to be stopped with decisive action by governments and social distancing by all of us.

    Sorry, Liz, but you could not be more wrong! Testing is the key to defeating this virus. The problem in the US is that we do not have an accurate understanding of the scope of infected people - their numbers, location, where they were exposed to the virus - to make a case for the more drastic measures needed to combat an epidemic.

    We don’t have the tests needed in this country to make an accurate guess at the actual number of people infected or the number of people who have died from the virus. Without that data, it is impossible to know the extent of the precautions necessary to combat it. President Trump’s refusal to admit the severity of the coronavirus for two months has cost us dearly.

    Unlike Michale, I don’t blame the President for the deaths caused by this or any other illness. Michale thinks he’s cleverly drawing attention away from the fact that he cannot defend Trump’s clusterduck handling of this emergency, but he’s just lying to himself and is the only one gullible enough to fall for it.

    Testing is essential to knowing when the virus has run its course, as well. It also is the only way to know if the virus mutates and becomes a bigger threat that must be handled in a different way. So, no, more testing is NOT a bit quaint — it is a MUST!

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    What part of I am not talking about whether the motivation is racist or not I am asking if the generically colored officer shooting the generically colored victim/perpetrator (depending on your interpretation) and the evidence provided in the documentary about the officer and prosecutor's action are a problem do you not understand?

    The FACT that you didn't provide ANY facts to support this alleged documentary you claim to have seen..

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    If you are gonna quote me, the least you could do is be accurate!

    I did.. Those are your words.. Verbatim...

    You admitted you don't care that millions of Americans have been attacked, assaulted, robbed, raped, murdered and killed by illegal immigrant criminals..

    You admitted it.. Live with it..

    Again, your own dishonesty is so obvious that it is almost funny. I never referred to myself as a “911 receiver”; I was a “911 CALL receiver”! My official job title was “Level IV Communications Officer/Operator”, but my job was best described as a “call receiver” or “call taker”.

    Yea, I already caught you in a lie.. You are full of shit.. The closest you came to a 911 operator is when you had to call one because you were being incessantly bullied by the kids in your neighborhood..

    You have been exposed as a liar.. Live with it..

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, but this is one of those unique instances where Michale is correct..

    Hay now!! Let's not be... er... eh... huh?? What you say???

    Yep, I am correct..

    Just like I was correct about Trump being elected..

    Just like I was correct about the Russia Collusion delusion not going ANYWHERE...

    Just like I was correct about the Dumbocrats and their faux impeachment coup..

    Just like I was correct about President Trump ALWAYS winning thru the courts..

    Just like I was correct about EVERYTHING to do with President Trump.. :D

    Thank you for finally conceding this..

  99. [99] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    According to the documentary I saw what you are saying about the witnesses is not true.

    This would in no way prove Michale right about anything even if you have some evidence to show what is in the documentary about the witnesses is not accurate.

    It in no way has anything to do with the forensic evidence and the officer's statement about the shooting.

    As for the witnesses, according to the documentary there were witnesses that were not allowed to testify that witnessed the whole incident that said that Michael Brown did not attack the officer in the car but that the officer grabbed Micheal Brown.

    So just because some people saw the whole thing and saw it one way does not mean that everyone that saw the whole thing saw it the same way.

    And the hard physical evidence in the documentary supported the testimony of those that said Michale Brown was not charging the officer but was shot in the head while he was already down and the fatal shot was fired at his head at the point after a pause between the first shots that took him down.

  100. [100] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    What other facts do I need to provide?

    I told you where I saw it, a documentary that aired on the movie channels often, I told you how to find it.

    Those are the facts you need to get the information you claim to need.

    If your claim was true you would look it up and find it.

    I know what I saw so I do not need the confirmation.

    If you choose to not believe what I saw/say when you will not find the information you need to verify it I do not care whether you believe me or think you it somehow makes you right because you refuse to consider the information unless it is provided to you in the manner that you want so you can use that as an excuse to say you have proved it isn't true which of course isn't true.

  101. [101] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I see the idea of a basic livable income is no longer heretical to Republican ears, now that they have added it to Trump's quiver. It seems like only yesterday that the Republicans were castigating Obama for pouring cash into the hole that Bush dug...How short it is the memory of those who live in glass houses.

    Hypocrisy is alive and thriving in the Senate. It appears you can have both ways if you know your constituency is as morally bankrupt as you are.

    It looks like a Democrat will have to clean up another Republican's fiscal mess upon arrival in the White House.

    LL&P

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    According to the documentary I saw what you are saying about the witnesses is not true.

    We only have your word that this documentary actually exists..

    On the other side of the = sign, we have the FACTS of the grand jury testimony AND the findings of the Odumbo administration..

    So...

    ONE side.. Your claim..

    Other side.. FACTS...

    Hmmmmm

    "Oh gee... Let me think..."
    -Jamie Lee Curtis, TRUE LIES

    :D

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    I told you where I saw it, a documentary that aired on the movie channels often, I told you how to find it.

    You did not..

  104. [104] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Thank goodness (if it happens) it will be Biden.

    If was not a dyed in the wool corporate Democrat then it could result in changing the problems that caused our current crisis so they don't happen again instead of propping up those that caused the problem so it can happen again as Biden will do.

    Why doesn't that make me feel better?

  105. [105] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    You have the grand jury testimony?

    Is there anything in the grand jury testimony about any people that did not testify or evidence not presented?

    According to the documentary the Obama administration just rubber stamped the report from the state or prosecutor, I don't remember for sure the exact origin of the state level report.

    Wouldn't be the first time.

    But I really don't care all that much to bother with all the nonsense. I just asked a simple question hoping for a real answer instead of childish games to avoid a rational discussion.

    But apparently that is too much to ask around here.

    What is wrong with you?

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have the grand jury testimony?

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/11/25/366519644/ferguson-docs-officer-darren-wilsons-testimony

    Is there anything in the grand jury testimony about any people that did not testify or evidence not presented?

    If there was no evidence, how could it be presented???

    According to the documentary the Obama administration just rubber stamped the report from the state or prosecutor, I don't remember for sure the exact origin of the state level report.

    Yea.. Cuz Barack THE COPS ACTED STUPIDLY Odumbo was SO pro-white-cop, eh??

    You have yet to provide ANY facts on this alleged documentary..

    But I really don't care all that much to bother with all the nonsense. I just asked a simple question hoping for a real answer instead of childish games to avoid a rational discussion.

    You didn't ask a simple question..

    You didn't ask ANY question..

    You made a claim and did not substantiate it with facts..

    What is wrong with you?

    Nothing is wrong with me..

    You bring up alleged facts, get all pissy when asked to substantiate and then claim you never brought up the subject..

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is wrong with you?

    Joe Pantoliano had "money hairs" on the back of his neck in CONGO..

    I have "logic hairs" on the back of my neck..

    And they bristle and stand to in the presence of bullshit..

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    And they bristle and stand to in the presence of bullshit..

    And the idea that Officer Darren Wilson killed Michael Brown out of ANYTHING but self-defense and that it was a bad shoot is the purest form of bullshit ever conceived...

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't get me wrong, DH..

    I still like you... But I call out bullshit no matter WHERE it comes from..

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump invokes Defense Production Act; could put factories into overdrive in coronavirus fight

    Trump calls himself a ‘wartime president’ over coronavirus as he invokes Defense Production Act
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-announces-he-is-invoking-defense-production-act-to-fight-coronavirus

    Gods, it's great that we have President Trump..

    Hillary would have been just as incompetent as Odumbo in dealing with this.. Causing ANOTHER 12,000+ dead Americans..

    Way ta go, Mr President!!! :D

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfyNlISf_No

    :D

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I feel fine... :D

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Major Steve Trevor has passed away...

    Wonder Woman is said to be in mourning...

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Perils of Mass Coronavirus Testing

    The public health response to the new coronavirus continues to evolve rapidly, with states shutting down schools, restaurants, bars, vacation places, and even elections. At the same time, the nation’s capacity to test individuals continues to steadily ramp up. This has led some people asking, “Why don’t we do what South Korea does and just test anyone?”

    Test-kit availability aside, there are crucial issues to consider. For example, so long as the background level of infection is low, there are real downsides to mass testing, and good reasons to limit testing to individuals who show symptoms or have been in contact with people who have shown symptoms. The problem is that when the overall level of infection is low, the overwhelming majority of your positive test results from mass testing will be false positives. This gives the public a false sense of what the actual mortality level is, a false sense of security in their own immunity status, and can contribute to future outbreaks. In fact, the mass testing in South Korea could be skewing their data.

    To see why this might be the case, I draw upon this thread from Dr. Sterling Haring at Vanderbilt University, as well as my own statistical background. Like him, rather than walking through the actual math of Bayes Rule (I explore it here), I utilize 2x2 charts. We’ll start with the claim from Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine last Thursday that 100,000 people in Ohio were infected. That seems high, but let’s take it. That works out to a little less than 1% of the state’s population having the virus. So we have a society that looks something like this:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/03/18/the_perils_of_mass_coronavirus_testing_142693.html

    Apparently, there are MANY downsides to mass testing..

    Good call, Liz..

    Good thing we have President Trump in charge...

  115. [115] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    Two guys, both impervious to information, duke it out.

  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Michale! Hows about we end on this one …

    https://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-Lkry-SF01&hsimp=yhs-SF01&hspart=Lkry&p=Prism+performs+armageddon+with+ron+tabak#id=1&vid=d8f9577af6ccccf44e213e58a794623d&action=click

    PRiSM performs Armageddon … this was a pretty big one, even in your country.

  117. [117] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    My Voice-
    Clever, but not accurate.

    Michale did not provide any relevant information.

    The grand jury testimony did not contain anything about people that did not testify or evidence that wasn't presented.

    Just for those that are unable to find it- I think the name of the movie is Stranger Fruit.

    Unfortunately we end up dukeing it out because Michale is only interested in dukeing and not discussing. it's a battle that someone has to win or at least declare they have won.

  118. [118] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As I kill time waiting for a real discussion from an adult, what does the question "if there was no evidence how could it be presented?" have to do with evidence that existed not being presented?

    Government whitewashing does not have to be motivated by racism, despite the name.

    You call out bullshit where you see it, Okay. But you often see it when it is not there and don't see when it is there.

  119. [119] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And the hard physical evidence in the documentary supported the testimony of those that said Michale Brown was not charging the officer but was shot in the head while he was already down and the fatal shot was fired at his head at the point after a pause between the first shots that took him down.

    Yes, I do not dispute that but I would point out that the “pause” you are mentioning was measured in milliseconds. I would also point out that the documentary obviously failed to mention that the physical evidence also supported the testimony that Brown was starting to charge the officer. The movements seen in the video could be either...and only Brown could tell us which it actually was. Brown lunged forward— either to drop to his knees or to start his charge of the officer — in that second he was killed.

    I cannot remember if the Atlantic or The Republic that did a big expose on the Prosecutor’s handling of the grand jury, but it was fascinating. The prosecutor didn’t have to be totally transparent with all of the evidence and testimony that the grand jury heard and saw, but he did it to silence those who he knew would claim it was fixed no matter what the outcome was.

  120. [120] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Last night I saw upon the stair
    a little man who wasn't there
    He wasn't there again today
    Oh how I wish he'd go away."
    -Glenn Miller

  121. [121] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Test-kit availability aside, there are crucial issues to consider. For example, so long as the background level of infection is low, there are real downsides to mass testing, and good reasons to limit testing to individuals who show symptoms or have been in contact with people who have shown symptoms. The problem is that when the overall level of infection is low, the overwhelming majority of your positive test results from mass testing will be false positives. This gives the public a false sense of what the actual mortality level is, a false sense of security in their own immunity status, and can contribute to future outbreaks. In fact, the mass testing in South Korea could be skewing their data.

    It would be wonderful if we were actually able to test just the individuals who show symptoms or have been in contact with people who have shown symptoms...but we are no where near being able to do that! This article is postulating something that has not occurred and that the likelihood of it occurring is next to nil!

    Of course doctors are aware that the tests can give false positives. What this author must not have known was that the just over 5200 test kits that were reported having been run in the first weeks of the outbreak were used to test just over 1500 individuals! That basically means, on average, each patient required at least 3 test kits to determine their status. The medical community is well aware of the damage false positives cause and how they skew the data is interpreted.

  122. [122] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    According to a cell phone recording in the documentary it was two full seconds.

    According to the documentary evidence not presented to the Grand Jury.

    The forensic evidence in the documentary clearly showed he was not charging and was consistent with the testimony of those that said he was not charging. It was an audio recording.

    According to the documentary much of the forensic evidence they presented in the documentary was not presented to the grand jury.

    So it appears that we each are depending on someone's version of what happened in the shooting and grand jury process.

    I tend to believe people that do the documentaries over the usual suspects when it turns out that there is something rotten in Denmark.

    The documentary did not show video of the shooting and I believe said there was none. If you have seen any video then the documentary is wrong about that or I am remebering that small detail wrong.

    If video does exist then it does call in to question other claims in the documentary if the documentary made that claim but does not automatically disprove them any more than one error by any one else doing a report would disprove everything they reported.

    It appears we see the same thing differently just as witnesses saw it differently concerning whether or not Brown was charging the officer or whether he was attacking the officer in the car or the officer was grabbing him.

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    @MyVoice,

    Two guys, both impervious to information, duke it out.

    Information is like "truth"... Subjective and at the mercy of whims and bigotry..

    Come talk to me when you have FACTS... mmm K?? :D

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    It appears we see the same thing differently just as witnesses saw it differently concerning whether or not Brown was charging the officer or whether he was attacking the officer in the car or the officer was grabbing him.

    And it's ALL irrelevant..

    The *ONLY* relevant questions are A> Did Officer Wilson have a fear for his life and B> Was that fear rational and legitimate and reasonable...

    All the facts point to YES..

    It was a good shoot.. PERIOD..

    Even cop hater Odumbo said so thru his DOJ...

    End of story.. PERIOD...

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course doctors are aware that the tests can give false positives.

    And in the early stages of a pandemic, the false positives will FAR FAR exceed the real positives and will do more harm than good...

    This is fact...

  126. [126] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It is amazing that we can spend so much time "discussing" the Michael Brown murder.

    Anything to avoid discussing the corruption of the big money Democrats and Republicans.

    tennis anyone?

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Hey, Michale! Hows about we end on this one …

    You expect me to click on that link!!!??? :D

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    Michale did not provide any relevant information.

    Factually not accurate.

    What's wrong with you!?? :D

    I did not provide relevant information to your bullshit because your information was... well... bullshit.. :D

    As I kill time waiting for a real discussion from an adult, what does the question "if there was no evidence how could it be presented?" have to do with evidence that existed not being presented?

    So, basically when you are proven wrong, you simply deny that the discussion is relevant and label it as "nonsense"..

    Liz, is that you!?? :D

    If you don't like your arguments always shot done, then come up with better arguments...

  129. [129] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-

    Did the officer have a fear for his life?
    Clearly not. If he was in fear he could have driven away instead of getting out of the car to shoot Brown.

    If the officer could flee (and he could have) because he feared for his life and did not flee then it was not self defense and not a good shooting.

    When the evidence shows Brown was down when shot with the fatal shot it was not self defense and not a good shooting.

  130. [130] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Can you read?

  131. [131] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If you ever prove me wrong I will admit it.

    But your nonsensical declarations that you have do not quaifiy.

  132. [132] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You are truly missing out if you don't CLICK ON THAT LINK. Ahem.

  133. [133] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Granted, it is a more terrifying-looking link than any one you've ever provided. heh

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]