ChrisWeigant.com

Dereliction Of Duty

[ Posted Wednesday, July 1st, 2020 – 16:43 UTC ]

The more time goes on, the more evidence stacks up that Donald Trump is simply incapable of performing the basic duties of a United States president. What is the president's job, boiled down? To process incoming problems and information, make policy decisions, and then implement those decisions. Trump fails spectacularly on all three legs of this stool on a regular basis. But this week has been really notable, due to Trump's utter failure to defend the Constitution of the United States (and the country at large, of course) against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Let's take the domestic part of that first. Trump just announced via tweet (because of course he did) that he is planning on vetoing any Defense Department budget bill that includes forcing the Pentagon to rename military installations that were -- quite shamefully -- named for enemies of the Constitution of the United States. Whether they were foreign or domestic depends on which side you were on, I suppose (the Confederates were fighting to become foreigners, but it was really a domestic insurrection), but they were definitely trying to do away with the Constitution and instead form their own government. That's pretty much the definition of an enemy of the Constitution, and yet the Army saw fit to honor ten military men who fought against the United States, by naming bases after them.

Trump is going to the mat for these Confederate officers (nine out of ten were generals, but one was only a mere colonel). He will veto the entire Pentagon budget -- which is required to fight foreign enemies -- to preserve the memory of men who fought against this country. The Pentagon isn't backing Trump up, and the piece of the bill mandating name changes actually came from the Republican Senate, so his own party is actually the one challenging him on it. If they had backed Trump, the provision never would have made it out of committee. Trump is way out on a limb here, and he obviously doesn't care that he's got virtually no support for his stance.

The real disconnect in all of this is Trump's newfound love for (as he has so often put it) "losers." I thought he liked military heroes who "weren't captured"? So now he likes military men who surrendered and lost their war? That doesn't seem very consistent, to say the least. Trump hates losers of all types, so why is he so invested in these particular losers?

The answer to that question is so obvious that we're not even going to bother answering it (hint: it's an election year).

Instead, let's move on to the "foreign enemies" story. This is one of those scandals that seems to be slowly bubbling up, with more revelations each day which disprove the lies being told by the White House about what is going on with Russia, the Taliban, and dead American soldiers.

As I predicted earlier this week, the real story that seems to be emerging is that Trump just refuses to do one of the most basic duties of his job, which is to read his daily brief each and every day. But Trump hates reading, as CNN helpfully points out:

The White House has insisted the information was neither verified nor credible, and said it didn't reach Trump because there was no consensus within the intelligence community about its veracity.

Yet the information about Russian bounties was included in a President's Daily Brief sometime in the spring, according to a US official with direct knowledge of the latest information. That assessment, the source said, was backed up by "several pieces of information" that supported the view that there was an effort by the Russian intelligence unit -- the G.R.U. -- to pay bounties to kill US soldiers, including interrogation of Taliban detainees and electronic eavesdropping.

Trump is not known to fully or regularly read the P.D.B., something that is well-known within the White House. He is instead orally briefed two or three times a week by his intelligence officials.

Got that? He doesn't bother to read what the entire rest of the government prepares for him each morning -- likely because he is watching Fox And Friends and rage-tweeting instead. While the P.D.B. is provided to Trump every day, he ignores it until he is briefed verbally -- which only happens a few times a week, not daily.

In other words, Donald Trump is simply not doing his job as president. There's really no other conclusion to make. At least some intrepid reporters are asking Trump mouthpiece Kayleigh McEnany about this glaring failure of responsibility:

"The President does read and he also consumes intelligence verbally," [White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany] said when questioned why Trump isn't reading the P.D.B.

"This President, I will tell you, is the most informed person on planet Earth when it comes to the threats we face," McEnany added, pointing to regular phone calls between Trump and his national security adviser Robert O'Brien. "He is constantly being informed and briefed on intelligence matters. But I'm not going to allow The New York Times to dictate when we give top-secret information and don't give top-secret information."

. . .

Despite McEnany's claims, multiple officials have told CNN that Trump is not an avid consumer of the P.D.B., the highly classified written document prepared before dawn by intelligence analysts that is meant to provide the commander in chief with an update on global issues.

Why can't Donny read? Does he just get bored really easily? Or is it a problem of reading skills and the ability to process new information? Probably a bit of both. Even after everyone around Trump realized the level of reading comprehension they were dealing with (which could be classified as "almost non-existent"), their efforts to distract Trump with shiny and fun graphics still didn't help much:

Even after intelligence analysts added more photos and charts to appeal to Trump's learning style, the document often went unread, according to people familiar with the matter.

Instead, Trump prefers an oral briefing a few times a week. But even in those sessions, participants have described the President as occasionally distracted by whatever is bothering him that day, which often includes a negative cable news segment or newspaper article, causing his intelligence briefings to be derailed.

A former senior administration official who was part of the team that delivered Trump's intelligence briefings said the President typically relies on a graphic-driven summation of current threats accompanied by an oral briefing, instead of reading through the material compiled by national security aides.

In other words, most days Trump just totally ignores the P.D.B. so he can watch Fox And Friends. On the days when people actually force him to pay attention to what is contained in all those unread P.D.B.s, Trump instead spends the meeting complaining that he's missing Fox And Friends. This is our president, and it's high time the media made a much bigger deal of it.

But maybe he's still doing the part of his job where he makes decisions and implements them? Well... you decide:

The official said Trump often complained about the information presented to him at the briefings, preferring to have potential solutions to national security threats offered to him rather than just the problems.

"He's typically frustrated with intelligence because it shows a problem but doesn't provide an answer," the official said.

Trump's got no answers himself, obviously. Which is why it's been many days since the Russian-Taliban bounty story broke and Trump still has no idea what to do about it. He's still insisting that he "hasn't been briefed" -- as if that somehow means the problem doesn't really exist, therefore he doesn't have to do anything about it.

To state the painfully obvious, these are foreign enemies of the United States. And Trump's policy towards them has been nothing short of disastrous. He wanted to invite the Taliban to a meeting at Camp David the same week as the anniversary of 9/11. Trump wanted to invite Vladimir Putin to the G-7 meeting that had to be cancelled due to the pandemic. That's his answer to these two groups conspiring to kill American soldiers.

We're going to end with a Joe Biden quote, because Biden summed up why this is so disastrous for Trump no matter what the truth of it all turns out to be. Because no matter what Trump knew and no matter when he was informed of it, the fact remains that he has done nothing about it at all. Which Biden pointed out in no uncertain terms. After laying out the three things Trump should have done (but didn't), Biden pointed this out, in rather scathing terms:

[I]f what I have heard over the last week and the recent reporting that it was in the P.D.B., the presidential daily brief. The presidential daily brief is something I read every single day as vice president. The president read it every day. I was briefed every morning before I got to the White House, and then again. So, the idea that somehow he didn't know or isn't being briefed, it is a dereliction of duty, if that's the case. And, if he was briefed and nothing was done about this, that's a dereliction of duty.

I guess the best way for me to end this is, I was talking to Jill, my wife, Jill. And I don't see her get outraged very often. But she started asking. She said, Joe, what would you have done if Beau was still in harm's way? And this information came out? And the president, Beau is my son who was -- I'm sorry, I apologize -- who served in Iraq for a year, was in the army. But, if he'd been in Afghanistan, what would you do, Joe? What are those parents thinking out there? What are those sons and daughters, husbands and wives? It's an absolute dereliction of duty if any of this is even remotely true. So, I think the president has a lot to answer for and we should get the answers quickly, quickly.

When asked what consequences Trump should face, Biden was equally blunt:

If these allegations are true and he did nothing about any of this, then in fact, I think the public should, unrelated to my running, conclude that this man isn't fit to be president of the United States of America.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

120 Comments on “Dereliction Of Duty”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Trump is going to the mat for these Confederate officers

    Daddy was a Klansman and the orange doesn't fall too far from the tree.

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    why is he so invested in these particular losers? The answer to that question is so obvious that we're not even going to bother answering it (hint: it's an election year).

    . . . or, see [1].

  3. [3] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Never say "never," because Repugs are so practiced at it, but I'm really looking forward to seeing how the GOP spins this story.

    Incompetence? Treason? Who can choose?

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    most days Trump just totally ignores the P.D.B. so he can watch Fox And Friends. On the days when people actually force him to pay attention to what is contained in all those unread P.D.B.s, Trump instead spends the meeting complaining that he's missing Fox And Friends.

    The icing on the fruitcake. Let's hear it for rock bottom! Wait. Are we there yet?

  5. [5] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Politico reporting that Bolton briefed Trump about Russia’s bounty for bodies offer to the Taliban back in MARCH....of 2019!!!!!

    Holy f’n shit! How much more do Republicans need — a photo of Trump on his knees giving Putin a hummer? — before they say that Trump must go?!?!

  6. [6] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    This is way deep in the "Whoa, if true" category. While I have my own opinion of Pence and why he'd be a disastrous president, can anyone shed any light on why the people around him, the so-called "adults in the room," who have had to deal with this living, breathing mess, never seriously considered taking steps to remove him from the office? They come off as aghast, but never break their pace of enabling.

  7. [7] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    ...And now it seems the GOP has chopped the article that requires political campaigns to report foreign intrusion into US elections...

    Now, why the fuck on Gias green earth would they want to do that?

    LL&P

  8. [8] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    "Holy f’n shit! How much more do Republicans need — a photo of Trump on his knees giving Putin a hummer? — before they say that Trump must go?!?!"

    Trump could suck the chrome off a Hummer.

    lol

    :)

    LL&P

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:

    When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before.

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    ;)

  11. [11] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I favour the least of the two evils.

    LL&P

  12. [12] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    Wow, ten comments in a row that address Chris' writing. No trolls in sight. Until the following twenty or fifty perhaps, in the next few hours? Well, not yet any way.

    I agree that the president's total lack of response to the intelligence of Russian targeting of our servicemen and women is basically criminal. But that term can't apply here - we say, instead, impeachable. But that term can't apply here, as the US Senate has declared by its actions last year that there is no such thing as an impeachable offense.

    I've been reading some commentaries about this president, if he loses in November, being prosecuted at the state level for racketeering and fraud, such that his company, not just his person, gets destroyed. Would that compensate for his lack of future impeachment and conviction at the federal level for failure to protect US troops by targeting Russian intelligence? Not sure, but it's better than no jail time at all.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What, you don't know Michale's MO yet!?

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Good luck trying to resolve it, then.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Trump being kicked out of the White House is good enough for me, considering everything that will be on the plate when that happens.

  16. [16] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    "Wow, ten comments in a row that address Chris' writing. No trolls in sight. Until the following twenty or fifty perhaps, in the next few hours? Well, not yet any way."

    You might as well chant 'Beetlejuice'...

    LL&P

  17. [17] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Aha! Kick is back online!

    Sorry to everyone else, but there was a technical problem that was only finally solved with the intervention of a kitten GIF...

    Heh.

    -CW

  18. [18] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    MyVoice [6] -

    They're scared of his supporters. That's my guess, at any rate...

    -CW

  19. [19] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    As for the other comments, looks like I need to review the past week or so and get back up to date on answering things...

    Gimme some time (gotta go fill the car up with gas first...).

    -CW

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are you going somewhere?

  21. [21] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    'Gimme some time (gotta go fill the car up with gas first...).'

    While fending off a resurgence of a pandemic Trump vaguely recognizes, much less intends to combat...

    Do take all precautions.

    LL&P

  22. [22] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Once again I say to myself, "Self, surely this will be the straw that breaks the elephant's back!

    But the GOP has been so afraid of Trump for so many eternal years now that no one will be the first so they'll all just stay "all in."

  23. [23] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Wow. I did not realize that knowing what time of day a troll pukes up its sewerage is helpful in resolving said troll.

  24. [24] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [20]

    Well, we know he can't go to the EU unless he's now operating out of Rwanda...

    Canada is out too.

    Damn those countries that have a US ban...Banning people from entry into your country is so vulgar.

    Erm

    LL&P

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC,

    You know, if you ignore it, it might just disappear. :)

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    At the very least, it won't raise your blood pressure anymore. I know, I've been there ...

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In any event, one must understand a problem before it can be adequately resolved.

    By the way, JFC, I hope you'll be coming to the CW Sunday Music Festival and Dance Party ...

  29. [29] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Ignoring it is impossible since it takes up what? 80% of the comments section? Not reading it is easy (for me anyway).

  30. [30] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  31. [31] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Things verboten in Trump's America now include:

    Writing a book (about Trump)

    Speaking your mind as a public official

    Protesting

    Leaving the country

    Entering the country

    Working

    Reasonable healthcare

    Please feel free (here, if nowhere else) to add to the list.

    LL&P

  32. [32] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC,

    I have found that is, actually, extremely easy to ignore. It's how I keep my sanity and still be counted as a member of Weigantia, you know!

  34. [34] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Before Michale jumps in (his early morning overlaps somewhat with my late night, due to geography), a few general comments to Michale:

    Dude, just posting "reposted by permission" doesn't actually mean you have secured permission to do so. 'Nuff said. Please watch this, in future.

    Also, PLEASE try to remain relevant to the article you're posting on. Your repeated "here's a few more distractions from Fox News" BS posts are nothing more than embarrassing for you, because they expose the fact that you cannot argue the subject at hand without throwing a lot of sand in everyone's eyes for no reason. That's a sign of the weakness of your position, plain and simple.

    Here's a few facts: Trump is way down in the polls, even Fox News and Rasmussen polls. Biden's kicking his ass in every single poll, right and left. The public agrees with the protesters. The public agrees that Biden has much more experience to be president (by a 2-to-1 margin). COVID-19 is real and growing, no matter what Trump says about it. Even in Florida. Yes, Trump beat expectations in 2016, but there's no guarantee he'll be able to capture the same lightning in a bottle this time. Far from it. Please remember: the 2018 midterms.

    So please, engage in the argument at hand. Defend your position forcefully. Have at it.

    But DON'T try to stick "here's why Black Lives Matter protests mean Trump will win" irrelevancies into every argument, because it just shows how few arrows you have in your quiver.

    Seriously, dude, let's take the article above. If it had been written about Obama, what would your honest reaction have been?

    "Obama refuses to read PDBs... misses key issues... ignores developing problems with Russia and the Taliban..."

    You SERIOUSLY would have argued at that point that "the media" was to blame, and that Obama was OBVIOUSLY on top of things... or would you have been screaming to the skies that Obama was derelict in his duties as C-in-C?

    Trump is losing the military vote, right before your eyes, because he just doesn't care about soldiers in the field... and you say NOTHING?!?

    Except, of course, "look at Seattle protests, that's the REALLY important thing voters will care about!"

    Man, that's kind of pathetic, don't you think?

    -CW

  35. [35] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Michale is chasing a black dog in the night, Trump's future augers worse as each day passes.

    I suspect your 'talking-to', CW will have little or no effect.

    LL&P

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: The real disconnect in all of this is Trump's newfound love for (as he has so often put it) "losers."

    Exactly this. Make no mistake about it, these guys were losers on multiple levels, and while I surely won't attempt to cover all of them, I'll volunteer to take on the duty of shining a small light on the Texas general for which Fort Hood is named after.

    This traitor to America actually believed that the white color of his skin meant he belonged to a superior race. He believed the illegal Confederate government formed in February 1861 (even before Abraham Lincoln became president in March) was a country. Hood was a soldier of the United States who resigned his commission in April 1861 and joined the Confederacy as a cavalry captain but was soon promoted to colonel of the Texas 4th Infantry. In 1862, Hood was promoted to major general.

    At the Battle of Gettysburg, July 2, 1863, Hood's left arm was severely wounded and rendered useless for the remainder of his life. Gettysburg was a turning point in the war where the United States and Confederate forces suffered huge casualties ~50,000 and after which the South was never really a threat to win against the North.

    At the battle of Chickamauga, September 20, 1863, Hood's right leg was severely wounded and had to be amputated. Hood was in such grave condition that he and his severed leg were sent by ambulance together so that they could presumably be buried together. He, however, lived to fight another day and was promoted to lieutenant general backdated to that day he lost his leg.

    In 1864, Hood conducted numerous offenses in an attempt to break Sherman's siege of Atlanta, of which every single attempt failed with significant numbers of Confederate casualties. Hood finally evacuated Atlanta on September 2, 1864, burning as many Union military supplies and installations as he could locate on his way out.

    You came into our country with your Army, avowedly for the purpose of subjugating free white men, women, and children, and not only intend to rule over them, but you make negroes your allies, and desire to place over us an inferior race, which we have raised from barbarism to its present position, which is the highest ever attained by that race, in any country in all time.

    ~ John Bell Hood, September 12, 1864 letter to William Tecumseh Sherman

    Hood and the Confederate traitors' war against the United States ended with Lee's surrender in April 1865, just four short years after it began. In May 1865, Hood himself surrendered to Union forces at Natchez, Mississippi. The government of the United States had rejected their states' claims of secession as illegitimate, and there wasn't a single foreign government who ever officially recognized the Confederate traitors as an independent country... not a single one.

    Hood settled in New Orleans and became an insurance salesman. Just kidding. Nope, not kidding. In the winter of 1878-79, an epidemic of yellow fever befell New Orleans, Hood's insurance business collapsed, and his entire family was left penniless. Hood, his wife and eldest daughter died of yellow fever all in the span of a week in 1879.

    So to recap: The traitors to the United States surrendered after four years, and anyone lamenting "it's our heritage" should study history. The Confederacy was a group of illegal traitors to America and was never recognized by any other country on planet Earth... up to and especially including the United States.

    It's now been multiple decades since their 4-year failed attempt at becoming a country, and "Dixie" needs to get over its butthurt. The United States should never have named our great military bases after those losers and traitors to America, but it's never too late to redress multiple instances of folly.

    Four failed years does not a "heritage" make... a fact for which the United States and the GOP of 2020 should actually be grateful.

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    5

    Holy f’n shit! How much more do Republicans need — a photo of Trump on his knees giving Putin a hummer? — before they say that Trump must go?!?!

    Heh. :)

  38. [38] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    26

    You know, if you ignore it, it might just disappear. :)

    This sounds so familiar. Where have I heard this before? Oh, right! It's Donald Trump's caronavirus plan... not really a plan.

    It's going to disappear. One day it's like a miracle, it will disappear.

    ~ Donald Trump, February 27, 2020, speaking about caronavirus on the same day his PDB notified him regarding the Russian bounties

    *
    Fast forward to yesterday and after 130,000+ American deaths later, anyone who wasn't aware that this is indeed Trump's caronavirus plan:

    I think we are going to be very good with the caronavirus. I think that at some point that's going to sort of just disappear, I hope.

    ~ Donald Trump, July 1, 2020

    *
    So that is indeed the plan... not a plan.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    The more time goes on, the more evidence stacks up that Donald Trump is simply incapable of performing the basic duties of a United States president.

    Ya keep sayin that.. And yet, EVERYTIME you Democrats tried to remove him from office, ya'all failed..

    Failed... EPICALLY FAILED...

    Dude, just posting "reposted by permission" doesn't actually mean you have secured permission to do so. 'Nuff said. Please watch this, in future.

    I actually have permission from the authors of the articles I am posting.. You expressed a concern that the other authors would come back on you for my use of their work on your forum.. So I took care of that for you

    Now, if that wasn't factually accurate, if your concern is having all these FACTS running around your forum and your forum members simply can't handle it... Just say so.. Just say you need me to take it easy on your snowflakes because they have fragile egos...

    I'll be happy to help you keep their egos appeased and happy...

    As to the rest... The world is still happening after you post one thing in your commentary.. Give you an example... You spend an entire commentary on President Trump stubbing his toe and screamed out Farfrvvrevet!!!!

    Your commentary is epic on this curse. We haven't seen such specificity since your great commentary on the word 'cofeve' what was glorious..

    Now, out in the REAL world, a dozen armed Democrats annex an entire neighborhood and take 8000 neighborhood residents hostage... Now, knowing that they can't possibly feed 8000 residents, 4000 are selected to die... 4000 colonists strung up and killed by Democrats and AntiFa and Black Lies Matter..

    Now, according to your edict, no one here can talk about that.. The subject is President Trump's stubbed toe and his yelling of the word Farfrvvrevet and the brutal murder by Democrats and Antifa of 4000 citizens is a verboten topic...

    So, no one in the hallowed halls of Weigantia shall ever know about the butchery of the Democrat/AntiFa/BlackLiesMatter Party...

    Well, that just doesn't work for me... I am a fount of information and facts and I must flow...

    But again, I get... Your fellow Democrats are getting their asses kicked Left, Right and every which way, six ways from Sunday..

    I understand that their fragile egos must be protected.. That they can't handle the stress of LOSING all the time so their Grand Poobah must protect them...

    I get it... I respect your position that you have these grovelling souls who can't handle being slapped down day in and day out and you are simply sick of them complaining and whining about it to you all the time..

    So, we're good. You can tell them that their fragile egos are now safe....

    Its been fun and thanx for all the fish...

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Obviously, Michale, you are the biggest snowflake of them all.

    I guess that shouldn't surprise me but, it does. What the … ??

    You'll stop by on Sunday, I hope. I'll have a special surprise ...

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, and, I said no politics at the CW Sunday Music Festival and Dance Party but, let me be clear … I meant, no politics in the comments section but, by all means, political songs are quite okay!

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Biden gets to be the MDDOTW for what he said at the end of the article.

    There is nothing wrong with the part about Biden saying that Trump not reading or being briefed about the PDB is a dereliction of duty.

    But then he is asked what he would have done and never answers the question.

    All he does is say Trump has a lot to answer for and that the public should conclude Trump is not fit to be president.

    The public should also conclude that if a candidate for president avoids providing an answer to such a question and just says the current president is not fit to be president that both candidates are not fit to be president.

    Apparently we are just supposed to vote for Biden because he is not Trump?

    It is a dereliction of duty for Biden not to say what he would have done differently.

    And it is a dereliction of duty to let Biden get away with running the I am not Trump and you have no other choice campaign.

    Once again it must be asked:

    Give me a reason to vote for Biden other than he is not Trump and you have no other choice. Your previous "answer" was just using different words to say the same thing.

    And just because you do not want there to be other choices or don't want people to make other choices doesn't mean there are not other choices.

    It is a dereliction of duty to scan and ignore other choices just because you would not choose those choices.

    Wake up. Wise up. Rise up.
    Get Real.

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Reason number one: Biden won't start another war.

    Oh, I can hear you know. But, but, but he voted for the Iraq war.

    Actually, no, he did not vote for the Iraq war. In fact, nobody did.

    If Biden had been president at that time, when Saddam was flirting with danger and in non-compliance with the peace deal he signed, he would have used the congressional unity of that vote and the power it gave the president at the UN to AVOID war.

    Biden believes in the promise of America and he is an internationalist in the truest and noblest way.

    America will not be on her own when Biden is president. And, more than that, he will ensure that America is never alone in the world, long after he leaves office in eight years.

  44. [44] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Don,

    Give me a reason to vote for Biden other than he is not Trump

    We're all aware that there's only one other reason that would work for you, so don't vote for Biden. Whatever. As I recall, you live in NJ, so it won't matter.

  45. [45] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM,

    You know better than to believe that the troll won't be back. We've seen this drama queen act before. No need to beg for more bizarre lies and propaganda.

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, are you coming to the Sunday party? Bring lots of your favourite tunes. :)

  47. [47] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    On an off topic note, did you see the Backyard Open mic videos referred to in FTP comment 204 and correctly linked in comment 208 and 211?

    There is even a Bonzo Dog Band song with special guest Trumpface on the tuba.

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    So you are saying Biden as president would have concluded that Saddam was flirting with danger and was in non-compliance with the peace deal he signed and also would have got authorization to go to war from Congress under the same pretense the GWB used and then used that power to avoid war?

    We will never know how that would have worked out.

    But it doesn't make me want to vote for Biden.

    Biden believes in the promise of America?

    Well, that means a lot of different things to different Americans. Much too vague.

    There is nothing noble about being an internationalist, whatever you think that means.

    America will never be alone in the world?

    How? Why? What?

    You will have to do better than that.

  49. [49] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JFC-
    Well, you are right about the one reason that would get me to vote for Biden.

    The reason that reason is essential is that without it any other reason is just bullshit because it will be empty promises.

    And on your point that it won't matter because I live in NJ- it does matter.

    If I vote for big money Biden then I do not do anything to change the current system.

    But if I and others in states like NJ where the votes would not have an effect on the Electoral vote in that state were to register votes against both big money candidates it could lead to more than two false choices in the next election cycles.

    That may not matter to you as you seem to prefer more of the same that put Trump in office and leaves us with choosing the lesser of two evils election after election- but it matters to me and to democracy and the future of our country.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obviously, Michale, you are the biggest snowflake of them all.

    Yea??

    *I* am not that one that needed CW to protect me from all ya'all's facts.. Mainly because ya'all never had any.. I didn't need CW's protection because as I have proven time and time again, I can take care of myself against the likes of ya'all... Even the ones who take it to real life and do BACKGROUND checks on me and my children.. Funny how THAT never was addressed...

    I mean, let's face reality here, Liz..

    People like Blathy and MyVoice and MC etc etc whined and cried to CW because they couldn't handle getting their asses kicked on a daily, oft times HOURLY basis..

    So, they whined and cried to CW, BEGGING CW to reign me in..

    And CW, knowing that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, gladly provided protection for them..

    It's clear who the snowflakes are... And when President Trump wins re-election, as even YOU have admitted he will, I will have been proven 1000% dead on balls accurate... AGAIN..

    And even though I won't be here to rub it in... Rest assured that, where ever I am.. I am laughing my ass off at ya'all... :D

  51. [51] 
    John M wrote:

    Sorry to get back to one old point, BUT:

    "Michale wrote:

    JM,

    "I am willing to wager, right here, right now that President Trump pulls 50% of the total black vote on Election Day.. Monies will be paid during The Weigantian Holiday Fund Raiser.."

    OK. the bet is for $50 American Dollars (Not Quatloos) paypable to The Weigantia Fund Raiser that starts Thanksgiving Day (give or take).."

    I already said I would take that bet, BUT:

    "The bet is that President Trump pulls 50% or better of the black American vote on election day. And the ONLY poll that matters is the ballot box..."

    As pointed out by C.W. ONLY EXIT POLLING gives that kind of racial breakdown. So if you accept it based on an average of exit polling data by all networks: NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC then you have a DEAL.

    You willing to accept those terms, Michale???

    So, you want to accept the wager or not???

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    You willing to accept those terms, Michale???

    So, you want to accept the wager or not???

    I have been forbidden from discussing anything except how bad President Trump is and how Awesome Biden is..

    So I guess that means all wagers are off...

  53. [53] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [52]

    As it should be. You'll be a happier person in the long run if you just conform to what you're told to do.

    Free thinking is allowed as are your opinions as we feed them to you.

    So glad you've decided to capitulate to your betters on all subjects, you may yet become the 'tickety' in our 'boo'...

    Chin-chin..what what.

    LL&P

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    Dude, just posting "reposted by permission" doesn't actually mean you have secured permission to do so. 'Nuff said. Please watch this, in future. ~ Chris Weigant

    Michale: I actually have permission from the authors of the articles I am posting.. You expressed a concern that the other authors would come back on you for my use of their work on your forum.. So I took care of that for you

    Now, if that wasn't factually accurate, if your concern is having all these FACTS running around your forum and your forum members simply can't handle it... Just say so.. Just say you need me to take it easy on your snowflakes because they have fragile egos...

    Oh, I immediately recognize the problem. "Michale" just makes up all manner of lies, fake quotes, invented bullshit, etc. about all manner of people/things and just posts it on this forum and claims it is "fact."

    Allow me to demonstrate what posting facts looks like:

    FACTS

    * Opinions aren't facts.

    * Fake quotes are invented false statements.

    * Irrelevant and/or inappropriate messages on the Internet are referred to as spam.

    * Spamming any forum with all manner of opinions from right-wing websites from all over the Internet cannot, will not, and does not magically turn said right-wingnuts' opinions and conspiracy theory spewage into facts.

    * Claiming you have the permission of all manner of right-wingnut opinion authors *shakes head* to post their articles in their entirety on another man's forum means absolute bupkis unless you've secured the permission of the author who matters most of all... obviously that would be the author of this blog who asked you very nicely and in no uncertain terms not to it and included instructions on how to post:

    [99] Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Dude. Seriously. Just post a link, and maybe the key paragraph. You're risking my standing when it comes to "fair use" of articles. I'd hate to have to defend your comments posts in a court of law, in other words. Seriously, just post the "gotcha" paragraph and the link from now on... please....

    -CW

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/06/22/a-meta-column-on-pollwatching/#comment-162018

    * This ain't rocket science, and CW even said "please."

    So anyone who'd continue the methodical spamming and inventing of loads of fake shit on another man's forum after receiving such unambiguous and straightforward instructions regarding posting from the only author whose permission actually matters is quite obviously the total snowflake.

  55. [55] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Don,

    if I and others in states like NJ where the votes would not have an effect on the Electoral vote in that state were to register votes against both big money candidates it could lead to more than two false choices in the next election cycles.

    I'm pretty sure I said "Don't vote for Biden", so go for it.

    That may not matter to you as you seem to prefer more of the same that put Trump in office and leaves us with choosing the lesser of two evils election after election

    . . . and knowing what you're talking about apparently doesn't matter to you. I didn't vote for King George W, Gore, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Rmoney, Clinton, or the orange imbecile. I've always done what you claim would bring us to the promised land.

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    42

    But then he is asked what he would have done and never answers the question.

    After laying out the three things Trump should have done (but didn't), Biden pointed this out, in rather scathing terms....

    What part is confusing? CW made it clear that Biden provided three things Trump should have done.

    All he does is say Trump has a lot to answer for and that the public should conclude Trump is not fit to be president.

    As was made clear, Biden provided three things Trump should have done. You need it spoon-fed to you? Fine:

    The president should have, on day one, said, I want you to come before me in the situation room and lay out the differences and discretions. Who is saying what? Let’s get to the bottom of it, number one.

    Number two, it’s clear to me that, and I don’t know whether he did, he should have immediately contacted our joint chiefs of staff, gotten them all in one room and sat and said, okay. What are we doing to prevent this? What are we doing to prepare to deal with this, if this is happening? How are we doing this? What are we doing?

    Thirdly, he should, at a minimum, have picked up the phone and said, Vladimir, old buddy, if any of this is true and it doesn’t cease immediately, you’ve got a big problem, a big problem. And make it clear. Get to the bottom of this.

    ~ Joe Biden

    The public should also conclude that if a candidate for president avoids providing an answer to such a question and just says the current president is not fit to be president that both candidates are not fit to be president.

    Or maybe you're just painfully confused and incorrect because you failed to comprehend the unambiguous written word.

    Once again it must be asked:

    Give me a reason to vote for Biden other than he is not Trump and you have no other choice. Your previous "answer" was just using different words to say the same thing.

    Please don't vote for Biden. Take all that misspent energy of yours and learn to read and comprehend English. New Jersey will take care of the Trump problem without any help from you whatsoever.

    Wake up. Wise up. Rise up.
    Get Real.

    Jump up... the other board troll's ass. :)

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    44

    We're all aware that there's only one other reason that would work for you, so don't vote for Biden. Whatever. As I recall, you live in NJ, so it won't matter.

    This! :)

  58. [58] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I pity the fool who thinks I have complained to CW about anyone in the history of this blog...

    130,101 Americans dead from Coronavirus and counting...

  59. [59] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Trump flew into a rage every time US intelligence warned him about Russia, so officials gave up briefing him on it, report says [businessinsider.com]

    What does Putin have on Trump? This is definitely dereliction of duty if not outright treason. Personally. I'm going with the later...

  60. [60] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    [58] BashiBazouk

    Mr T. and I are with you on that pitying party.

  61. [61] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I've been hoping as Trump becomes more and more unhinged, those around him would invoke the 25th amendment but he has surrounded himself with family, yes men and other assorted carpetbaggers that there is little chance of that. As his poll numbers continue to drop those coat tails are going to seem more like shackles. Maybe he will have his Julius Caesar/Senate moment with 23 Republican yes votes for another impeachment?

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    50

    *I* am not that one that needed CW to protect me from all ya'all's facts.. Mainly because ya'all never had any..

    You leave on a fairly regular basis and whine. As far as facts, you're a conspiracy theory teanut whose entire modus operandi on this forum is making up invented bullshit and fake quotes about people and claiming it's facts.

    I didn't need CW's protection because as I have proven time and time again, I can take care of myself against the likes of ya'all...

    You slink off for months on end after whining like a toddler how you're too good for everyone else here. #DramaQueen

    Even the ones who take it to real life and do BACKGROUND checks on me and my children.. Funny how THAT never was addressed...

    "Never was addressed"? How many times do you need that addressed before it sinks in? Do the words "you got played" ring a bell? Well, your memory seems obviously as demonstrably as horrible as usual, but that bullshit has definitely been addressed on this forum ad nauseam. Archived for all posterity too:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/06/27/progressives-have-a-good-primary-night/#comment-121535

    Bashi was definitely right about you. You got played. Bigly.

    You being dumb enough to post your own personal information repeatedly and not being able to stop yourself from posting your email and personal information even after you whined about someone doxxing you speaks volumes about your ignorance; you did it to yourself.

    continued...

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    ... continued

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/09/19/moscow-mitch-caves/#comment-144489

    Russ, Bashi, TS, and several other posters figured you out, and you have yourself to thank for it... and it's obviously been addressed ad nauseam.

    So to recap: You got played, and you're still making up lies about it. This forum is archived for all posterity. You wouldn't know reality if it lived on your face, and the only ass you've managed to kick is your own... repeatedly. :)

  64. [64] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [51] John M wrote:

    Sorry to get back to one old point, BUT:

    "Michale wrote:

    JM,

    "I am willing to wager, right here, right now that President Trump pulls 50% of the total black vote on Election Day.. Monies will be paid during The Weigantian Holiday Fund Raiser.."

    OK. the bet is for $50 American Dollars (Not Quatloos) paypable to The Weigantia Fund Raiser that starts Thanksgiving Day (give or take).."

    I already said I would take that bet, BUT:

    "The bet is that President Trump pulls 50% or better of the black American vote on election day. And the ONLY poll that matters is the ballot box..."

    As pointed out by C.W. ONLY EXIT POLLING gives that kind of racial breakdown. So if you accept it based on an average of exit polling data by all networks: NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC then you have a DEAL.

    You willing to accept those terms, Michale???

    So, you want to accept the wager or not???

    Your ludicrous response was:

    We wait for the official word from the Trump administration as to the break down of voters.. It's his due as the winner

    We'll pull the data we need from that report..

    What a hoot! Use voter breakdown info that no Whitehouse has? And if Trump had the info like it'd be trustworthy?

    Chris will let you know if you cannot take these bets, so you can't use that excuse to wweenie out.

  65. [65] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    ...or even to wwuss out!

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    But it doesn't make me want to vote for Biden.

    Well, of course not! You didn't think I would think it would be that easy, did'ya? :)

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I pity the fool who thinks I have complained to CW about anyone in the history of this blog...

    You mean, it wasn't you!? Heh.

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    Reason number two to vote for Biden:

    For decades, Biden is the only pol who ends his speeches with an addition to 'God Bless America' … "and, may God protect our troops.'

    Oh, and he raised a son who joined the Delaware National Guard and who went to Iraq when his guard unit was called up even though he was, at the time, the Attorney General for Delaware and could have deferred the trip. Rest in peace, Beau, knowing your Dad will be alright!

    That has to count for something, Don. If you can and are willing, the speech Beau gave to introduce his father and next VPOTUS at the Democratic convention in 2008 is very much worth the time ...

  69. [69] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Fine. Biden did say in a quote not in the article some of what he would do.

    See how easy that is? You pointed out something I missed and I admit I missed it.

    Big deal.

    But still not an impressive answer from Biden. What if Putin says no and it keeps happening, then what?

    As long as our government is working for the big money interests our soldiers will continue to be put in harms way for the wrong reasons and Biden will not be doing anything to change that.

  70. [70] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JFC-
    Sorry I was unable to determine you agree with me.

    Your first comments had more of the usual negative tone around here, as confirmed by Kick's comment 57.

    So I guess the many assertions that no one here agrees with me is wrong.

  71. [71] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Naw, Brother Don, I do agree that we must get big money out of politics.

    But where you've failed to convince is the ever critical "how do we get from here to there/the goal?" You believe that going "small doner" will automatically generate a groundswell of support for a One Demand candidate regardless of that candidate's qualifications, Party affiliation and position on the issues.

    I think that this is "magical thinking" and that no one (Biden) will take a chance on it in such a high stakes election cycle.

    Also, how would One Demand address PACs and all that dark money sloshing around out there?

    You've been at this for a lot longer time than I so I undoubtedly missed how you would address these concerns. Please bring me up to speed.

  72. [72] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Don,

    I do not agree with you. I agree with some of the things you say.

    I would not encourage anyone to vote against Biden in a competitive state. I'm not a fan of Biden, but if you can't see what an emergency it is to rid ourselves of the orange menace, then we don't have a lot in common.

  73. [73] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    And Don, your absolutist "I ain't voting for either of the non-One Demand candidates," hurts your argument because it doesn't address anyone's concerns about this election, here and now in the Citizens United era.

    I'd wager that most of us very much believe that there is a huge difference between Biden and Trump. Why don't you see that OD at least would have a prayer under Biden as opposed to the GOP?

  74. [74] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    C'mon, Sister Elizabeth,

    I've given up on Michale as I've joined the ranks of Weigantia who see him as an incorrigible no-damned-use troll.) But maybe...just maybe we can help Brother Don to become a more useful, interactive commentater rather than a braying, stuck on "repeat" t-word.

    Hope springs eternal.
    -Somebody said this

  75. [75] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    And for the record, while Elizabeth Miller has warmed me up (considerably) to Biden, I'm a Bernie Bro/Warrenite and Mr. Biden was waaay down my list of Democrats. I also vote in California, which Biden will win by 3 million votes. But I shall vote for Joe and turn my attention to swinging the Party harder left. Campaign financing being high up my list, hello?

    Join us.

  76. [76] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Don,

    To be perfectly clear I think Bernie got
    *jobbed* again, just not as obviously as during Hillary's Coronation in 2016.

    No doubt in my mind: big money is what got most of the Centrists to back out and simultaneously throw their support to Biden.

    I outta be pissed off and disgruntled and maybe voting Green or writing in someone from DSA, but I'ma voting for Joe because it will make a difference who wins.

  77. [77] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Brother Don is quite right in his advocacy for a three-party system and a tightening of political donations.

    He's always kept to his script and is doggedly pledged to his quest.

    It's a benign species of political tenacity, a tedious overstatement.

    LL&P

  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    67

    You mean, it wasn't you!? Heh.

    I kind of quite obviously and fully out in the open went on a silent protest about Mike's constant spamming of the board and constant plagiarism and copyright violations with the bold bullshit when MtnCaddy (among others) complained about his bold spam fests and his all caps.

    It couldn't have possibly been that, could it? Nah. Mike had to go all delusional as usual and invent an entire scenario where certain people he named went behind his back and complained... because he lies like a rug and has "can't remember shit" disease.

    It's all a conspiracy against Mike carried out in plain site. I said it before, and I'll say it again. Mike just clearly doesn't understand the idea of how a silent protest can actually work and the value of "flooding the zone." Oh sure, maybe it doesn't catch on at first and people like me get ridiculed for doing it, but you never know when that whole silent protest thing might catch on weeks or even years down the road.

    [120] Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    115

    I agree with you that the constant plagiarism and copyright violations are beyond getting old.

    Perhaps if we all joined in the practice instead of just the troll doing it, it would soon become obvious how intolerable it was.

    This is an excellent idea! Let's make it happen.

    [Tuesday, June 16th, 2020 at 12:46 UTC]

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/06/15/the-sexual-revolution-is-over-sex-won/#comment-161073

    So don't tell anyone that CW likely reads the comments section of his own blog and maybe -- just maybe -- he read June 16, 2020 and decided it would actually be quite intolerable if everyone posted like a troll. :)

  79. [79] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Don,

    Why not go volunteer for Joe in Jersey, get in there elbow to elbow with kindred spirits and promulgate One Demand in person?

    Consider it as an infiltration operation
    if you will.

    I mean, let's be honest, Comrade, it ain't like you're doing so hot here in Weigantia, amirite?

  80. [80] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [9]

    Kick wrote:
    When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before.

    Um, we should definitely hook up.

    Signed--
    Intrigued and Decidedly Evil in Country-Cali

  81. [81] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    Don believes that any politician that accepts more than whatever amount he arbitrarily chooses as being the right amount (to prevent the candidate from being corrupted) will instantly cause the candidate to sell his soul to BigMoney. The candidate will never place the public’s best interests above those of BigMoney from then on (unless, of course, they choose to follow HIS set of rules — in which case the BigMoney demon that possessed them is magically exorcised).

    Don chooses to focus on the amount of the donations that the candidate is allowed to accept to fund their official election campaign — an amount that is already capped at $2800 per election. Don ignores that SuperPACs can accept unlimited donations for some reason, believing that the real corruption comes from those that accept legal donations between $251 and $2800 per election.

    That a SuperPAC, which legally the candidate cannot have any direct contact with regarding how it is run, can accept a $280 million donation from a single person, Don wants us to believe that the real bad guy is the candidate accepting $280!

    Don’s idea really does nothing to fight the problem of BigMoney’s corrupting effect on our democracy....it is simply a window dressing “cure” that he hopes will make him famous.

  82. [82] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [78]

    So I went and read your three Michale-esq all boldified articles and, while it helped that the content wasn't Fox/OAN/Epoch Times blather, it was still rather annoying.

  83. [83] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [81]

    Yup, that's my whole problem with Don's argument. You put it better than I.

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    69

    Fine. Biden did say in a quote not in the article some of what he would do.

    It was made clear in simple English that he named three things.

    See how easy that is? You pointed out something I missed and I admit I missed it.

    Big deal.

    And by "big deal," you're actually inferring it's "no big deal," but that can't be factual since you declared "Biden gets to be the MDDOTW" over your presumed displeasure for what you said he didn't say but that he actually did say. So pick a lane.

    But still not an impressive answer from Biden. What if Putin says no and it keeps happening, then what?

    But that wasn't part of the question you said Biden didn't answer and therefore "gets to be the MDDOTW" but that he actually obviously did answer.

    As long as our government is working for the big money interests our soldiers will continue to be put in harms way for the wrong reasons and Biden will not be doing anything to change that.

    Only if you "buy into" the asinine and ridiculous idea that you're able to predict Biden's future foreign policy based on the size of his campaign contributions. Why would you refer to a possible Biden administration as "our government" if you refuse to participate in selecting "our representatives."

    Don't vote for Biden, Don. You've convinced me unequivocally and without question that your vote doesn't matter; you removing your voice out of "our government" makes everyone else's voices so much more important. As I had told you many times while discussing your monomania, if you could successfully convince everyone else in Texas to not vote, I'd be choosing all the representatives, and that's literally "more power to me"... not to you and yours because you've ceded it all in my direction.

    So to recap: Don't vote for Biden. Your exercise in removing yourself (and attempting to remove others) out of "our democracy" actually serves to amplify the votes of others and is not the diminishing force you believe it is... quite the opposite, in fact. :)

  85. [85] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Now this... is cool. Listen, James T ("Say, boy! Does that "T" stand for " Tiberius?") and Kick...

    just, er, kicking it. I wonder: Why did Brother Don get the "yellow card" before Michale? Don can be, well, Don. But Michale adds so much more poison to these proceedings -- especially when he talks increasingly outlandish shit to get someone to pay attention to him. And why do I have to scroll down through acres of Fox News when I go to chrisweigant.com?

    I'm all about free speech but this ain't the public square. I say we vote Michale off the island!

  86. [86] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    70

    Your first comments had more of the usual negative tone around here, as confirmed by Kick's comment 57.

    So my one-word answer at [57] got your knickers all in a twist? Maybe I'll post two next time just to watch you foam and froth at the mouth.

    So I guess the many assertions that no one here agrees with me is wrong.

    Is your incessant monomania as painful as it seems? <--- rhetorical question

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    75

    ** Vote Blue **
    No Matter Who

  88. [88] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [84]

    Kick wrote:

    So to recap: Don't vote for Biden. Your exercise in removing yourself (and attempting to remove others) out of "our democracy" actually serves to amplify the votes of others and is not the diminishing force you believe it is... quite the opposite, in fact. :)

    Yeah, I meet all kinds of fools who don't vote. I tell 'em, "Great! That makes MY vote a bigger piece of the whole electorate! I assure you that I'm voting quite excellently on your behalf."

  89. [89] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [87]

    Kick wrote:
    MtnCaddy
    75

    ** Vote Blue **
    No Matter Who

    Yeah, Baby. All the way down to Dogcatcher, I'ma voting Blue - woot!

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    80

    When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before. ~ Mae West

    Okay, my mistake for not clarifying that this was a quote by Mae West that I posted as a test run.

    I want to hereby make it clear as mud that I was not referring to any political candidate in my test post but was choosing between two different passwords... one which worked and one which didn't.

    Um, we should definitely hook up.

    Said the fish... to the worm... shaped like a "J" ;)

  91. [91] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    So glad to see your posts again! Missed ya!

    As for our Confederate generals being remembered for their treason, weren’t the state’s responsible for creating the different regiments that fought for the military? If your state chose to secede, you really did not have much choice but to follow. The military leaders were from/lived in the state’s where they commanded. Not going along with secession would result in losing everything you had. All of the soldiers under your command were from your state... so even if you did not agree with secession, were you willing to just abandon your men?

    It is also important to remember that prior to 1861, the West Point graduates’ Oaths of Allegiance were made to the state in which your commission was granted, not to the United States.

    I would also point out that some of the former Confederate generals were the loudest proponents for change in their home states to work to heal our divided nations. Robert E. Lee was very vocal in his belief that Confederate symbols should not be put on pedestals, as that would only serve to divide us as a nation when we needed to strengthen our national identity.

    I fully support the renaming of military bases and removal of Confederate statues. I agree with Lee that they do not deserve to be honored as that only serves to divide us as a nation.

  92. [92] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    (claps hands and laughs)

  93. [93] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    This deserves to be read. Incredible piece in NYT entitled:

    You want a Confederate monument? My body is a Confederate monument!

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/opinion/confederate-monuments-racism.html

    Powerful read!

  94. [94] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    I've just spent more time reading, and less time speed-scrolling through, the Weigant comments thread than ever in my memory. A lot of good back and forth, and a lot more opinions and thoughts being expressed on Chris' commentary regarding the president's appalling incapacity and dereliction of duty. Very refreshing! Thanks, to those concerned.

  95. [95] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    This quote from The Atlantic sums up my #1 Reason that Trump is Toast, his mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic:

    "The government of the United States has had months to prepare for a disaster that will, unmanaged, kill millions of people; instead, it frittered away its head start and doomed us to panic and desperation. Its failure to equip us with tests, ventilators, and protective equipment will kill our parents and grandparents in large numbers. Our heroic doctors and nurses will be fighting unarmored against the virus, and America’s society and economy will halt until the battle is over. All of this was, once we saw that the virus escaped containment in January, preordained—a mathematical certainty, if you will. And it didn’t take an Andrew Yang to see that."

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    Reason number three to vote for Biden, especially in the era of Trump:

    He's a champion of women's rights. And, that goes double for the right to privacy and the right to control the reproductive course of your own body.

    Biden has already said that he will nominate the first black woman to SCOTUS and I'd be surprised if his second nomination to the high court, should that chance materialize, isn't another woman. I think he's aiming for gender parity on the court.

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    That was a powerful piece, indeed.

    This and other testaments that get to the heart of the matter is what makes me believe that change is comin'!

    Where does it end? Maybe that's the wrong question. Why did it start?

  98. [98] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    85

    I'm all about free speech but this ain't the public square. I say we vote Michale off the island!

    I say he is entitled to his opinion as much as anyone else here; it's simply his delivery that needs improvement as outlined by the author.

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well stated, Kick, as always.

    No one will be voting anybody off the island as long as I am around here, that's for sure!

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, to be clear and for the record, this place is one of the premier public squares, anywhere on the planet or beyond.

  101. [101] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Oh, okay Ladies. But he's gotta cut out the egregious sh*t already.

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The sooner you learn how to ignore all the crap and stick to commenting on all things not Michale, the sooner you won't have anything to complain about.

  103. [103] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @caddy,

    bernie didn't get hosed, he just plain lost on numbers. at the moment there are more center-left democrats than there are democratic-socialists, so once all the other candidates dropped out, those are the numbers that showed up. however, that doesn't mean bernie hasn't had a major impact on both democrats and the country in terms of the policies being promoted, by democrats and even at times republicans.

    JL

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    Please don't despair! Things will get better. Mostly because they can't get much worse. Heh.

    Since you are familiar with Detroit, do you know if the Royal Oak is still a venue there for great music? Just wondering …

    And, I hope you'll be at the CW Sunday Music Festival and Dance Party and that you'll bring your favourite tunes, political and otherwise! :)

  105. [105] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Yes, Elizabeth, the Royal Oak Music Theater is still there, shut down by coronavirus.

    So when does the dance party start on Sunday? I'm on the Left Coast, you know.

  106. [106] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-86

    You are assuming DH HAS a pair of knickers.

  107. [107] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    What, are you in Ontario, Elizabeth? Most of my family tree is in Windsor. And Saskatchewan.

  108. [108] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    2nd, 2020 at 15:25 UTC ]
    [104] Elizabeth Miller wrote:
    MtnCaddy,

    Please don't despair! Things will get better. Mostly because they can't get much worse. Heh.

    Since you mention it, I actually believe that thingsare getting better right now: For these two reasons:

    (1) I figured at the time that Hillary losing to Trump would be the best thing that could happen to us Progressives, and by extension, the Democratic Party and our country. The Women's March the day after inauguration proved to start something that hasn't stopped!

    (2) The even "bigger picture" reason for optimism is well addressed in this Politico article:

    "This moment is nothing less than an “existential crisis” that will reshape American society, says Danielle Allen, head of Harvard’s Safra Center for Ethics and co-author of the university’s “Roadmap to Pandemic Resilience.” “It is a moment where societies are forced to answer the question of who they are. And I think [the U.S.] didn’t answer that question terribly well.

    "Well, for me, the silver lining is that the absence of a national response [to coronavirus] has required us all to think through, in really detailed ways, how we can make the federal structure achieve what we need."

    And regarding our bad case of polarization:

    "Everybody was talking about rights. Everybody was talking about responsibilities. That was consistent. So in this bizarre way, we think we don’t share anything, but we actually do share a desire that our political institutions secure our rights—in the language of the Declaration of Independence. And we also share a recognition that we have responsibilities to our communities and even to that broader political structure, and that we are a part of making it work."

  109. [109] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Damnation! I forgot to boldify my above longish quotes -- not ;D

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So when does the dance party start on Sunday? I'm on the Left Coast, you know.

    That's a good question.

    I'm in sunny southern Ontario and I'll be working on Sunday until 5pm. I'm hoping by then The CW Music Festival and Dance Party will be well underway ...

  111. [111] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "It's always darkest before it becomes totally black."

    Heh.

  112. [112] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    91

    So glad to see your posts again! Missed ya!

    My dog ate my homework. ;)

    As for our Confederate generals being remembered for their treason, weren’t the state’s responsible for creating the different regiments that fought for the military?

    In the CSA? In 1862 and later years of the war, they sure were. In the beginning, they were "mostly" all-volunteer and seized all the federal property within their borders, including almost every United States Army fort... traitors and thieves in every true sense of the words.

    If your state chose to secede, you really did not have much choice but to follow.

    Joe citizen who didn't volunteer but was conscripted/drafted by the CSA beginning in 1862? Sure. But officers like John Bell Hood of the United States "Regular Army" dang well had a choice. At the beginning of the war, there were about ~1000 officers and 15,000 enlisted. Many of those "Regular Army" officers felt they could not betray loyalty to their home state and therefore around 1/3 of them resigned their commission and joined the Confederate Army.

    Our John Bell Hood wasn't from Texas at all; he was from Kentucky. Hood chose to resign from the United States Army immediately after the CSA attacked at Fort Sumter. His native state of Kentucky at that point in the war remained neutral so Hood chose to serve in Texas where he had served in the 2nd U.S. Cavalry under the command of Col. Albert Sidney Johnston and Lt. Col. Robert E. Lee. Yes, the one and the same Robert E. Lee who was married to the adopted great-granddaughter of George Washington (genuflect) and who also had a choice of whether or not to remain an officer in the United States Army where he'd already served for 32 years or to resign his commission and join the Confederate States of traitors. Like Hood, Lee chose poorly, ATRIH <--- and the rest is history.

    It is also important to remember that prior to 1861, the West Point graduates’ Oaths of Allegiance were made to the state in which your commission was granted, not to the United States.

    Whoever told you that? Have you been watching the "our heritage" Civil War revisionist history propaganda videos on YouTube? Just kidding. Of course, I've heard this before so I'll just post the West Point oath verbatim.

    The oath taken by Robert E. Lee upon his admission to West Point on September 25, 1825 was as follows:

    I, Robert E. Lee, a cadet born in the State of Virginia, aged 18 years and 9 months, do hereby acknowledge to have this day voluntarily engaged with the consent of my mother to serve in the Army of the United States for a period of five years, unless sooner discharged by proper authority. And I do promise upon honor that I will observe and obey the orders of the officers appointed over me, the rules and articles of war, and the regulations which have been or may hereafter be established for the government of the Military Academy."

    ~ Douglas S. Freeman, R. E. Lee: A Biography, Vol. 1, page 51

    As you will note in the cadet's oath, there is definitely a reference to the cadet's state of residence and his age; however, is this is any way whatsoever an oath to serve that state or to remain faithful to being a teenager forever? You decide... but it's not.

    As for the West Point cadet's oath before the Civil War, how about 1857? Which was:

    I, __________, of the State of __________, aged _____ years, _____ months, having been selected for an appointment as Cadet in the Military Academy of the United States, do hereby engage with the consent of my (Parent or Guardian) in the event of my receiving such appointment, that I will serve in the army of the United States for eight years, unless sooner discharged by competent authority. And I __________ DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR [emphasis original], that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them HONESTLY and FAITHFULLY [emphasis original], against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever; and that I will observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the Officers appointed over me, according to the Rules and Articles of War.

    ~ Regulations for the United States Military Academy, 1857 edition

    So, you see, a USMA cadet's oath stating their name and state of residence and young age and swearing his "true faith and allegiance to the United States of America" against all their enemies or opposers wasn't exactly an invitation to become one of them... just saying... not nearly the equivalence of what it's been rumored to be.

    As for the oath taken by officers of the United States Army which would have applied to the aforementioned Robert E. Lee and all graduates of West Point upon receipt of their commission? There's not a single version of said oath wherein an officer swore allegiance to his home state there either:

    "I, __________, do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States."

    The second part read:

    "I, __________, do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me."

    Although the enlisted oath remained unchanged until 1950, the officer oath has undergone substantial minor modification since 1789. A change in about 1830 read:

    "I, __________, appointed a __________ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully
    against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States."

    Under an act of 2 July 1862 the oath became:

    "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons
    engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatsoever under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."

    The last revision was due to the Civil War, of course.

    https://history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html

    I would also point out that some of the former Confederate generals were the loudest proponents for change in their home states to work to heal our divided nations. Robert E. Lee was very vocal in his belief that Confederate symbols should not be put on pedestals, as that would only serve to divide us as a nation when we needed to strengthen our national identity.
    *

    Absolutely... Lee was among some of the greatest of the traitors of the United States. I mean that in a nice way, but you can't really tell that from just looking at it... I mean... look at it; it just sounds mean. :)

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    93

    This deserves to be read. Incredible piece in NYT entitled:

    You want a Confederate monument? My body is a Confederate monument!

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/opinion/confederate-monuments-racism.html

    Yep! :)

  114. [114] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    106

    You are assuming DH HAS a pair of knickers.

    Heh. :)

  115. [115] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    you guys are assuming DH knows what knickers even are.

  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    so, it's pile on Don time, tonight.

    you guys are really something.

  117. [117] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    See the song 'horseshoes' by moxy fruvous.

  118. [118] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Save it for Sunday.

  119. [119] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well here's a preview:

    "Look straight at the coming disaster
    Realize what you've lost
    You keep handing out horseshoes
    Horseshoes have gotta be tossed.
    Horseshoes have gotta be tossed..."

    ~Dave Matheson, Moxy Fruvous

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll look forward to the rest of it, then. :)

Comments for this article are closed.