Heh. ;)

I really have to laugh every time I think of poor Bill on that plane, the day before his wife was to have her little sit down with the FBI.

I would be lying if I said I didn't laugh my ass off at you laughing about something that's verifiably incorrect; however, a faulty memory is no laughing matter.

Hillary met with the FBI on July 2, while "poor Bill" met with Lynch on June 27. I don't think of him as "poor," however, he definitely made an ignorant choice.

I mean, seriously, how obtuse can one man be!?

You tell me. You're the one who has to "laugh every time" you "think of" a timeline in your head that never existed in real life. :)

Comey had an obligation to inform Congress.

No, he most definitely did not.

Why is this so hard to understand?

You tell me. I'm not the one insisting that a man with a decision to make had only one choice because a "decision" by definition is choosing which course to take among many. He chose poorly. If Comey had sent a memo to Congress 11 days before the election alerting them to the fact that Donald Trump was under investigation for multiple months, it too would have been an incorrect decision.

If either Christopher Wray (Trump appointee) or Merrick Garland were to take the advice of Mitch McConnell and publicize any ongoing investigation into Donald Trump, it too will be a wrong decision. FBI Director Wray or Attorney General Garland should ultimately report only on whether or not Trump (or others associated with any related investigations) have been indicted or will not be indicted.

I recommend you go watch Comey's testimony where he explains all of this, okay?

I don't need to; he prattles on and on about his only choices being "speak" or "conceal," but he left out the obvious choice wherein the FBI does not comment on investigations and particularly does not inject the Bureau into political affairs when absentee in-person voting and voting absentee by mail is underway in practically every state in America and the District of Columbia and where a presidential election is being held in 11 days. If he had literally done the same thing to Donald Trump, it still would have been the wrong decision. Nothing you believe will change that fact.

So, to recap: It's not the place of the DOJ/FBI to influence elections regardless the Party of the candidate being discussed. It wasn't Merrick Garland or Christopher Wray but Trump himself who chose to politicize the warrant served on his residence by Director Wray's FBI -- and not the other way around -- and it was Trump himself who is choosing not to release the list of classified documents that were illegally taken from the White House, illegally relocated to his residence by himself and his aides, and then ultimately/finally forcibly removed and returned to their rightful place in Washington, DC, after over 18 months of NARA attempting to obtain them without incident.

Committee member, possibly even the chairman or ranking member, Iran-Contra Hearings, c1987:

"So, you were shredding documents in there in the middle of the night!?"

Lt.Col. Oliver North:

"Yeah, YEAH! And, I didn't think anything of it!"

I mean, seriously, how obtuse can one man be!?

I recommend you go watch Comey's testimony where he explains all of this, okay?

In reality, I was and still am quite correct about Bill being the one who really sabotaged Hillary's campaign by his little impromptu - cough, cough - meeting with then Attorney General Lynch, boarding her plane on the tarmac in Phoenix ... to say hi and chat about the grandkids. Ahem.

So, you assert (again and incorrectly) that her husband is to blame.

And, then there was that promise Comey made to Congress in public testimony that he would inform them if the investigation should re-open.

I may have mentioned that. Meaning: I definitely mentioned that James Comey violated longstanding rules of the Department of Justice to (technical term) "butt the eff out" of impending elections.

Between Hillary's horrible campaigning

I interrupt this sentence to inform you that you're now contradicting yourself and making my point for me, but go ahead and continue...

and her interfering, sabotaging husband, not to mention the fact that she lost a never to be found thumbnail hard drive!!!!, she had only herself to blame

So you're saying she had herself to blame too. Fancy that! Go on...

for Comey's actions and for her lost presidential run.

Oh, wrong answer! No one not named James Comey forced James Comey to break longstanding rules at the Department of Justice that are in effect to this very day. No one.

You might as well be arguing that Comey had an obligation to inform the public about both presidential candidates being under investigation (for whatever reason), and you'd be incorrect still. Comey shouldn't have made promises with his mouth that were in violation of DOJ rules no matter who the candidate, either Clinton or Trump. Period. Full stop.

Yes, you did, and you're still incorrect about that because Hillary's husband did not take it upon himself to break longstanding rules at the DOJ and de facto announce an investigation into one of the candidates for president when the opposition candidate, in point of fact, is also under a long-running investigation by the same entity, specifically, the FBI.

In reality, I was and still am quite correct about Bill being the one who really sabotaged Hillary's campaign by his little impromptu - cough, cough - meeting with then Attorney General Lynch, boarding her plane on the tarmac in Phoenix ... to say hi and chat about the grandkids. Ahem.

And, then there was that promise Comey made to Congress in public testimony that he would inform them if the investigation should re-open.

Between Hillary's horrible campaigning and her interfering, sabotaging husband, not to mention the fact that she lost a never to be found thumbnail hard drive!!!!, she had only herself to blame for Comey's actions and for her lost presidential run.

Okay, five little words, but hell yes! :)

Well, I actually just swapped out the 'a' for a 'the' so I only really added four little words, you know. But, who's counting!

But, I prefer to see it framed in a way that exposes the sexual repression of American men and women who would presume to impose their political and religious beliefs by interfering in the most intimate life decisions concerning reproductive freedom.

Well then, I've inadvertently granted your wish.

Did someone mention American theocracy? Well, I think it's related.

Correct answer.

I mean really, choice sounds like hey, perhaps I'd like almond milk in my latte, or maybe oat milk. It's a very coastal, yuppie type term for such a serious life decision.

Exactly this, and the Trumpian cowards and rubes who whined and moaned that "mask mandates" are a violation of our freedom will not stop until the "forced birth mandates" of the Red States are instituted nationwide, unless something is done to stop them.

And another thing: Is anyone talking about the foreseeable costs that will be foisted onto the taxpayers of America to subsidize the consequences of the forced birth mandates legislation of the Red states? Mandated forced stillbirths, pregnant children and medical bankruptcies foisted upon families by the politicians in Red states who disdained the prospect of funding for low-income women during a baby formula shortage and worked tirelessly for decades to kill the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in favor of a health care plan TBA (that never existed and still doesn't) because two weeks have come and gone, and Russ and I are still waiting for the promised health care plan that will replace the ACA to be revealed... any day now. *shakes head*

They don't care about life; they want a Christo-fascist America where law is based on their religious dogma, where wearing a mask is an assault on your freedom but forcing you to give birth for the guy who illegally date raped you (or your teenage daughter) is a tiny imposition.

Well, screw that.

Forced birth? That conjures a very different image.

Accurate, though, isn't it? The argument for forced birth is based on religious beliefs that "life begins at conception." Science says otherwise. The Constitution makes no such claim either, but it definitely speaks about religious freedom. Making a law that restricts what kind of medical care Americans can receive based on religion is the definition of theocracy. If the religious righties want to enshrine their biblical beliefs into law, they can cease to be tax-exempt entities and start funding the consequences of their legislating religion: Amen.

* 1 Corinthians 6:18 - Have you sinned sexually against your own body? You knew the possible consequences of fornication. Forced birth for you. You were sinned against? Forced birth for you.

But why stop there? Following verse:

* 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 - Have you not been treating your body as a temple unto the Holy Spirit? You knew the possible consequences of corpulence. No heart surgery for you.

I could go on.

'Forced birth' is better than 'choice'. It certainly distills the issue down to its essence.

But, I prefer to see it framed in a way that exposes the sexual repression of American men and women who would presume to impose their political and religious beliefs by interfering in the most intimate life decisions concerning reproductive freedom.

Did someone mention American theocracy? Well, I think it's related.

The "forced birth" issue was an excellent framing of the problem. "Choice" is such a milquetoast counter-narrative to anti-abortion (how many people are actually in favor of abortion when they think about it). If people start getting on screens and referring to it as forced birth every single time, that term sinks into the gut and makes you feel it.

So, to recap:

Lock him up!

If I recall correctly, though, I was saying things like it was Hillary's husband who ended up sabotaging her entire run for the presidency.

Yes, you did, and you're still incorrect about that because Hillary's husband did not take it upon himself to break longstanding rules at the DOJ and de facto announce an investigation into one of the candidates for president when the opposition candidate, in point of fact, is also under a long-running investigation by the same entity, specifically, the FBI.

That is going to take a sea change in thinking but adding just four little words might make it easier:

"So if you want someone who is fiscally responsible representing you in Congress -- vote for a Democrat, not the Republican cult of economic failure (a useful phrase coined by David Fiderer, I should add)..."

Okay, five little words, but hell yes! :)

All of the above! :)

Also, hit the individual GOP Senators who had a chance to put their money where their mouth is on these very specific issues and then proved unequivocally and without doubt that they're all talk and no action.

For an example, look no further than Senator Bread Bags from Iowa (excerpt of speech):

No individual should have to make the decision between filling a lifesaving prescription and feeding their family. The skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs has become a matter of life and death for so many.

We’ve heard the heartbreaking stories of individuals who could not afford their insulin, were forced to ration and skip doses, and as a result they lost their lives.

I remember quite vividly a conversation I had with an Iowa mother explain how she lost her son who as a young and was rationing his insulin because he could not afford to buy more. It was a heartbreaking discussion, and having that discussion with that mother, I could not help but think then of my own brother and sister who have been reliant on insulin as juvenile diabetics for nearly all of their lives.

When we talk about the cost of prescription drugs, folks, lives are literally on the line. And Iowans have been very clear with me where they stand on this issue. They want to see us act and come together to advance solutions that drive down those drug prices.

Seniors, families, and children all need to be assured that when they go to the pharmacy, they’ll be able to afford their medications and not have to skip a meal or more to do so.

~ Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqRKv1Ogb0M

*
And what exactly did Joni Ernst do when she had the chance to vote specifically to include just this one provision in the bill that would have capped the price of insulin for those who already had private insurance?

She voted "no," of course, because Republicans are liars and hypocrites.

But CRISIS equals DANGER and OPPORTUNITY.

Progressivism would have been strangled by a Hillary Clinton administration. But Murica instead first nominated and then elected Trump, a sure sign of universal dissatisfaction with the status quo.

I didn't think it would cost hundreds of thousands of extra Murican Covid deaths but I did expect that Trump's weirdness would at the least enlarge the Overton Window.

And hence we find ourself in better shape at this moment than had Hillary won in 2016.

Yep, it seems that real change doesn't much happen unless some blood is spilt/some lives are lost. We don't pay attention otherwise.

*Good/bad economic news, foreign policy news -- e.g. what happens if Ukraine wins?, J6C and DoJ and indicted Repugs and who knows what else...

What are Republicans going to do about inflation?

No millionaire left behind is the Republican cure for every problem.

Are you, in fact, not Donald Trump?

No matter what, the 2022 Repugs are Trump and 81 million Muricans voted against another four years of Trump.

This is why Joe Biden's approval rating -- and Dems wetting their pants over whatever it is -- is like the Dem negotiations I've ignored for a year now. Read Future Shock to understand how the pace of change is accelerating and Trump has exacerbated that pace.

Conventional Wisdom is failing left and right.

A bit wordy but, quite succinct, nevertheless. :)

Maybe you could add in there at the end something about the Republican cult of economic failure!

With a little of marketing prowess this and other good legislation will stand in stark contrast to the Repug Party of No, every step of the way let their voting record.

The Red wave is by no means assured, I said before and repeat today.

That is going to take a sea change in thinking but adding just four little words might make it easier:

"So if you want someone who is fiscally responsible representing you in Congress -- vote for a Democrat, not the Republican cult of economic failure (a useful phrase coined by David Fiderer, I should add)..."

Republicans have long been viewed, mistakenly, as the best stewards of the economy for far too long. This is probably the biggest obstacle for Democrats to overcome even though it should be easy enough to articulate.