ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Election Fears

[ Posted Friday, October 28th, 2022 – 17:20 UTC ]

We have to admit, we're more than a little worried about the upcoming midterm elections. Not about who will win (that's a different subject), but about the elections themselves. Because for the first time in a very long period in American history, one of the major political parties is openly attacking the election system itself. This is a dry run for the 2024 presidential election, and at this point it is impossible to say that Election Day (and the counting of the votes thereafter) won't be marred by intimidation, internal sabotage, and/or outright political violence. And that's a pretty sad state of affairs for American democracy.

The signs are all there. Few are paying enough attention to them, but nobody will be able to express shock and surprise afterwards by saying: "Who could have seen something like this coming?" Because people already are.

The Washington Post ran an editorial this week which began:

This year's midterms are not shaping up to be normal elections. In an environment in which one party is gripped by skepticism and denialism about foundational democratic processes, new avenues are opening for voter intimidation and election interference -- a stress test that could be a small taste of what is ahead in the 2024 presidential election.

Early signs of danger are popping up across the map at multiple levels in the election system.

They then provided a list which included: "undermining local election officials," "conspiracy-minded partisans watching -- and staffing -- the polls," and "threats against voters."

In some places, proactive steps are being taken to introduce as much confusion and doubt into the system as is possible. Nye County, Nevada decided to ban the use of machines to count votes and instead has instituted a hand-count policy. Let's check in and see how that's going, as they begin to count the absentee ballots already sent in:

After a full day in the Nye County office building in Pahrump, 60 miles (96 kilometers) west of Las Vegas, some 60 volunteers had counted about 900 of the 1,950 mail-in ballots that the county has received so far.

It took 60 people an entire day to count 900 ballots. That is 15 ballots per person for an entire day. Here are some further details on how it went:

Two groups of five that The Associated Press observed Wednesday spent about three hours each counting 50 ballots. Mismatched tallies led to recounts, and occasionally more recounts. Several noted how arduous the process was, with one volunteer lamenting: "I can't believe it's two hours to get through 25" ballots.

. . .

One group observed by AP found during their first 30 minutes that they had mismatched numbers for eight candidates. A recount took nearly 40 minutes, and two of the recounts still had different outcomes.

"That's going to be my new name. Mismatch," said one of the talliers.

They took two hours to accurately count only 25 ballots. They counted for 30 minutes, got a total, and it was wrong for eight voters. They recounted for 40 minutes, and they still got "different outcomes."

What could possibly go wrong, when they gather to count the Election Day votes? Nye County is now the most-populated county in the continental U.S. to use hand-counting. In Nevada, a different tiny county (Esmeralda) hand-counted votes and it took them seven hours to count 317 ballots.

But Nevada Republicans want to institute this system for the whole state, including the heavily-populated Clark County, where Las Vegas is. Which would mean they'd get done counting maybe sometime around Valentine's Day.

This is systematic sabotage of the previously-working-just-fine election system from within. And it's not the only type of sabotage either. Republicans try to sneakily access voting machines, intimidate voters at the polls, and openly advocate violence even after the election. Here's what Steve Bannon had to say about what a newly-elected Republican House majority would do: "[W]e're going to do it by bayonet... that's going to be reality."

The White House has reportedly issued a national security warning about threats to the upcoming election -- both foreign and domestic.

We are entering uncharted waters.

This week, three people were convicted in Michigan of aiding the plot by a right-wing conspiracy to kidnap the state's Democratic governor. And just today we got the news that a nutjob wielding a hammer broke into Nancy Pelosi's California home and beat Pelosi's husband so badly with it that he's undergoing brain surgery. The attacker reportedly demanded: "Where is Nancy?" which should sound familiar since we heard that on January 6th, 2021 -- from the mob who stormed the United States Capitol in a failed insurrection attempt.

The Pelosi home invasion at least caused the Republican leaders in Congress to finally condemn violence against their political opponents, but they didn't say a word about how their entire party has been nodding and winking at calls for political violence by the current leader of the party. They're all probably practicing their: "What a shocking surprise -- who could have seen this coming?" lines, just in case they'll need them on Election Day or soon after.

America is in a very dark and deluded place right now, and no one can predict how the upcoming election will turn out. It could be smooth and normal. But it might not be, at least not everywhere. Trump's Big Lie is now believed by a huge swath of the Republican base. Despite absolutely no evidence whatsoever having been found in the two years since the 2020 election, they still believe what their party's leader tells them (ad infinitum) while all the other Republicans either echo this delusion or quietly look the other way.

So no matter which party does well on November 8th, we're still downright worried about the midterm election. The election itself, not the outcome. And that's scarier than any Hallowe'en horror story, really.

Speaking of horror stories, let's check in with Trump's legal woes. This week saw the start of a fraud trial in New York against the Trump Organization (one of multiple investigations there). Trump's former chief of staff Mark Meadows was ordered to testify to a Georgia grand jury, but if he may appeal this up to the Supreme Court (and who knows what they'll do?).

Trump lost at the appellate level in a very old case, so a House committee may finally get to access his tax returns. And Trump's lawyers apparently have been desperately trying (using the strongest language possible) to talk him out of actually making an appearance under oath in front of the House January 6th Select Committee, so here's hoping they fail and he does show up.

All these investigations and cases are tightening the circle on Trump, in case you've lost track of them all. And the Washington Post helpfully added up all the jail sentences Trump cronies have already gotten and came close to a whopping 30 years' worth. And in many ways, this is likely just the beginning.

Out on the campaign trail, there were a passel of debates this week, but only one garnered any real media attention (which we'll be talking about a little later). The media has shifted back to "big red wave coming" mode, but the reality is that there are fewer actual polls being conducted, more and more of them are done by partisan organizations (who often skew the numbers favorably), and anything could happen on Election Day. So get out and vote! Prove the punditocracy wrong!

Attorney General Merrick Garland reversed a Trump-era policy this week and announced new Justice Department guidelines which will bar subpoenas, search warrants and seizures of reporters' records, in all but the most extreme cases. Which is a big win for the First Amendment.

Liz Cheney is openly endorsing Democrats in both Michigan and Arizona, now that she's been freed of any reason to show loyalty to a political party that has completely ostracized and shunned her.

A group of protesters gathered at the Russian Embassy in Washington this week to openly smoke lots of marijuana and display a gigantic (inflatable) joint with the message on it (in Russian): "Free Griner and Russians from Putin." This is in support of Brittney Griner, who lost her appeal and will now be headed to a Russian labor camp to serve out her Draconian sentence.

And finally, something to make everyone smile, mostly because it is not about our politics but instead Britain's. After their last prime minister lasted (we counted) only four Scaramuccis in office, we learned that the Chief Mouser of 10 Downing Street, otherwise known as Larry The Cat, will soon be welcoming his fifth prime minister to what is more his house than theirs. Which prompted a bit of amusement online (we're almost certain the cat-sized podium was Photoshopped in, but it's still a hilarious photo) of Larry gravely accepting some new duties. Cheers!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

While a few Democrats had some impressive moments in this week's debates, none of them really made a splash in the political media. Barack Obama is finally entering the fray of the midterm cycle, which to us seems rather woefully late. What's he been doing up until now that he couldn't have made a few appearances?

We do have an Honorable Mention for Joe Biden this week, for making an announcement banning two specific (and insidious) kinds of "junk fees" from banks. Biden spoke of his broader initiative to fight such hidden fees not just in banking but also in airline pricing and plenty of other places. But the bank fees ban was the one which made it through the extensive federal rule-making process this week, all the others are still working their way through the system.

But we do have to say it smacks perhaps of "too little, too late." If Biden had announced it a month or two earlier, it might have had a small impact on the midterm campaign. If Biden had been touting this effort loudly and frequently, it'd just be another milestone on a continuing story of protecting middle-class consumers. But neither one of those is really true, so it just became the most recent thing (the last one was allowing over-the-counter hearing aid sales) that Biden has managed to accomplish to help average people that both he and the Democrats at large have dropped the ball on selling to the American people as a partisan victory. Which is why he wasn't even really considered for the main award this week.

Instead, the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week was Representative Mary Peltola from Alaska. Since Alaska doesn't have all that many people, she had to win a statewide race to get to the House -- the first Democrat to do so in 50 years. But it was a special election, so she's now running all over again, to beat Sarah Palin and another strong Republican candidate.

This week, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski actually endorsed Peltola rather than either of the Republicans running. Speaking at a meeting of Alaska Natives last week, Murkowski had some kind words for Peltola: "Mary is a woman whose heart is as grounded in Alaska as anybody you're going to find." Peltola is the first Alaska Native in history to be elected to Congress, it bears mentioning. So after the meeting, a reporter asked Murkowski if she was voting for Peltola. Here's what happened:

Asked if she would rank [Representative Mary] Peltola first on her ballot next month in Alaska's new ranked-choice voting system, [Senator Lisa] Murkowski paused. After a full 18 seconds, she said, "Yeah, I am." She then mumbled, "I'm going to get in so much trouble."

Asked to respond to Murkowski's de facto endorsement, Peltola said, "I'm voting for her, so we're even-steven."

That is pretty classy, we've got to admit. There is a Democrat in the Senate race but they don't have a prayer of winning, even with the ranked-choice ballot. The real race is between Murkowski and a Trump-endorsed MAGA candidate. So what Peltola was really doing here was putting country above party -- which was exactly what Murkowski was doing in the first place too (we wrote about a few similar cases on Monday).

For doing so, and for doing so without hesitation, Mary Peltola is easily our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Representative Mary Peltola on her House contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We have two candidates for Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week, so our decision was based on the sheer volume of the disappointed.

Which means we only have a (Dis-)Honorable Mention to give to Pramila Jayapal, the leader of the House Progressive Caucus. This week, a letter from House Progressives to President Biden was released, and then within a day was retracted, because of the outcry among other Democrats.

With two weeks to go before an election, Jayapal apparently decided that it was a good time to release a somewhat-critical letter on Biden's Ukraine war policy. This letter (you can read the whole thing, if interested) several times urged Biden to explore "direct talks with Russia," which would leave the Ukrainians out in the cold. The letter was actually written (and signed, by most of the signatories) months ago, when the situation on the ground was quite different. Which makes it all the more confusing why it was released now.

Jayapal, rather unconvincingly, blamed it all on an unnamed overeager staffer who just sent the letter to the White House without permission. The blowback was pretty immediate, with even some of the members who had signed the letter saying they wouldn't do so now.

Our advice to both Jayapal and the whole Progressive Caucus: stick to your core concerns about domestic economic issues.

The timing couldn't have been worse -- right after Kevin McCarthy threatened that if Republicans take control of the House the Ukraine military aid might just stop -- and the politics of challenging your own party's president right before an election were horrible. So in terms of the level of disappointment, this one was actually worse.

But as we said, in terms of the numbers of Democrats who were disappointed, we sadly have to award John Fetterman the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

We do so reluctantly. Fetterman suffered a stroke, just before the primary election happened. We can't remember this ever happening in the past (although some candidates have actually died before an election and still won). And we have personally known stroke survivors. We understand that not being able to get the words out don't mean that the words aren't there in the person's head. Verbal and auditory processing powers are not the same as cognitive abilities. And he's got a good comeback for all the complaints: "By January I'll be much, much better. But Oz will still be a fraud."

Even so, Fetterman's debate performance was painful to watch. The only saving grace was his opponent Mehmet "Dr." Oz stepping on his own two feet on abortion, giving his position as:

There should not be involvement from the federal government in how states decide their abortion decisions. As a physician, I've been in the room when there's some difficult conversations happening. I don't want the federal government involved with that at all. I want women, doctors, local political leaders, letting the democracy that's always allowed our nation to thrive, putting the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves.

The phrase "local political leaders" is already being heavily featured in new Fetterman ads, as well it should be.

Even so, we have to count ourselves among those who think that Fetterman refusing to debate wouldn't have been as damaging for him politically as the debate performance he turned in. And for that, sadly, we have to say John Fetterman was the winner of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. We hope Fetterman continues to improve, we hope he wins, and we hope to see him prove his critics wrong when he takes his seat in January. But that debate was still painful to watch.

[Contact Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman on his official contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 683 (10/28/22)

Joe Biden did promise us "boring."

We have to keep reminding ourselves of that, because he just isn't anywhere near the party spokesman he seems to think he is. We have long suspected that Biden's attitudes towards what to do to win elections is frozen in time, somewhere back in the 1980s or 90s.

Just once in our life we'd like to get another Democratic president that is really good at politics. Someone who knows how to sell their own accomplishments. Someone who can explain complicated things in a very easy-to-relate-to way and not manage to sound 30 or 40 years out of date.

Someone like Bill Clinton, in other words. Clinton had plenty of flaws, but selling his agenda and "explainin' stuff" was his true genius. Barack Obama would occasionally do an adequate job of it, but overall never even came close to the standard Clinton truly set. Joe Biden should be able to do this -- as we all know, he's from humble beginnings in Scranton -- but when he attempts it these days it never sounds to the listener as convincing as you can tell Biden thinks it is.

Case in point: the new "closing argument" from the White House. Are you ready for the talking point that's going to win the Democrats the midterm elections? Here you go:

Administration officials repeatedly described the Republican agenda as "mega MAGA trickle-down economics" during a conference call, echoing a phrase Biden used last week at a Democratic National Committee event.

"Republicans are doubling down on their mega MAGA trickle-down economics that benefits the very wealthy," Biden said Monday. "It failed their country before and will fail it again if they win."

They started out this election cycle with the cringeworthy "ultra-MAGA," and they've now come up with a brilliant way to top this: "mega-MAGA trickle-down economics."

Sigh.

Why are so many Democrats so incredibly bad at this wordsmithing stuff? In 683 of these columns (and counting) we have sadly never once had the thought: "Democrats have improved so greatly in formulating talking points and sticking with them that maybe it is time to retire the idea of a 'Friday Talking Points' column."

In other words, here we go again -- time for our weekly attempt to solve this seemingly-intractable problem. Here are our closing arguments we would urge campaigning Democrats to consider using.

 

1
   Recession avoided

Tout today's good growth number!

"After two quarters where the economy slid back, we are now moving forward again. Growth was a healthy 2.6 percent last quarter, and that entire time Republicans were out there trying to convince everyone we were in a recession. But the jobless rate remains at a 50-year low and wages are still increasing. The recovery from all the effects of the COVID pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues. While Republicans are out there cheering for the economy to do worse than it is."

 

2
   Their "plan" would make things worse!

Hit this one hard.

"Inflation, of course, is still a problem. In fact, it is a worldwide problem, although America is weathering this storm better than a lot of other countries. Economic signs are looking up, and we're finally getting inflation under control again. Meanwhile, the Republicans love to bring up the subject of inflation, but they have no idea what to do about it. They really don't. The only ideas they have are stale retreads of hoary Republican ideology -- like more tax cuts for the wealthy. That would put more money in the economy and make inflation worse -- but they don't seem to care. It's like they say -- if the only tool you have is a hammer, soon every problem will look like a nail."

 

3
   Local political leaders?

Thank you, Dr. Oz.

"This week, Dr. Oz said in his debate that he wanted, and I quote, women, doctors, local political leaders, unquote, to be the ones to make a decision on abortion for that woman. Local political leaders? This was jarring, but in fact it is exactly what every single Republican out there is advocating. Allowing local politicians to make medical decisions for women. Oz even actually knew exactly what he was talking about -- he also said, 'as a physician, I've been in the room when there's some difficult conversations happening.' And yet he still wants local political leaders to have the veto power over these decisions. This is the world Republicans want all women to live in. Most of them are better at obscuring their true goal, so I'd like to thank Dr. Oz for phrasing the official Republican position so memorably. Democrats, of course, believe that such decisions should be made by a woman and her doctor. Period."

 

4
   Books about divorce next?

Use a very broad brush with this one. Why not?

"Apparently, banning all mentions of gay parents in schools isn't enough for some Republicans. Not content with dictating what children can and cannot hear -- like the fact that some families have two mommies -- they're also dictating what can be in the school library. And the Republican running for governor of Michigan would even ban books that mention divorced families. Because apparently her kid read one and was exposed to the idea that a child could have two homes. Which they undoubtedly had already been exposed to, just by talking to their fellow classmates. Where does this moral totalitarianism end? When will the book-banners and speech-censors be satisfied? That's what you have to wonder with all these Republicans who want to police morality and restrict freedoms -- where will it all end?"

 

5
   Democrats fighting to help, Republicans fight against it

This is a broader point and can be used with all sorts of issues.

"Democrats have been fighting to help average middle-class American families. We've fought to lower prescription drug prices for the first time. We fought to limit the cost of insulin, so evil corporations can't just hike the price a few hundred percent when they feel like padding their bottom line. We fought to make most hearing aids available over the counter, saving seniors thousands of dollars each. We are fighting to forgive student debt to give the COVID Generation a chance at buying a new house or starting a family. Every step of the way, we've fought for the little guy. And every step of the way, Republicans have fought hard against it. They would reverse a lot of what we've been able to accomplish, because Republicans care a lot more about big business making obscene profits than they do about family budgets. Democrats are fighting to help families while Republicans fight tooth and nail to stop it from happening."

 

6
   Social Security and Medicare

To his credit, Biden has been leaning into this one, but it needs to be a lot more widely used by Democrats.

"Republicans are even openly admitting something they used to try to hide until after an election was over -- that they are coming with big axe for Social Security and Medicare. They're admitting that they're going to hold the full faith and credit of the United States to the rest of the world hostage in their quest to cut both Social Security and Medicare. Who in their right mind would even think of such a plan? As I said, Republicans used to deny this to the voters and then turn right around and do it anyway, but now they don't even care any more -- they'll tell you right to your face they're coming for Social Security and Medicare. And they'll threaten a global financial meltdown to get it, too."

 

7
   Democrats fight for democracy

This is sort of a sleeper issue in most campaign coverage, but the voters care about it more than you might think.

"Democrats will fight for democracy. We will fight to keep American elections free and fair. We will fight any attempts to intimidate voters. We will fight for the right of all American citizens to cast their ballot, and we will fight to make the process as easy and accessible as possible. Republicans are openly admitting they are fighting against all of that. According to them, any election they didn't win was somehow rigged and should be overturned. According to them, the only legitimate election is where the Republican wins. This is so un-American it should frighten everyone. I don't know what they call that, but it is not democracy. They are openly telling you they will overturn the will of the people at the drop of a hat in order to seize or hold onto power. Democrats are not just fighting for Americans, they are now fighting for American democracy itself."

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

124 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Election Fears”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The Q-nut terrorist who attacked Mr Pelosi today is the story that caught my attention. For hours, the talking heads said that they couldn't jump to conclusions about motivation to commit such a horrible, deplorable crime. It seems like if a person breaks into the Speaker of the House's home with a hammer, he almost certainly wanted to bash her in the head with that hammer because that's what the orange law and order guy wants.

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Then we find out that the terrorist cracked his skull with a hammer after the cavalry arrived. Is it possible that they didn't know who lives in that house? They see two men threatening each other with hammers, but nobody was black, so nobody got shot. They couldn't tell the difference between the old man in his PJs and the Steve Bannonish trash person?

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Everyone is so shocked that there was no security! It actually is, but shouldn't be. It wasn't that long ago when Rant Paul drove some old man from his neighborhood to beat him up for his disgraceful yard work.

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The number of people who watch "debates" is not very large. I see very little value in any of them.

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I turned on Fox News to get the icing on the fruitcake regarding the terrorist attack in San Francisco. They were discussing it with Kaitlyn Jenner. She really looks like a train wreck and I can't imagine why I should care about what a Kardashian has to say. By having her on that show, were they grooming kids for the baby eaters? As usual, I couldn't stay on that channel for long. How do viewers deal with the cognitive dissonance?

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's the start of a closing argument ...

    ... the Republican cult of economic failure ...

    Republican administrations have a very long record of leaving economic messes that are the order of magnitude of the Augean Stables, for crissakes, for Democratic administrations to clean up.

    Where's Timothy Geithner when you need him? :)

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC[2],

    An odd turn of events, to be sure!

  8. [8] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Looks like the initial stories on brain surgery were wrong. It was skull surgery and he came through fine. The perp was a believer of quite a few conspiracy theories that overlapped with the Qnuts according to his social media but may have come to it from the far left holistic anti-vax crowd. By the end though, a venn diagram overlapping his beliefs with the run of the mill Trumper/Qnut would be close to a circle...

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [6] -

    This was like a "LizM Greatest Hits" to me...

    First, I loved "Republican cult of economic failure" and wish I had come up with that, it's a great phrase. First one I ever encountered was Dubya actually talking the economy *down* between when he got elected and his inauguration, in the hopes his baseline would be way low and he could show improvement...

    Second, Augean Stables! A classic... nice!

    Third, a mention of Tim.

    Boy that all takes me back...

    :-)

    Just had to say that...

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Bashi -

    I have always been interested in the overlap in Venn diagrams from the "way far out on the left" and the "way far out on the right"... used to be, you could just chat with a Libertarian at a party and get caught up, those days seem nostalgic now...

    -CW

  11. [11] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Good to hear about just the "skull surgery"... the guy's like what, 82?

  12. [12] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    CW-

    I have always looked at the political divide as a circle rather than a line. The centrists at the top, the party loyal on either side and the extremes meeting up at the bottom...

  13. [13] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    funny, I always put the fringe at the top of that circle...

    (heh)

    :-)

    -CW

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Feel free to borrow that Republican cult of economic failure phrase. Please, and with abandon! Maybe it'll catch on. I borrowed it from David Fiderer, who coined the term, also in reference to Dubya's economic policy.

    Oh, and that Augean Stables reference with regard to the mess left by Bush et al. for Obama/Biden ... guess who I stole that from? Heh.

  15. [15] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    A "Mr. Richard Feder, from New Jersey"?

    The entire career of tennis star Roger Federer, I could not hear his name without thinking of Roseanne Roseannadanna... sorry... hey, I did feature Emily Litella this week, right?

    :-)

    -CW

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, why does that remind me of North by Northwest? Sorry, never really got into SNL and it's too late to catch up now. :)

  17. [17] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Now there's a great movie!

    First time I visited Mt. Rushmore and walked into the visitor's center cafeteria area, it was just weird! Like I had been there before...

    :-)

    -CW

  18. [18] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Here you go...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k59d-xMvooA

    All of her appearances as this character started exactly the same way:

    "a Mister Richard Feder from Fort Lee, New Jersey, writes in to say..."

    :-)

    -CW

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I shall check that out tomorrow ... er, later today!

  20. [20] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, I've been putting it off but I'd rather not wait until tomorrow morning... when the floodwaters usually come in...

  21. [21] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Here is the deal.

    Here are the rules just for you, because you are in the penalty box.

    You can either accept them or not. It is up to you. Here are you options, as I see them:

    (1) defy them and post what you want. The next step on this path is a yellow card, and you will be locked out of your account for a week.

    (2) pretend to accept them but try to weasel your way around them in insidious ways. This also risks a yellow card, because my tolerance for nonsense is approaching zero, at this point.

    (3) accept them and keep within the boundaries and have actual intelligent conversations with people. This would be great, ok?

    (4) Reject them and disappear. Hey, your choice. It's my website, but you're always free to set up your own, right?

    Those are your options, as I see them. Feel free to whine about them as you wish, but it won't change them.

  22. [22] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Barack Obama is finally entering the fray of the midterm cycle, which to us seems rather woefully late.

    I think that if Obama had left a better taste in Democrat's mouths (after eight years of governing like a country club Republican) he would be in greater demand. I'll go to my grave believing that a good chunk of his disapproval percentage always included those of us who were so disappointed in him. Harumph.

  23. [23] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Peltola's great blah blah blah but I think Murkowski should get the MIDOTW. Because why not?

  24. [24] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Regarding Fetterman, I hate to say it but I have to agree with you and I how it doesn't cost him the race. He should still be able to beat Oz.

  25. [25] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [4]

    John From Censornati wrote:


    The number of people who watch "debates" is not very large. I see very little value in any of them.

    No kidding! What I'd love to see is two peeps sitting across my breakfast table drinking strong coffee and debating the issues. But how would one structure such a format...and then get the parties to agree to it? It's almost like the post-game "buzz" is all that matters and even that barely lasts.

  26. [26] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [5]

    JFC said,

    I turned on Fox News...

    Dude, I just cain't do it. I simply cannot watch Fox News for more than a few minutes before I find myself wanting to hurl my device against the nearest hard surface. I cannot stand the LIES! Really -- It's a good thing I've never owned a firearm because I would have shot out a lot of TV screens in the last couple of decades.

  27. [27] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [21]

    No fucking way. Once again you are laying down the law and you will once again come up empty handed.

    I'm three years new here in Weigantia and this I want around for Back when Michale was fit for human consumption as I like to call it.

    He is no better than Don Harris. His deflections, denials and pretending he doesn't read English is nothing but a more sophisticated version of DH.

    Because

    ultimately he's not here in anything resembling good faith and he really doesn't care about anything besides attracting attention. Pitiful. And not my problem...

    He is of no damn use -- stop wasting time on this douchebag who screwed you outta $150.*smh*

  28. [28] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale (continued...) -

    Rule #1:
    I like the 20 posts a day rule. Let's keep to that for now. Some have even indicated that it's too lenient, but I like to allow a buffer for you to respond to comments, so I think it's ok for now. As long as you keep a few in reserve for such responses, this should work... dude it really was the volume... you should see the complaints I get...

    Rule #2:
    Only one external excerpt per comment. Period. And in that excerpt, only 3 paragraphs excerpted total. And that's using the original paragraphs, not mushing it all together in your own post. The length of your citations has also been very prominent in my complaints inbox.

    Dude, this is not "Michale's daily reading list," it is the comments section for one of my articles, ok? Let's put things in perspective, shall we?

    Rule #3:
    For one week, you must stay strictly on-topic. I mean that. Comment on what I wrote. And don't try any "oh, you mentioned the election, so I am off and running" nonsense, ok? Any post you make which is even slightly far afield from the article I posted that day will be either removed or resoundingly ridiculed by "the moderator."

    Deal with it. Again: this is my site. I set the rules.

    You seem to see this site as a place to play a game. For you, this game is called: "award myself multiple points and victories against the libs and lefties, all the time." But you know what? Nobody else is playing that game -- it's only you. You can award yourself as many "victories" and "wins" as you want, but the rest of us just see it as you awarding yourself endless "participation awards." And remember when righties mocked that sort of thing? That's kind of how we feel about it all, sorry. And, yeah, it really is that pathetic.

    I am trying to keep my own comments section an enjoyable experience for most people. You have been interfering with that, which is why you have been singled out for this treatment. You can weep and wail about it, but you have brought it upon yourself. You did this. Own it. Deal with it. People are tired of it.

    So, stay or go as you see fit. But these are the rules, for the next week. People who support this site have demanded I do something, so I am.

    The ball's in your court, dude.

    -CW

  29. [29] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Damned auto correct...

    I'm three years new here in Weigantia and THUS I WASN'T around back when Michale was fit for human consumption...

  30. [30] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Wait! What? You are posting over me, boss.

    Yer wasting your time and we both know it. Why not skip the further futile bullshit part and cut the mo'fo loose? Weigantia's loss will simply have to be some other blog's gain.*sigh*

  31. [31] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Did I forget to mention the ...douchebag who screwed you outta $150.*smh* part?

    I mean, just what kind of clue do you need?

  32. [32] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    MtnCaddy -

    He really used to be interesting.

    I know it may be hard to believe, but it's true...

    -CW

  33. [33] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    ...and reasonable, to a certain extent...

  34. [34] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    You seem to see this site as a place to play a game. For you, this game is called: "award myself multiple points and victories against the libs and lefties, all the time." But you know what? Nobody else is playing that game -- it's only you. You can award yourself...

    Um, no. YOU'RE playing the game, too. Good hearted Elizabeth Miller tries to give him the benefit of the the doubt from time to time, God bless her, but otherwise you're the only one that takes him seriously.

  35. [35] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Yeah, well, let's give it another week and see what happens...

  36. [36] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [32]

    No doubt he used to be interesting. There has to be a reason that you've tolerated what I've read from him.

  37. [37] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I'm just saying, Dude. I sussed him out to be a straight-up attention junkie (once I figured out that he wasn't Mikhail, Rooskie Troll, that is.)

    It's a pattern recognition born assessment. This won't end well and the only question is how long it'll take you to reach the same conclusion.


    Michale is dead!
    Long live Michale!

  38. [38] 
    Kick wrote:

    Chris Weigant
    15

    A "Mr. Richard Feder, from New Jersey"?

    Fort Lee, New Jersey!

    FUN FACT: Richard Feder was/is a real person, the brother-in-law of SNL writer and segment co-creator Alan Zweibel. Around the time of "Bridgegate," Zweibel began to receive emails to his website asking: "What would Richard Feder say about this?"

    As "luck" would have it, Mr. Feder had gotten detained in the traffic on the George Washington Bridge.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/11/nyregion/a-mr-feder-once-of-fort-lee-chimes-in.html

  39. [39] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    BWAH hah hah! I never realized he actually existed, thanks for that!

    :-)

    I still chuckle, whenever I hear Federer's name in tennis news...

    -CW

  40. [40] 
    Kick wrote:

    Chris Weigant
    39

    Heh. I figure I still owe you for giving me infinity. ∞

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    moderator,

    OK, I have no problem with the rules you have imposed... I think that if ANYTHING has been proven, it's that I can easily follow restrictions.

    Am I permitted to ask a question??

    What will be your rules regarding personal attacks, both on commenters and commenters' family..

    I mean, I understand that *I* am not permitted those (off topic and all :) ....)...

    I guess what I am asking is what rules are going to be enforced on commenters NOT named Michale??

    And, I would like to point out that the issue here really isn't the volume.. Oh I am sure you got that reason cited in email a lot.. It's the most convenient scapegoat..

    But MC's reaction is pretty much EVERYONE'S reaction.. They don't want me limited.. They want my head... It's my status as a President Trump/America supporter that is really the issue..

    But hay.. Yer forum, yer rules.. I have absolutely ZERO problem with whatever rules you want to enforce.. I am simply asking that your base rules of no gross excessive personal attacks on commenters and zero personal attacks on commenters' family be enforced fairly without regard to political persuasion..

    Thank you for your time...

    Now.. I have a bit of work to do... :)

    Because for the first time in a very long period in American history, one of the major political parties is openly attacking the election system itself.

    I would have to point out that this claim is not factually accurate..

    Democrats have been attacking the "election system itself" for decades... Every time they have lost an election.. There are plenty of links I can point to if the facts are disputed...

    which should sound familiar since we heard that on January 6th, 2021 -- from the mob who stormed the United States Capitol in a failed insurrection attempt.

    It also sounds familiar because of the attempted assassination of SCOTUS Justice Kavanaugh.. It also sounds familiar because of 22 years (collectively) of Democrat BLM and AntiFa riots and attacks on hundreds of government buildings all over the country.. Attacks that left numerous cops dead and thousands of people injured and tens of billions of dollars in damages..

    So, yes. It all sounds familiar.

    Attorney General Merrick Garland reversed a Trump-era policy this week and announced new Justice Department guidelines which will bar subpoenas, search warrants and seizures of reporters' records, in all but the most extreme cases. Which is a big win for the First Amendment.

    Yea.. I am sure, for the head of Project Veratis, it feels like a "big win" eh? :)

    But I guess finding a lost diary is an "extreme case"... Just sayin'.. :)

    Trump's Big Lie is now believed by a huge swath of the Republican base.

    As is Stacey Abrams' Big Lie is now believed by a huge swath of the Democrat base.. Again.. Just sayin'...

    The phrase "local political leaders" is already being heavily featured in new Fetterman ads, as well it should be.

    Yes, I pointed that out how "local political leaders" (IE the LAW) *SHOULD* be involved in a baby killing decision under circumstances that Democrats SAY they want...

    I mean, sure.. It SOUNDS like a good political line for Democrats to use..

    But when you get down into the details of unrestricted abortion (which is what Democrats claim they are fighting for) there is really nothing wrong with a person's belief that the law *SHOULD* be involved at some point in a woman's pregnancy.

    Ample legal precedent exists to support this position..

    Even so, we have to count ourselves among those who think that Fetterman refusing to debate wouldn't have been as damaging for him politically as the debate performance he turned in.

    Thank you... :D That is a very insightful, astute and honest political assessment.. :D

    But that debate was still painful to watch.

    It was indeed..

    1/20 :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz Cheney is openly endorsing Democrats in both Michigan and Arizona, now that she's been freed of any reason to show loyalty to a political party that has completely ostracized and shunned her.

    And, what effect is that having?? :D

    Arizona's Kari Lake swipes Liz Cheney in open letter announcing 'biggest fundraiser yet'

    Cheney's ad campaign 'urging Arizonans not to vote for me is doing the just the opposite,” Lake claims

    Arizona candidate Kari Lake, a Republican running for governor, announced her campaign raised over $300,000 on Friday, which she cheekily credited to Sen. Liz Cheney, who is actively campaigning against her.

    In an open letter, Lake thanked Cheney for her "biggest fundraiser yet" as Cheney’s recent television ad campaign "urging Arizonans not to vote for me is doing the just the opposite."

    "Our campaign donations are skyrocketing and our website nearly crashed from traffic as people rushed to learn more about my plan to put Arizona First and join our historic movement," Lake said in the letter.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/arizonas-kari-lake-swipes-liz-cheney-open-letter-announcing-biggest-fundraiser-yet

    As an aside to the moderator, the article is posted as the 2 headlines and 3 paragraphs from the body of the article as per the rule..

    If I am reading the rule wrong, please advise. Thank you.

    Moving on.. Yep, it looks like Liz Cheney is an awesome fund raiser'er for Republicans...

    Let's hope she keeps it up...

    One thing I would love to see is to have Liz declare herself a Democrat and run in Democrat elections.. :D Let's see how much Dems love Liz THEN, eh? :D

    2/20

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    41

    What will be your rules regarding personal attacks, both on commenters and commenters' family..

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2022/10/25/never-mind/#comment-199928

    But MC's reaction is pretty much EVERYONE'S reaction.. They don't want me limited.. They want my head...

    If you're going to continue to attack our family here while putting words in "pretty much EVERYONE'S" mouth, then why on Earth would you farcically attempt the victim routine? Rhetorical question.

    You don't speak for me... or Russ... EVER.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    JFC,

    The Q-nut terrorist who attacked Mr Pelosi today is the story that caught my attention.

    As opposed to the guy who showed up at a SCOTUS Justice's house with a gun, a knife and duct tape with the intent to kidnap and kill the SCOTUS Justice..

    For hours, the talking heads said that they couldn't jump to conclusions about motivation to commit such a horrible, deplorable crime.

    As opposed to the Rubio canvasser who was brutally ganged up on and attacked for "being a Republican" in the wrong neighborhood and no one on the Left wanted to "jump to conclusions"...

    What you describe as noteworthy has been common place with Dem on GOP violence for the last couple years.. :)

    Just sayin'... :D

    3/20

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for that, sadly, we have to say John Fetterman was the winner of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. We hope Fetterman continues to improve, we hope he wins, and we hope to see him prove his critics wrong when he takes his seat in January. But that debate was still painful to watch.

    And it's not only that the debate was painful to watch..

    As I have pointed out previously, it's tantamount to handicap abuse that Fetterman's wife and campaign would push Fetterman into such an embarrassing, and possibly dangerous (health-wise) situation. Further it's clear that John Fetterman is simply not physically able to perform the duties required of a US Senator.. He may be in a couple years.. But definitely not now..

    But another aspect of this whole sad charade is being overlooked..

    That of the integrity of the Fetterman campaign..

    The Fetterman Charade Ends

    On the menu today: The entire Jenga-block tower of the John Fetterman campaign came crashing down last night, as it became painfully, abundantly clear that the Democratic Senate candidate in Pennsylvania is still suffering severe effects of his stroke, and the past few months of the candidate’s making ten-to-twelve-minute appearances on the stump have been an elaborate effort to hide those lingering effects. The issue isn’t the stroke; the issue is the dishonesty — and for Pennsylvania Democrats, this is an entirely self-inflicted wound. If the state party had wanted to substitute one of Fetterman’s primary rivals, Representative Conor Lamb or state representative Malcolm Kenyatta, it could have done so.

    Pennsylvanians will not have a problem with John Fetterman because he had a stroke. They will have a problem with John Fetterman because he, his wife, his campaign, and his party were not honest with the state’s voters about his true condition and recovery until it could no longer be hidden last night. As I wrote yesterday, “Delivering a version of your stump speech before an adoring crowd is different, and easier, than answering questions with time limits.”

    When Pennsylvania Democrats insist that a candidate who suffered a life-threatening stroke in May is recovering well and “has no work restrictions and can work full duty in public office,” that candidate must look and sound fine to prove they’re telling the truth. Last night, in the lone debate in the Pennsylvania Senate race, John Fetterman looked and sounded very, very far from fine. But you can judge for yourself by watching the whole debate here.
    https://tinyurl.com/2yr35aez

    For the entire length of John Fetterman's campaign, Fetterman, his wife, his campaign and Democrats in general have been claiming ad nauseum that John Fetterman was "fine" and capable of performing duties as a US Senator..

    The FACTS, however, say a different story... For all intents and purposes Fetterman, his wife, his campaign and Democrats in general have been lying to the whole country and, even more relevant, have been lying to Pennsylvania voters.. Blatantly, unequivocally and inarguably LYING to PA voters...

    That fact should be taken into account when PA voters go to the polls in 10 days.

    4/20

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    i don't recall if i've mentioned it, but i used to live in philly. if fetterman were to die tomorrow, he probably WOULD win. Oz is such a phony, real pennsylvanians would take pretty much any excuse to vote against him. perhaps it's a regional thing, but they hate phoniness even more than most places. is assisted suicide a valid campaign strategy?

    JL

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bite your tongue!

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oz is such a phony,

    Considering the fact that Fetterman and his campaign have been "phony" about Fetterman's health and capabilities practically his entire campaign.....

    It would seem that the facts show that Fetterman is the bigger phony here...

    Just sayin'...

    5/20

  49. [49] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale [44]

    As opposed to the guy who showed up at a SCOTUS Justice's house with a gun, a knife and duct tape with the intent to kidnap and kill the SCOTUS Justice..

    You mean the guy that turned himself in when he thought better of it rather than beat a spouse with a hammer?

    As opposed to the Rubio canvasser who was brutally ganged up on and attacked for "being a Republican" in the wrong neighborhood and no one on the Left wanted to "jump to conclusions"...

    The article I posted had scans of the arrest affidavit and it said no such thing. Do you have an updated affidavit to back this up?

    It's interesting that with all your faux indignation about us condemning political violence, all you got is a couple weak cases of whataboutism...

  50. [50] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    TP2

    Re ". . taxcuts for the wealthy . . that would put more money in the economy and make inflation worse."

    Tax cuts do NOT "put more money in the economy" for gawdsake. Tax cuts take money from the gov't and transfer it back to the taxpayers, whence it came, meaning that the net effect on "the amount of money in the economy" is ZERO!

    People whose knowledge of Economics is at that level should not be commenting on 'inflation', (which term I feel confident they can't even properly define)!

  51. [51] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Stucki-

    Wouldn't a tax cut on the wealthy prevent that money coming to the government in the first place rather than "transfer it back to the taxpayers"? It's not like you have profits taken out of your investments then get it back when you do your taxes like wages...

    "ZERO!" is a bit strong. This is not binary opposition. A certain small percentage will spend that extra money in the economy just never as much as the Republicans allege.

    “An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today.”

  52. [52] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    BashiBazouk [49]

    It's interesting that with all your faux indignation about us condemning political violence, all you got is a couple weak cases of whataboutism.

    It's as if it just wants to troll, huh?

  53. [53] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Fat Donny was lying again this morning. That's par for the course for the Biggest Loser. In addition, this America-hating, Russia-loving, espionage act violator has now turned to slurring America with childish nicknames as if she's Terd Cruz. It's sickening. There is no bottom.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bash,

    You mean the guy that turned himself in when he thought better of it rather than beat a spouse with a hammer?

    No, the guy who has been charged with the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court Justice..

    As opposed to a beat down of a drunk and a cheat who would as soon drunkenly run over some guy as look at them...

    The article I posted had scans of the arrest affidavit and it said no such thing. Do you have an updated affidavit to back this up?

    Funny how you pay attention to arrest affidavits on issues that meet your political agenda, yet ignore the arrest affidavit on issues that DON'T meet your political agenda..

    Thank you for proving my overall point so perfectly and clearly.. :D

    Fat Donny was lying again this morning. That's par for the course for the Biggest Loser. In addition, this America-hating, Russia-loving, espionage act violator has now turned to slurring America with childish nicknames as if she's Terd Cruz. It's sickening. There is no bottom.

    So, clarification..

    Pet names like "Fat Donny" and "Terd Cruz" and "Creepy Dementia Biden" and "Demo-rats" ARE acceptable discourse??

    Or are NOT acceptable discourse..

    Just trying to keep things straight here... :D

    CRS,

    Tax cuts do NOT "put more money in the economy" for gawdsake. Tax cuts take money from the gov't and transfer it back to the taxpayers, whence it came, meaning that the net effect on "the amount of money in the economy" is ZERO!

    People whose knowledge of Economics is at that level should not be commenting on 'inflation', (which term I feel confident they can't even properly define)!

    WERD.... :D

    6/20 :D

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    45

    As I have pointed out previously, it's tantamount to handicap abuse that Fetterman's wife and campaign would push Fetterman into such an embarrassing, and possibly dangerous (health-wise) situation.

    Yes, you rightly point out your redundancy and repetitiveness but, no, it isn't dangerous for a person who had a stroke to stand and speak. No one forced John Fetterman to debate his lying quack opponent from New Jersey; that was the big man's choice.

    Further it's clear that John Fetterman is simply not physically able to perform the duties required of a US Senator.. He may be in a couple years.. But definitely not now..

    John Fetterman is the current Lt. Governor of Pennsylvania and is "physically" perfectly able to kick the quack doctor back to his home state of New Jersey. Since you're not an actual physician, your confusion regarding the effects of a stroke are to be expected.

    For the entire length of John Fetterman's campaign, Fetterman, his wife, his campaign and Democrats in general have been claiming ad nauseum that John Fetterman was "fine" and capable of performing duties as a US Senator..

    Obviously incorrect. Fetterman's campaign began long before he had a stroke mere days before he was overwhelmingly selected as the Democratic nominee in Pennsylvania's primary election. Fetterman was well onto his way to recovery when the quack doctor from New Jersey was officially declared the winner in a recount three weeks after he barely eked out the nomination.

    The FACTS, however, say a different story...

    Exactly right: See above.

    For all intents and purposes Fetterman, his wife, his campaign and Democrats in general have been lying to the whole country and, even more relevant, have been lying to Pennsylvania voters..

    The "whole country" isn't choosing between Fetterman and Oz the Fake Wizard Nonresident, and it's laughable to watch a Trump supporter prattle on about lying.

    That fact should be taken into account when PA voters go to the polls in 10 days.

    Pennsylvania voters had already been voting before the debate and have been voting for several days already. Why wait? I would definitely not want to be down-ballot of Doug Mastriano, another guy from New Jersey!

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    48

    Considering the fact that Fetterman and his campaign have been "phony" about Fetterman's health and capabilities practically his entire campaign.....

    Not even a fact since Fetterman's campaign began long before he had a stroke mere days before he was overwhelmingly elected in Pennsylvania's primary election. Fetterman was well onto his way to recovery when Oz was finally declared the winner after recount, having barely eked out the nomination.

    It would seem that the facts show that Fetterman is the bigger phony here...

    It would seem your "facts" are misinformation.

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    BashiBazouk
    49

    It's interesting that with all your faux indignation about us condemning political violence, all you got is a couple weak cases of whataboutism...

    Bashi is right, and this constant whataboutism borderlines on off-topic commenting and definitely qualifies as pathetic deflection.

  58. [58] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale-

    As opposed to a beat down of a drunk and a cheat who would as soon drunkenly run over some guy as look at them...

    So victim shaming is your version of condemning political violence? Duly noted...

    Funny how you pay attention to arrest affidavits on issues that meet your political agenda, yet ignore the arrest affidavit on issues that DON'T meet your political agenda..

    Thank you for proving my overall point so perfectly and clearly.. :D

    Do you have a point? Looks like you just can't back up your accusations and are trying to weasel...

  59. [59] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    BB [51]

    OK, I was more referring to tax 'refunds' and should have changed the tense of my pharasing to apply to future tax collections, but the principle is the same. Whether the money is spent by the people who earned it or spent by the gov't, has no effect on the amount of money in the economy.

    The only thing that changes the amount of money in circulation is either the gov't spending more than it collects in taxes (monetary inflation), or spends less than it collects in taxes (monetary deflation).

    Tinkering with tax rates does NOT change the amount of money in circulation.

  60. [60] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Stucki-

    Would that not depend on your definition of money in circulation/money in the economy? Tax changes are not going to change the total amount of dollars, physical or digital out there but it might take some of the dollars tied up in investments or bank accounts and move them to active purchasing, which is the usage I think CW was referring to in TP2 when he said: That would put more money in the economy.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Do you have a point?

    Of course, I have a point.. I *ALWAYS* have a point.. :D

    The point being that YOUR determination for what is and is not political violence is SOLELY and completely based on your political ideology..

    For you:

    6 Jan = Political violence..

    22 years of Democrat BLM and AntiFa riots and cop-killings and attacks on HUNDREDS of government buildings all over the country = Peaceful protests != political

    Democrat scumbag drunk driver and stock cheat = Poor victim

    Republican vote canvasser brutally assaulted and SCOTUS Justice targeted for assassination != political violence..

    Your entire definition/reality system is SOLELY based on your partisan agenda..

    The facts and your own claims prove this beyond ANY doubt...

    THAT's the point.. :D

    Would that not depend on your definition of money in circulation/money in the economy?

    Yea, CRS... :D It all depends on what the definition of 'is' is... Doi... :D

    7/20 :D :D

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Fetterman/Doc Oz and who IS and is not a fraud..

    Fetterman debate fiasco proves journalists ‘lied’ to cement Democratic power in the Senate: JNS column

    'They were prepared to cover up or falsify the facts about his health in order to advance his candidacy,' Tobin wrote of liberal journalists

    Jewish News Syndicate editor-in-chief and National Review contributing writer Jonathan Tobin claimed that journalists who pushed the narrative that Democratic U.S. Senate candidate John Fetterman was completely healthy to run for office "lied" in order to ensure that Democrats "maintain control of the Senate."

    In his column for The Jewish News Syndicate, Tobin declared that these "team blue journalists" "were prepared to cover up or falsify the facts about his health in order to advance his candidacy."

    Additionally, he noted that this is part of a "trend that has become commonplace in legacy media outlets."
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/fetterman-debate-fiasco-proves-journalists-lied-cement-democratic-power-senate-jns-column

    It's hard to find a Democrat who did NOT lie about Fetterman...

    Fetterman lied.. Fetterman's wife lied.. Fetterman's doctor lied... Fetterman's campaign lied.. Biden lied... Odumbo lied... Every Democrat that supported Fetterman pre-debate lied...

    And the results of all this lying and fraud about Fetterman's fitness for the US Senate??

    LATEST POLL

    Doc Oz 47.5%
    Fetterman 44.8%

    Don't look good for the Democrat team, eh?? :D

    8/20

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    50

    Tax cuts do NOT "put more money in the economy" for gawdsake. Tax cuts take money from the gov't and transfer it back to the taxpayers, whence it came, meaning that the net effect on "the amount of money in the economy" is ZERO!

    Why would one consider himself an economic expert who seemingly doesn't understand that reducing the federal income tax of consumers will also simultaneously increase their disposable income, with a not zero probability it'll be spent (even if it is spent on stock buybacks) rather than saved, thus putting it back into the economy? Rhetorical question.

    People whose knowledge of Economics is at that level should not be commenting on 'inflation', (which term I feel confident they can't even properly define)!

    Said the guy who just described tax cuts as a zero-sum game.

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    52

    It's as if it just wants to troll, huh?

    Heh.

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    54

    OK, I have no problem with the rules you have imposed... I think that if ANYTHING has been proven, it's that I can easily follow restrictions.

    ~ Michale

    *
    Incorrect.

    Comment 54 is two comments to two different commenters combined into one comment box in a pathetic attempt to obviously bypass CW's rules.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick

    Comment 54 is two comments to two different commenters combined into one comment box in a pathetic attempt to obviously bypass CW's rules.

    Nowhere in the moderator's rules does it say I have to keep my responses to commenters one comment per commenter..

    The only part of the rules that MIGHT reference that is to not spread EXTERNAL excerpts (links to other articles) over multiple comments..

    Only one external excerpt per comment.

    EXTERNAL EXCERPT

    Doesn't say ANYTHING about one response to commenter per comment...

    Here's an idea..

    Why don't you just let the moderator handle the rules and you just mind yer own...

    mmm 'kay?? :eyeroll:

    CRS,

    The only thing that changes the amount of money in circulation is either the gov't spending more than it collects in taxes (monetary inflation), or spends less than it collects in taxes (monetary deflation).

    Common sense at work here, eh?? :D

    9/20 :D :D

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    59

    OK, I was more referring to tax 'refunds' and should have changed the tense of my pharasing to apply to future tax collections, but the principle is the same.

    Point to Bashi.

    Whether the money is spent by the people who earned it or spent by the gov't, has no effect on the amount of money in the economy.

    Still incorrect, Stucki, because CW is (obviously) referring to the economy of the United States. The scenario you've now described assumes (incorrectly) that the spending of the United States government and that of America's consumers would be dead-on equally deposited into our domestic economy (versus economies of foreign nations), which (of course) it definitely would not.

    The only thing that changes the amount of money in circulation is either the gov't spending more than it collects in taxes (monetary inflation), or spends less than it collects in taxes (monetary deflation).

    You definitely forgot printing. Work on it.

    Tinkering with tax rates does NOT change the amount of money in circulation.

    Tinkering with tax rates does not necessarily change the amount of money in circulation.

    Fixed it for you. :)

  68. [68] 
    Kick wrote:

    BashiBazouk
    60

    Bashi is correct that Stucki lost the plot: Context matters. :)

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    66

    Comment 54 is two comments to two different commenters combined into one comment box in a pathetic attempt to obviously bypass CW's rules.

    ~ Kick

    Nowhere in the moderator's rules does it say I have to keep my responses to commenters one comment per commenter..

    You might want to review this nugget:

    (2) pretend to accept them but try to weasel your way around them in insidious ways. This also risks a yellow card, because my tolerance for nonsense is approaching zero, at this point.

    ~ CW

    The only part of the rules that MIGHT reference that is to not spread EXTERNAL excerpts (links to other articles) over multiple comments..

    Incorrect. See rule quoted above regarding pretending to accept the rules while being a "weasel" in "insidious ways."

    Doesn't say ANYTHING about one response to commenter per comment...

    Connect the dots.

    Here's an idea..

    Why don't you just let the moderator handle the rules and you just mind yer own...

    Here's a better idea: Why don't you peruse the rules that the "moderator" has definitely already "handled" and posted for all to see and try harder to connect the obvious dots all by yourself.

  70. [70] 
    Kick wrote:

    Comment 66 is two comments to two different commenters combined into one comment box in a pathetic attempt to obviously bypass CW's rules.

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    Comment 61 is two comments to two different commenters combined into one comment box in a pathetic attempt to obviously bypass CW's rules.

  72. [72] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Kick,

    The troll is an ignorant git with a well documented reading comprehension issue, so I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt. It's fortunate to have you to point out its interpretation error before it gets into any trouble.

    On the other hand, the new Hellscape Twitter is available for trolls to puke up their lies and hate without rules. King Twit is probably going to find out that "free speech" isn't as much fun as he thought it would be.

  73. [73] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I wonder if Florida Man really wants his Twitter account back. If he goes there, it seems like his own Fake Twitter thing would implode instantaneously. Does he really want that to happen? Has he completely sucked his suckers, I mean investors, dry yet?

  74. [74] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [63]

    "Reducing the federal income tax on consumers will incvrease their disposable income."

    Actually, it WILL increase their individual disposable income, but at the expense of their COLLECTIVE disposable income, for a net gain of ZERO, right? You can spend the money you earn yourself, or the gov't can spend it for you, but you can't do both.

  75. [75] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [64]


    John From Censornati
    52

    It's as if it just wants to troll, huh?

    Heh.

    I wonder how long it will take before CW reaches the inevitable conclusion. The Whataboutism is sooo boring.

  76. [76] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    BB [60]

    The money "tied up in investments" has ALREADY been spent on "active purchasing". It bought the plant to produce the widgets, right?

  77. [77] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [73]

    I wonder if Florida Man really wants his Twitter account back. If he goes there, it seems like his own Fake Twitter thing would implode instantaneously. Does he really want that to happen? Has he completely sucked his suckers, I mean investors, dry yet?

    I'm too lazy to look up the article but I believe Trump doesn't have a nickle of his own money in this endeavor. All he brought was his name. The so called investors will take a haircut, cry me a river.

  78. [78] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [72]

    On the other hand, the new Hellscape Twitter is available for trolls to puke up their lies and hate without rules.

    I don't think there will be much change under new management because Elon Musk isn't going to set $44 billion on fire.

    It will be in his financial interests to make Twitter as wholesome and welcoming a place as Starbucks, even if he changes the way the site works.

  79. [79] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    For you:

    6 Jan = Political violence..

    And what was January 6 to you? A failed opportunity? You support the lies that led to the January 6 failed insurrection. You fully support the liar responsible for the failed attempt to overturn our democratic elections.

    22 years of Democrat BLM and AntiFa riots and cop-killings and attacks on HUNDREDS of government buildings all over the country = Peaceful protests != political

    Again, this is why you thinking that you can speak for others makes you look like a fool. Your adding "Democrat" before the names of groups or people doesn't make them or the actions you associate them with "political violence". Projectionists gotta project, clearly!

    Democrat scumbag drunk driver and stock cheat = Poor victim

    Drunk drivers are not victims. Neither are stock cheats. If you are talking about a man who was brutally attacked by a political cultist because he is married to a Democrat, then regardless of his past crimes he is definitely a "Poor victim". It was definitely political violence and a failed assassination attempt on the Speaker of the House.

    If you believe that we should forever call out people for their past crimes, please let us know because we can make sure to do that.

    Republican vote canvasser brutally assaulted and SCOTUS Justice targeted for assassination != political violence..

    Confused as to why you are claiming that WE believe that these actions were acts of political violence solely based on our partisan agenda... and why would you have an issue with us believing that if it were true???

    If the canvasser was attacked for being a Republican, then that would be political violence. And even if you forgot to address him properly as "former teen rapist and black out drunk turned scumbag gambling addict SCOTUS Justice", Kavanaugh being targeted for assassination was an act of violence.

    Your entire definition/reality system is SOLELY based on your partisan agenda..

    PLEASE PROJECT MORE!

  80. [80] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,
    Even so, we have to count ourselves among those who think that Fetterman refusing to debate wouldn't have been as damaging for him politically as the debate performance he turned in. And for that, sadly, we have to say John Fetterman was the winner of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. We hope Fetterman continues to improve, we hope he wins, and we hope to see him prove his critics wrong when he takes his seat in January. But that debate was still painful to watch.

    Yes, it was painful to watch. It was also one of the most courageous acts from a political candidate that I think I have ever witnessed. Yes, Fetterman could have chosen not to debate... but then the Republicans would have called him out for saying he was able to do the job but then not doing it.

    I cannot begin to fathom how hard it is after a stroke to not be able to physically communicate the way that you were used to communicating. I have had friends who suffered strokes and their descriptions of the frustration that they feel, the utter helplessness, and the anger they feel at their own bodies for failing them like that is heartbreaking to hear. Fetterman knew he was going to look weak to some for not being able to speak as clearly and as quickly as he use to; but it was better than how weak he would feel if he let the stroke beat him.

    I want someone representing me who will give it their all. Fetterman showed just how far he was willing to go for the people of PA. Senators are not called on to make life or death decisions in the moment. His communication abilities will continue to improve. Despite how it looked to many, Fetterman "manned up" for all of PA to witness! He definitely has earned my respect and I am guessing that of his statesmen.

  81. [81] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick

    You don't speak for me... or Russ... EVER.

    That is the TRUTH!!!

    Love you, Kick...to the moon and back!

    R

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    72

    The troll is an ignorant git with a well documented reading comprehension issue, so I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt.

    Is that really fair to gits? *winks* I tease.

    The author posts the "penalty box" rules at [21] continued at [28]. By comment box [54], anybody with two brain cells to rub together witnesses one long comment box containing the piggybacking of not one, not two, but three distinctly different conversations of three wholly different persons, to wit: (1) Bashi, (2) John (not to be confused with the other John), and (3) Stucki.

    Now I ask you: Is this or is this not a patently obvious attempt around the 20-comment rule set forth in no uncertain terms at Rule #1 in comment box [28]? Rhetorical question.

    It's fortunate to have you to point out its interpretation error before it gets into any trouble.

    I know, right!? And not even for the first time:

    [33] Kick wrote:

    The piggybacking of multiple articles and comments to multiple posters into one comment box in order to cheat the count is duly noted.

    [12] 1-2/20
    [14] 3/20
    [15] 4/20
    [16] 5-6/20
    [17] 7/20
    [18] 8/20
    [19] 9/20
    [21] 10/20
    [26] 11-12/20

    [Wednesday, October 26th, 2022 at 07:07]

    *
    On the other hand, the new Hellscape Twitter is available for trolls to puke up their lies and hate without rules.

    Great point.

    King Twit is probably going to find out that "free speech" isn't as much fun as he thought it would be.

    And definitely not as "free." Poor Elon... forced by a Court to honor an executed contract wherein he offered to pay not one, not two, but approximately three times more for Twitter than its actual worth. With enormous profit margins as high as 90%, maybe Musk can sell more perfume to make up for those staggering monetary outlays, and while I definitely didn't purchase any Burnt Hair, I cannot say the same about Twitter stock circa late 2017. :)

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Comment 61 is two comments to two different commenters combined into one comment box in a pathetic attempt to obviously bypass CW's rules.

    Please show me in the moderator's rules where it says that I can only address one commenter per comment..

    Rule #1:
    I like the 20 posts a day rule. Let's keep to that for now. Some have even indicated that it's too lenient, but I like to allow a buffer for you to respond to comments, so I think it's ok for now.

    Rule #2:
    Only one external excerpt per comment. Period. And in that excerpt, only 3 paragraphs excerpted total. And that's using the original paragraphs.

    Rule #3:
    For one week, you must stay strictly on-topic. I mean that. Comment on what I wrote.

    As I said above, why don't you just mind your own business and let the moderator mind his.

    Comment 61 is two comments to two different commenters combined into one comment box in a pathetic attempt to obviously bypass CW's rules.

    Yea?? And comment #70 and #71 are duplicate comments and are essentially SPAM.. :eyeroll:

    Here's a better idea: Why don't you peruse the rules that the "moderator" has definitely already "handled" and posted for all to see and try harder to connect the obvious dots all by yourself.

    By all means, Kick.. Read the above rules and dazzle Weigantia® with your BS and "connect the dots" for everyone..

    Where does it say that I can only address a single commenter in a single rule..

    Can you do that?? Of course you can't because you are, as per your norm, completely and utterly wrong.. :D

    But, hay.. You have a great day, OK.. :D

    JFC,

    The troll is an ignorant git with a well documented reading comprehension issue, so I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt. It's fortunate to have you to point out its interpretation error before it gets into any trouble.

    I posted the moderator's rules above. Please dazzle me with your brilliant "reading comprehension" and point out to
    Weigantia® where it says that I am only allowed to address a single commenter in a single comment..

    Further, weren't you the one who was bothered by when I commented on myself alone?? Seems to me you are doing the exact same thing you CLAIM to be bothered about..

    Hypocrisy. It's not a bug in Democrat programming. It's a feature...

    Anyways, my suggestion to you is the same suggestion I made to Kick. Why don't you just mind your own commenting and let the moderator mind mine, mmmm 'kay?? :eyeroll:

    For people who claim that the volume of my comments are the problem, ya'all are sure going out of your way to insure that there are more comments from me... :eyeroll:

    "Now. On with the countdown.."
    -Kasey Kasem, AMERICA'S TOP 40

    :D

    1/10

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    73

    I wonder if Florida Man really wants his Twitter account back.

    Even if he does, he's contractually obligated to continue posting to Pravda Sotsialnaya.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    And what was January 6 to you?

    6 Jan was as much political violence as 22+ years (collectively) of Democrat BLM and AntiFa riots and attacks on hundreds of government buildings all over the country.. Riots and attacks where MANY cops were killed, tens of thousands injured and billions of dollars in damages..

    The difference between you and I, my friend, is that I acknowledge that BOTH of those were political violence..

    You only claim ONE of those acts is political violence.

    You support the lies that led to the January 6 failed insurrection.

    There were not lies...

    You fully support the liar

    Just as you support the liar that is currently in the Oval Office..

    Your point??

    Your adding "Democrat" before the names of groups or people doesn't make them or the actions you associate them with "political violence".

    No, I am adding "Democrat" before the names of the groups because they are "Democrat" affiliated groups.. They are "Democrat" supported groups..

    In other words, I am stating a fact..

    Drunk drivers are not victims. Neither are stock cheats.

    Russ, allow me to introduce you to the concept of "sarcasm".. :D

    Further, it's well documented that, according to Democrats, criminals are actually victims..

    It was definitely political violence and a failed assassination attempt on the Speaker of the House.

    Of course it was political violence.. And OF COURSE you would claim it was an attack on the Speaker.. Even though she had the whole country between her and the attacker at the time of the attack.. :D

    Allow me to clue you in on some Law Enforcement stuff, Russ.. :D

    One of the requirements of charging someone with the crime of assassination is OPPORTUNITY.

    Since the Speaker was 3000 miles away from the scene of the crime, the scumbag GREEN PARTY member who attacked the drunk, Mr Pelosi cannot be charged with attempting to assassinate the Speaker..

    You see how that works?? I am actually surprised I have to explain this to you.. :^/

    If the canvasser was attacked for being a Republican, then that would be political violence.

    Then the attack on the canvasser was political violence.. I am glad you agree with me on that..

    , Kavanaugh being targeted for assassination was an act of violence.

    DAMN!! You were SOOO close!! :D

    Kavanaugh being targeted for assassination was an act of POLITICAL violence. By a Democrat who hated Republicans..

    "Good talk..."
    -Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE ATLANTIS

    :D

    2/20

  86. [86] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    74

    Actually, it WILL increase their individual disposable income...

    Which is what Bashi and I both explained and what CW meant, but you already knew that.

    ... but at the expense of their COLLECTIVE disposable income, for a net gain of ZERO, right?

    Not relevant to the context of CW's statement.

    You can spend the money you earn yourself...

    And it naturally then rejoins the domestic economy with a tendency to collectively then fuel the upwards movement of inflation. Meanwhile, inflation is almost never not happening incrementally from time to time, it's the rate with which it's happening that can be so alarming.

    ... or the gov't can spend it for you, but you can't do both.

    Incorrect in my personal case, but I'm not going to explain to you why you're wrong. Suffice it to say that the United States government is far less likely to spend my money domestically and thereby put it back into gas tanks all over America that fuel the collective U.S. economy.

    Bashi and I can keep explaining this to you until it attaches itself to a brain cell. :)

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear
    79

    scumbag drunk driver

    Did somebody say drunk driver?

    Drunk drivers are not victims.

    Correct. They are "scumbags" and meet their own definition.

    If you believe that we should forever call out people for their past crimes, please let us know because we can make sure to do that.

    We got his receipts.

    PLEASE PROJECT MORE!

    Because we definitely got receipts. :)

  88. [88] 
    Kick wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear
    81

    Love you more. :)

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    83

    Please show me in the moderator's rules where it says that I can only address one commenter per comment..

    I already posted the relevant rule, and if you seriously believe that the 20-comment rule was instituted by CW with the idea that you would thwart that count by piggybacking your comments to multiple others into one comment box, then you definitely qualify as a "pretender" and "weasel" who deserves being locked out of his account due to that blatant misbehavior due to CW's stated zero "tolerance for nonsense."

    I didn't read the rest of your comment because no one forced me.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    I already posted the relevant rule,

    Once again, not factually accurate..

    You didn't post a rule at all..

    What you posted is one of the possible options that the moderator postulates that I may have to the rules..

    "Here are you{r} options, as I see them:"
    -moderator

    THAT ^^^^ is simply an assessment of what the moderator believes are my options with regard to his 3 rules..

    The actual RULES themselves are:

    Rule #1:
    I like the 20 posts a day rule. Let's keep to that for now. Some have even indicated that it's too lenient, but I like to allow a buffer for you to respond to comments, so I think it's ok for now.

    Rule #2:
    Only one external excerpt per comment. Period. And in that excerpt, only 3 paragraphs excerpted total. And that's using the original paragraphs.

    Rule #3:
    For one week, you must stay strictly on-topic. I mean that. Comment on what I wrote.

    Those are the rules that apply to me

    And NOTHING in the rules says that I cannot respond to multiple commenters within a single comment.

    Now, if the moderator wishes to ADD that rule, I will (of course) happily and with great affirmation and gusto, follow that rule. :D

    But, as of right now, it is simply NOT a rule..

    And your constant harping the BS that it IS a rule is simply not factually accurate..

    Once again, with due respect and admiration, my suggestion to you is to mind yer own and let the moderator mind mine.. :D mmmm 'kay?? :D

    Moderator,

    Since Kick continues to belabor her false talking point, I have a request for clarification..

    Rule #3:
    For one week, you must stay strictly on-topic. I mean that. Comment on what I wrote.

    Would commenting on OTHER's comments be considered on-topic?? For example, you haven't commented on the Elon/Twitter saga.. But many commenters have.. Would a comment on their comment be considered on-topic??

    Thank you..

    I mean, we want to co-operate, like you ask, so I'm asking.
    -Adam, STAR TREK, The Way To Eden

    :D

    3/20

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If I were you, then I wouldn't waste my time making comments that have nothing to do with Chris's headlining pieces and that would go especially for the FTP columns.

    Besides, I think we can assume that Chris will be writing about Elon Musk and his acquisition of Twitter at some point so I would save your thoughts on that topic for another day!

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Besides, I think we can assume that Chris will be writing about Elon Musk and his acquisition of Twitter at some point so I would save your thoughts on that topic for another day!

    I was simply using the Musk/Twit as an example..

    Sometimes some of ya'all will say something really interesting things that deserve a follow-up... :D

    4/20

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, well, in that case ... :)

  94. [94] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    90

    Once again, not factually accurate..

    Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe... your asinine exercise in splitting Trump's ass hairs you found on your tongue won't do a thing to change the fact that what I posted is definitely included in the entirety of CW's "penalty box" rules.

    And NOTHING in the rules says that I cannot respond to multiple commenters within a single comment.

    If you think he gave you 20 comments so you'd piggyback your responses to multiple commenters into a single post while pretending to accept the rules, you just might be a "weasel."

    I didn't read the rest of your post because no one forced me.

  95. [95] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    CNN is reporting that the bloodthirsty MAGA terrorist who savagely attacked Mr Pelosi and fractured his skull with a hammer came to The Speaker of the House's home to commit unspeakable horror for Dear Leader carrying a bag of terrorist gear including zip ties and "other things".

  96. [96] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    One of the requirements of charging someone with the crime of assassination is OPPORTUNITY.

    Actually, the requirements of charging someone with the crime of assassination are:
    1. You killed them.
    2. You intended to kill them.
    3. They are important in some way (political figure, CEO of large business, famous movie star) which led to their being killed.

    OPPORTUNITY is covered by the fact that you have to actually kill the intended victim to be charged with the crime.

    Conspiracy to commit and attempted murder will definitely be on the plate. The guy believed Nancy was in the house when he entered it to kill her. Also he'll be charged with the attempt on her husband's life.

  97. [97] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Alien lizard creature Rick Scott went on CNN to lie about the Republican plan to take the economy hostage to destroy Medicare and Social Security because that's what GQP billionaire donors want. Of course, they say it's because spending is out of control to dupe the GOP sheeple, but Lizard Rick exposed the ruse by lying about how the Democrats had cut $280 million dollars out of Medicare.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe... your asinine exercise in splitting Trump's ass hairs you found on your tongue won't do a thing to change the fact that what I posted is definitely included in the entirety of CW's "penalty box" rules.

    You can post your spammy repetitive BS over and over but, no matter HOW many times you want to spew your BS, it it STILL BS...

    Rule #1:
    I like the 20 posts a day rule. Let's keep to that for now. Some have even indicated that it's too lenient, but I like to allow a buffer for you to respond to comments, so I think it's ok for now.

    Rule #2:
    Only one external excerpt per comment. Period. And in that excerpt, only 3 paragraphs excerpted total. And that's using the original paragraphs.

    Rule #3:
    For one week, you must stay strictly on-topic. I mean that. Comment on what I wrote.

    Those are the rules.. As of THIS point in time, those are the ONLY rules...

    What YOU posted is one of the "options" that the moderator postulated that I have available to me as my response to the actual rules..

    "Here are you{r} options, as I see them:"
    -moderator

    NOTHING in those rules says I have to limit my response to commenters as one commenter per comment..

    You are wrong, Kick.. And, as per your norm, you simply can't admit it.. :D

    Russ,

    OPPORTUNITY is covered by the fact that you have to actually kill the intended victim to be charged with the crime.

    Not factually accurate..

    OPPORTUNITY must be present before someone can be charged with attempted assassination.. This GREEN PARTY scumbag had absolutely ZERO opportunity to actually assassinate Speaker Pelosi... Ergo, this GREEN PARTY scumbag will not be charged with the attempted assassination of Speaker Pelosi..

    "Doi!!"
    -Vanillope Von Schweetz, WRECK IT RALPH

    Since OPPORTUNITY is not present in the attack on the serial DUI'er Mr Pelosi, the Subject was NOT charged with attempted assassination of the Speaker Of The House.

    Again.. I am really surprised (not surprised) I have to explain this to you..

    Conspiracy to commit and attempted murder will definitely be on the plate.

    Once again, not factually accurate..

    Do I have to explain what constitutes CONSPIRACY to you?? :eyeroll:

    Also he'll be charged with the attempt on her husband's life.

    Again, factually speaking.. The ONLY charges this nutjob GREEN PARTY member....

    "Is there another kind???"
    -Colonel Nathan R Jessup, A FEW GOOD MEN

    ... nutjob GREEN PARTY member is facing has to do with the physical assault on serial Drunk Driver Mr Pelosi..

    There are ZERO charges facing this nutjob GREEN PARTY member that has to do with Speaker Pelosi...

    These are FACTS that no amount of your hysterical Partisan agenda will change..

    5/20 :D :D

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There are better things to be spending time on ...

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    There are better things to be spending time on ...

    Yes, there are..

    But as long as spammy repetitive factually inaccurate BS is being spewed, I will be here to set the record straight and make sure everyone has the FACTS.. :D

    "It's what I do...
    -Colonel Marlowe, WORMHOLE EXTREME

    :D

    6/20

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Poor pitiful you, then ... :)

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Later ...

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:
  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, yes!

  105. [105] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Conspiracy to commit and attempted murder will definitely be on the plate.

    He definitely planned it with at least one of the voices in his head... and probably more. More than one voice or personality discussing and planning the attack is a conspiracy.

    As for attempted murder it will be whatever police get him to admit his intent was. With all of his online rants and his belief that Nancy was in the house when he broke in, it should not be too hard for them to get more than enough to him put away. He wasn't carrying that hammer to do any carpentry work for her.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    He definitely planned it with at least one of the voices in his head... and probably more.

    So, YOU are of the opinion that the charge of "conspiracy" means that someone PLANNED it!!??? :D

    More than one voice or personality discussing and planning the attack is a conspiracy.

    BBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    So, let me get this straight.. heheheheheheheheh

    ANYONE with multiple personality disorder when the commit a crime, it's ALWAYS a "conspiracy"!!!???

    BBBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    So, in YOUR world of Law Enforcement, it's not just two or more people committing a crime is a "CONSPIRACY"...

    In YOUR world of Law Enforcement, it's TWO personalities within the SAME PERSON.... THAT is a "conspiracy"!!???

    BBBBWWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Thanx Russ... :D I haven't laughed that much at a comment here in Weigantia in a LONG time.. :D

    As for attempted murder it will be whatever police get him to admit his intent was. With all of his online rants and his belief that Nancy was in the house when he broke in, it should not be too hard for them to get more than enough to him put away. He wasn't carrying that hammer to do any carpentry work for her.

    Any charge that police stick on this GREEN PARTY scumbag will be solely and completely for the attack on the serial Drunk Driver Mr Pelosi..

    There will be NO charges filed on any crime involving Speaker Pelosi because Speaker Pelosi was 3000 miles away at the time of the attack..

    This is all fact...

    But, again.. Thanx for the laugh...

    A person suffering from MPD can be charged with "conspiracy"... :D

    THAT is funny... :D

    7/20

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Apologies.. That was very unkind of me, mocking of your claims....

    I shouldn't have been so cruel to you..

    You are simply not as well versed in the law and LEO issues...

    I should not have mocked you..

    "There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
    -Subcommander T'al, STAR TREK, The Enterprise Incident

    My sincerest apologies..

    8/20

  108. [108] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Oh, I got exactly the response I hoped for from you... just so I could respond using your own words:

    Michael, allow me to introduce you to the concept of "sarcasm".. :D

    THREE BBBBWWAHAHA's means triple points on your BINGO cards! Sweet! You are simply not versed in the law and LEO issues.. and you definitely deserve to be mocked for stealing valor and not being able to keep the lies you tell on here straight! But I digress...

    Honestly, you are not even making me work for it today; you are too damn predictable!

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    You need to brush up on your sarcasm..

    Because what you put down was your sincere belief.. That was obvious to everyone.. :D

    As I said.. I understand that you don't have the knowledge and experience that I bring to the discussion..

    It's not your fault..

    But in any case, I do apologize for mocking you so severely...

    That wasn't appropriate..

    Ni ni... See ya'all in the AM.. :D

    9/20

  110. [110] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    there are rules and norms that protect the USA from collapsing in on itself. breaking those rules and violating those norms threatens the continued existence of our country.

    whether we support him or not, donald is responsible for at best ignoring, at worst intentionally violating, those principles that hold the nation together. however, to claim that he's the only one doing it, or that he's doing it alone, is to miss the point. there is a whole class of people, which includes a fair number of democrats as well, who seem to be just fine rejecting democratic elections if it serves their political aims.

    to me, that is what's most concerning.

  111. [111] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    98

    So you're still posting multiple comments to multiple posters in order to "weasel" your way around the 20-comment limitation imposed in Rule #1.

    Please read those rules every time you spam the board with them; maybe they'll attach to a brain cell.

  112. [112] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    100

    Totally off topic and also definitely falls under the "award myself multiple points and victories" section of the rules and "really is that pathetic."

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    103

    (1) Off topic.

    (2) Learned to count at Trump University.

  114. [114] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I'm concerned that Fat Donny is going to get away with another assassination attempt. The FBI would be all over Hillary if she was trying to kill top level government officials, so I have to hope that they are investigating Big Orange.

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear
    105

    I see what you are doing here, Russ. This is a master class in "Troll 101: Baiting/Leading."

    With all of his online rants and his belief that Nancy was in the house when he broke in, it should not be too hard for them to get more than enough to him put away.

    Very nice work, Russ. Do you think it'll fall for it?

  116. [116] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    106

    It performs on cue.

    Any charge that police stick on this GREEN PARTY scumbag will be solely and completely for the attack on the serial Drunk Driver Mr Pelosi..

    Incorrect. Burglary.

    There will be NO charges filed on any crime involving Speaker Pelosi because Speaker Pelosi was 3000 miles away at the time of the attack..

    Whose house do you think he broke into? Whose house do you think he burgled? Whose husband do you think he attacked? There will definitely be charges that involve Speaker Pelosi. Thank you for your flailing attempt; Russ and I needed a laugh.

    This is all fact...

    You're all hot air and BS.

  117. [117] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    107

    Totally off-topic post.

    Apologies.. That was very unkind of me, mocking of your claims....

    Heh.

    You are simply not as well versed in the law and LEO issues...

    Heh. Russ and I picture you facing a mirror.

    I should not have mocked you..

    You didn't.

  118. [118] 
    Kick wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear
    108

    Oh, I got exactly the response I hoped for from you... just so I could respond using your own words:

    Michael, allow me to introduce you to the concept of "sarcasm".. :D

    The hysterical thing is: He is totally clueless to how you played him. Nice work, Russ.

    THREE BBBBWWAHAHA's means triple points on your BINGO cards! Sweet!

    I got a blackout here.

    You are simply not versed in the law and LEO issues.. and you definitely deserve to be mocked for stealing valor and not being able to keep the lies you tell on here straight!

    Preach... and Amen.

    Love you, Russ!

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL

    however, to claim that he's the only one doing it, or that he's doing it alone, is to miss the point. there is a whole class of people, which includes a fair number of democrats as well, who seem to be just fine rejecting democratic elections if it serves their political aims.

    to me, that is what's most concerning.

    Exactly...

    And Democrats should be called on it, AT THE TIME they are committing the bad acts..

    Wouldn't you agree???

    Kick,

    I see what you are doing here, Russ. This is a master class in "Troll 101: Baiting/Leading."

    So, what you are saying is that Russ is a Master Troll who is so good at being a troll that he can teach classes???

    I think that comes under the heading of "personal attacks" and, as such, is now frowned upon here in Weigantia.. :D

    So you're still posting multiple comments to multiple posters in order to "weasel" your way around the 20-comment limitation imposed in Rule #1.

    Still waiting for you to show us all what rule says I can only comment to one commenter per comment... :D

    Because....

    Rule #1:
    I like the 20 posts a day rule. Let's keep to that for now. Some have even indicated that it's too lenient, but I like to allow a buffer for you to respond to comments, so I think it's ok for now.

    Rule #2:
    Only one external excerpt per comment. Period. And in that excerpt, only 3 paragraphs excerpted total. And that's using the original paragraphs.

    Rule #3:
    For one week, you must stay strictly on-topic. I mean that. Comment on what I wrote.

    ..... no one but you SEES that rule.. :D

    As far as "getting around the 20-comment limitation"...

    Considering I have been no where near 20 comments since the rule was imposed, your claims are bald-faced ludicrous and everyone can see that.. :D

    Try harder.. :D

    1/20

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    [Removed for being off-topic]

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    [Removed for containing unfounded conspiracy theories]

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    [Removed for being off-topic]

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    [Removed for being off-topic]

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welp, it's that time.. :D

    Looking forward to the Weigantian Halloween Commentary..

    But I doubt that it's gonna be any scarier than what we're already gonna see in about 7 days.. :D

    See ya'all in the AM.. :D

    6/20

Comments for this article are closed.