Useless Media Hacks

Omarosa-Offended-that-President-Trump-May-Have-Used-the-N-Word-1-500x351The Liberal media, in there own arrogance, colluded (yes, I used that word) to write opinion pieces against Trump in over 300 newspapers nationwide.  All this did was prove exactly what Trump has been saying, the Media are the enemy of the people.  I don’t mean a violent enemy, but an enemy of unbiased reporting of the free press.  The Liberal media, namely Cuomo on CNN is actually supporting the violent antics of Antifa, the fascist radicals whose name is a lie.  They feign anger at ICE arresting a wanted murderer after they caught him taking his pregnant wife to the hospital.  These people are SICK.  And, they have rendered themselves useless, with nothing to offer the people of this country.

 

Advertisements

Comments

  1. 😎

  2. Is there anyone on here, other than the media, worried about Turkey? If so, why? and please do not go to NATO as an excuse….Turkey has Russian Air Defense run by Russian technicians….they have had it for 4 years now ever since the leadership changed…..so it is not a barrier to Russia……..We support the Kurds that they do not like……so

    Let it die….just like Venezuela………………no loss except to European Central Bankers whose ass is flapping in the wind greater than a sheet in a tornado.

    • I certainly don’t feel sorry for Erdogan – if these problems will get rid of him, they will be better off in the long run.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Colonel

      Financial and economic fallout. Otherwise not much. I do think a dictator in trouble poses a grave risk to their neighbors though. Wouldn’t put it past him to go after the Kurds and maybe more.

      • JAC….if he goes after the Kurds…he will die. As to economic fallout….yes sir, there will be some with the Central Banks and any domestic bank that was stupid enough to loan money to the Central Banks in Europe…..Wells Fargo and BOA come to mind.

    • I would think that the value of taxi medallions would be well known in the NY area. Furthermore is it not in combatant on the lender to verify the claims on a loan application?

  3. https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/19/peter-schweizer-security-clearance-affects-brennans-and-clappers-bottom-line-in-a-big-way/

    Hmmm, It makes sense that people with security clearances and this type of experience would work for these types of companies. But the dangers of quid pro quo seems obvious too.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      These outfits are paying for political connection and access, not legal advice.

      This is how the game is played and why the names and faces don’t ever change all that much. They move in and out of govt. like the tide.

      • It seems that the Liberal media doesn’t understand that security clearances are for the benefit of the government, not the individual and certainly not their lying fake news shows.

      • Not sure I see a way to stop it.

  4. I received this from a friend. Not sure how true all of it is but makes a nice conspiracy theory.

    The Feds don’t have enough time (or integrity) to get to the bottom of it all, even with all this documentation. This will take decades to decipher if they are willing to open Pandoras box. IS THIS REALLY TRUE ???? Or more Fake News????

    Let’s follow the trail……

    Here’s what it looks like when all the pieces are sewn together. It smells like conspiracy and treason. Everyone needs to read this slowly and patiently because it’s very important.

    From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

    A Grand Jury had been empaneled.

    Governments from around the world had donated to this “charity”, yet from 2001 to
    2003, none of those “donations” to the Clinton Foundation were declared. One would think that an honest
    investigator would be able to figure this out.

    Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? None other than James Comey. Isn’t that interesting?

    Guess who was transferred in to the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? Your friend and yours (certainly not mine), Lois Lerner. That’s also quite interesting, isn’t it?

    It gets better, well not really, but this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?

    Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? None other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein. Again, very interesting.

    Guess who the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was during this time frame. I know, it’s just a coincidence, just an anomaly of statistics and chances, but it was Robert Mueller.

    What do all four of these characters have in common? They all were briefed and/or were front line investigators into the Clinton Foundation investigation. Just another coincidence, right?

    Let’s fast forward to 2009…

    James Comey leaves the Justice Department to cash in at Lockheed-Martin.

    Hillary Clinton was running the State Department–on her own personal email server–by the way.

    The Uranium One “issue” comes to the attention of the Hillary. Like all good public servants do–you now, looking out for America’s best interest–she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of the United States’ uranium supply to… Russia. Now you’d think that would be a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn’t because the American people got absolutely nothing out of it.

    However, prior to the sales approval, Bill Clinton traveled to Moscow, got paid $500,000 for a one-hour speech, then met with Vladimir Putin at his home. It was ll very innocent, right? Well, not so fast. The FBI had a mole inside the money laundering and bribery scheme.

    Guess who the FBI Director was during this time frame? Yep, Robert Mueller. He even delivered a uranium sample to Moscow in 2009. Guess who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney’s office in Maryland? One Rod Rosenstein. Guess what happened to the informant? The Department of Justice placed a gag order on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke out about it.

    How does 20% of one of the most strategic assets of the United States end up in Russian hands when the FBI has an informant–a mole–providing inside information to the FBI on the criminal enterprise?

    Guess what happened soon after the sale was approved? $145 million dollars in “donations” made their way into the Clinton Foundation from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal.

    Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division? Why, it was Lois Lerner.

    All just another series of coincidences; nothing to see here, right?

    Now let’s fast forward to 2015…

    Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the nine “investigations” done by the House, Senate and State Department, Trey Gowdy, who was running the tenth investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, discovers that Hillary ran the State Department on an unclassified, Unauthorized, outlaw personal email server. He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she resigned her “public service” position as Secretary of State, which is required
    by law. He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email.

    Sparing you the State Department’s cover up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed, and the outright lies that were spewed forth from the John Kerry State Department, we’ll leave it at this… they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.

    Now this is truly amazing. Guess who became FBI Director in 2013. Guess who secured 17 no-bid contracts for his employer (Lockheed-Martin) with the State Department and was rewarded with a $6 million dollar thank you present when he departed his employer? Would you believe James Comey? Amazing how all those no-bids just went right through at State, huh?

    Then he became the FBI Director in charge of the Clinton email investigation after, of course, his FBI investigates the Lois Lerner “matter” at Internal Revenue and exonerates her.

    Nope… there couldn’t be any crimes there.

    Can you guess what happened next?

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      The incestuous relationship between the parties you mentioned can best be described by two old terms used frequently, at least when I was in the military over 4 decades ago, and they are “Cluster F!!!” and “Nut to Butt”

      As for Comey reaping millions advising Lockeed Martin on the legality of the contracts pushed to them by Mueller etal building the surveillance systems we all love and cherish dearly.

      You forgot that Comey was involved via HRC to lighten up the criminal tax evasion scheme with the Swiss Banks. NO people went to jail or prosecuted in the US except for the guy who created the scheme and turned whistleblower. Yet the banks paid heavy penalties.

      From what I have been able to dig out only one person in the EU was charged. Others were criticised but deemed to important to charge.

  5. Dale A Albrecht says:

    I’ve been watching several news stories running along side each other yet nobody seems to drawing a connection between them.

    Let me insert a disclaimer here. Over the past several administrations the CIA directors have been a series of political hacks. Some short term exceptions that were removed quickly.

    Several years ago Diane Feinstein was all het up over the CIA digging through the Senate’s systems. Even though Congress passed wide sweeping authorization to spy and gather evidence. At that time the senator had no defense, except she clearly said, “But we gave you permission but not against us. Ie the Senate intelligence committee.

    Brennan lied big time, yet eventually confessed that they had. Saying it was important that the senators and their staffers were not misusing classified information.

    Now Sen. Feinstein had a decades long aide and staffer who was a Chinese spy. This person was removed a few years ago from her employ.

    Coincidence?

    I believe her outrage was faux, because the CIA had a hook into her so she would parrot any intelligence provided to her. Ie 17 intelligence agencies all agree that Trump colluded.

    Now that the California DNC has referused to back her re-election bid and through their weight towards her challenger, her usefulness is over, so she’s been outed.

    • Since the Senate race here is D only, I was thinking of skipping that line on the ballot or writing in a different name. Her opponent is far worse than she is and she is bad enough. At her age, 86, I do not see why she did not just retire. Same goes for McCain. Why do these people think they are so valuable that they have to be carried out of the Senate chamber feet first. Talk about a large EGO.

  6. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Going to toss a wager out on the table….

    Some politician from a heavily corrupted state with illegal aliens in residence. Big example California will propose a bill that will be a copy of the 3/5’s rule that allowed the southern states to claim 3/5’s of a slave as part of the population increasing their representatives in Congress. Though the slaves could not vote.

    Hadn’t California been howling that they are under represented in Congress and by extension votes in the electoral college precisely due to 15% or more residents in .CA are With Out Papers and ineligible to vote, yet as the mayor of Oakland claims they are constituents.

    The logic will be that they will be declared in full, given 3/5 weighting factor, still not allowed to vote, but now enables States like California and New York to decisively rule the nation with inflated confessional representation

    Granted it would lead to a civil war just like the “compromise” did in the 1800’s.

    But to solve the impasse of cleaning up the voting rolls as .CA is totally resisting and I believe putting at risk their votes counting in a nationwide presidential election, by them not being able to certify their tally by any outside auditor.

    • First, there was no question of citizenship or alien status on the old census forms, hence representation was apportioned by total population not by the number of citizens. As for voting, all it takes is a check mark on the driver’s license form to be registered to vote. I doubt very much that anyone at the DMV checks citizenship status during the process since the DMV is run by the SEIU. We could easily have 1M illegal voters in CA already. No one knows for sure because no one in authority ever asks the question. Even reporters who interview the SoS do not ask the question. It is all based on the honor system and see no evil, hear no evil, and deny all evil.

  7. Surprisingly, nobody has come up with any solutions to the media bias issue, so let me throw out some bones and see who bites (pun intended)

    1. End White House Press briefings unless something huge is happening, like a major hurricane or military action.

    2. Properly define what is being put on tv and radio. If shows are political opinion, then they should be openly promoted as so. No more opinion shows pretending to be “news”. This includes ALL of them.

    3. Keep the news to news. talk politics during specific times and identify as opinion. If reporting on an action from DC, then report on the action, save opinions for the proper forum.

    4. Remove the press from the White House, sans ONE Press pool reporter.

    5. No more Press conferences. Call in the pool reporter and provide a written update, then answer some questions.

    Thoughts?

    • At the daily press briefing, I would institute a lottery system for asking questions. As each journalist enters the room they would toss their card in a bowl. The cards would be drawn out randomly. When selected the agent could pass but not trade with another agent. The second thing I would institute is no repeat questions. For repeat questions, I would say asked and answered, you lost your turn. At meetings with foreign dignitaries, only questions on foreign policy would be taken, all others refused. No shouting, add decorum to the process. When people start shouting, the press agent should walk away from the podium until decorum is restored. Disruptive reporters would be removed and banned for one week. The ban would escalate for repeat offenders. These reporters would be embarrassed if their child acted like them in a classroom. There also would be no follow on questions or double questions. The reporter gets one and only one question. If all the cards are drawn and the press agent wishes to continue, toss the cards back in the bowl and start over.

    • I caught an Anderson Cooper video last night. He was talking about Mayor Giuliani’s comment about truth as seen in the eyes of a prosecutor. Of course, cooper totally misinterpreted Giuliani. In the process he brought up the alternative truth comments by Kellyanne regarding the inaugural crowd size. Now, there is no doubt the crowd size was not as big as Obama’s but the photos they posted to justify the statement were completely bogus and as such a lie. So one good question is how does the administration effectively counter the lies told about them when the mass media is controlled by the opposition? I do recognize the fact that the administration often does not think through their response carefully enough. They react with emotion instead of logical arguments. Does the administration need a TRUTH BUREAU? 🙂

    • He has a good point. Haven’t heard any talk of, taken out of context, tapes manipulated, nothing.

  8. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Back from the Argonne Forest. By the way it was the only battlefield that looked exactly as I imagined, dark, spooky and damn near impassable.

    How come I have never heard mention of Omorosa’s previous employment……on the “fake” news.

    https://people.com/celebrity/omarosas-long-history-of-being-fired/

    • Did you have a good time?

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Yes, but…….

        The time to do it the right way was when I was 28 on a motorcycle with a bedroll and tent spending days walking the sites. Didn’t do that so what I got was a “touch”. The touch was good though. In addition to actually seeing the 14,500 crosses and Stars of David at the Meuse Argonne cemetery, I got to see terrain. As I continue to study the battles, I can now visualize the actions.

        For instance, Belleau wood is incredibly small but the Germans were so entrenched it took the Marines 10 days to clear them out. There is another Marine/ 2nd Division site, Blanc Mont, which they did right after Belleau. Reading about it, in my head I saw a mountain. In person it is a smallish hill, a pimple actually. That makes a difference. Pershing’s “war of movement” in September at the St. Mihael salient was over open fields with occasional clumps of woods loaded with literally thousands of machine guns. That last month, Oct-Nov, in the final battle, we took more casualties than in any other similar period of time in US History.

        Junior had a better time than I since he was able to answer many “army questions” from our fellow guests while learning from them who have incredibly detailed knowledge about specific sites. Best day was up in Ipres in Belgium when we ran into a British celebrtation on August 10th commemorating the “final 100 days” and their push that started that day. met loads of Aussies, New Zealanders, Canadians, Irish and Scots who were there to commemorate their grandaddies or great grandaddies. Much beer was drunk! They wanted to kill some dude who showed up in bits and pieces of a US Marine uniform wearing 20 medals and claiming a link to Viet-nam through Desert Storm to Iraq. .

  9. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/20/chelsea-handler-defends-al-franken-groping-not-sex/

    These people are really confusing and I hate to say it, but their stupid.

    • Isn’t it great…..if a comdian does it….it is ok….what about Bill Cosby, he was a comdian.

      • I have no idea what a comdian is…….but what ever it is, it must be ok.

        • Basically she said, because I’m a comedian/Celebrity it’s okay if I grab people by their .. . genitals. It’s less vulgar sounding than pussy, I suppose. But it means the same thing. Seems to be an accepted running theme in hollywood. Okay for a Democrat senator, but not the president.

          Just a heads up, Handler, p utting one arms around someone’s shoulder isn’t the same as touching their breasts and genitals. And doing something a lot means the same thing as over and over.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Because we are the crazy ones who make this stuff up…….right?

    https://www.wnd.com/2018/08/mask-off-social-media-censor-king-revealed/

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    What good are actual FACTS when the public opinion leaders ignore them anyway. The ignorance and replacement of fact with propaganda in this article, including the comments, is appalling. One can understand the whole McCarthyism shtick by remembering who created the meme and who continues to spread it to this day. Hint: LEFTIES

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/19/trump-mcarthyism-joe-mccarthy-219373

  12. For the Col.

  13. Mollie Tibbets killed by an illegal alien. Democrats are an accessory to murder.

    • The illegal alien had a car registered and licensed in his name in Iowa. How? He was employed. How? Did he have a stolen SSN? Was he using fake ID? Was he registered to vote? Inquiring minds want to know.

    • Democrats are an accessory to murder.

      Shove this up your ass, too.

      • Try growing up and act your age.

        • That is very good advice from the man accusing about half the country of being accessories to murder because they disagree with you on immigration policy.

          By the way, that “half” includes me, I suppose, seeing as I voted with the Democrats in the last election and intend to do again in the midterms.

          So, you tell me, Gman, say it plainly and directly: am I an accessory to murder?

          • If you support aiding criminals who are here illegally, as the Democrats do, then yes, Molly Tibbets blood is on your hands as well. This is an avoidable tragedy. Just like car accidents, not all involve a drunk, but the one’s that do are avoidable, that’s why it’s ILLEGAL.

            Let me also add. I don’t post often lately, because I’m super busy. But I’m honest a if that’s a problem it’s YOUR problem, not mine. You don’t agree with me, that’s fine, prove me wrong. If you can’t prove me wrong, suck it up Cupcake, it’s a tough world and life ain’t fair. 😀

            • I support not treating human beings as criminals for their pursuit of a better life. Not all laws are just. A certain measure of civil disobedience is part of the fabric of America.

              The law is immoral and evil and I, and other liberals, cannot in good conscience obey it.

              I support changing the laws accordingly.

              That does mean a certain amount of.. collateral damage.

              And that sucks.

              But shit happens.

              And I don’t believe that screwing over an entire class of people is justified by the actions of a few bad apples.

              I don’t believe in punishing millions of people because of the actions – whatever they may have been – of one man.

              Likewise, I don’t support rounding up and imprisoning all white men because some subset of them might be murderers.

              Likewise, I don’t support rounding up and exterminating all Muslims because some Muslims are members of ISIS.

              Likewise, I don’t hold all Republicans / conservatives responsible for everything wrong that Trump or Bush did. That kind of thinking is beyond moronic. It’s absolutist bordering on fanatical.

  14. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Looks like Cohen rolls on the President and accuses him of the pay-off to the bimbo’s. Mueller will turn it into campaign finance violations.

    Thoughts?

    • Mueller will lose that one. Cohen has changed his story twice now. Plus, obama got caught tak8ng 2 million in illegal campaign money, only paid a fine.

      The Liberal media will get giddy, only to be disappointed. Watch the fake Liberal news and enjoy the circus. The clowns have taken over 🙂

      • Mueller will lose that one.

        We shall see.

        My guess is that he gets a slap on the wrist. Conservatives will then spend the next millennium wallowing in martyrdom over the Persecution of Saint Donald Trump. They will build shines and make offerings to his graven images.

        Cohen has changed his story twice now.

        And Trump has been consistent?

        No one is doubting that Cohen is weaselly and has a serious credibility problem, but (A) if it’s a he-said-he-said between the two, I’d take Cohen’s word over Trump’s any day and (B) I don’t think that’s all the evidence that’s going to be considered.

        Plus, obama got caught tak8ng 2 million in illegal campaign money, only paid a fine.

        (A) TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.

        (B) TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.

        (C) TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.

        (D) TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.

        (E) TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.

        (F) We aren’t talking about Obama, we are talking about Trump. Your logical fallacy is….

        Watch the fake Liberal news and enjoy the circus.

        The media loves a circus, liberal or otherwise. Circuses draw eyeballs which draw ad revenue. ::shrug::

        Also, you can shove that “fake liberal news” bullshit up your ass. It’s obnoxious and is one of the reasons I’ve been participating less lately. I, personally, consider Fox to be the propaganda arm of the RNC and Trump, but you don’t see me going out of my way to be an asshole about it at every opportunity, do you? Grow up. USW founded this site on the idea that it wouldn’t be about petty sniping and juvenile antics. He wanted this to be a place people from both sides could discuss matters without feeling like their side is being denigrated and attacked constantly. Do you remember all that? It wasn’t so long ago.

        SKT said: Looks like Cohen rolls on the President and accuses him of the pay-off to the bimbo’s. Mueller will turn it into campaign finance violations.

        Well, I mean, it’s a matter for a jury to determine, but if – IF – the accusation is true, it sure sounds like a campaign finance violation.

        That wouldn’t be something Mueller is doing wrong in persecuting the poor innocent victimized little Donny. That’s something he (allegedly) did wrong and should be held accountable for, no?

        If the roles were reversed, and Mueller were investigating President H. Clinton, you’d be braying that he should have infinite latitude to build his case and present it in court. You wouldn’t have even the tiniest ounce of sympathy for her and how that mean Mr. Mueller is “turning it into a campaign violation.” You’d have pronounced her guilty the second the news started breaking and you’d be griping about the obstruction from her administration that’s holding up the course of justice. You’d also be demanding that she stand trial for obstruction of justice for all the interference she’d have done. Fox would be demanding her head on a pike and insisting we should redo the election. Gman would be holding it up as proof of the fecklessness of all liberals. Do you honestly believe otherwise?

        I think a person who is credibly accused of wrong doing should have their day in court. Trump is credibly accused. So, at the end of the day, it’s a matter for a jury.

        But he is NOT a victim in all this.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          Answer. Campaign finance violations should be based on what you did or did not do with money that was pledged to the campaign. Paying to shut somebody up, with your own money for something that was not a crime (no rape here) or may not have even happened, seems quite a stretch to me and engineered solely for the occasion.

          This is NOT to mention the Mr. Cohen seems to have committed some major financial crimes all on his own which as the judge in the Manafort case has pointed out might just cause Cohen to “invent” things that never happened.

          I guess that if I had not been involved as a defense witness in a RICO case against an innocent man, I’d still have some faith in DOJ et al. But I don’t, those assholes are every bit as corrupt as a goddam sham Stalinist court.

    • If there are campaign funds used, which I doubt, then there is a paper trail. Prove it to me and I will say that Trump is wrong….until then, anyone….ANYONE who turns states evidence to protect himself has zero credibility. It becomes a he said, she said issue and the one who turns is automatically a liar.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Apparently in the weird world we inhabit it will be private funds which will be a violation because if the bimbos spoke, it MIGHT have turned the election. Hence, we have campaign interference through the use of money channeled over something that might or might not have happened. or so the twisted logic goes.

        Regarding two wrongs do not make a right, if Obama paid a fine and Trump is impeached then what we have is selective prosecution. Excuse, PERSECUTION. Precedent established, if Trump committed a financial violation, fine him too.

        • because if the bimbos spoke, it MIGHT have turned the election.

          (A) You have no evidence to call them “bimbos.” You’re just denigrating them because you don’t like what they’re saying / doing. This is:

          (B) You can’t honestly say it wouldn’t have had an impact. It’s not necessary that it would have flipped the result for it to be a violation.

          Hence, we have campaign interference through the use of money channeled over something that might or might not have happened. or so the twisted logic goes.

          If H. Clinton had a pal who paid money to a reporter and managed to shut down the “server” story before it’d taken off, would you consider that a “donation” of sorts? If that story broke right after the election (which she had won), would you not say that it had had an impact?

          Regarding two wrongs do not make a right, if Obama paid a fine and Trump is impeached then what we have is selective prosecution.

          I’m not too, too familiar with the Obama case, but is there evidence that suggests that he personally was involved with any aspect of it?

          Further, Mueller cannot impeach Trump, so that’s not (currently) on offer.

          Further, further, if Trump gets the duly prosecuted and duly convicted, the fact that Obama got off “light” would not invalidate the justness of Trump’s conviction in any way.

          That’s like saying “we both murdered someone, but you got off with a slap on the wrist, so it’s wrong that I had to go to jail.” Well, no, it’s wrong that I got off with the slap on the wrist… assuming ceterus paribus, which I do not concede.

          Precedent established, if Trump committed a financial violation, fine him too.

          I imagine they will.

          I am on record predicting a slap on the wrist followed by a millennium of conservatives wallowing in martyrdom.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            I believe that a whore is a bimbo. Besides, no less an authority than Hillary Clinton applies the appellation to any female that might have come within 6 feet of her beloved hubby.

            • I believe that a whore is a bimbo.

              I believe that this is a baseless assertion.

              I also believe that “porn star” does not necessarily equate to “whore.”

              I also do not believe that there is anything wrong with either profession.

              Besides, no less an authority than Hillary Clinton applies the appellation to any female that might have come within 6 feet of her beloved hubby.

              Two wrongs do not make a right!

              Jesus H. Christ.

              It’s not a hard concept.

              If one side does something wrong, that doesn’t make it right for the other side to do the same thing. Seriously, I don’t accept this logic from my 3 year old.

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                Demanding money for a sex act, even post facto is not being a whore!

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                Whoops forgot the ?

              • Demanding money for a sex act, even post facto is not being a whore!

                I 100% guarantee that you have watched pornography at some point in your very long life.

                If so, then you are guilty of using a prostitute.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                bim·bo
                ˈbimbō/Submit
                nouninformal
                an attractive but empty-headed young woman, especially one perceived as a willing sex object.

                Any questions? Didn’t think so. The prosecution rests.

              • If you have no problem with the profession. Why are you offended by the word whore?

              • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                JAC,

                I might debate the attractiveness of these ladies, but I’ll lay that aside.

                You have no evidence to suggest they are “empty headed” which is, really the operative point of calling someone a “bimbo.”

                They were smart enough to find themselves in a relationship with a billionaire and smart enough (though lacking in morality) to extort six-figure payoffs in addition to whatever other gifts they might have received.

                They are smart enough to turn around now and attempt to cash-in again.

                I doubt I would consider either any great genius, but I have seen no evidence to suggest that they are morons either.

                The term as used is used for the purpose of denigration. SKT is using it to insult the women, not describe them. He doesn’t like what they’ve done and/or that they didn’t keep their traps shut. So, rather than address that point, he insults them, calling them bimbos and whores. Really, his question should regard the judgement of Mr. Trump in having engaged in extramarital relationships with them – regardless of the nuances of his private life, SKT should be wondering why Mr. Trump believed he could ever keep it from the public.

              • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                Why are you offended by the word whore?

                I’m not.

                But I find it needlessly derogatory.

          • The problem here would be, for the most part solved, if we made special prosecutors illegal. And made some adjustments in our legal system. I’ve been pretty horrified by what they are allowed to do. Blackmail seems to fit and plea deals are horrendous. Were any searches done legally or did they just use a loop hole to deprive people of their rights. I hope I never have to serve on a jury because I would have reasonable doubt based on what I’ve learned during this mess.

            • There is a serious problem in the legal structure of this country that prosecutors (special and otherwise) can comply with the letter of the law while completely bypassing the spirit of the law.

              As I have discussed ad nauseam, plea deal structuring is often tantamount to legal blackmail. Searches can be done legally but unethically and in defiance of the obvious intent of the protections of the Constituion.

              My little brother was pulled over once for “speeding” which the offer claimed to be, I shit you not, two miles per hour over the speed limit. Why? He was a youngish kid wearing bad clothes and driving a too-nice car in a bad part of town. The cop thought he was a drug dealer (which, to be fair, might have been true). But he pulled him over and then found some cause to search his car (finding nothing). Was this all legal? Yup. But was it right? No.

              All this, of course, is wholly aside from the question of whether Trump did anything wrong. Cohen will testify if it ever gets to trial and it is the job of the jury as “finder of facts” to determine if they believe his story. All Mueller can do is present his evidence. As a jury member, I would heavily discount testimony given in consideration of a plea deal (though I wouldn’t go as far as the colonel in considering him an automatic liar).

              • No, no it’s not wholly aside from the question of whether Trump did anything wrong. How they got the information matters, it matters more than whether or not Trump or anyone else did something wrong.

              • I think maybe we’re looking at two different questions:

                1) Did Trump do something wrong?

                2) Should Trump be held accountable by the legal system for doing something wrong?

                For #1, the way in which the information was obtained is irrelevant, so long as it is accurate. Either he did something wrong or he didn’t. If the evidence was stole from his house by an illegal break-in, it would still be evidence of what he did. His actual guilt is divorced from what can be proven in a court.

                For #2, it matters very much whether the information was obtained correctly. He could be guilty as sin, but if the evidence is tainted, he goes free. This is where it becomes problematic that prosecutors can gain unethical evidence while still maintaining its legal viability.

              • I can live with that distinction. The problem comes from not knowing if the information is accurate or just self protecting.

      • Mr. The Colonel,

        Surely, as I mentioned above, Mr. Cohen has an *ahem* severe *ahem* credibility problem.

        But does not Trump also have such a problem? It’s not like he’s exactly known for his honesty, now is he? And we have him dead to rights lying about this very topic.

        In a pure he-says-he-says, I would certainly not find enough confidence to reach the litmus test of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but I think the preponderance suggests that Trump is the less credible of the two.

        Now, to be fair, that’s essentially the difference between a liar whose pants are actively aflame and one whose pants are merely smoldering.

        And, certainly, as part of a plea, there is every incentive to play along with the DA and say whatever he wants you to say. So his evidence should certainly be taken with a huge measure of salt.

        That said, I cannot imagine that the entirety of Mueller’s case will be simply Cohen’s word versus Trump’s, do you?

        ——————————–

        That said, here’s a question for you, Mr. The Colonel: I am not asking about a trial or a legal standard in any way. But do you – personally – in your own private non-binding opinion, generally believe that Trump did anything “wrong” as regards this matter?

        I’m not even asking if you think he broke any laws.

        I’m asking “do you think he did anything wrong?”

        And I’m not even asking you to be “sure.” Just what is your opinion based on the general consideration of the available information you have seen. If I put a gun to your head and demanded you tell me your honest best-guess as to whether he did probably something “wrong” or not, what would you say?

        • But does not Trump also have such a problem? It’s not like he’s exactly known for his honesty, now is he? And we have him dead to rights lying about this very topic. I can say that Mr. Trump has been known to stretch the truth on things, or outright lie, if that is the term you wish to use…as to his “ladies” (since you do not like the term bimbo or whore)…I could care less what he does with his personal sex life. As to the “ladies”, you correctly pointed out that they are both opportunists, I do not hold either of them in high regard. I subscribe to the theory that if a “lady” uses sex to further her position in life, then I see no difference than standing on a street corner in fishnet stockings and garter belt. Just becuase they are “classier” does not make them any different. I happen to believe that these two “ladies” knew exactly what they were doing.

          but I think the preponderance suggests that Trump is the less credible of the two. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I really have a HUUUGE problem with the use of the term perponderance because it is so subjective. However, as stupid as Trump has been on several things, I will never give a person whom turns state’s evidence to save himself, any shred of credence….my opinion, of course.

          That said, I cannot imagine that the entirety of Mueller’s case will be simply Cohen’s word versus Trump’s, do you? I am not so sure yet as I have not seen any evidence to the contrary. But, one thing you brought up somewhere….the focus of the investigation is on Russian Collusion….not tax evasion, or fraud, or anything. I disagree with you in that if other crimes are found in the course of the investigation on Russia Collusion…..they should not be prosecuted and charged with in the scope of another investigation. You turn that evidence over to a DA or the JD. Anything else, has the appearance of politcal pandering, which is what I think that Mueller is doing,

          That said, here’s a question for you, Mr. The Colonel: I am not asking about a trial or a legal standard in any way. But do you – personally – in your own private non-binding opinion, generally believe that Trump did anything “wrong” as regards this matter? IF….IF…IF….Mr. Trump used campaign funds to buy off these…..these…..ummmm…”ladies”, then he has broken a law…..and he is not above the law like the others have been. Burn him, But it is going to take some VERY HARD evidence to convince me…not heresay. I will need to see a signed check or have some corroborating evidence other than plea bargain shit heads out for their own skin. I am old school on this.

          If I put a gun to your head and demanded you tell me your honest best-guess as to whether he did probably something “wrong” or not, what would you say? First, you do not want to put a gun to my head. Second, if Mr. Trump had some dalliance with “ladies” other than his wife…to me, that is a moral issue. I would not do that because I consider my vows to mean something, As a full Colonel, with shiny eagles on my shoulder, I had many opportunities to further the careers of “ladies” in my command, whom were aggressive, good looking, and quite willing to “romp” for advancement and power…..I chose not to participate. But the fact that these “ladies” were opportunists and wore the uniform, in my opinion, does not make them any different than the second street hooker in her uniform of fishnet. However, had I done so, it would not have demeaned my ability to command or lead troops in battle.

          Likewise, I do not hold a POTUS to any higher standard. Having had dalliances with “ladies” prior to office, does not demean his ability to be POTUS. Clinton got caught with his pants unzipped, but he still functioned as POTUS….and, as I stated before, he did rather well despite his being married to….to…..to……the “lady” he still claims a marriage with.

          But, since you asked, do I think he has done anything wrong in this circumstance…..the only WRONG doing would be if he actually paid these “ladies” off with campaign funds. Otherwise, it is a moral issue and morality is not defined in the job description, to the best of my knowledge, and no one person can claim to be a moralist over another.

          Now, aske me the question of whether or not I would HIRE Mr. Trump to run my ranches.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            One should NEVER trust an attorney who violates legal cannons the way Cohen has. Geez, Taping your clients? Right from the get-go that tells me the attorney was up to his ass in illegalities and keeping his tapes for a rainy day.

            • Geez, Taping your clients? Right from the get-go that tells me the attorney was up to his ass in illegalities and keeping his tapes for a rainy day.

              Yes, very true.

              But then that begs the question of why Trump had such a close and long-term relationship with such a lawyer. (read: guilt by association and/or poor judgement)

              One should NEVER trust an attorney who violates legal cannons the way Cohen has. Geez, Taping your clients?

              I trust him about as far as I can throw him.. that’s maybe a few feet.

              But then again, I also trust Trump about as far as I can throw him.. and he weighs a lot more and is surrounded by Secret Service agents, so that’s not very far either.

              BUT, Cohen does have those tapes… I don’t need to trust anyone if I can hear the conversation(s) for myself…

          • Now, aske me the question of whether or not I would HIRE Mr. Trump to run my ranches.

            Would you hire Mr. Trump to run your ranches?

  15. Hope this link works. Comerica Park. Tigers first home game since Aretha died. Divine Intervention?

  16. Question: If Cohen is just an immoral, disreputable, unreliable, untrustworthy liar, does that not reflect poorly on Trump’s longstanding relationship with him?

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      You have never been “fooled” by someone?

      Ms. Omoroso apparently convinced Trump that she was good enough for a White House job though she had been discarded by both the Clinton White House and The Gore VP team for essentially being a lying, tireless self promoter.

      • I was asking about Cohen, but ok….

        she [Omorosa] had been discarded by both the Clinton White House and The Gore VP team for essentially being a lying, tireless self promoter.

        There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.

        ——-

        So, if, per Guilliani, they had known Cohen was a liar for years, and, per you, Omorosa had been twice fired for being a “lying, tireless self promoter,” then what does that say of the guy who employed them?

        Anyone can get fooled (except me, of course), but then again, I never said: “I surround myself with the best people. I know the best people.”

        So what gives?

        • Omarosa was very good as a spokesperson for Trump during the campaign. She was also black, which every democrat will tell you matters. So giving her a job isn’t a surprise.

          • Omarosa was very good as a spokesperson for Trump during the campaign.

            True.

            She was also black,

            True.

            which every democrat will tell you matters.

            True.

            So giving her a job isn’t a surprise.

            Why? He couldn’t find another black person capable of being a spokeswoman?

            I’ll tell you, I work in hedge funds, not the WH. And to get a job here, they probe you deeply. They check references extensively. If you have even the tiniest hint of being unethical, you’ll never get a job. No one can risk hiring you.

            So the question is why does the WH think it’s ok to, as SKT put it, hire a “lying, tireless self promoter.”

            Why would Trump, who prides himself on knowing all the best people and surrounding himself with all the best people, think it’s wise to hire a known liar and general bad-apple?

            He surely can’t claim ignorance. Everyone and their mother knew what kind of person she was.

            So, if the argument is that he didn’t know, then that’s a serious failing on his part to vet employees. One might call that a failure to show good judgement.

            If I hired an employee who turned out to be a disreputable liar, and it turned out that I should really have known about it if I’d done even the smallest amount of due diligence, I would be in some serious hot water. Why is it that Trump gets a pass?

            Or is that argument that he knew and didn’t care? And is that not worse?

            • I have no problem admitting Trump doesn’t know all the best people. I also think he came from a different world and had a long learning curve. I also think he ‘s known Omarosa for a long time and he figured she’d be an asset in the job he gave her. He was wrong. It turned out stabbing him in the back is more profitable. That scenario probably didn’t occur to him. Working in the White House is usually a big deal.

              As far as hiring other people, I’ve read a lot about Trump having a problem getting people in politics to work for his campaign, being an outsider an all, so rewarding those who did seems logical to me.

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              She got fired!

              As I pointed out earlier, you haven’t been bamboozled by anyone you trusted, ever?

              • Sure I have!

                But I wouldn’t be so stupid as to hire an employee (for the WH no less!) without considering her well-established reputation.

                So he either didn’t know, or didn’t care, and I don’t know which is worse.

                ———

                Also, not for nothing, but Omarosa is not exactly a one-off.. there’s Flynn, and Cohen, and Pruitt, and McMasters, and Tillerson, and Cohn, and Hicks, and Price, and Bannon, and THE MOOCH, and Priebus, and Spicy, and Gorka, and that’s just off the top of my head.

                Sure, firing them all (or, at least most of them) was probably a good idea… but what the hell is with HIRING them all?

                I mean, who couldn’t have seen that some of these people would be bad hires?

                And that’s to say nothing of the people still in place who suck *cough* DeVos *cough* Guilliani *cough*

                ———-

                And that’s to say nothing of the fact that I have never made any claim along the lines of “I surround myself with the best people. I know the best people.”

                It becomes a lot less forgivable when you claim to have this super awesome ability to find the right people and it turns out the way it has…

                I’d be a lot more lenient if he’d said “you know, I’m new to this whole government thing.. I might have to go through some people before I figure out the right people for the jobs.” But, no, he said he had it in the bag – AND PEOPLE BELIEVED HIM – AND VOTED FOR HIM at least partially on that basis. And that turned out to be…..

                ::wait for it::

                ::wait for it::

                ::wait for it::

                ::wait for it::

                A LIE!

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                Most of the fired folks had one thing in common. They all thought that THEY ran the show. They didn’t. I cannot imagine they were not warned that the big boss was acting like the big boss but somehow, their ego’s convinced them they could get away with either speaking for him or leaking.

              • Does that change the fact that he claimed to have all the best people and wound up having to fire all those people or having them get arrested?

    • Question: If Cohen is just an immoral, disreputable, unreliable, untrustworthy liar, does that not reflect poorly on Trump’s longstanding relationship with him? My late father always said, and believed it, that the mark of a good executive is the team he surrounds himself with as no one man has all the answers.

      I have two schools of thought on this….(1) In the vetting procedure, someone let Mr. Trump down, or (2) Mr. Trump knew the people he hired. If number 1 is applicable, I can give benefit of doubt….if number 2 is applicable, he made his bed….now sleep in it. And if he knowingly hired someone of this caliber…….that makes Mr Trump on the same level as Obama….pretty damned low, in my opinion.

      And of course, opinions are like ass holes……everybody has one.

  17. Mathius,

    I have to be brief because I have to leave to go to work. Your trust in the MSM is misguided. Years before this site existed, I was an avid ready of papers and got the local major one, the Sac Bee the McClatchy flagship paper. At some point for some reason, I stated to edit out all the adjectives and adverbs in above the fold articles. I would then reread them. The bias was plain to see. I did this for months before finally dropping the rag. At this point in time I had never seen Fox. I did not see Fox until April 2004 when we were staying in a hotel for my daughter’s wedding. At the time our nephew was with the marines heading for Baghdad so we were news junkies. After scanning through the news channels, it was very clear that Fox was reporting and all the others were propagandizing. Step back and do your home work. Yes Fox is alone in the world supporting Trump but how much of what Fox said last year is now taken for fact this year?

    I listen to what the president says. I then hear the interpretation of what the MSM says he said. The distortion is obvious and unidirectional. Mistakes are random, bias is not.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Amen brother!!!

      This is not to mention that with so many sites leaning leftward, FOX manages to outperform them all, combined. That should tell folks something. Besides, even FOX is not 100% in for Trump. Watched this AM when one Fox star badgered the W Va. candidate for Senate who is the state AG about what he thinks of Trump’s Campaign finance violations. Guy tried to say that it was a he said, he said at this point but the Fox host would not let up.

      Nah, us old Goldwater hands not to mention Viet-nam or Viet-nam era vets know where they are all coming from and have for some time now.

  18. https://www.gofundme.com/hqjupj-michael-cohen-truth-fund

    Help Cohen, not because you believe he deserves help, but so he can destroy Trump. Anyone feeling that truth doesn’t matter in this plan.

  19. Now Lannie Davis is saying Cohen wouldn’t accept a pardon because he’s so noble, now.

    • Nonsense.

      He’d jump at it.

      But here’s a question for you: can he have a “fair” trial if he has pardoned the people he allegedly conspired with?

      Imagine if I robbed a liquor store and two of the three of us got caught, charged, and took plea deals to testify against me as the ringleader. Right before my trial, I (somehow) make all the charges against them vanish. Are they going to testify against me? What incentive do they have? Don’t they owe me one?

      If it right for a person being charged with a crime to be able to tamper with the witnesses in this fashion?

      Note, I didn’t ask if it’s legal. I think it almost certainly is legal for Trump to pardon Cohen et al. But the question is whether it’s RIGHT.

      • Per your example no. But I’ll stick with it depends for now. Like Gates walking with probation while Manafort gets what 30, 40 years or more. I also wonder if Mueller investigated Podesta and the other compan y that worked with Manafort ,finances. Or did the special counsel tasked to go after Trump and his campaign only investigate Manaforts finances.

        Cohen being basically blackmailed. Do you really think he would have plea bargained about a campaign finance law if they didn’t have him for the serious stuff. This carp is all questionable.

      • He’d jump at it. Faster than the speed of sound…..or as my late pappy would say….”He would grab that pardon before God got the news!”

  20. Canine Weapon says:

    Found Gman’s car…

    • Awesome! Yes, I express my opinions as I see them. I don’t hold back because some snowflake can’t handle it. If I hurt someones feelings, it’s likely they needed their feelings hurt. If I piss someone off, they probably needed pissed off. If my stickers piss someone off, tough titties.

  21. Canine Weapon says:

    ….. A short while later ……

  22. The Dread Pirate Mathius says:
    • The only question that I have is……………………why would anyone leave a $20 tip for a $29 tab…..and who in hell buys a glass of milk for four bucks……there better be a couple of gallons in that glass, not to mention that coffee was only 50 cents less than bacon.

  23. “,Just imagine if candidates used campaign funds instead of their own money to pay folks like Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about affairs; they would get indicted for misuse of campaign funds for personal purposes and for tax evasion.”

    This statement was thought invoking. If you claimed it as a campaign expenditure, you broke the law. If you don’t claim it, it’s a violation. A violation for something people keep assuring me is legal.

    http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/402959-cohens-plea-deal-is-prosecutors-attempt-to-set-up-trump

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Maybe the solution is not to do things you feel you have to pay people to keep quiet?

      • No doubt, but again, people keep telling me it’s legal. So if it’s legal, it may be slimy but it’s a personal expense not a campaign contribution. So how can it be a violation?

        • In this case our exhibitionist contortionist is also an extortionist.

        • No doubt, but again, people keep telling me it’s legal.

          It is.

          So if it’s legal, it may be slimy

          It may be. Or it may not be. Who knows what his private relationship is with his wife. Not me.

          but it’s a personal expense not a campaign contribution.

          Except that hiding it was obviously helpful to his campaign. No one could possibly deny that. Maybe it was also a “personal” expense, but there’s just no denying it helped his election efforts.

          It’s like, if I spend money for PR rehabilitation, that might help me. It might be a personal expenditure. But if I spend that money in the midst of a major political campaign, it becomes hard to argue that it’s exclusively personal.

          So how can it be a violation?

          Because it helped his campaign. It helped his campaign. It helped get him elected And the timing is very suspect.

          It wasn’t purely personal.

          I, personally, happen to think his sexual exploits are none of my business. But I know that he was courting the Value Voters’ votes, and such things matter a great deal to them. You bet your ass it would have hurt him if they’d known about it before the election. This was – absolute – at least partially for his campaign.

          I just don’t think it’s plausible to argue that it’s 100% purely personal.

          I mean the timing of the shakedown wasn’t coincidental either. They knew that by shaking him down in the midst of his campaign he’d have to pay. And the reason for that was that it was vital to keep it hidden from the American voter.

          So, yes, it was campaign spending, and therefore it was a violation.

          • So, yes, it was campaign spending, and therefore it was a violation. Sorry, sir, your explanation is thinner than piss on a plate. Let’s take your reasoning beyond sex….saaaaay to a family member whom might be in AA…..and you are on a campaign and you hide that issue so voters would not even think about it and perhaps not vote for you…….and then it becomes public, you would consider that a campaign violation? ( Your issue above seemed to be on hiding something…not money ).

            • That sounds like a finding of fact, say, for a jury to determine………….

              • Well, sir……no it does not, in my opinion, of course. It sounds like the question of “when did you last beat your wife”……not have you or did you but when was the last time. Guilty until proven innocent…..that is not justice.

              • So, the campaign worker goes to a neighborhood and asks, “Can we put a campaing sign in your front yard”……that is CLEARLY using campaign funds to influence a voter…..and that is to be a finding of fact.

                But if I want to pay my own hush money to shut someone up for something I did that is not illegal….and it is not campaign funds……and I do this in order to influence votes…this is somehow a campaign violation.

                I would not even consider that with Hillary Clinton and I hate her more than Mathius hates Trump. Talk about a slippery slope.

              • Billy Beer comes to mind when Jimmy Carter tried to hide his brother but did not mention his drinking and things until it became public…..Jimmy Carter was a tea toting, bible beating person who did not want his brother to be seen or heard and hid it from the public…so this becomes an influence violation?

          • My understanding of the law (which I tried to look up but couldn’t find) is that it doesn’t have to be exclusively personal, just primarily to benefit your campaign. Even if you have a tape of Trump saying he doesn’t want this to come out, it doesn’t prove it was his primary reason. John Edwards was cleared of pretty much the same thing. He paid off his mistress who had his baby.

  24. Note to DPM: I saw you practicing markmanship with your brass wound, laser guided, cannon……you are getting much better.

  25. http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/22/lanny-davis-cohen-trump-reports-garbled/

    Well, that’s a bunch of gobbledygook. So he’s standing by his former statement because of some unexplainable complication. And all the talk about helping Mueller doesn’t even reach the level of a smoking gun.

  26. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    A bit of speculation (or an educated guess).

    Lawyer Cohen pleads guilty to campaign finance violations to spare himself from 40 year terms for real tax fraud so that Muller can then, by association, claim Trump was in a “conspiracy” to commit campaign finance violations. Meanwhile back at the ranch, in a trial, Mueller could not prove campaign finance laws were violated. Smart MoFo that Mueller!

    • When the Federal Election Commission ruled on the John Edwards case in 2012 – Edwards was charged with making payments to his mistress, with whom he had a son, to keep her quiet during the campaign – it found that the payments were not campaign contributions.

      It’s not a crime to pay someone to be quiet, if that’s the case. As I see it, the Witch hunt is going nowhere. Impeachment is a joke and those screaming for it should be educated on the repercussions of such an action.

      HRC- Horrified that Trump won’t accept election results. What a total fraud she is.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        So watch Mueller try to accuse him of “conspiracy” to commit an otherwise legal act which Trump and Cohen may have THOUGHT illegal.

  27. In the end, we see that the Democrat talking point of being outraged over temporary family separations at the border takes precedence over the horrific murder of an American citizen by a criminal illegal alien.

    https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/warren-mollies-murder-sorry-need-focus-real-immigration-problems/

    • All the Liberal fake outrage at separating kids from parents at the border when they enter illegally is as close to fake as one can get. A little lesson those who decry it.

      If you break the law and get incarcerated, you will be separated from your kids. You can’t take your kids to jail with you and you can’t break the law and walk away because you have kids. Please note that nothing I just said has anything to do with citizenship.

      As far as illegal entry into the country, it is the law. If you don’t like the law, then work to get it changed. I wouldn’t get your hopes up though.

      As far as the 11 million here illegally…round them up and send them back where they came from. REX 84. If you know of illegals, call ICE.

      • Yes, children have been separated from their parents for decades at the border. This is nothing new. The reason we separated them was to give the children better facilities than their parents and better nutrition than their parents could ever give them. I will also add that the children have never and are not now NOT out of communication with their parents. Funny how that is not getting reported.

        And I know this for fact…..I was there and did it. We went to great lengths to keep the children in contact with their parents. So….all of this reporting is bull dookey of the first order.

  28. I couldn’t pass this up:

    “If in fact legal settlements of personal matters are illegal campaign contributions, then the list of guilty politicians certainly is long. And, as we learned in 2017 about the sexual harassment settlements paid by Congress using a slush fund from taxpayer dollars, the leaders in the House of Representatives of both political parties are implicated by the $17 million in payments over a period of 20 years and at least 268 settlements.”

    Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/17_million_reasons_why_trump_not_guilty_of_campaign_violations.html#ixzz5P0b0ZzfU
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    • Ohhhh…..you’re going to hell fer that one………….how dare you implicate the leaders of Congress for using tax payer money for hush money…..shame, shame, shame,,,,,,,It is not Trump, so by extension, therefore not illegal for them to do it

    • I’m sure Matt has a fallacy up his sleeve for that…something along the lines of appeal to two wrongs don’t make a right. So it doesn’t count. Only thing that counts is bad Trump.

  29. Wow…..I wrote a piece about Mollie Tibbits,,,,,,and I am getting the comment…Sorry, this cannot be posted.

  30. Isn’t it interesting that the ILLEGAL that killed Mollie Tibbits used a fake social security card, a fake state ID and the company did not run the E-verify after all…….and no one cares.

    In the land of The Colonel, the following would happen:

    1) As in Texas, any company that is found hiring illigal immigrants loses their State recognition and charter to do business in Texas. They are out of business.
    2) All officers and owners of said corporation, LLC, or sole proprietorship would be indicted for accessory for failing to properly verify an applicants status.
    3) The ILLEGAL would be charged with the best murder charge applicable, no plea bargain.
    4) The ILLEGAL would be charged with forgery of a Federal Document, no plea bargain.
    5) The ILLEGAL would be charged with forgery of a State ID., no plea bargain.
    6) The family of the illegal would be deported immediately. No appeal.

    Each charge would stand on its own merits with no combinations of sentence. They run concurrently.

    Make it hurt like hell to violate the law….otherwise, why have laws. This is what would happen in Coloneldom.

  31. I just learned that in CA jungle primary that if a party’s candidate wants to withdraw or dies before the Nov. election that his name cannot be removed from the ballot nor can the party substitute anyone. Furthermore, write-ins are not allowed. So I either do not vote for either senator candidate (both Dems.) or vote for one of them. No other choice not even NOTA.

    • Wait, they can’t run another candidate BEFORE the primary. How the neck did they TRY to justify that?

      • The primary is over and the top 2 are on the ballot in Nov. At this point it is not possible to remove one of them for any reason or to substitute anyone or to write in a name. Rep. Duncan Hunter is being indicted for misuse of campaign money. The R’s cannot replace him on the Nov. ballot nor can they push a write-in candidate. So, to keep the seat in the red column, they must push a potential felon.

        In the Senate race it is 2 Dems. DiFi and Kevin de Leon. So conservatives do not have a voice. For governor it is Rep. Cox vs Dem. Newsom so at least there is a viable choice although Newsom will most likely win.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          How is this system legal?

          • It’s legal because the state legislature passed it and Moonbeam signed it. What you get with one party rule is more one party rule. The Dems are all for minority rights when it is skin color, ethnicity, or sexual preference but not when it is politics.

          • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            How is this system legal?

            Many things are legal that are immoral.

            Many things are moral that are illegal.

            The one has only a mild correlation with the other.

      • How the neck…must be a southern thing. 😉

  32. If corporations do not have to pay taxes on foreign earnings until repatriated, why then do not people like Manafort create a shell corporation and legally keep the money offshore?

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Claiming you surround yourself with the best people and then some turn out not to be can only be lying IF you know it is not true yet claim it is.

    We have no evidence that Mr. Trump lied when he said he had the best people. Some of those arrested were thought to be among the “best people” by many others, and their arrest is not an indicator they were not the best. Only that they got caught in the morass of laws we have.

    Some of the others were peripheral players so I don’t hold Mr. Trump responsible for them. This Omorosa person is one I do question as to having any real qualifications to be in the White House. But let us remember that she had endeared herself to Mr. Trump long before the elections. And we do not know what he hoped to gain by having her around. Obviously he was wrong on that one.

    Frankly Sir, your dislike for Mr. Trump as a person who doesn’t fit your opinion of what Presidential behavior is supposed to look like, is clouding your objectivity at times. You voted for Mrs. Clinton yet she had the same issues, those being lying and having questionable people around her. The same can be said for every POTUS candidate. Yet they all claim to have the brightest and best in their camp.

    Now with that said, I do question the “quality” of some of the people he has allowed to remain around him. Although I do not think his selections are the wholesale bust many in the media and on the left claim they are.

    A note on the supposed campaign finance violations. The primary focus of the law is to create transparency in monies received by campaigns. Money spent is reviewed in context of using campaign money for private purposes. The rumored violations so far are “stretches” in the law itself. Trying to claim a conspiracy to defraud the election by paying someone to not talk.

    As for the Bimbo issue itself. I think your view of how this affected the election is over stated. The “rumors” of the affair had been around for some time. Then there was the grabbing tapes and the many accusations by others of abusive behavior. NONE OF THAT mattered in the end. Except his victory might have been larger without it because those values voters who stayed home might have voted for him.

    The Bimbo payments were PERSONAL in nature. It was his personal reputation that was being attacked. If not personal then the only choice is public. And it certainly is not a public matter, not since the very people howling about this scolded the other side over all the Clinton affairs. In my view, ONLY those on the right calling themselves “value voters” have anything to complain about here.

    I am also in the Colonel’s camp on the overall prosecution. Mueller is showing that his goal is to undermine a duly elected POTUS. He is using his position to go after someone the various AG’s had not been able to trap before the election. This entire thing STINKS to high heaven. I wish I could say this will end the Special Prosecutor altogether but it won’t. Maybe Congress will clean up the rules for establishing one. But I doubt that also.

    I am hoping that when the next D gets the job the R’s immediately demand a Special Prosecutor be put in place to investigate the rumors of criminal and other activity by the newly elected POTUS. Then maybe people will wake up to how our govt. is being weaponized in terms of political parties’ fight for power.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Claiming you surround yourself with the best people and then some turn out not to be can only be lying IF you know it is not true yet claim it is.

      Ah, the Costanza defense: http://i0.wp.com/www.wallpaperfool.com/wp-content/uploads/TV-0001/Its%20not%20a%20lie%20if%20you%20believe%20it%20-%20George%20Costanza.png

      and their arrest is not an indicator they were not the best. Only that they got caught in the morass of laws we have.

      Well, now, that’s something we can agree on.

      … well, except for the “we” part.. I have no laws…

      That said, some of those people were clearly incompetent or unsuited to their roles. I don’t have to believe in government to know that he never should have given Omarosa or Scaramoochi a job in the White House.

      Some of the others were peripheral players so I don’t hold Mr. Trump responsible for them.

      Just to be clear, then, you’re a subscriber to the philosophy that “The Buck Stops…. Somewhere Else”

      You voted for Mrs. Clinton

      I MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT!

      I challenge you to a duel, sir! Pistols at dawn.

      she had the same issues, those being lying and having questionable people around her. The same can be said for every POTUS candidate.

      This is true, of course, because they are politicians and, therefore, liars and criminals by default.

      That said, Mrs. Clinton is not the President so pointing at her is irrelevant. The question is the behavior by the President. That someone else did or would likely behave similarly does not make his behavior acceptable.

      Though Mathius is, of course, a total moron, he is right about one thing: Two wrongs do not make a right.

      As for the Bimbo issue itself. I think your view of how this affected the election is over stated.

      Of course it affected the election. It was pretty close. If Clinton had won a few thousand more votes, or if a few thousand voters had stayed home in any one of a number of states, she’d be the President now and you’d be griping about how she’s running the country while Mathius would be fecklessly defending her.

      Then there was the grabbing tapes and the many accusations by others of abusive behavior. NONE OF THAT mattered in the end.

      Of course it mattered. Just not enough to sway the election.

      In my view, ONLY those on the right calling themselves “value voters” have anything to complain about here.

      I’m not a “value voter,” but I have a fair amount to complain about here, too….

      In my view, ONLY those on the right calling themselves “value voters” have anything to complain about here.

      And you don’t suppose it’s possible there are enough of them who might have stayed home to flip a single state?

      I am also in the Colonel’s camp on the overall prosecution.

      The snake eats its own tail.

      This is no different than the endless Benghazi hearings or the B. Clinton special prosecution or or or or or.

      Each of you gleefully watching when the other side is taking lumps, but then whines when it’s your own turn.

      I’m sick of the martyrdom.

      I am hoping that when the next D gets the job the R’s immediately demand a Special Prosecutor be put in place to investigate the rumors of criminal and other activity by the newly elected POTUS.

      Exactly my point.

      They will, of course, just as the Republicans spent years “investigating” every perceived scandal of the Obama administration.

      The difference is that you seem willfully ignorant of the cyclical nature of this phenomenon. You act like “their side” persecutes yours and “your side” only returns the favor. Whereas you’ve been beating each other up for time immemorial. Sometimes it’s better, sometimes worse, but it’s just politics.

      If Mathius were here, he’d point out that this is one of his major gripes with Gman.. that Gman insists on acting like “his side” is pure as the driven snow and only acts out of desperation after being abused buy “Mathius’ side.” What neither you nor Gman seem to be able to grasp is that “both” sides are comprised primarily of assholes and NEITHER side is anywhere even remotely near innocent in all this petty harassment and politicking.

      “Assholes. I’m surrounded by assholes.”

      • Just A Citizen says:

        DPM

        ” The question is the behavior by the President. ” WRONGO my pirate friend.

        You make the same mistake as your alter ego, who by the way is the one I was talking to when I said “you voted for Clinton”.

        The question on the table is and remains Mathius’ reaction to all this. As well as many other Trump haters. Also on the table is the HYPOCRISY of those doing all the howling over this paying off wenches for silence.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          your alter ego, who by the way is the one I was talking to when I said “you voted for Clinton”.

          OK, you are excused from the duel.

          The question on the table is and remains Mathius’ reaction to all this. As well as many other Trump haters.

          Certainly a fair point.

          But I’d feel a lot better if you rounded out the question to also include the Trump cheerleaders who, were the roles reversed, would be screaming for blood.

          You SEEM to make nothing of the fact that people were more than happy to chant “lock her up” toward the other team’s candidate, but when it comes to your own, the cheer seems to be “due process with extreme caution not to infringe on the President’s rights and also he has full latitude to do whatever he wants and can pardon witnesses and nothing he says or does can be considered obstruction or lying or in any other way illegal or even slightly wrong and oh by the way he’s the real victim in this.”

          You SEEM to make nothing of the fact that Mrs. Clinton literally couldn’t sneeze without it being proof of her nefarious dishonesty, but when it comes to Trump who is – let’s face it – a complete liar, the burden of proof somehow becomes staggeringly high.

          So, yes, by all means, question Mathius’ reaction, but it might go a little easier if you were to couple it with some honest introspection.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            DPM

            True, I made nothing of people yelling “lock her up” . I still do not. Because I find it funny and a small ray of hope. She should have been locked up long ago.

            Every investigation into the Clinton’s was stymied by someone or a large group of someone’s. So arguing that lack of prosecution is lack of evidence is not a good argument. And everything they do is now scrutinized by a much larger audience. It wasn’t that way until recently. Apparently you do not realize that. This is a place where the internet and alternate media is having an impact.

            I know Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Clinton to be dishonest. Therefore I do not argue they are not nor do I challenge someone who simply “thinks” they are. But I will also call BS on accusations that have no real proof. Such as the claim “she sold off our uranium to Russia”. She did not do that. However, the deal stunk to high heaven because the Clinton’s were involved AND money changed hands between Russia and the Clinton family.

            The Clintons and Mr. Trump should all be afforded due process. I have never claimed otherwise. I do not look the other way if I think that due process is being violated, no matter how repugnant I find someone, like Mrs. Clinton.

            As for Mr. Trump’s investigations they are simply not the same as the other stuff you keep dragging up from the depths of the past. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign tried to link Trump to Russia during the campaign. The DNC has been using that tactic ever since. It wound up causing a Special Prosecutor to be appointed. Although I think there is a good argument that Mr. Trump caused this by appointing Jeff Sessions to the AG spot.

            The current Mueller investigations are a fishing expedition of unprecedented proportion, especially given how quickly it started after the election, let alone the breadth of its current touch. I cannot remember in history a POTUS that has had his own agencies key personnel openly working to undermine his authority, from day one. This usually takes some time to manifest, allowing POTUS to clean house when it is needed.

            You keep trying to draw these parallels or moral equivalencies. I do not see them existing. I see someone who is failing to recognize just how awful this is and how IT is the true threat to or democratic Constitutional Republic. Far more threatening that Russian trolls posting fake news stories.

            AND, the following is a complete lie my friend. That is not my position nor is it the position of anyone at SUFA. Even Anita would balk at ACTUAL OBSTRUCTION of justice.

            “on the President’s rights and also he has full latitude to do whatever he wants and can pardon witnesses and nothing he says or does can be considered obstruction or lying or in any other way illegal or even slightly wrong and oh by the way he’s the real victim in this.””

            Mr. Trump is the victim in all this, because the “this” is the greater effort. It is not the small details of daily rantings and news stories. Those are primarily distractions, click bait to keep the ratings high for the media and political donations flowing.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        DPM

        If value voters stayed home then yes they could have caused a State to go for Clinton, but not FOR Trump. I think you presume they would have voted Clinton instead. That is laughable.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          I am saying that, had they stayed home, it is plausible that one of the states he won might have gone to Clinton. All it would have taken was one state.

          To that end, it was a very close game, and any number of factors could have been a tipping point. If Comey hadn’t publicly reopened the server investigation a few days before the election, she might have won. If Value Voters had known about his affair and subsequent payoff of a porn star, she might have won. If word leaks that Clinton puts ketchup on steak, Trump might have swept all fifty states.

          The point, sir, is that keeping the news of the porn star payoffs out of the news helped Trump with the Value Voters in a very tight election.

          Did it put him over?

          Who knows. Maybe? Maybe not?

          They certainly wouldn’t have flipped to Clinton, but they might have stayed home. So by keeping the news quiet, he increased their turnout (or prevented it from being suppressed).

          So it DID help him.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            Had Hillary been indicted as she should have been might have made a difference too.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            DPM

            And what I am saying is the value voters did stay home. Those that didn’t cross the line to vote for Clinton. Your memory is suffering badly.

            There were media reports of value voters voting for Trump. But what was not covered was the reduced turnout in this group. And self proclaimed “conservatives” are not always “values voters”.

            I am also saying that the issues of Mr. Trump’s affairs and supposed payouts for non disclosure agreements were ALREADY public during the campaign. Along with all kinds of even nastier outright accusations. By the way, notice how all those accusers just disappeared after the election?? None of that changed the outcome. Partly because there were a bunch of Independents and Democrats who voted for Trump.

            So I reject your hypothesis that keeping Stormy Daniels quiet somehow affected the value voters. Those that would have been affected by this were already affected. The rest put winning ahead of their “values”. I do the Happy Dance everyday because of their decision.

            You want to play what if? What if Hillary Clinton had made a trip to Michigan, Ohio or Pennsylvania in the closing month? What if she had laid out an actual strategy to address their concerns? You know, instead of saying “those jobs are gone and are never coming back”.

            What if the Democratic Party were to nominate a candidate with Obama’s style who was not a raving Socialist and control freak? What if Pelosi, Schummer and the Posse’ dropped dead tomorrow and Warren/Sanders et al decided to move to Venezuela?

            What if Frogs had wings? They wouldn’t drag their ass when they hopped.

            • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              I wasn’t going to argue with you any more on this, but….

              What if she had laid out an actual strategy to address their concerns? You know, instead of saying “those jobs are gone and are never coming back”.

              Well…. yea.. they are gone.

              So are jobs at the buggy whip factory and ice delivery and VHS repair.

              What if the Democratic Party were to nominate a candidate with Obama’s style who was not a raving Socialist and control freak?

              But the democrats love socialism.

              Then again, so do Republicans – they just pretend not to.

              They’re all a bunch of big government tax-and-spend statists – the only differences are on (A) mild difference on the extent (B) what their priorities are and (C) that the Democrats aren’t in denial about being Big Government Statists.

              What if Frogs had wings? They wouldn’t drag their ass when they hopped.

              I don’t think they drag their asses with or without wings…

              Also, flying frogs seems somehow oddly terrifying, but great for mosquito control…. I would like to see your business prospectus for a possible investment.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        DPM

        “Each of you gleefully watching when the other side is taking lumps, but then whines when it’s your own turn.” Again you misplay the fallacy card.

        First of all the Benghazi investigations were legit investigations of Congress. And the fact remains they would have ended much more quickly if the Administration had cooperated. Let alone the D’s in Congress has stopped trying to undermine the investigation the whole time.

        The initial investigation into Mr. Clinton was also legit. However it should have never moved to the sex in the White House, which caused Mr. Clinton to LIE to a Grand Jury. Remember, it was PERJURY that got him impeached.

        To you final accusation, I am not alone in opposing the entire concept of Special Prosecutors. I did not like the Star investigation and I have opposed this one from the start. I could see a place where such might be needed to investigate CONGRESS. But otherwise, the mechanisms are in place to investigate PEOPLE within an administration, even by other administration agency staff. The other place where there can be a rub is when investigating broader level corruption or misbehavior within an Agency, such as the CIA and DOJ.

        But again, this is Congress’ job. They rely on special investigations so they can sit in the peanut gallery and throw poo, instead of doing their job.

        There is NO SUCH THING as a truly INDEPENDENT Special Prosecutor. Realize this and then adjust the rules accordingly.

        Just to toss you a peanut, there is no doubt that many who cheered over Clinton’s investigations have opposed this one. But you also need to realize there are significant differences in each of them. The current one started without any evidence or indication of a crime being committed and no indication that the information we need to understand was not already available from the DOJ, FBI, CIA, etc. etc.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        DPM

        I am throwing the BS flag and penalizing you 5 yards for off sides.

        “The difference is that you seem willfully ignorant of the cyclical nature of this phenomenon. You act like “their side” persecutes yours and “your side” only returns the favor. ”

        I am the person here who first posted the beginnings of this tit for tat and showed how it has been going on for decades, but is also getting worse each cycle. Each tit for tat event does not start at the same time. Some go back to the early 20th century. The SCOTUS ones go back to “Borking”.

        So please withdraw this accusation and denigration of my character. Or you will find that this old timer can pick off your Cannon operators without you ever seeing it coming.

  34. The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    I propose a MAJOR as in YUUUUUGE political compromise.

    You agree to Constitutional amendments which remove govt. authority over commerce, limiting the extent of taxation and imposing even greater restrictions on Federal AND State power, including abolishing all welfare and I will agree to an amendment which adopts the Popular vote for POTUS.

    • That’s a bit too steep.

      Here’s my counter: I’ll give you
      1) a reinstatement of the limitation of government over commerce BETWEEN STATES.
      2) certain you restrictions on federal and state power.
      3) for a law to broken, the jury must also find that a “reasonable person in a comparable situation would reasonably believe that he was breaking the law.”
      4) abolish the exemption for prisoners as slave labor.
      5) I’ll means-test welfare. And a life-time ban for any conviction for abuse/fraud.
      6) no politician can order or vote in favor of military action which puts soldiers’ lives in danger without joining them at the front lines.
      7) term limits on the House of Reps.
      8) a constitutional amendment arresting Hillary Clinton.

      In return, I get the Popular Vote and the elimination of the Senate (the House doubles in membership), and I get to punch Donald Trump in the nose one time.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Sorry Sir but you are not close. We have much more work to do to get an agreement.

        #8, absolutely NOT. But if we reach accord I will grant you that free poke in the nose. I might give that up without the agreement, if it would knock some sense into the bloke.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        1), Agreed but we need to carefully word this to prevent the creeping that got us here today.
        2) Yes, they need to be defined to make them solid, or more solid. We all know the BEAST will constantly try to break the cage.
        3) Not an Amendment issue.
        4) There is no such exemption. Indentured Servitude is allowed and I think it should remain. Abuse, as in creating criminals to get cheap labor must never happen. But that also is not a Constitutional issue. Although we might get wording in the Authorities for formation of the Judicial Branch.
        5)First part……It depends on what you mean by “means test”. Second part…….Agree.
        6) Disagree in fact but agree with the feelings reflected.
        7) Agree but need terms. However, same for Senate as I disagree with abolishing that body.
        8) NO

        9) No on the Senate. Instead return to State Legislatures selecting Senators. But then impose a term limit. I propose TWO terms. That is 12 years. I could be swayed to go to THREE for 18 years. But absolutely NO MORE THAN THAT.

        10) A Constitutional ban on elected officials or appointees who leave office being able to return to Govt for at least ten years after leaving. We need to find a way to stop the revolving door.

        11) A prohibition on more than 10% of the jobs in the Govt., being held by Ivy League school graduates. And NONE can run for Federal elected offices.

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    Trivia question………….. no Googling………..you have to use your memories.

    Which Presidents won office with the two highest percentages of the popular vote from 1940 to the present? Not worded very well. Looking for the top two voter winners, as percentage of the total vote. Extra points if you can identify the approximate percentage they won.

    • Reagan / Nixon?

      I know last places are going to Bush II / Trump.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Wrong in both answers. Wrong answer means at least one of the two provided is incorrect.

        • Since the 40’s? There’s no way I’m wrong on Bush II and Trump having the lowest margin of popular vote victory.

          But that’s not what you’re asking, is it? I’m reading your question wrong.. if it’s just a question of lowest winning vote percentage (as opposed to margin of victory), maybe Clinton in ’92 because of Perot? But the other one would still have to be Trump or Bush. (Maybe Carter? I have no idea how he did, actually..)

          As for best… Both Nixon and Reagan dominated the electoral college (though Nixon only did his second time, which is why Watergate is so bizarre.. it was completely unnecessary!), so that’s what I’m going on… who could possibly have beat them? FDR, maybe? Doesn’t seem right…

          GOLDWATER.. it’s LBJ… ok… LBJ and….. Reagan with Nixon rounding out the top three. (Unless, maybe, you’re being tricky and it’s Reagan / Reagan, but I don’t think so..)

          At the bottom, I have Clinton and Trump.

          Final answer: Goldwater / Reagan (then Nixon) and Clinton / Trump (then Bush II).

          • *Final answer: LBJ / Reagan (then Nixon) and Clinton / Trump (then Bush II).

            Obviously, I didn’t mean Goldwater.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              Still wrong, but I will wait with the answers until others have a chance to play. I only asked who won with the largest total %. But winning with the largest and the smallest is a good extension of the question.

              So everyone, try answering both. Top Two Winners by % total vote and Lowest Two Winners by % total vote.

              • Ok…Since you said the largest PERCENTAGE and not largest in total popular vote….I go with LBJ/Bill Clinton? I know LBJ was pretty huge…..but I am betting Bill Clinton is in there…..maybe Nixon……………………….

                Final Answer…………LBJ/ (tossing coin on Clinton/Nixon)…….Bill Clinton? So, LBJ/Bill Clinton…..

                Lowest winners by percentage of popular vote….I go with Reagan…..maybe Eisenhower or Bush….I woud say Nixon in second term,,,,,,,,dum de dum……(theme music playing)…..

                Reagan/Dwight Eisenhower……………..difficult, very difficult (puts on Hogwarts sorting hat…fighting urge to look it up)……..Reagan,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,since 1940, you say….Eisenhower……ok………..

                Griffindor…………….ok ok………………Reagan/Eisenhower…..final answer

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    I was trying to remember in history when a POTUS came to office with such firm and rabid opposition. When members of the Govt. were working against him from the “git go”.

    I came up with Lincoln and the Democratic Party’s opposition and resistance, which went as far as secession. Nobody loved John Adams either but they didn’t gang up on him like the other two. Now Jefferson certainly tried. Along with his Democratic Republican Party brethren. But Adams had his supporters, including Washington. Nixon was reviled by the Dems and the Left, but he was granted some grace period to try and deal with Viet Nam and the crashing economy.

    • I think Lincoln, certainly, but also Obama as a (very) distant second.

      I think we agree on Lincoln, so I’ll leave that there.

      But Obama was hated before he ever set foot in office with half the country thinking he was illegitimate.

      I might also put Bush II near the top due to the whole “stolen election” / hanging chad business.. he came in pretty disliked. But nothing compared to Trump.

      By the way, that’s not to say that Trump doesn’t deserve all the hate he gets from the left. He has spent years deliberately antagonizing the left. Yes, the left gives back as good as it gets, so they’re not remotely innocent either. But one shouldn’t infer that it’s purely one-sided. He’s been belligerent and juvenile, so it’s really no surprise that the left hates his guts.

      Ok, so, revising… Lincoln, then a big margin, then Trump, then a smaller margin, then Obama, then another small margin and Bush II.

      But, to be fair, I have no idea about some of these guys. For all I know, Millard Fillmore was top of the list.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        It is this kind of comment that gets you in trouble:

        “But Obama was hated before he ever set foot in office with half the country thinking he was illegitimate”.

        There is no way that half the country felt this way. Hell, half the Republican party didn’t even feel this was true. The “Birthers” were primarily a fringe bunch that got hold of a megaphone. The Tea Party got wrapped up in it for awhile because of the Constitutionalism in that group.

        Because per the original meaning of “natural born” Mr. Obama probably should have been disqualified. But most of the “Birthers” didn’t focus on this, they instead ran wild with the Kenyan connection and a “forged Birth Certificate”. I admit there is academic disagreement over the meaning of this phrase. But it did not just mean one had to only be born here.

        You seem to once again exposing your thin skin and how if affects your political analysis. I bet you forget that the R leadership called for calm and cooperation in the very beginning. Right up until Mr. Obama told them he won and they had better tow the line. He made a Rookie mistake. Taking election as some kind of actual mandate.

        Bush II on the other hand entered office with the DNC carrying a banner that he was illegitimate and the Republicans STOLE THE ELECTION.

        So my order is Lincoln, Trump, Bush II (first time), Nixon (first time) then Obama (second time). Ironically, Reagan’s first election is close to Obama’s second in my opinion. Many seem to forget that Reagan’s popularity was not that high but it grew during his tenure in office. I forgot Clinton in his second term. He had to deal with a rebel group of newly elected Republicans. Something no other Democratic POTUS had had to deal with. It forced him to move towards the center. The irony though is that his popularity increased and the Republican animus towards him was reduced. It fell back on the standard political posturing and Gingrich claiming ALL THE CREDIT.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          P.S. The internet and new technologies helped Mr. Obama get elected to his first term. His “machine” was new and effective.

          BUT this is the first time we also see the dark side of the internet, in a major way. I am talking about the “Birther Issue”. If not for the internet I doubt this would have ever made it into the mainstream media or public discussion. This is the first time I can recall the site called Info Wars and the name Alex Jones becoming prominent.

          Looking back on it, I now wonder if the Russian’s were playing a role in spreading this issue. Like many other conspiracy theories that quickly popped up which I warned people were crazy, stupid and false. Like the stupid “FEMA camps” and “FEMA human cattle cars”.

          I believe that some day the historians will document the election of 2008 as being a turning point with respect to how elections are conducted and the extent to which the public is being manipulated by various players. The only light on the horizon is some data I saw recently indicating that more and more Millenials, and their other cohorts, are starting to decrease their social media and internet use. It is a small ray of light, but light none the less.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        The democrats have recently found tat the Florida election was “manipulated” by the Russians It has been reported. Explains those hanging chads.

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    True or False?

    Trump won office with more votes than any Republican, ever!

    • Shows just how many violent idiots there are.

      Voting is a criminal act because it demands violence upon everyone. It is essentially becoming a member of a violent religious gang.

      Voting is also stupid because it demands violence upon yourself. It’s no different than paying someone to steal from you and beat you up.

    • Hmm… victory margins and population growth and participation rate… hmmm.. very tricky…. It would have to be one of the last 30 years. Could be Reagan again…. Bigger margin.. Maybe an additional 10%, but fewer voters… and did more people vote then than now? Hmmm… tricky one….

      I’ll say true.

      And I’ll remind you of the fact that this means that Clinton, even though she lost, had more votes than any Republican ever.

      And, given the way you phrased it, I’ll assume that Obama beat him to hold the top spot?

      Now, for self-awarded bonus points, the bottom spot… I’ll take Adams I.

  39. “The Liberal media, in there own arrogance, colluded (yes, I used that word) to write opinion pieces against Trump in over 300 newspapers nationwide. All this did was prove exactly what Trump has been saying, the Media are the enemy of the people.”

    The mainstream media has always been an instrument of psychological warfare, manipulation and brainwashing of the masses. People are stupid and think what they’re told to. There is a well documented history of such. Your leader is correct, unless you like to be BS’d.

    ” I don’t mean a violent enemy, but an enemy of unbiased reporting of the free press.”

    That depends on how you define violence. If you define it correctly, it is synonymous with abuse or a breech of trust, a wrong, an unethical and abusive act. Is supporting a violent terrorist organization responsible for countless deaths and abuses considered wrong? How does contributing to violence compare to violence? Is there a difference?-What?

    “The Liberal media, namely Cuomo on CNN is actually supporting the violent antics of Antifa, the fascist radicals whose name is a lie.”

    There is no such thing as violence against the state. The state claims everything with violence, forces violent terms on everyone, thus any act against it is rightful defense, up to and including deadly force. Antifa (or anyone) has every right to use force against the state and it’s members in response to force imposed upon them. Although I question the legitimacy of Antifa’s stated position. They appear to be created and contradict themselves in terms of their principles.

    My guess is that they are a contrived organization being used for propaganda to demonize what they falsely label as anarchists, create fear and stress among the population, foster nationalism and dependency, promote growth and budget increases, etc. They’re just something to spin. Again, people are stupid, think what they’re told to think.

    “They feign anger at ICE arresting a wanted murderer after they caught him taking his pregnant wife to the hospital. These people are SICK. And, they have rendered themselves useless, with nothing to offer the people of this country.”

    ICE is just as much the enemy as media, the left, right, and whoever else supports the violent religious cult commonly referred to as government. What gets me is how you still don’t get it. There is no difference. At the core, they are all the same.

    Your position has always been ‘Poison oranges for everyone is better than poison apples for everyone’.

    What about no poison for anyone, or the right to choose?

  40. Since JAC is in a quizzing kind of mood:

    1) What state is furthest North?

    2) What state is furthest South?

    3) What state is furthest West?

    4) What state is furthest East?

    5) What state is closest to Africa?

    6) There are four states whose capitals begin with same letter as the states themselves. What are they? (capital and state start with the same letter)

    7) Only one state song has an exclamation point. Which one?

    8) After Alaska, this state has the highest elevation point in the US.

    9) After Death Valley in California, this state has the lowest elevation point in the US.

    10) What state has the tallest mountain in the US.

    11) What state has the highest population density?

    12) After Alaska (duh!), what state has the lowest population density?

    13) What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

    • Without cheating……

      Alaska is furthest north unless you are talking the lower 48….and since I wintered many times in the military in International Falls, Minnesota…..and using longitudinal references from my map reading days….Minnesota.

      Heading South. Again, if you are talking contiguous lower 48…..Florida. However, long/Lat would be Hawaii.

      Heading West…..Alaska……take Alaska out it is Washington State.

      Heading East is a toughie for me…….thinking,,,,,thinking….sending Raptors to recon…..One would say Maine….however, I happen to know from my tactical military days, that LAT/Long,,,,Alaska is also eastern most due to its chain of islands and time zones.

      • Going on,,,,,the State closest to Africa…..once again, the military takes charge becuase of logisitics plannint to North Africa….It has to be up on the East Coast somewhere…..again lat/long….Maine or Rhode Island….

        States and Capitals…..singing song..I’ve been everywhere man,….however can only come up with three…and the fourth one is going to piss me off probably…I have Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Dover, Delaware and Indianapolis Indiana,,,,,

        State Song with exclamation……got me there. Texas, Our Texas has a comma…..nope…dont know.

        State with the highest elevation other than Alaska……Washington or California…..I go with California’s Mt. Whitney.

        Lowest point…..again the military rises to the task….Since the National training Center is in Death Valley and that has been eliminated….New Orleans, La wins, I think.

        Tallest mountain not eliminating Alaska would be Denali…Alaska.

        Highest density in population,……smallest state with high population……New Jersey….maybe. Has to be East coast…….not sure………i go with NJ.

        Lowest density other than Alaska…..Montana/Wyoming……Wyoming is bigger so I go with that.

        As to the swallow…..African or European?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Colonel

        Alaska is Not East as the date line, time zones, does not define east and west. That is the direction from the meridian in England..

    • Just A Citizen says:

      1) North: Alaska, Minnesota in the lower 48.
      2) South: Hawaii
      3) West :Alaska, Washington in the lower 48.
      4) East: Main
      5) Closest to Africa: Main
      6) Capitals: The Colonel forgot Honolulu, Hawaii.
      7) Song: No clue. I will go with Anita.
      8) Highest point after Alaska: California.
      9) Lowest point after California: New Orleans, Lousiana
      10) Tallest Mountain: Alaska then California. See #8.
      11) Highest density: New Jersey. I think we did this one before.
      12) Lowest density, excluding Alaska: Wyoming, then Montana.
      13) Swallow speed: OK, had to look this one up. About 24 mph.

      But Sir Mathius, here is a better question on the Swallow. Does one fly faster if trying to get laden or when trying to avoid being laden?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Just reading the questions again. On number 9 there is a possible trick question. Because it does not say outside California which has Death Valley, it asks outside Death Valley in California which state has the next lowest spot.

        That could also be CALIFORNIA. The state has many places far below Sea Level and below the lowest point in Louisiana. I have been to at least three of them. Played in the Regional Babe Ruth baseball tournament in one of them, that being Brawley, California (-121) feet. They had a flag pole in town at the time with Seal Level painted on the big ball at the top. A big red stripe.

      • 10) Tallest Mountain: Alaska then California. See #8.

        I’m afraid this is another tricky question.

        Measuring base to peak, the tallest mountain in the WORLD is Mauna Kea.

        https://www.businessinsider.com/earths-tallest-mountain-is-hawaii-2015-6

        And the furthest East is not Maine, your reasoning not withstanding, it is Alaska. Your reasoning makes no sense. If it boils down to “furthest east = first point you hit travelling west from Greenwich,” then the US is further east than China, and France is even further east. Does that make sense? The demarcation is the 180 degree point from the Prime Meridian, which Alaska crosses.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          Yes, tallest mtn could be tricky. Except the standard for measuring the height of land masses is from sea level.

          The furthest east question is interesting. The Date Line is as you say the 180 degree mark from the baseline, which runs through Greenwich. From that point longitude is measured in either an east or west direction, until you hit the 180 degree mark.

          I did look this up late last night and Maine is listed by all the sources I found as the State which is the farthest East. So I got to wondering if that single Island beyond the Date Line is actually part of the State of Alaska. It does have a Russian Name on it.

          If there is in fact Alaskan land west of the 180 degree longitude then you should be correct. Because its longitude would have to be something like 179 degrees East.

  41. Canine Weapon says:

    There are 500 bricks on a plane. One falls off. How many are left?

    499

    What are the three steps to putting an elephant in the refrigerator?

    Open fridge, put elephant in, close fridge

    What are the four steps to putting a giraffe in the refrigerator?

    Open fridge, take elephant out, put giraffe in, close fridge

    The Lion king is having a birthday party. All the animals attend but one. Which animal is it and why?

    Giraffe. He’s stuck in the refrigerator.

    Sally wants to cross a river that is home to hundreds of alligators. There is no bridge and the only way she can get across is by swimming. She swims across and makes it to the other side safely. Why?

    The alligators are all at the birthday party.

    Sally dies anyways. Why?

    She got hit in the head by a flying brick

  42. Canine Weapon says:

    Why did the koala fall out of the tree?

    Because it was dead.

    Why did the second koala fall out of the tree?

    It was hit by the first koala.

    Why did the third koala fall out of the tree?

    It thought it was a game and wanted to join in.

    Why did the kangaroo die?

    Because three koalas fell on it.

  43. So…..useless joke night…….and trivia night….

    What did the psychiatrist say when a man wearing nothing but saran wrap walked into his office? ” I can clearly see your nuts”

    How does the man in the moon cut his hair? ECLIPSE IT, of course.

    What do you call it when a dinosaur crashes his car? “Tyrannosaurus Wrecks”

    Ok, enough of the stupid ones….ever wonder why…….

    Why is it called alcoholics anonymous when the first thing you do is stand up and say
    “hi, my name’s MATHIUS. I’m an alcoholic”?

    Why does mineral water that has trickled through mountains for centuries
    have a use by date?

    Why does Goofy stand on two legs when Pluto remains on four? They’re both dogs. I will have to ask Canine Weapon.

    If corn oil is made from corn and vegetable oil is made from vegetables. What is baby oil made from?

    Did you ever notice that if you blow in a dogs face it goes mad, yet when you take him on a car ride he sticks his head straight out the window?

    And the Lord said, “John come forth. and you will receive eternal life….but, John came fifth and won a toaster.

    More?

    How do you make a tissue dance? You put a little boogie in it.

    it gets worse

    A father buys a lie detector robot that slaps people when they lie.
    He decides to test it out at dinner one night.
    The father asks his son what he did that afternoon.
    The son says, “I did some homework.”
    The robot slaps the son.
    The son says, “Ok, Ok, I was at a friend’s house watching movies.”
    Dad asks, “What movie did you watch?”
    Son says, “Toy Story.”
    The robot slaps the son.
    Son says, “Ok, Ok, we were watching porn.”
    Dad says, “What? At your age I didn’t even know what porn was.”
    The robot slaps the father.
    Mom laughs and says, “Well, he certainly is your son.”
    The robot slaps the mother.

    Robot for sale.
    ———————————-

    A few days after Christmas, a mother was working in the kitchen listening to her young son playing with his new electric train in the living room.
    She heard the train stop and her son said, “All of you sons of bitches who want off, get the hell off now, cause this is the last stop! And all of you sons of bitches who are getting on, get your asses in the train, cause we’re going down the tracks.”
    The mother went nuts and told her son, “We don’t use that kind of language in this house. Now I want you to go to your room and you are to stay there for TWO HOURS. When you come out, you may play with your train, but I want you to use nice language.”
    Two hours later, the son comes out of the bedroom and resumes playing with his train. Soon the train stopped and the mother heard her son say, “All passengers who are disembarking from the train, please remember to take all of your belongings with you. We thank you for riding with us today and hope your trip was a pleasant one. We hope you will ride with us again soon.” She hears the little boy continue, “For those of you just boarding, we ask you to stow all of your hand luggage under your seat. Remember, there is no smoking on the train. We hope you will have a pleasant and relaxing journey with us today.”
    As the mother began to smile, the child added, “For those of you who are pissed off about the TWO HOUR delay, please see the bitch in the kitchen.”
    =====================================

    A Texan from Fort Worth walks into a bar and takes a seat next to a very attractive woman.
    He gives her a quick glance then causally looks at his watch for a moment.
    The woman notices this and asks, “Is your date running late?”
    “No”, he replies,”I just got this state-of the-art watch, and I was just testing it..”
    The intrigued woman says, “A state-of-the-art watch? What”s so special about it?”
    The Texan from Fort Worth explains, “It uses alpha waves to talk to me telepathically.”
    The lady says, “What”s it telling you now?”
    Well, it says you”re not wearing any panties.”
    The woman giggles and replies “Well it must be broken because I am wearing panties!”
    The Texan from Fort Worth smiles, taps his watch and says, “Damn thing”s an hour fast.”

    ==========================================

    Guess I better quit.

  44. Just A Citizen says:

    Answers to my trivia questions of the day.

    Top two winning based on percentage of total vote:

    Johnson @ 61.1%, and Nixon @ 60.2%, second term. Honorable mention are Reagan @ 58.8% the second term, then Eisenhower @ 57.4% in the second term.

    Bottom two winning, based on percentage of total vote:

    Clinton @ 43%, first term, and Nixon @ 43.4%, first term. Next worst of the best are Bush II @ 47.9%, first term and Trump @ 46.1%.

    Mr. Trump DID get a higher total number of votes than any other Republican since 1940. With 62,980,000 votes. Interestingly, Bush II got 62,041,000 his second term and Reagan got 54,455,000 his second term.

    To Mathius’ sarcastic comment: YES, Mrs. Clinton lost and did so with more total votes than any Republican since 1940.

    BUT, Bush II got more total votes than any other Democrat (win or lose), other than Obama both times and Hillary Clinton. And,

    Reagan got more total votes his second term than ALL Democrats except Mrs. Clinton, Obama both times and Kerry. That last one hurts me. But he outpolled Gore, despite running 20 years before Gore.

    Another anomaly. Nixon got more total votes in 1972 than Bill Clinton did in 1992.

  45. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    The winning POTUS with the lowest total number of votes EVER……………. George Washington, with 69 votes. Not John Adams.

    But to help you with future games here is one:

    One POTUS lost BOTH the electoral college and the popular vote but was elected to the Presidency by the House of Representatives. Due to lack of a clear majority per the rules.
    His name was John Quincy Adams.

    By the way, John Adams won with 71 votes and Jefferson followed him with 73 votes.

  46. From: “What Are They Thinking”

    “They continue to attack law enforcement for simply doing the job they were hired to do (minus the few bad cops who abuse their authority).”

    ALL government cops are bad cops BECAUSE they are cops. It is their job to violate people. Attacking them for doing their job is rightful defense.

    Government authority IS abuse. It is an excuse to violate people based on a claim of super human status supported with magic special words and ceremonial nonsense, a bunch of BS on paper and funny clothes. Anyone can do that and claim authority and it will be equally legitimate.

    But let’s keep it real. It’s not really about that. It’s about the use of force. At the end of the day you are obedient because they threaten you with weapons.

    So why not shoot back?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Because maybe you will end up dead. Just sayin.

      The USE of force is sometimes justified. Force in and of itself is not evil nor wrong.

      • Well, yeah, …death is a possibility anytime you engage someone with weapons, which begs the question of what is effective force. …like a revolutionary army attacking government facilities.

        (How many people hate cops? I know I do.)

        And I agree that force is not evil or wrong in and of itself. It is how and why it is used that makes it wrong or rightful. Force should be reserved for necessary defensive measures. If it is a response to violence/abuse, and only as necessary or a last resort, then it is rightful.

        Government does everything with stolen money and deadly force, it’s instrument of application being policemen and various armed agents. Thus the rightful response is to neutralize them as necessary.

        So why don’t people organize to kill the cops? Isn’t that kind of stupid not to? Why do people like being serfs/slaves?

  47. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    “Violence is as American as cherry pie.”

    – H. Rap Brown.

    • Decriminalizing both would solve a LOT of problems.

      • I think it would just be ignoring a problem.

        • That’s on illegal immigration, pot should be legal.

          • What if we fixed the whole situation so that people can easily get long-term legal guest worker authorization that includes a path to citizenship AND protections under US law AND normal taxation AND scaling social safety nets in line with what each individual has paid into the system.

            THEN we can be as draconian as you want to illegal aliens and businesses that hire them.

            Hell, if you give me the first part, I’ll even throw in funding for The Wall™. (though, I will spend the rest of eternity ribbing you for Mexico’s not paying for it.)

            • Why you tryna make Mexico sad?

              • “We won’t pay for that f***ing wall.”

                – Vicente Fox, former President of Mexico

              • I knew that was coming……..

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                Just charge a $ 10.00 toll per vehicle to cross the border. Hell it costs $ 34.00 now just to get from NJ to Long Island NY!

              • Well, hate to be the bearer of bad news….Mexico and Fox were wrong…..it is being paid for by Mexico as we speak. No, Mexico is not writing us a check…they do not have to…..savings equals payment. Devaluation equals payment. Mexico has already contributed $400 mm in International trade fees that are no longer paid and the devaluation of their currency.

                To us personally, we have had several ranching fees eliminated. That is less USD in Mexico.

                They, Mexico, better come up with a pretty good trade deal quickly or it happens again and the devaluation will continue.

            • I do think it’s too hard to get a green card and it takes years. I would like for this country to help as many people as possible but our immigration laws should be weighted on the side of what is best for the country first because it you don’t protect the people already living here, you aren’t helping anyone in the long run.

              So just making it easy isn’t the answer, easier sure, but it’s a complicated issue.

              • Actually, no, VH…..it does not take too long to get a green card at all. About 3 days…….with a sponsor. In Texas, 48 hours under our new program that was started two years ago. We do it all the time in the “valley” …….but with a sponsor. The problem is….no one wants to have a sponsor. The system is already in place. But no one wants to follow the rules.

              • Okay, 2 to 3 days is definitely not to hard. So much for skimming immigration law, it sounded complicated and I’ve always heard people wait years. But maybe that’s for something different.

      • Sounds good… How ’bout we just skip the “catch” part, then?

        • I suspect, that’s the plan.

          • If you think liberals have a “plan,” you’re giving us far too much credit.

            • I don’t think I am. I’m actually always surprised when liberals claim their party isn’t doing enough. They have accomplished a lot, in my opinion most of them are bad, but that’s beside the point. Let’s look at Pelosi, as a democrat, she’s done a great job for the party. But the base isn’t very grateful.

              • It’s funny.

                From my perspective, I feel like the Conservatives have accomplished a lot and, in my opinion, most of it is bad. I, too, find myself confused and surprised when conservatives claim their politicians haven’t done enough. It’s kind of shocking to me when people I view as somewhat extreme (to the right) get criticized for being too moderate.

                Strange how that works out.

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                The base shifts ever leftward. Pelosi is a wild eyed leftist herself but she has not done enough. Enough being you and I and the rest in re-education camps.

                Try and remember history. The French Revolution, the “terror” eventually ate its own. Thought came to me last week as I passed the Place de la Concorde once occupied by Madame Guillotine. .

      • The Trump administration used the same law to enact its family separation policy. By prosecuting the parents of families crossing the border together, the Trump administration effectively forced the children into shelters and the mothers and fathers into federal jails.

        This is HUFFPO bullshit. This is not a Trump policy. It is the same policy that has been in effect for years. HUFFPO is lying.

  48. I just… I don’t… I don’t even know what to say about this.. Is Maddox a SUFA lurker?

    I swear this isn’t me (I’m much better looking).. maybe it’s DPM?

  49. Canine Weapon says:

  50. https://hotair.com/archives/2018/08/24/holy-cow-top-trump-org-finance-exec-allen-weisselberg-granted-immunity-feds-cohen-probe/

    Well, this is a bad development. I’m on the pessimistic side of the equation. The whole situation was based on a lie, but using it to get information they have no right too was the goal.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      Exactly. As I said in the beginning. A strategy to break into the Tump organizations business dealings. Stick Mr. Trump with crimes that the NY AG had yet been unable to find.

      FISHING for crimes.

      Let this be a clear message to any Business person who thinks they want to run as an outsider for the office. You Run and we will destroy you.

      • FISHING for crimes.

        Without stipulating that this is what’s going on here, I will nonetheless agree that this DOES happen and that it is an incredible abuse of power by the government.

        As we have discussed numerous times, there are so many laws out there and they are so complicated and conflicting that we are all criminals. Thus, if the government can seek to “fish for crimes” as it were (and it absolutely can!), then it’s not a matter of “punishing the guilty” but rather “choosing who you want to punish, then finding the reason.”

        And that ain’t ok.

        • Well, that’s what’s going on here.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          EXACTLY

          Which is why Special Prosecutors should be abolished or strictly limited to the suspected crime to be investigated. Thus Star’s career would have been limited to Whitewater and Mueller’s to Russian collusion.

          • Thus Star’s career would have been limited to Whitewater and Mueller’s to Russian collusion.

            Agreed.

            … but then again, that’s not what the politicians wanted, now is it? They wanted a witch hunt of the guy they didn’t like. They already knew that Trump and Clinton were guilty of… something.. so they just needed to find out what so they could impeach him for it.

            AT LONG LAST, HAVE YOU NO DECENCY, SIR?

            That said, I’ll ask you a general question, and I’ll try to divorce it from politics: If a man is being investigated for one matter, and the investigator stumbles upon another crime that man may have committed, shouldn’t the investigator be able to investigate him for that as well?

            If someone is murdered, and you become a suspect, and I start digging into your life and discover that you were probably involved in an unrelated bank heist, shouldn’t I be able to look into that?

  51. https://amgreatness.com/2018/08/23/crime-and-punishment-2/

    Not sure this is possible realistically but it sure sounds right.

  52. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Eastern most State……….Maine

    My final answer:

    http://go.grolier.com/atlas?id=mgus002

    Of course, if we use the lat and long method, which is the international standard then there is NO eastern part of the USA. It is all in the WESTERN Hemisphere.

    What this shows is the importance of establishing the Assumptions or Givens in any question or argument. West or East of what? Standing at that bay in Maine, there is nothing East, it is all to the West. Or, it is because as you travel EAST that same spot will be the last thing you come to unless you just keep going around and around.

  53. VH….people wait for years for citizenship and I agree that there shouhld be a way to streamline this…..but green cards are easy…if you follow the rules.

    I have two Mexican National Families working for me and we got their work visa’s and green cards in 48 hours but we sponsor them. They work on the ranch and we pay them $25,000 annual plus full medical, and each has a 2,000 sq foot home, electricity, and water at no cost to them. We provide each of them with a ranch pick up truck and fuel. They must read, write, and speak English as a condition of employment and possess a valid immigrant driver’s license which is readily available. Furthermore, any violation of Federal or State Law invalidates their work visa and they lose green card status and are deported.

    Their children are registered to go to school with no worries about deportation. They are sponsored.

    This program is already in place and it is quite simple to work in the US…..FOLLOW THE DAMNED RULES.

    • I might add that their total package in pay and benefits is approximately $55,000 per annum. We cannot find American citizens that want to do ranch work. Per capita income in the State of Oklahoma is $49,000 and we cannot find locals that want to work. It took approximately 3 weeks of interviews to find what we considered to be the type of workers we wanted.

      All applicants were pre-screened and vetted in Laredo, Texas and we went there for the interviews. The system works.

    • How does one find a sponsor, is that part of the program? Do they find a sponsor from here or their country of origin?

      • The sponsor is an American Citizen or corporation that is willing to take responsibility for the actions of the person or family that they sponsor. There are daily job fairs in Brownsville, McAllen, Laredo, Eagle Pass, Del Rio, and El Paso. Texas employers are there on a monthly basis begging for workers who want to be legal…..but what happens is…..most of the immigrants do not want to be sponsored so they can get on the benefit train and collect the freebies. Therefore, they get hired at 10 dollars a day….and then get on welfare and medicaid. It is a scam.

        • Sounds like a good program. One of the arguments I’ve heard against sponsors is that people are basically slaves to their sponsors because they have to work for them or they can’t stay. Obviously, these people can just return to the job fair and get a different sponsor of they don’t like the one they have.

          • This is true, I suppose…..but the ones that we have are exgtremely happy. Get to go wherever they want. They do have to work for me for 24 months or go back to the pool at the border. After 24 months, they can then get in line for citizenship and go wherever they want but they have to apply for anew green card and work visa. However, if they get a good recommendation from their sponsor, the green card is issued within 48 hours.

  54. If to of , Why, Why do spell checkers do that, change real words to another word? Why? Drives me nuts. I shouldn’t have to check the spell checker. I can understand changing a less common word like crap to carp but not if. Rant over.

  55. John McCain has passed, may be rest in peace and may the good Lord help his family in this time of grief.

  56. Nancy Pelosi…..says that when she regains the Speaker position, violent game tournaments like the NFL Madden football tournaments need to be regulated. They are too violent. Games that depict winners and superbowls are not inclusive. The shooting in Florida would never have occurred if there were no eliminations that make people react negatively.

    Wow……

    • I’m surprised she did not rant about toxic masculinity. Our young men are now treated as children until they are 26. This shooter was 24. In the olden days at 24 he would be married with 2 or more kids, holding down a solid job, and making his mark on the world. He would not be in his Mom’s basement playing video games and being too emotionally wrapped up in it to accept defeat.

    • I guess she has decided to eliminate competition. It’s like she has a list of talking points she’s trying to check off. But maybe age has made talking BS harder. So we get the bottom line truth in all its insanity.

%d bloggers like this: