Falling Apart

Comments

  1. This political hack job is falling apart faster than it started. At every turn, more lies by the Crats. People see through this crap. Payback is coming.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Was watching ET the other day with my grandson. Marveled at the skills of young actors. My little 5 year old believed what he saw. Too bad most Americans and westerners in general have about the same emotional and intellectual level that he does.

  2. The whistle blower lists several published articles in his document. Are any of these the result of leaks from the intelligence community? The next question would be are they strategically placed and coordinated leaks?

    • This whole thing is made up BS. Another lame attempt to get Trump…and failing again. I keep getting this feeling that we are entering a period where political assassinations are going to be occurring. I think if it actually starts, things are going to get quite interesting.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      More importantly, what do media stories have to do with malfeasance within the agency or by its CIC?????????

      If someone is simply repeating what is said publicly already then where is the whistle blower revealing anything that requires protection????????????

  3. Let’s imagine if Hunter Biden was Don Trump Jr. The lying Liberal media wouldn’t be able to shut up about him. The hypocrisy is so blatant how can anyone take them seriously anymore?

  4. Just A Citizen says:

    Damn…………….. getting hit with major snow storm as I type. Deep freeze to follow. Irrigation and hoses not drained yet…….. tomatoes, squash still on the vine…… big mess ……………. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

  5. Just A Citizen says:

    Snowflake Republicans on full display. I like Abbot and I think the joke was funny and I do NOT believe it is making fun of or ridiculing someone who is disabled. Maybe the Dems did start this whiny BS but maybe the R’s should grow the hell up and stop it.

    https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/09/28/progressive-judge-makes-tasteless-joke-texas-governor-greg-abbotts-paralysis/

    • Gonna disagree somewhat here…it was a cheap shot to get laughs at a political opponent’s expense. I guaran-damn-tee she would not have made the “joke” if it were her own husband or child, or if Texas had a Democrat governor paralyzed in the same way.

      Having said that, I don’t think she needs to step down…she apologized. I don’t know if she did it only because she was called out or if she genuinely…..oh wait, I’m being stupid…of course she only apologized because she was called out. She would have just kept quiet about it if not called out. I’m certain she was VERY SORRY her comment reached social media…but her apology did come quickly and sounded sincere.

      I’ll also guarantee that if a Republican judge made the exact same joke about a Dem governor, the Dems would want him/her drawn and quartered.

      And that’s the point you’re making, JAC, and I’ll agree with that. She doesn’t need to lose her job over it.

      Murf

      • And JAC…by the way, sorry about that snowstorm and hard freeze! We’re still waiting for any cooling breeze down here and there’s none in sight.

        Murf

  6. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought for the morning…………. many wondered a few years back what it would look like to have Ron or Rand Paul elected to the POTUS seat. Well…………… given how the elite and entrenched bureaucracy responded to Trump I think you now know.

    It would have been UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGLY.

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    Now why would the CIA be spying on Assange?????????? Like during the time when there were leaks galore about how Assange was a Russian mole and working with Trump….. Oh wait……….. that couldn’t be related. Note: Per my understanding of how our Govt. is supposed to work, if Assange was suspected of breaking our laws then it is the FBI’s job to investigate and track him down. NOT THE CIA.

    https://news.yahoo.com/spain-security-firm-probed-spying-assange-cia-152919133.html

  8. https://www.thenewneo.com

    Hmmmm, help drive a recession and hamstring Trump with foreign leaders which might hurt his trade deal. That sounds about right.

    • If anyone thinks the Crats are legislating in the best interest of the country, SUFA has a bridge to Hawaii to sell them (we can split the proceeds) 😀

  9. I think I’m in jail.

  10. Just A Citizen says:
  11. Stephen K. Trynosky says:
  12. As more information comes out, the more the American people see what losers the Crats are. This is going to cost them big time, for years to come. This recent coup attempt will fail, just like the others. Trump wins big in 2020 and Republicans run the government for years to come. The Crats cannot govern in the best interest of the country and have proven that.

  13. Interesting question for Matius……Since you are a Bernie Sanders fan…..do you agree with his plan for a wall street tax to pay for college tuitions? I know what you guys will do…you will pass the expense along to the invstors and you will not be hurt…..but….do you think investors, like me, will participate or drmatically slow our investments down? And, finally, do you agree with me that such a tax will be a greater impact on the middle class?

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      I’m pretty sure that most would agree that “throwing” money at higher education has done nothing but raise the price. Dad used to say that if bread cost $ 1.69 a loaf and the government gave you a $ 100 per week bread allowance then next week, the cost of a loaf would be $101.69.

      Another non-debatable factoid, when NYC loosened the welfare rules in 1966 the number of welfare cases jumped from 500,000 to 1,500,000 in one single four year Mayoral term. . This used to be common knowledge but the young’uns don’t hardly believe it.

  14. Another interesting factoid…….when the Dems took over the house…the whistle blower rules were changed from first hand knowledge to heresay…..

    Anybody want to bet that if the Dems take the White House and kee p the House, the whistle blower rules are changed back? Bets, anyone?

  15. And on last interesting factoid……median income last year went up a little over $4,000…..the best Obama year, was $1,000…….jus’ sayin’.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      And THAT is why we have to get rid of Trump. It is cutting into the bottom line of those corporate donors.

  16. Last night I read an article on Breitbart about a letter Biden’s campaign sent to the MSM asking them to censure Giuliani. It is not on Breitbart this morning and a search failed to find it. Did anyone else see it?

  17. Rumor has it HRC may run again. Do these people have a learning disability?

    • Depends if What Happened is a question or a statement. 😆

    • Is this from the same “Whistleblower” who put out all the last rumors? 😛

      • They are extrapolating from the fact she has scheduled a full week of TV appearances. And yes Anita the question was a combination of rhetorical and observation. How many times do you need to get poked in the eye before you take the spoon out of the cup. If the media did not cover for everything they do, maybe they could actually learn. Tthe media echos everything they say so they interpret it as what the people want. Add to that the arrogance of the elite class with the “I know better attitude” and you get the morass we are in.

  18. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/11/womens-magazines-are-more-progressive-than-ever-and-theyre-all-closing-down?CMP=share_btn_tw

    I don’t think their bi$#hing about how unfair mostly women are to women magazines is gonna fix the problem. Maybe it’s just that women buy fashion magazines for the fashion , not lectures. As they say, get woke, go broke.

    • Also makes one wonder just how many people actually agree with all their wokeness,
      when they keep losing customers.

      • Think of this when a certain person claims his side outnumbers our side. 😛

      • From a business point of view, there is an oversupply of media these days so no single outlet has a very large share. The media has learned to cater to a niche clientele. Take CNN, their business model is the metro progressive hate Trumpers. Hence they do not care about conservatives or independents. Feed these people what they want to hear and they will make money.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    Interesting summary of Gifford’s supposed flip flopping to get political support. Will be interesting to see how she does in the next debate. Expect her fellow Dems to use this article’s content against her.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/janusfaced_tulsi_gabbard_is_all_in_for_impeachment.html

  20. https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-shows-russian-trolls-how-its-done-with-trump-inspector-general-whistleblower-smear

    Okay, if this is true, why didn’t he post the other form. Where is the proof? And why should I believe your interpretation of the words about first hand knowledge without it.

    • Another liberal rag lying to its cult. I have seen both forms. I will look for the link when i get in the house later.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Here is where I think the real evidence of Deep State shennanigans exists. From the IG report:

      ““Complainant was not a direct witness to President’s telephone call with the Ukrainian President on July 25, 2019,” the IC IG wrote on Aug. 26. “Other information obtained during the preliminary review, however, supports the Complainant’s allegation that, among other things, during the call the President ‘sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid.’””

      There has been ZERO evidence produced supporting the conclusion that this was an effort to “help the President’s 2020 reelection bid”. Which is why the DNI concluded the complaint is filled with politically motivated opinion. In my opinion.

      The author of the article may be right or wrong on the form. But either way, the IG and the DNI/DOJ looked into this. The problem is that evidence WE HAVE SEEN does not support the IG’s conclusions, in my view. The IG admits that the evidence he collected was also second hand. Which defies the claim made by the article’s author.

      For the record, as of today, I am NOT BUYING the conspiracy theory presented by some. I do not rule it out completely but I think this is more simply explained by the fact that there are many anti Trump folks in the executive branch and they are always looking for anything to try and destroy him with. Because of their dislike everything they hear or see is confirmation of their bias, no matter what it actually says. Much like some of the stuff Obama was accused of doing because people hearing it were so dead set against him. Difference is, the Dems never seem to have these people, or many of them, working in their administrations.

      Maybe that is because Bureaucrats tend to be Democratic voters.

      • This whole thing is nothing but BS speculation and made up lies. There wasn’t anything wrong with the phone call. Asking about Bidens bragging may have just been out of curiousity and heres the best part, may not have been anything too it (just another Biden BS story that may not have happened). But the pundits and Crats are acting like he was wanting stuff to use against Biden, a screaming campaign law break, AS IF Biden is totally guilty.

        If Biden was innocent, there would be nothing to gain by asking about it. No matter though, Rudy already has the info, and they know it, hence the attack to claim a law was broken, to keep Rudy’s info from being released.

        There will be no impeachment, it’s just a threat based on their lies to keep from getting their asses handed to them, possibly leading to some jail time. Won’t work. Time is short for them and they are fighting hard, but its just not working after the Russian collusion failure.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      Here ya go…………this will surely clear up any confusion you had on the Form and second hand vs direct knowledge…………….. LMAO.

      https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/icig-statement-whistleblower-complaint/index.html

      OK? Got all that???????????

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    Grace from the parents. But the real problem persists. Everyone so quick to jump on the band wagon. Damage is done and cannot be undone. Because the mob will not question themselves next time either. It just keeps going on and on and on. I see it as a kind of confirmation bias.

    https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/463670-virginia-student-says-she-fabricated-story-about-classmates

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    While this is an obvious attempt to smear Trump, it is a good reveal of how the back room political funding machine works in this country. That is how Clinton came to give back a ton of money to a Chinese contributor. He got caught. Most do not, unless someone in the Press decides they don’t like them.

    https://apnews.com/79ea79b925d141b8b558706c44f0d77c

    Note: The trail of the money reflects some real investigative work by the watchdog group. Although I do not know how the end result was an actual violation of campaign finance law. Not if it was loan money to the guy who also owned the company that donated the money.

    • Pretty sure all politicians could be nailed for campaign finance violations.

      Liberal pundit says that Trump asking for dirt on Biden is a crime. No, its not, askong is one thing, using is another, but this is the Left narrative. They sure know how to lie to the people.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    Someone please explain to me how your RESTORE balance between humans and other animal species, when we humans must occupy their habitat in order to survive in the long run.

    Are we going to restore the Woolly Mammoth??? Cause it looks like we are the reason they disappeared.

    How do you restore “prior” balance with animals like wolves and grizzly bears?? Do you mandate that humans can only use sticks and rocks to defend themselves? Do all predators get the benefit of the doubt when they attack humans????? You shall not defend yourself for the sake of RESTORING BALANCE.

    I understand and sympathize with the problems and the desires. But this kind of silly rhetoric doesn’t help in my mind.

    https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/30/save-the-planet-prince-harry-insists-we-end-human-greed-apathy-and-selfishness/

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Of course the good little prince is correct. Unfortunately to restore that balance we have to eliminate US!

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    Afternoon thought:

    Mr. Trump could bury the Democrats and help the Republicans retake the House and gain seats in the Senate over this Ukraine thing, and all the other stuff.

    If he would only get out of his own way. Also, put Giuliani in a box and mail it to the Antarctic.

  25. I think that telling the Crats to put up or shut up would be a great idea.

  26. WASHINGTON, D.C.—After Representative Adam Schiff came under scrutiny for reading a fake version of the phone call between President Donald Trump and the president of Ukraine, Schiff was forced to admit he is just a parody of an actual congressman.

    “I know I may have seemed like a congressman, as I wear a suit and say Congress-y things, but I’ve actually just been a parody all along,” he said in a press conference Monday. “Wait—you all didn’t realize that this whole time!? I thought I was pretty clearly labeled satire.”
    Schiff revealed his real name is Bob Peterson. He’s a method actor from Iowa. “I got really into the part,” he said. “And I guess at some point the line between reality and parody began to blur. Boy, it’s been a whirlwind for the past couple decades, hasn’t it?”
    Peterson said he was sorry for those who were fooled by his act. “I never meant for anyone to take me seriously,” he said, chuckling. “I thought it was very clearly satire from the beginning.”
    The committed actor pulled off his Adam Schiff mask, revealing himself to be a portly man with a wide handlebar mustache and a mullet. “The jig is up.”

  27. NEW YORK, NY—The Anti-Defamation League has issued a new recommendation for people who want to avoid making any problematic hand gestures: cutting off your hands.

    In a video published to its site, the ADL showed how to safely cut off your hands and prove once and for all you are not a racist.
    “You can immediately spot racists by their bowl haircuts, their swastika tattoos, and of course, their hands,” said an ADL spokesperson in the video. “The truly woke and pure of heart will cut off hate and also their hands just to make sure they don’t accidentally dispaly any troubling hand gestures, such as the OK symbol, the numbers 1-10, clapping, giving a thumbs-up, and the billion other common racist dog whistles.”
    Carl Jenkins, a repentant white man, volunteered to cut off his own hands for the video in order to demonstrate how white people can be redeemed from their racism. “With this hatchet, I now cut myself off from my latent white supremacy forever,” he said solemnly before bringing the small hand axe down on his other hand. “Aggggghhh!!!!”
    “That cry you just heard,” said the video’s narrator, “is the sound of white supremacy leaving the body. Isn’t it beautiful?”
    The ADL also recommends shaving off your hair so you avoid any offensive haircuts, though that then makes you a skinhead. So they say you ought to cut off your head just to be on the safe side.

  28. Happy New Year, everybody!

    5780, for anyone curious.

  29. Canine Weapon says:

    Ok, I will bite…..

    I can say with some experience that this is almost always a bad idea…

  30. “He told me it was perfect, that there was nothing on the call,” Pelosi said on CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” referring to a conversation she had with President Trump before the Trump administration released either a transcript of his call with Ukraine’s leader or the whistleblower’s complaint.
    “But, I know what was in the call,” Pelosi continued, before quickly adding, “I mean, uh, it was in the public domain.”
    Pelosi’s remark drew scrutiny from Republicans because no verbatim account of Trump’s call had yet been made publicly available.

    Pelosi and Schitt had the “whistleblowers” fake report long before it was released to the public. Trump screwed them by releasing the phone call transcript, thus making the whole whistleblower report MOOT and useless, not to mention full of mistakes and inaccuracies. The Crats are caught again, lying to undo an election that they thought they had in the bag.

    So maybe it’s time to ask a question: Are these coup attempts aiding our enemies? Or better yet, our enemies are called Democrats. 😮

    • Just A Citizen says:

      My enemies are NOT Democrats. They are those who espouse Socialism in the USA and those foreign nations which are trying to undermine our unity and our economy. Note that on this last issue we have as many internal enemies and they are in both parties.

      As for Dem lies on the impeachment issue. We have NO IDEA if the whistle blower complaint is true or not. Nobody has seen it. All we saw was the IG’s transmittal saying he found it credible enough to meet the legal standard of concern. That is what IG’s do.

      Now if you were the IG, appointed by Trump and a whistle blower was claiming he had dirt on Trump and he got it from many sources, would you nix that complaint????

      What do we know? That the transcript of the phone call, which was provided by the W.H. does not support the claims made about the phone call. But it certainly helps feed the Confirmation Bias on the anti-Trump side. Those people used it to do what they have wanted all along. Start Impeachment proceedings on Trump. Keeping him tied up and ineffective.

      So for that I will forever, AGAIN, hold it against the Dems. At least McConnell was up front with his opposition to Obama and didn’t resort to the Alinksky style games to undermine him.

      In fairness, McConnell didn’t have to play that game because there were plenty of surrogates out their spreading garbage about Obama, the likes of Sean Hannity for example.

      Now what I do not know but feel is happening is that Mr. Trump is damaging his brand and his chances of reelection with the way he is responding to all this. He needs to stop allowing Giuliani to drive commentary on what is real and not real. Just cause Rudy makes up an accusation to damage Clinton or Biden does not mean he should go around giving it validity. Let the surrogates to what surrogates do. But you see, and this I do know, his ego will not let him get out of his on way.

      • I’ve seen the whistleblower complaint. I posted it. I’ll go find it.

      • We have NO IDEA if the whistle blower complaint is true or not. Nobody has seen it.

        And, yes, somehow, despite that fact that he can never – ever – admit to Trump being even slightly dishonest, G-Man has no issue pronouncing this to be a lie. And Pelosi for being a liar in regards to it.

        Odd.

        Now if you were the IG, appointed by Trump and a whistle blower was claiming he had dirt on Trump and he got it from many sources, would you nix that complaint????

        No idea.

        Depends how credible I found it.

        From what I have seen which, again, is somewhat limited and could be biased or misleading, yada yada yada… from what I’ve seen, it seems like maybe there’s some smoke here. Maybe he did pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden and maybe there was some tit-for-tat.

        Maybe.

        I can’t say. But from what I’ve seen, there is enough smoke to maybe justify looking into it.

        That’s a million miles away from impeachment, mind you, but as an IG… and as a Trump appointee who should be “beyond reproach”… yea.. I’d want to poke around a bit. Get the full story.

        That the transcript of the phone call, which was provided by the W.H. does not support the claims made about the phone call.

        OBJECTION!

        We don’t have a transcript (unless this is a new development I missed). We have summary notes.

        But it certainly helps feed the Confirmation Bias on the anti-Trump side.

        There is literally nothing Trump could do at this point which would NOT feed the confirmation bias of his opponents.

        THAT SAID, I find it a bit… fishy… I’m not drawing any conclusions yet, but I would want the fuller picture. I’m sure there’s an awful lot of corruption Trump could have focused on, so I find his decision to focus on Biden very…. convenient.

        Those people used it to do what they have wanted all along. Start Impeachment proceedings on Trump. Keeping him tied up and ineffective.

        Correct. Remind you of anything..?

        So for that I will forever, AGAIN, hold it against the Dems.

        Of course you do.

        At least McConnell was up front with his opposition to Obama and didn’t resort to the Alinksky style games to undermine him.

        I’m sorry.. did I miss something? The Dems have been nearly-unanimously anti-Trump since approximately 7 seconds into his famous escalator ride.

        In fairness, McConnell didn’t have to play that game because there were plenty of surrogates out their spreading garbage about Obama, the likes of Sean Hannity for example.

        ABSOLUTELY.

        And I do not consider the likes to such surrogates to be separate from the party itself. They are just convenient cut-outs. Hannity is a Republican spokesman whether or not he’s actually employed by the RNC or elected to the House (shudder!) or appointed as an official press agent.

        Now what I do not know but feel is happening is that Mr. Trump is damaging his brand and his chances of reelection with the way he is responding to all this.

        There is no way for him to lose this fight short of discovery of actual incontrovertable proof of serious wrong-doing.

        He and his team are so deep into the martyrdom weeds and their victim-hood complexes…… this is the surest way to solidify the entire Republican base’s support for Trump and ensure massive turnout.

        This, by the way, is why Pelosi was so against impeachment before she caved to the left. She’s a hack, but she’s smart enough to know that picking a losing fight on these terms only serves to entrench the self-perception of victimization by the right.

        He needs to stop allowing Giuliani to drive commentary on what is real and not real.

        Well, yea… I mean, I’d have Rudy in the trunk of my car by now…

        • Just A Citizen says:
        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          You misunderstood my comment about McConnell opposing Obama in the open. And remember, he did not openly oppose him until Mr. O. gave him the “I won…. you lost” speech. Not exactly the best way to start out a productive working relationship do you think?????

          My comment was not about the opposition to a candidate during political races. It was the LEGISLATIVE branch falling into a permanent obstructionist and conspiracy driving mechanism. With a couple of exceptions form the Freedom Caucus House members, the birther and other garbage was not being repeated daily by Congressional members.

          • he did not openly oppose him until Mr. O. gave him the “I won…. you lost”

            Of course he did.. just not so overtly.

            he did not openly oppose him until Mr. O. gave him the “I won…. you lost”

            You forget why Obama felt the need to make that statement. McC was acting like the R’s were still in charge. You think Obama just woke up one morning and felt the need to make that pronouncement?

            It was the LEGISLATIVE branch falling into a permanent obstructionist and conspiracy driving mechanism.

            That jives pretty well with my recollection of Obama’s terms. The Legislative wouldn’t let a damned thing move.

            Maybe they were (generally) a bit more subdued about their conspiracy theories than the Republican propaganda network, but they were still there in spades.

      • The whistleblower complaint is online, released last week.

        Of course now all Democrats are the enemy, just lits of the 😛

    • Are these coup attempts

      THESE ARE NOT COUP ATTEMPTS.

      This aggressive, belligerent, no-hold-barred, fight to the death politics. They’re all (both sides) a bunch of assholes. I think your side is worse. You think your side are a bunch of saints while mine are the only assholes. JAC thinks my side is worse and your side (not his side, by the way, yours) is still bad, but mostly just because they fail to resist my side well enough. I don’t care.

      It’s politics.

      Worse, and more partisan than I’ve ever seen it. Only SKT has seen it worse.

      But it’s still just politics.

      It’s not a coup.

      No one is attempting to have him shot by his own secret service. No one is throwing a bag over his head and hanging him in the Mall. No one is poisoning his Diet Coke.

      A coup is a violent and illegal seizure of power. That’s not what the Democrats are doing. Yes, they are trying to seize power, but (A) they are not doing so through violence, but rather through the legal mechanisms in place and (B) you are very quick to pronounce lying and illegality on the part of the left, but for some reason nothing your martyred President could ever do might ever rise to the level of possibly ever being even remotely illegal or a lie.. why is that?

      Then again, even if they DO manage to take down Trump somehow, they STILL wouldn’t be in power because Pence is next in line.

      This is not a coup.

      It’s just a bunch of assholes playing asshole-games with other assholes. All just a bunch of children jockeying for position and trying to score petty points at the expense of the other team.

      Try to realize that just because you’re on top doesn’t mean that those who are trying to take you down are somehow necessarily criminal for doing so.

      Are these coup attempts aiding our enemies?

      This is what I hate most about you Republicans.

      With us or against us.

      Giving aid and succor to the enemy.

      Criticizing the President supports the terrorists.

      Jesus, man… get off your high horse.

      People are allowed to dislike, criticize, even hate the President. Where was all this “aiding our enemies” bullshit while the Republicans (and especially on the propaganda arm of the RNC, Fox News) spent eight years shitting on Obama for literally everything?

      Oh? Nowhere? You Republicans conveniently forgot this mantra, this sacred duty to be silently obedient and mindlessly supportive of the President… for eight years… and then when you’re back in power, oooh yeaa… I remember… criticizing the President is giving aid to our enemies.. why do Democrats want to support our enemies? Well why did you REPUBLICANS support our enemies for eight years?

      It’s just like how you didn’t care about the debt while Bush II turned Clinton’s surpluses into record deficits. Then screeched about it for eight years while a Democrat was in office. Then mysteriously forgot again when your guy got back in and blew the deficit up even larger than before.

      I’m going to need you to take all that hypocrisy and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

      Some of us – the majority, by the way – think that Trump is a raging shit-pile of a President who very well may have done some wrong things. Maybe even illegal things. Both as an individual and as a President.

      I don’t know what Pelosi knows or doesn’t know or claims to know or claims not to know. I don’t care. She’s a hack.

      This impeachment is half-baked and a stupid idea. Not because Trump shouldn’t be impeached – I haven’t decided on that one, myself – but because it’s a fight they can’t win and which is only going to help guarantee his second term.

      BUT IT’S JUST POLITICS.

      Just like the Republicans worked so diligently to impeach Clinton.. they didn’t care about him lying. They didn’t care about his zipper problem. They cared that they’d be able to hurt the Democrats and help themselves. Now Pelosi is caving to the left of her party and taking a shot at Trump for the exact same reasons. She wouldn’t care if he traded them the state of Nevada or if he’s completely innocent. The only thing she cares about is the exact same thing – the only thing – that any of these assholes actually believe in in Washington: Power.

      But only Republicans are apparently allowed to attack the President. Democrats have to be silent and supportive. I’ll try to remember that.

      • Look up soft coup. Then remember back and recall how the Crats have attempted to remove him frm office, incluxing this current one. It fits a soft coup by definition.

        Now we could also go with interference in governing, which is sedition. But, none of it will work and the Crats will get crushed next election.

        Oh, SHIFF LIED 😛

        • Look up soft coup

          YOU look up “soft coup.”

          Firstly, you didn’t say “soft.” You just said “coup.”

          Secondly, I offered up my understand of what this supposed “soft coup” bullshit might be a few months back and, rather than address my best understanding after a fairly significant effort, you just mocked me.

          Now we could also go with interference in governing, which is sedition.

          But, of course, let’s be clear. It’s only sedition when MY team does it.

          When you’re YOUR team, it’s just being loyal patriotic Americans.

          But, none of it will work and the Crats will get crushed next election.

          They certainly are doing their best to hand him a victory.

          Maybe they realize that it’s better to be out of power throwing rocks than having to take ownership and do something about the shit pile Trump’s building?

          Oh, SHIFF LIED

          Because he’s a Democrat.

          Putting that -D after his name automatically creates the presumption of guilt. You don’t need facts or proof or, even, evidence. He’s a Democrat, so he’s a liar.

          Just like Trump has a -R after his name, so he can only speak the truth.

      • The Rhinos in Congress with much aid from the Dems during the Bush II years spent with abandon. Did we care. Hell yes. This is why the Dems got control of Congress in ’06. Do we care now that the budget is out of control. Hell yes. The problem is arrogant elitists in DC who do not listen to the people. This is on both sides.

        If you try to shoot the king, don’t miss. The Dems are being stupid. The probability of successfully removing this president before Nov 2020 is extremely low. That is a miss.

        • Do we care now that the budget is out of control. Hell yes.

          You.

          YOU care.

          Because you are not a partisan hack.

          But Hannity? Gman? The RNC? The “RINOs”? Fox & Friends? Trump? The various “think tanks”? The Koch brothers individual?

          Nope. They don’t care.

          Because they never cared.

          It was just a cudgel with which to beat Obama so that he couldn’t enact his legislative priorities.

          They didn’t even care what those priorities were. Many of them were things they’d previously supported, but they came from the Enemy, so they opposed them. The only thing that mattered then, or matters now, is scoring points.

          And part of the way they did this was by insisting that the budget was in crisis (which happens to be true, but they didn’t care if it was or not so long as they could convince people it was true when they needed it to be).

          Now that that same budget is in even worse shape and the debt even larger, they suddenly don’t care again.

          YOU care.

          THEY don’t.

          Because they never cared.

          It’s just no longer a useful thing to bitch and moan about, so they stopped bitching and moaning about it. When the next President with a -D comes into office, they’ll suddenly rediscover it.

          If you try to shoot the king, don’t miss. The Dems are being stupid. The probability of successfully removing this president before Nov 2020 is extremely low. That is a miss.

          This is something I’ve been saying for years now. Pelosi knew it.. that’s why she didn’t want to do this. She caved under pressure.

          The only alternative is that they’re deliberately sacrificing the 2020 election so that the Republicans get saddled with even more terrible Trump-legacy… an economic reckoning is coming.. better it collapses in Trump’s year 5 than Blue’s year 1 (again). … But I don’t think they’re far-sighted enough to do that.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Sir, there have been some that did care…….congress critters that is. You always ignore them in your rebuttals. At the time I recall you even ridiculed them, because of their desire to return to the Constitution…………… they were called Tea Party and once elected “Freedom Caucus”. You will find them in the NO VOTE category on the outrageous spending bills. And yes. they were all Republicans. Except for Kusinich.

            Now, if BOTH parties are responsible why would you rather have the reckoning in Trumps 5th year than the D’s first year? I don’t disagree but I suspect it is for different reasons. Although I doubt Trump is a Harding so his response to the collapse would be essentially the same as the D’s.

            • (limited time today.. already used up my SUFA allotment)

              At the time I recall you even ridiculed them, because of their desire to return to the Constitution […] they were called Tea Party and once elected “Freedom Caucus”.

              Yup. And I still mock them.

              But at least they’re not (complete) hypocrites.

              I can disagree with someone on grounds OTHER than “you’re a flaming hypocrite.”

              Now, if BOTH parties are responsible why would you rather have the reckoning in Trumps 5th year than the D’s first year?

              I don’t prefer that… I said that this is a possible (albeit unlikely) explanation for why the Democrats seem to be working so aggressively at shooting themselves in the foot.

              Although I doubt Trump is a Harding so his response to the collapse would be essentially the same as the D’s.

              No one knows what he’d do.

              He has no consistent economic policy or ideological bent beyond the here-and-now.

              Most likely, he’ll hand it off to Mnuchin who will shit the bed, then Trump will say he’s the worst and that he has always thought Mnuchin was terrible and a lazy idiot and fire him over twitter, blaming the whole mess on Obama. Then he’ll declare that he is the only one who can fix Obama’s mess, that no one understands the economy like he does, and that you just have to believe him and, maybe, give him a third term to fix it.. and, of course, his kool-aid drinkers will march lock-step to repeal the 22nd (but only for Republicans, of course).

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        This Sir is a FALSE statement and I have provided you with evidence to that affect many times. It really ticks me off when you keep repeating the FALSE claim.

        “It’s just like how you didn’t care about the debt while Bush II turned Clinton’s surpluses into record deficits.”

        Here is a little factoid for you as well. Much of Obma’s deficits were cooked into the books by Clinton along with some of Trump’s. But the truth is that all of them had the chance while in office to address the deficit and FAILED. Including Clinton.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Well I for one AGREE there was a “soft coup” attempt. But it was not the Dem party who initiated it. Although Clinton’s people had a hand in it, as they were still within Govt. after Trump’s election. This “soft coup” was being pushed by Clinton loyalists AND people within State and Intel who were freaked out by some of what Trump was saying. They do not want to normalize relations with Russia, as just one example. They knew if Trump kept to his word the S was going to Hit the FAN.

        Since Mrs. Clinton had planted the seed of Russia Collusion, and given the DNC servers were hacked, and given all the Wikileaks stuff going on, it was easy to feed this narrative into the Democratic party blood stream as well as the media. Much easier to lead people who are already predisposed by their dislike of Trump.

        Now that goes to the larger effort. Along with that you had the wingnuts and radicals, like Maxine Waters, calling for impeachment before the ink was dry on Trump’s swearing in ceremony.

        The Democratic Party’s TANTRUM after the election Mathius opened the door for this “coup” to not only take hold but to divide the country so badly that TRUTH was lost, ON BOTH SIDES. Trump of course didn’t help because when you tell little white lies every day, it is hard to convince people you are telling the truth when something important comes along.

        Mathius may be technically correct, but I do think what happened with the Russia Collusion conspiracy was an attempt to remove a duly elected President. That is a “soft coup” in my books.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          P.S. If you look back to my commentary about Trump’s candidacy I think I warned that such a thing would probably happen if an OUTSIDER were ever elected. Especially one who had no use for the Status Quo.

        • Well I for one AGREE there was a “soft coup” attempt.

          Can you do me a favor and just DEFINE the term as you’re using it? What in the bloody hell is a SOFT COUP?

          And, importantly, how does it DIFFER from just “politics” wherein one party is constantly sniping at and trying to undermine the other?

          Mathius may be technically correct

          Of course I am!!

          • Soft Coup…same as a Coup Coup, minus the violence. A plan to unseat a president…by any means necessary. Matt! We’re not in debate class here. 🙄

            • A plan to unseat a president…by any means necessary. Matt!

              In 2012, Mitt Romney ran an ad where he played a sound byte of Obama saying “if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

              The full quote, from Obama was,

              “Even as we face the most serious economic crisis of our time, even as you are worried about keeping your jobs or paying your bills or staying in your homes, my opponent’s campaign announced earlier this month that they want to ‘turn the page’ on the discussion about our economy so they can spend the final weeks of this election attacking me instead,” Obama said in the speech. “Sen. McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.’

              While, Obama did, in fact, utter the words being quoted, Obama was in fact quoting the McCain campaign.

              Mitt Romney chose to strip out that context and convey the words as though they were Obama’s, referring to the Obama economy.

              This was a blatant LIE. It was intended and presented in a manner to deceive voters.

              If a “soft coup” is an attempt to unseat a President by any means necessary, was Mitt Romney’s ad a “soft coup” attempt?

              Matt! We’re not in debate class here.

              Of course we are! Did you not get the memo? I’ll see that you get another copy.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Yes Sir. A deliberate attempt to remove a president. Said removal could be by impeachment or creating such a storm around him/her that he/she is forced to resign. But notice that this one also included the notion they could simply get Cabinet members to declare him mentally incompetent. Based on nothing but differences in policy and style.

            Usual politics is designed to weaken the POTUS so as to affect his/her ability to pass legislation or his/her ability to help their own party with legislation and/or elections. The primary goal is to make sure they do not get reelected, the secondary is to reduce effectiveness while in office. But NOT REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

            • Yes Sir. A deliberate attempt to remove a president.

              So voting against the President?

              Campaigning against the President?

              Pointing out when the President lies relentlessly about objective reality?

              I’m not trying to be pedantic here.. I just don’t understand where “political opposition” ends and “coup” begins in your book.

              Said removal could be by impeachment or creating such a storm around him/her that he/she is forced to resign

              So the Clinton impeachment was a “soft coup”?

              But notice that this one also included the notion they could simply get Cabinet members to declare him mentally incompetent.

              A very reasonable case could be made that he is mentally unfit…

              Based on nothing but differences in policy and style.

              THAT would be inappropriate. As it is NOT the purpose and function of that tool, using it in this manner would be inappropriate.

              THAT SAID, I don’t know that “coup” would be the right term… more like political super-nuclear option.

              ——————-

              It’s still operating within the framework… maybe I’m coming at this the wrong way… I’m thinking of it as a computer program…

              Imagine you have an operating system.. say Window… anything you can do within that system is “kosher.” Sure, it might be bad or wrong or whatever, but if you can do it, then you can do it and it’s within the “rules.”

              BUT if you have to resort to reprogramming the OS.. or booting from another disk to access restricted memory… or stealing elevated credentials to do things you’re not “allowed” to do… in short, you’re breaking the rules.

              You’re ALLOWED to remove the president by voting him incompetent. You’re ALLOWED to impeach him. Can this be abused? HELL YES. But it’s ALLOWED in the rules. Don’t like it? Change the rule. But it’s not a “coup”… it’s using a political tool which exists within the recognized and proper framework.

              So it might be “assholic,” but a coup – to me – implies a violation of the rules.

              If you have the Secret Service stab him at his desk.. now you’re BREAKING THE RULES. That’s when it becomes – to me – a coup.

              The rules allow you to do X, therefore doing X is not a coup. The rules do not allow you to do Y, therefore doing Y is a coup.

              In this light, a “soft coup” might be a biased impeachment trial wherein exonerating evidence is withheld. Or a cabinet removal where the secretaries have each been promised a seat at the new table and political IOU’s by new-President Pence. In other words… using the mechanisms in place, but in such a way that the effect is still a breech of the rules with a thin veneer of legitimacy. But that’s the key, here, that the veneer is only just a surface justification, not the actual reason itself.

              So maybe we just have a difference in how we’re using the terms. Does this make sense?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                “I just don’t understand where “political opposition” ends and “coup” begins in your book.” Easy.

                When you manufacture or deliberately orchestrate the events for the purpose of removing.

                The Russia conspiracy was a deliberate effort by those in and out of Govt to create the appearance that an impeachment was appropriate. There was a deliberate effort to prepare the battlefield as early as August of 2017, by Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates at MSNBC. The Mueller investigation was a possible tool because they knew they could use it to create a fishing expedition into the affairs of a man doing business around the world. Think there might be a chance of finding anything on anyone doing such business? We also now know that some of these players were trying to get people to consider removing Trump for mental issues within months of taking office.

                That is not the same as wrong doing becoming evident and then acting on it. This was an effort to create narratives that would justify investigations in hopes of removing or destroying to the point he had to resign. It had NOTHING to do with his actual performance in office at the time. Because it started before he was even in office.

                I will change my opinion if counter evidence is ever presented showing that the “concerns” of a few select govt. officials actually had any basis for them orchestrating such things as “omitting key information to a FISA judge” when asking for permission to spy on Trump.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                “So the Clinton impeachment was a “soft coup”?”

                Not just NO but hell no. Clinton’s impeachment was the result of his own actions, and those of his wife by the way. The actual event was him lying under oath as we have discussed.

                The investigation which led to it, or gave the chance for the deposition to occur, was an inquiry into other wrong doings that were found to be true. Just that there was no evidence of Clinton’s direct involvement. The Clinton’s friends went to jail over the Whitewater investment fiasco.

                Now, it is true that the R’s tried to may as much hay as they could when this started coming to light. Including the calls for a special prosecutor.

                But here is the difference…………. nobody in Govt. created the controversies or planted the evidence that led to Whitewater. The real estate deals and Mrs. Clinton’s sudden good fortune in Commodity Futures trading were real events. Ones that raised some serious questions about their corruption. Including testimony from State troopers who were Mr. Clinton’s body guards while governor.

                I understand how from your perspective or that of the Democrats these appear the same. Because they only look at the ends. Since the means don’t matter to them they assume the same for others. But the MEANS do count. I assume they do for you as well.

                So again, NO. The Clinton impeachment was different. If there was a conspiracy in that it was among a small group of women who had been molested or raped by Clinton. And a woman who came to despise him for it and wound up being friends with Monika. Who, unknown to her at the time was getting down and dirty in the Oval Office.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                I understand your view on this. We differ…….. a little. I think govt.. employees manipulating information to get surveillance on a political operation prior to election and then planting rumors and innuendo to force an special prosecutor to be appointed and then tainting that investigation is part of a “soft coup”. That is NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES in my book.

                Now putting your semantic argument aside, Anita nailed it. They tried to get the guy removed from office starting the day after he won. Not politically damaged or challenged on certain issues. DESTROYED>……………….. REMOVED.

              • But the rules do not allow you to make up stuff, throw it against the wall and see what sticks…this is what I see them doing. They have nothing…and this shit about a “whistle blower”…for the record a whistle blower is a coward and deginerate. YOu either have the balls to stand up and accuse or you shut your damn mouth. This behind the curtain crap is despicable cowardice.

  31. Cheney, 2004: While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats’ manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.

    O’Reilly, 2004: You don’t criticize the commander-in-chief in the middle of a firefight. That could be construed as putting U.S. forces in jeopardy and undermining morale.

    Malkin, 2005: Can we do it without distorting their legacies and pandering to anti-American elites worldwide and using their deaths to embarrass and undermine our commander in chief?

    Hannity, 2006: The only ideas that they espouse are ways to undermine the troops in harm’s way and undermine their commander in chief while they’re at war. Your candidates have no idea how to keep this economy strong.

    Hannity, 2006: He’s the commander-in-chief. And what I find frankly repugnant about you and some of your fellow Democrats — you have undermined our president…

    Limbaugh, 2007: I’ve held this in long enough. I really suspect that these liberal tactics are damaging, maybe even killing the morale of our troops.

    Tom DeLay, 2007: On the other hand, if Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Congress are successful in undermining the commander-in-chief, thereby emboldening the terrorists to kill more Americans in Iraq,…

    Pat Robertson, 2005: And furthermore, one of the fundamental principles we have in America is that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason.

    Where was this inchoate outrage in 2008-2016?

    NRCC official twitter, 2014: Wait – did President Obama just salute the Marines with a LATTE in his hand?!

    Liz Cheney, 2014: Obama Came Into Office ‘Determined To Take America Down A Notch.’

    Hannity, 20??: [re meeting with Kim] It’s not wise and we’re showing a lot of weakness.

    ————————

    I could go on, but I think we all know I can post 100 examples without breaking a sweat.

    ————————

    Then we come to 2019.

    G-Man, 2019: Are these coup attempts aiding our enemies? Or better yet, our enemies are called Democrats.

    ————————

    Democrats/liberals attempting to undermine or refute or disagree with or disparage a Republican President? Coup attempts, treason, aiding our enemies.

    Republicans/conservatives attempting to undermine or refute or disagree with or disparage a Democratic President? That’s just our civic duty.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Come on man………you are better than that.

      You listed comments by R’s but ignored the context in which they were given. Then used some pretty benign complaints by the R’s towards Obama.

      He came into office to take America down a notch, versus, He lied us into War or The WAR is LOST.

      While you have a point that both sides attack and the R’s are really good at playing the Patriotic card during ongoing hostilities (war), it was the Dems who voted to go to war and immediately started calling POTUS a liar, claiming he got us into a war to stuff money in Haliburton’s bank account or to get revenge on Sadam, or it was a lost cause, etc. etc. They pulled out all the old Viet Nam war rhetoric, even making comparisons. So YES, there should have been some push back.

      And YES, the R’s were hypocrites for some of the things they did to Obama while we were still engaged in both countries.

      I understand your point, and agree generally, that both sides try to weaken the POTUS if on the other side. And WAR has never really stopped that, no matter how much either side complains. The R’s complained about Wilson and FDR and were shut down to their “undermining the war effort”. BUT……….. the garbage thrown at Bush II by Pelosi, Reid and Schumer etc. etc., went to far in my book. They took it to new levels. And they did it AFTER voting YES and they did it at a critical point in time.

      Let me add one other thought. Due to our political divide we should not get involved in any military action anywhere. It is immoral in my view to send people into harms way when you know in advance that the Govt will then turn it into a political football no matter who is sitting in the Commander in Chief chair.

      • Come on man………you are better than that.

        Nonsense!

        He came into office to take America down a notch

        That’s worse than what the left said about Bush.. it wasn’t “he’s an idiot” or “he’s a terrible president” or “he’s got ulterior motives.” That’s “he hates America.”

        No one (maybe the radical fringe on the left) actually asserted that Bush was against America. But his pretenses were bullshit. I think – and every lefty I’ve ever spoken to about it agrees – that, generally, Bush did what he thought was best (albeit often wrongly) for America. That, whatever his motivation was for getting us into Iraq, he felt he couldn’t sell the truth, so he sold the lie.. but the GOAL was still America’s interests.

        To be clear, that’s Rank-and-File.. I make no assertion here about the politicos.

        versus, He lied us into War

        He did.

        Where were those WMD’s of his? That famous “slam dunk”?

        While you have a point that both sides attack and the R’s are really good at playing the Patriotic card during ongoing hostilities (war)

        Not JUST during war, but ESPECIALLY during war.

        The R’s have wrapped themselves in the flag and so deeply entrenches themselves as the Party of Patriotism.. it’s why Gman feels so comfortable asking questions like “are Democrats the enemy” rather than “are Democrats IDEAS anathema?”

        it was the Dems who voted to go to war and immediately started calling POTUS a liar

        All Bush had to do was think the words “soft on ter’ism” and the Democrats folded like a house of cards.

        He and the Red Team completely cowed the Blue Team with soft-on-terrorism charges.. it took them years to even remotely re-grow even a partial spine.

        Remember “with us or against us”? It wasn’t just directed at other countries. The message was loud and clear.. either you’re on board with Bush and the Republican agenda, or you’re giving aid to Al Qaeda.

        And that, of course, is why it’s so very damned interesting that Gman, our local Republican, is toting the line asking if these “coup attempts are aiding our enemies.”

        Get it? Dissent isn’t loyal opposition. It’s not a question of fundamental disagreement with a terrible President who aggressively and deliberately antagonizes the left. It’s “sedition.”

        Because Red Team has a monopoly on patriotism.

        And YES, the R’s were hypocrites for some of the things they did to Obama while we were still engaged in both countries.

        Thank you for that stipulation.

        I understand your point, and agree generally, that both sides try to weaken the POTUS if on the other side.

        Thank you.

        And WAR has never really stopped that, no matter how much either side complains.

        True, but it sure seems to me that the R’s are pretty eager to transmute opposition into sedition or anti-Americanism.

        See, we don’t just dislike Trump. We’re doing a “coup” (definition pending). And we’re not just doing it for political reasons. It’s sedition.. we’re giving aid to the enemy (whoever that is).. and that makes us the enemy.

        Can you see from MY perspective how this might appear?

        the garbage thrown at Bush II by Pelosi, Reid and Schumer etc. etc., went to far in my book. They took it to new levels. And they did it AFTER voting YES and they did it at a critical point in time.

        Yes, they’re all hacks.

        And assholes.

        But they DID roll over.

        Why? Because they were threatened with the fatal mark of “soft on terr’ism” which is really just “not with America” because, for some reason, Republicans got to define what that meant.

        So the Blue Team just folded and gave them what they wanted.

        Let me add one other thought. Due to our political divide we should not get involved in any military action anywhere.

        I’m on board.

        It is immoral in my view to send people into harms way when you know in advance that the Govt will then turn it into a political football no matter who is sitting in the Commander in Chief chair.

        Sounds good to me… bring ’em all home (in an orderly fashion).

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          With all due respect to you, but none to them, this is pure BS: “Why? Because they were threatened with the fatal mark of “soft on terr’ism” which is really just “not with America” because, for some reason, Republicans got to define what that meant.”

          The issue before Iraq was WMD’s and shaky reports of Saddam allowing training camps in the north. This EXCUSE of being cow towed into submitting to support for going after Saddam is AFTER THE FACT INVENTION. Did you forget the opposition they created? And rightfully so at the time. The demand that Bush go to other countries and the UN? Bush didn’t create the “slam dunk” comment. And the presence of WMD’s was but one of about 12 GOOD REASONS to get Saddam out. It was easier to sell the WMD issue because visions of “mushroom clouds” is easier to portray than the impacts of Saddam’s continued efforts to take down American aircraft and undermine peace in the middle east.

          But sorry, the Dems did not roll over because of “soft on terrorism”. They bought into the whole thing, at least most. Now for the ugly part. Based on my years of watching these slime balls, I believe that in part Pelosi and crowd thought “lets give him his war cause we know it will blow up in his face and then we will hold power for the next 20 years”. Cause that is the way those snakes think.

          Just so you don’t feel you have to climb back up on that high horse, I think if Obama had gone into Syria full blown, after goading by the R’s, they would have done the same to him when it went south. Only difference is they would have run on “cleaning it up” rather than “pulling out”.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            Yes and NO! As far as I am concerned he got a total pass on screwing up Libya. Forget Benghazi, small stuff, but none of that would have happened if we hadn’t destabilized the place.

            We have a host of refugees, open slave markets for the first time in over 100 years, and people dying daily with no end in sight nor anybody remotely close to being able to govern the place.

            Now, here is the way it goes on making war. Iraq was a disaster and I figured that out the day I saw the farce of trying to topple the Saddam statue. I remember going oh-oh at that exact moment. I too was lulled into that old refrain of getting rid if a bad guy. Boy, that IS the last time I will never fall for that one again and I’m pretty sure all three of my military sons will back me up on that. It is indeed odd these days for someone like me to have three sons all of whom know people who have died in those wars.

            However, once you are engaged in war, you support the troops in the field 100 percent and DO NOT equate them with the scumsuckers who sent them there. You make LOGICAL arguments about why it is time to leave and DO NOT pull the waving the NVA flag crap I saw in ’67 and ’68. It is to OUR benefit to leave an unwinnable war. War is fought the way war is fought. People die. I grew up in a post WW 2 world where the “enemy” has no compunction about locating his HQ in an orphanage. If we kill him, we kill him…too damn bad BUT if we leave because there is no percentage in staying then that type of killing will end sooner.

  32. Bet….. General Flynn is on his way to being exonerated and the DEEP STATE is in DEEP SHIT once it gets sorted out. Sidney Powell is all over it.

    Then its a whole new ball game for Team Trump. Pass the popcorn.

  33. Just A Citizen says:
  34. LLHAN OMAR: ” I do not like it when I get questioned by people who say they are my boss. To me, that is a sign of disrespect to claim that I work for and answer to the American people. I anser to noone excpet my own conscience.” Interview with CNN October 1, 20 minutes ago,.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      An excellent reason to keep people like her out of the country. Her daddy was a big wheel in Somalia under the old regime. She was born to the purple.

  35. Where were those WMD’s of his? Trucked to Syria

    What bothers me the most is why were there no questions when chem alarms went off in several places.

    I never went to Iraq, but I was in Kuwait…I wonder why it was never questioned when artillery shells from tha Iraqui’s set off chemical alarms. Funny how these things ore over looked

    • Just A Citizen says:

      And it is my understanding that some were “flown”………… in Russian aircraft.

      • Ihave no knowlege if the Russian aricraft but “first” hand knowledge of the Syrian issue. First hand, that is from reading the intel reports. Funny thing…..Iraq flew 2 Migs to Syria and never got them back and they never got the convoy of trucks back either.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Was wondering what was buried in that hole behind the green house. 🙂

          There were reports of Russians showing up and then flying stuff off to Syria. This was in addition to the truck convoys. It may be that the flights were about something else the Russians wanted to get out before we got in.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Colonel

          Something struck me today, again, while revisiting the whole Iraq deal with Mathius.

          This claim of “having a negative impact on the troops” which is played by the R’s quite often and the D’s when convenient.

          It is MY opinion that if political wrangling is having an actual negative affect on the troops it is because Generals and Colonels are not doing their job. On the other hand, if the political wrangling starts to Crack the Resolve of the general public, that is when it can actually spread to the troops. When their own family starts to question their mission, doubts seep in. Us saber tooth types here remember these divisions from the 60’s and 70’s. But I am wondering how you see them impacting our efforts in Today’s Military.

          • The only difference that I see today as opposed to the Vietnam War is the general public. The general public does not malign the troops for serving now. Not like when I came back from Vietnam, they taxied us to a maintenance hangar because the public was throwing garbage and stuff on the returning troops….even the wounded and disabled.

            The politics do not seemed to have changed much and the media has not changed but has gotten worse, in my opinion. The milleniums have never seen a positive media in their lifetime. They have never seen non partisan politics. But, they have also never seen hard times. I doubt that any of them have had to pick up pennies to make a dollar to buy bread. They grew up with basically everything given to them or made easy.

            Sorry got off track….but when you have a media always on the attack and when you have politics being played with soldiers…..it reminds me of Vietnam. It hurts troops when the citizenry does not back them. Troops are pawns and we go fight whom we are told to fight. We do not involve ourselves with politics. We cannot….lives depend on us on the battlefield. There is no racism on the battlefield….Blood is red no matter whom it is coming out of….

            You remember Hanoi Jane…….posing with the enemy and being treated like a queen….the damage that has done is still out there. You are not supposed to hate anyone, but I would not walk across the street to piss on her is she were on fire…..the same for Hillary Clinton…she played politics with lives and killed people. She should be tried as a murderer but I do not get to make that call….however, there is no difference between her and Hanoi Jane. Simply no one has named her…so I will……you have Hanoi Jane and you have the Benghazi Butcher.

            Now, I will have to watch a John Wayne western to calm down.

            • Way to go Pilgrim.

              The division we are currently seeing and have seen for the last 18 years is manufactured by the politicians and the press. I blame the MSM as much as I blame the politicians. While the pols start it the press amplifies it. Without the amplification, the people would not care. As I stated the other day, while the right did not like Obama, I heard few Rs use negative and condescending terms against him. Bloggers did but not the politicians. I cannot say that for the Ds. They freely use racist, sexist, xenophobe, homophobe, Nazi, etc. to describe Trump and the Rs. The very approach of the Ds to voters is divisive. They divide us into victim or oppressor groups. If you are black, Hispanic, gay, etc. you are a Nazi, racist smelly deplorable who hangs out in Walmart.

              As a nation, we are far more divided than we have been since the CW. Are we headed into another? This time it is not regional so the fighting will be everywhere. I have real fears the Republic is serious jeopardy.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              I suggest McClintock………… one of his lighter movies. It will make you laugh, and of course you will have to watch Maureen waving those long legs over and around that table. Just send the Missus on an errand while you watch…….. heh heh.

              P.S. Spousal Unit Leader is still talking about our need for a darn greenhouse. Just thanks a lot.

              • Heh heh……yep, and you can tell the missus our fall vegetables are already in the greenhouse with the temp set at a comfortable growing temperature of 80 degrees with the humidifier set at 30…..I am, however, making room for the Bouganvillas. I keep them in pots to be moved….they will start dying at 45 degrees. However, since we are still in the 90’s, not much to worry about right now. We do have a cold front coming in Friday supposed to drop the temps to 85 for one day.

                The cantelope has runs its course, the outside tomatos are done….peppers are in full swing. Have tomatos inside the green house just now producing. In December, will start my plants for spring garden from seed. Potatos, onions, cucumbers, tomatos. Learned our lesson on cantelopes….the vines take up too much room and you can only eat so many. Egg plant is next…might try some carrots this next season…..will start all them from seed.

                I will be sure to tell my missus to send your missus some pics….while you have four feet of snow on the ground, just how nice a green house is….I know if I put the pics on here, she will probably never see them…..”Oh, I am so sorry, honey, I think the computer had a glitch. I lost all the Colonel’s pictures.”

                Now, as to McClintock….great suggestion. I did watch it as I have all the John Wayne collection..and it is funny. And she does have great legs. I also have the Dick Van Dyke collection and Laura Petrie is still hot as is Bewitched and Samantha……But, it was a good movie. I have to wean my self from the news but that is where I get my business news and even the tickers that float across the screen have the latest on the saga.

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    I warned ya’ll about getting your hopes up. As T-Ray has said before………… aint nobody going to pay for anything. More of the same, again and again and again and again….

    https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/10/01/article-true-republicans-may-disappointed-igs-fisa-abuse-report/

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh boy…………. the Inspector General for State Dept has asked for an “urgent” meeting with staff from several House and Senate committees to discuss Ukraine documents, according to CNN, etal.

    URGENT?????????? So urgent he needs to meet now as in tomorrow.

  38. https://www.weaselzippers.us/434097-eric-holder-bill-barr-has-crossed-the-line-you-have-to-appear-neutral-when-attorney-general/

    I’ve been so angry the last few days. I’ve decided to laugh instead of scream at the insanity. This made me laugh out loud.

    • That’s what I have done. Just laugh at the insanity and drive some people nuts for being so damn gullible. 😀

  39. One question that can identify a white racist.

    From the brilliant black, conservative economist Walter Williams, at WND.

    During my student days at a UCLA economics department faculty/graduate student coffee hour in the 1960s, I was chatting with professor Armen Alchian, probably the greatest microeconomic theory economist of the 20th century. I was trying to impress Alchian with my knowledge of statistical type I and type II errors. I explained that unlike my wife, who assumed that everyone was her friend until they prove differently, my assumption was everyone was an enemy until they proved otherwise. The result: My wife’s vision maximized the number of her friends but maximized her chances of betrayal. My vision minimized my chances of betrayal at a cost of minimizing the number of my friends.

    Alchian, donning a mischievous smile, asked, “Williams, have you considered a third alternative, namely, that people don’t give a d*mn about you one way or another?” Initially, I felt a bit insulted, and our conversation didn’t go much further, but that was typical of Alchian – saying something profound, perhaps controversial, without much comment and letting you think it out.

    Years later, I gave Alchian’s third alternative considerable thought and concluded that he was right. The most reliable assumption, in terms of the conduct of one’s life, is to assume that people don’t care about you one way or another. It’s an error to generalize that people are friends or enemies, or that people are out to either help you or hurt you. To put it more crudely, as Alchian did, people don’t give a d*mn about you one way or another.

    Let’s apply this argument to issues of race. Listening to some people, one might think that white people are engaged in an ongoing secret conspiracy to undermine the achievement and well-being of black people. Their evidence is low black academic achievement and high rates of black poverty, unemployment and incarceration. For some, racism is the root cause of most black problems including the unprecedentedly high black illegitimacy rate and family breakdown.

    Are white people obsessed with and engaged in a conspiracy against black people? Here’s an experiment. Walk up to the average white person and ask, “How many minutes today have you been thinking about black people?” If the person isn’t a Kl*nsman or a gushing do-gooder liberal, his answer would probably be zero minutes. If you asked him whether he’s a part of a conspiracy to undermine the achievement and well-being of black people, he’d probably look at you as if you were crazy. By the same token, if a person asked me: “Williams, how many minutes today have you been thinking about white people?” My answer would probably be, “Not even a nanosecond.” Because people don’t care about you one way or another doesn’t mean they wish you good will, ill will or no will. They just don’t give a d*mn.

    What are the implications of the people-don’t-care vision of how the world works? A major implication is that one’s destiny, for the most part, is in one’s hands. How you make it in this world depends more on what you do as opposed to whether people like or dislike you. Black politicians, civil rights leaders and white liberals have peddled victimhood to black people, teaching them that racism is pervasive and no amount of individual effort can overcome racist barriers. Peddling victimhood is not new. Booker T. Washington said: “There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the N*gro race before the public. Some of these people do not want the N*gro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” In an 1865 speech to the Anti-Slavery Society in Boston, abolitionist Frederick Douglass said that people ask: “‘What shall we do with the N*gro?’ I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!” Or as Patrick Moynihan urged a century later in a 1970 memo to President Richard Nixon, “The time may have come when the issue of race could benefit from a period of ‘benign neglect.'”

    https://www.wnd.com/2019/10

    • Just A Citizen says:

      My son once told me he did not care about millions dying on the other side of the world. I was taken back a bit when he added, How could I, I don’t know a single one of them.

  40. JAC…you something that is really bothering me as well…..I do not know if you saw the woman testifying before a House committee on gun control. I like her because she was honest and had the courage to stand up to the committee on gun control. She told them in no uncertain words….”I will not give up my weapons and my AR….do not try to come and take it. You will not get it.” I am beginning to see this attitude more openly. I have already stated..come for my guns, bring body bags. I will never give up my weapons…..never.

    But I am seeing this attitude becoming very prevalent. People are not taking it any longer. Gun control and racism mind numbing now….and most peole are scoffing at it. But the attitude….is beginning to bother me because….I think it is the right attitude and THAT scares me.

    • I neither confirm nor deny that I own guns. However, I do believe the sentiment on the Gadsden Flag.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      My Texican friend, I share your concerns. There is great anger among the people. My hope is that it is much smaller than we think, because the media blows it up.

      I do think there are many of us who have had enough. How we fight back I do not know. I hope it is just with firm resolve and strong words, such as this lady displayed. And not outright rebellion or war in the streets.

      With that said, I don’ think it is our “side” that will start it. It will be some left wing controlled local govt entity that decides it is going to act against its citizens. Someplace like Portland, OR, where Progressivism rules but many if not most people own guns and have no intention of giving them up.

      BUT find comfort in knowing that if it is RIGHT then it is RIGHTEOUS………. 🙂

      • I hope you are correct but I just do not know. If one of these wackos gets in a power position to issue orders….I just do not know. There will be blood on the doorstep. I am a law and order guy, you know this….but I am also a freedom guy. My personal freedoms will trump (lower case T) some stupid political order. I simply will not give up my guns and I do not know one single person that will do so. O’Rouke made the comment once ” If people will not give up their guns, then those are the people that should not have them.”…..straight from the school of Marx.

        It will not be gun owners that start anything……..it will be the Progressive mentality that will start it…….the gun owners will end it.

  41. The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    Y’aarrggghhh!

  42. Dallas police officer Amber Guyger was convicted of murder yesterday in the 2018 shooting of neighbor Botham Jean, capping one of the region’s most high-profile cases in recent memory. The case became the latest flashpoint on race and excessive police force in the US – Guyger is white, Jean was black – while also grabbing the national spotlight due to its unusual circumstances. Guyger was off-duty but in uniform when she claimed to have mistakenly entered Jean’s apartment, located directly above her own, fatally shooting Jean whom she believed was an intruder. Her defense argued that exhaustion from a 13-and-a-half hour shift led to the deadly mistake, attempting to invoke the state’s so-called “castle doctrine”. The jury was tasked with deciding between charges of manslaughter or murder, with the sentencing phase continuing today.

    … an interesting case… unless there’s reason to believe that she INTENDED to kill the other woman (eg, a pre-existing feud), it sounds like a mistake to me… a terrible one, sure, but a mistake. Maybe manslaughter? But not murder. Thoughts?

    .. also not seeing what race had to do with anything, but maybe I’m just missing information.

    • You are missing a lot of information…..especially her tweets and Pintrest accounts. I can understand the arguments of exhaustion but to a trained individual, there are things she should have noticed. The Castle Doctrine did not even come into play here. She has questionable text messages and Pintrest things that I would consider racist…and that is coming from someone who thinks racism is an over blown term.

      As to murder, I agree with you…..I can see manslaughter easily. But, this was not pre-meditated.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      I wonder if she was offered a deal and decided to take it to a jury instead.

  43. Researchers confirmed yesterday that a massive iceberg broke free from Antarctica into the Southern Ocean, the biggest calving event from an area known as the Amery Ice Shelf in over five decades. Much of the continent’s coastline is covered by suspended layers of ice that overhang into the ocean (see diagram), where various stresses make them susceptible to breaking off over time. Scientists said they will track the block – roughly 630 square miles in size, or double New York City – over concerns it will drift into major shipping lanes. Named D28, scientists had been monitoring it and a neighboring chunk called the “Loose Tooth” since the early 2000’s, predicting a break sometime between 2010-2015. Despite warming temperatures being linked to a range of changes at the North and South Poles, including shrinking ice mass, scientists say the break is part of the shelf’s natural cycle of breaking and regrowth that occurs every 60-70 years.

    … 630 square miles.. that’s a big iceberg… can I go plant a flag on it and call it MathiusLand?

    • 630 square miles.. that’s a big iceberg… can I go plant a flag on it and call it MathiusLand? Done, sir……it is a lot colder than the Persian Gulf, but your lands have been expanded…..question, tho. Why do you want such a large ice cube?

  44. LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH (Nickelback…grab the youngins’ attention)

    Wasting everybody’s time on BULLSHIT (Finally some political speak that I can understand)

    Get a better candidate this time, you’ll need it (Don’t even try it Hillary)

    All in one day. The boys are back from overseas with good news, The gloves are off

    I don’t care. Judge me all you want. He might not win them all, but he sure fights. I love this president.

  45. U.S.—As the only unbiased arbiter of truth in a world of fake news, Snopes continues to expand its selfless mission to fact-check all the things everywhere. Whether they’re calling out a popular satire site for being conspicuously hilarious or explaining how blatant lies point to deeper truths, you can count on Snopes to probe the darkest depths, like a colonoscope of accuracy.

    As it turns out, not even Satan himself is safe from a Snopes fact-check. In a recent post, Snopes analyzed several statements made by the Prince of Darkness, utilizing their tried-and-true, highly methodical, investigative techniques to determine how his words lined up with their feelings.
    In one example, Satan claimed that eating a particular fruit would not cause anyone to die, but would instead grant them an improved understanding of moral issues. According to Snopes’ assessment, while consuming the fruit has been followed by billions and billions of deaths, those casualties were more of an indirect result, while the part about gaining knowledge of good and evil was generally accurate. They also checked all the lies Satan told Jesus while He was being tempted in the desert and pointed out that he did quote Scripture, albeit out of context, earning the Prince of Darkness another “Mostly True” rating.
    In the article, Snopes explains that while the Devil has clearly made some factually inaccurate statements over the years, they observed that he tended to “mix a lot of truth with a little bit of lie,” thus earning the “Mostly True” label.

  46. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA—A new app called HateFynd promises to help you find someone to commit a fake hate crime against you.

    The app will allow you to browse a list of oppressors-for-hire who will leave a hateful racist note on your car, beat you senseless while wearing pro-Trump clothing, or a more classic hate crime like typing a racist name on a fake Starbucks cup.
    “The problem right now is that demand for oppression far exceeds the supply,” said app developer Signey Boffet. “Our app helps connect potential oppressors with their victims, so that you can post on social media that you were assaulted and get a lot of publicity.” Boffet recommends getting the hate crime committed against you in the South or in a school connected with Karen Pence for maximum exposure.
    “Whether you need someone to cut off your dreadlocks or assault you while wearing a MAGA hat, HateFynd guarantees to get a fake hate crime committed against you in 30 minutes or less!”
    HateFynd contractors get a notification on their phone if someone needs oppressing in their area. There are specialists for everything, from beating people in MAGA hats to spraypainting racist slogans on your garage so people will think you’ve been oppressed and send you sympathy and maybe even money. HateFynd guarantees the lowest rates in fake hate crimes in the nation.
    The app anticipates heavy demand for their product of hate, oppression, outrage, and division, and is actively seeking new contractors, “especially straight, white men.”

  47. Get well soon Bernie!

  48. FYI: The Mathius Option Fund now includes long Hong Kong calls (EWH Dec2021 C 23).

    • No idea, what this means. 😕

      • You do not want to know……

        • Puts and calls are a big boy’s game……I do not even do it and I have substantial funds invested. ESPECIALLY….longs and shorts.

          • I meant to say……I especially stay out of longs and shorts.

            • Also, a liquid cash position maybe the best to stay in for awhile…If Warren beats out Biden, and if Warren actually gets in….the market, in my opinion, will tank big time. Investors, me included, will go back to hiding cash and investing off shore.

              • Will it affect your actions if she just wins the primary or does she have to win the general?

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                You won’t care colonel, you will be in a camp for re-education along with the rest of us. Well, maybe not Matt, not yet anyway. It does take time for a revolution to eat its own. Just ask Robespierre.

              • you will be in a camp for re-education along with the rest of us. Well, maybe not Matt.

                I’ll mail y’all care packages.

                It does take time for a revolution to eat its own. Just ask Robespierre.

                Lefties / Liberals hate me for my (many) apostasies. Believe me, I’m headed for the camps right along side you, if not worse.

            • Take advantage of the tax laws as they are now…..cash out, pay your lower taxes and then protect your cash in long term for the next four years to avoid the higher taxes that will inevitably be coming down the pike like a run away freight.

      • Hi V!

        Basically…….

        There are a few aspects to this kind of “bet”: Side, underlyer, maturity, strike, multiplier, put-vs-call, and premium.

        That sounds complicated.. and it might take a bit to wrap your head around the terminology, but it boils down to a simple proposition: basically, for a up-front amount, I can place a bet on a stock* for a given amount of time. That’s it.

        And…. because it’s less money up-front, I can make bigger bets for cheaper, while also limiting (or not!) how much I can lose.

        SIDE:
        By going “long” the option, I cannot lose more than I put in. I paid $100 (per option) to buy my “bets.” If I’m wrong, I lose my $100. But that is literally ALL I can lose. It’s like going to Vegas and betting on a table-game.. maybe you’l win or lose.. but in no circumstances will you ever lose money you DIDN’T put on the table.

        Conversely, some people who have bigger appetites for risk than me might go “short” an option. In that case, they would receive money. They’re playing the role of the casino. They’ll take your bet up-front, but if they lose, the amount they lose might be enormous.

        The question boils down to: do you want to pay for the chance to win, or do you want to receive money that comes with the chance to lose. Personally, I NEVER go short an option.****

        Underlyer:
        Simple enough: What stock* / etc are you betting on? Are you betting on Amazon? Or are you, like me, betting on the Hong Kong index? Or maybe the S&P? Or corn futures. Whatever.

        Maturity:
        This is the “expiration date” of my bet… so, in this case, it’ll be the third Friday in December in 2021. At the end of this time, the option dies. You made money or you lost money, but either way, the game is over.**

        Strike:
        This is the PRICE of the stock we’re using for comparison to see if you won or lost. So my strike is 23. If the price is 24 at the end, then I’ve “won.” If the price is 22 at the end, I’ve “lost.” This is because I’m betting on the price going up. If I were betting on the price going down, then 22 would be a win and 24 would be a loss.

        If my strike is 1,000, I don’t start winning until the price is over 1,000. When you’re option is “winning,” this is called being “in the money.” When you option is “losing,” it’s called being “out of the money.” If the price is the same as the strike, you’re “at the money.”

        Puts vs Call
        This is really the only complicated part. A put is a bet on the price going down. A call is a bet on the price going up. Both are compared to the strike.

        So a long-call (I bought a call, so I paid up front) (which is what I did), says if the price is above the strike (23), say 24, then I make a dollar (times a multiplier).

        A long-put would only benefit me (be in the money) if the price of the stock is below the strike.

        It sounds simple put this way, but trust me, this is the meat of it.

        Multiplier:
        This is almost always 100. Each “dollar” is worth $100. But it can vary, so it pays to make sure you’re betting the amount you think you are. The price of this option was $1. So I had to pay $100 because of the multiplier. If I “win” by a dollar, I’ll get paid $100. If it helps, you can just pretend you bought 100 times as many options and then ignore the multiplier entirely.

        Premium:
        This is just how much you have to pay to “place your bet” or how much someone else has to pay to “place their bet” with you. In this example, I paid a $100 of premium to buy one option. That amount came out of my pocket and went into someone else’s pocket in exchange for me buying this “bet.”

        ——————–

        So, let’s put all that together.

        I bought EWH Dec2021 C 23
        Underlyer: EWH (MSCI Hong Kong benchmark index)
        Maturity: December 2021
        Put/Call: Call
        Strike: 23
        Side: Long
        Quantity: 10 (example)
        Multiplier: 100
        Premium: $1 (times the multiplier means $100 of actual money per option contract)

        So I paid, up front: 10 x $1 x 100 = $1,000. This is the “option premium.”
        (10 contracts x $1 premium each x 100 multiplier)

        In return, I get a “bet” that the EWH goes above 23 anytime between now and December 2021. (See footnote **)

        For each dollar above 23 it goes, I make: 10 x $1 x 100 = $1,000.

        If, in December 2021, the price of EWH is 28, I will have made 10 x (28-23) x 100 = $5,000 (minus the $1k I paid in upfront premium.. so net 4k)

        If, in December 2021, the price of EWH is below 23, say 22, my option “expires worthless.” I lose my bet. But I am only out the amount I paid in premium….. I lose $1k.

        So my winnings are unlimited (EWH goes to a million!), but my losses are capped based on what I put in.

        ——————–

        *EWH is an “Exchange Traded Fund” which reflects the performance of a basket of Hong Kong stocks… it is not a stock itself, but for our purposes, we can think of it as a stock. The difference here is that, instead of betting on “Amazon,” I’m betting on “how will Hong Kong do.” To bet on “how will the US do,” I use SPY.

        **Technically, there are “American” and “European” options which means that an American option can “end” whenever the long (buyer) says it ends as long as it’s before the maturity date. Conversely, a European option ends on maturity date. So if your bet is good, but it’s before maturity date, a European option won’t let you end the bet there – you have to hold it to maturity and, by then, maybe the market has moved back against you. In practice, in 99.9% of cases, you can just sell*** it to another person and walk away.

        ***the price of an option before maturity is not just “how far is the strike from the price of the underlyer,” but also a consideration of other factors such as “how much time is left.” This part is mind-numbingly complicated. Just content yourself with “the more I’m in-the-money, the more valuable my option is… the “more out-of-the-money” I am, the closer my option approaches to being worthless.

        ****That’s a lie. I will go short an option, but only as part of a broader strategy. I will never go “naked” short an option. I ALWAYS control and limit my downside risk. But some crazy people out there don’t… and for them, the rewards can be enormous.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H. Short version……….. he thinks the value of the Hong Kong market is to go UP.

        Long means he is buying the contract.

        Call is a contract to buy at a price. You assume the price will increase above the price in your contract. It locks in your purchase price in the future.

        • Very good, JAC. Gold star!

        • Only question now is why do you believe the Hong Kong market is gonna go up.

          • Right now, HK is… not doing well. China is actively invading it and they’re having large scale protests yada yada yada.

            Now, it MIGHT go from bad to worse (which is why I also am considering a long-put). Or it MIGHT go from bad to normal. Or even bad to good.

            I don’t know.

            But the options were pretty cheap considering how much “time value” I got out of them. More than two years!

            I don’t need HK to really improve. I just need a single day in the next two years were it looks like it’s really improved. If the price “spikes” just once, any time in the next two years to, say, 24.5, I sell at a profit. It’s more complicated than this, but that’s the general idea.

            The big question is: do I believe, for a comparatively cheap bet, that HK is going to do worse than it is right now for every day over the next two years? If the market enough fluctuates within that time that it just briefly is up, I win. If it doesn’t – at all, never, not even once -, I lose.

            For this reason, buying options is sometimes called “buying volatility.” I’m not really concerned with the market itself to have a directional opinion. I’m more interested in the general question of “will it bounce around enough for me to win.” In other words, is it “volatile enough?” I don’t know for sure or I’d be a billionaire. But the bet is cheap enough and long enough that I took the gamble.

            Does this make sense?

            • I suppose but it must be more complicated or no one would take those odds. What is it now and much does it have to go up for you to win?

              • It’s at 22.96 right now. I’d have to work out the math since I bought at a few prices, but it has to get up to around 24.. maybe 24.25.

                For reference, a few months ago it was 28.

                The question, again, is: does it seem likely to me that some time in the next two years, it’ll hit that mark.

                Never gamble what you aren’t prepared to lose….

                I suppose but it must be more complicated or no one would take those odds.

          • VH….the main issue…unless you are a player….my thoughts are to stay away from these types of investments unless you TOTALLY understand this. I understand it but I play on a different ball field than Mathius does. Because of my age….I do not do longs at all even though in Mathius case, his longs are only a couple years.

            The investment game is tough and requires planning. Some people hire it done. I do not. I have a brokerage firm but I do not pay them to manage my investments. I follow them myself and simply send an email with instructions. Either way, it is like going to Vegas. It is a gamble no matter which way you go. That is why a lot of people just keep their money liquid in CD’s or money markets. You do not get a large return but it is safe.

            I am not a venture capitaist nor am I very aggressive. I am too old for super aggressive. My return last year was an after tax 8.2%. Some people think that is not worth it. But, Cd’s and money markets paid around .8% up to 2%….I have seen a 3% out there. I am a conservative investor. And that was without capital gains….

            Mathius, on the other hand, plays in areas that I stay away from. I would rather go to the dice table in Vegas.

        • JAC,

          For bonus Mathius points: I’ve bought 10 calls with a 23 strike with a $1 premium and a 100x multiplier.

          If the price of the ETF goes to 40, how much have I made / lost?

          If the price goes to 0, how much have I made / lost?

          SUPER bonus points: I have 100 long C300 and 100 short C301 on the SPY. Why might I do this?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            I will assume zero expense for buy sell, to make simple.

            Profit = 40-23-1 =6/share; 1000 x 6= 6,000 (less remaining premium at sale)

            Max loss = 1/share x 1000 = 1,000

            Bonus If the spread in premiums is such that youcan reduce odds loss but lock in small profit. So if premiums are under 1 you will make 1 on the trade. Buy @ 300 and Sell @301. less the premium cost.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              This is the MINIMUM profit on the trade. Loss is this minus premiums paid.

            • Great job!

              40-23-1 =6

              This is 16, not 6… but you still get full credit since I’m pretty sure this was just a brain fart.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Actually a keyboard issue. When in Sandpoint I use my laptop. I can’t hardly type anything on a lap top keyboard. Unless I take the time to do one finger chicken pecking. At home I plug a keyboard into the lap top and that is how you get these longer run on and on answers. If I was still up there I would have typed” Thinnnkk U.

  49. Will it affect your actions if she just wins the primary or does she have to win the general? Well, a good question. If you understand the game of “craps”…then you roll the dice. It is a judgement call at this juncture.

    What if she passes her wealth tax? Understand that I am giving you MY perspective. First, her wealth tax is pretty much dead on arrival. But that depends on how many of these snowflakes get elected. These first termers like the AOC squad. However, prudence suggests that you protect yourself for a few years and delay any investment income for a period of years until the dust settles.

    The biggest issue that scares me more is the Bernie Sanders issue where all property, personal and business is “evaluated” and then taxed on what you have in addition to what you have earned and already paid tax on.

    BUT…..this is my assessment. I do not believe in the greater good, Robin Hood approach.

    • Don’t sweat it… it’s alllll DOE.

      The congress-critters are all rich. Their major donors are all rich. Unless something seismic happens, they aren’t going to willingly shoot themselves in the foot like that.

      They’ll happily shoot YOU or ME in the foot… but not themselves.

      So, unless they exempt themselves (in which case, they are liable to get literally shot in the foot), the whole idea of a “wealth tax” is a total non-starter.

  50. Scratching my head….I wonder why the Dems, under Schiff-head, is interviewing people in a closed door meeting…and refused to allow any Republican in the interview and saying that no Republican has a right to be in there or ask questions…..

    • Just A Citizen says:

      There were R’s in the room because they came out and said it was a big fat nothing.

      Of course the PRESS is saying Oh My God, this guy told Giuliani that the rumors about Biden’s boy were unfounded. As if that is an earth shaking fact that supports impeachment. If this keeps up I can’t wait to see the apoplexy when the polling turns back against them and for Trump.

  51. “They [Biden] got rid of the prosecutor, he was a very good, very tough prosecutor” – Trump

    What support is there for this assertion?

    I don’t want a big macro debate here.. just this one question. Biden et all assert that the prosecutor was a do-nothing and/or corrupt. To support this, we have the fact that several international bodies wanted him gone including the IMF. But, sure, we can question if they’re all in the tank for Biden or whatever..

    But what evidence do we have that the prosecutor WAS a good tough prosecutor? Do we have any evidence to suggest he was investigating Hunter Biden’s company?

    The only empirical, unequivocal fact I have is that he failed to cooperate with the UK in a money laundering probe of Hunter Biden’s boss (before Hunter Biden was even hired) which enabled the guy to make off with $25mm which he moved to the Caymans (note: alleged money laundering since it was never proven, but that’s in part due to the prosecutor’s failure to cooperate).

    That doesn’t sound good. But, hey, who knows? Not me. I wasn’t there, I wasn’t involved. Maybe the guy was getting screwed by the UK and the prosecutor just wasn’t having it? Maybe he was super busy and couldn’t get around to it. Who knows. Not me. I just know that he DIDN’T cooperate with the UK investigation against the CEO.

    But all the evidence at my disposal suggests the guy sucked. He failed to cooperate with a UK money laundering probe. And several international bodies and the US all wanted the guy gone. The opposing evidence is Trump asserting that he was a very tough prosecutor. That’s it. That’s all I have.

    So does anyone have anything to back Trump up with facts on this?

    … to the larger point, if we are to believe that Joe Biden did this horribly corrupt thing by pressuring another company to fire a “very good, very tough” prosecutor who was investigating his son, then we should be able to establish that was, you know, “very good, very tough.” And we should be able to show that he was actively investigating Hunter Biden’s company. Because if he was a do-nothing or corrupt, then Biden would have been right to push for his outer, no?

    • I do not and I do not care. I am sad that this has turned into a discussion of Biden and his son. Which lets just admit is more than just bad optics. but it is still more a political argument than a legal one. Because there is no way to know whether or not Biden would have made a different decision if his son didn’t work for this company. I have no idea whether the U.S. Should have been involved at all in these types of decisions but I have no doubt we do, all the time. This is about Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine being used as a cover-up by the democrats for Russia,Russia Russia. All of the rest is just crap.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        As a former City of NY employee, let me tell you if I were representing the City in a negotiation with a developer who “hired” my son, I’d be out on the street the next afternoon. The “wink”, “wink”, “nod”, “nods” have to STOP.

        Everyone has been aware of this Buiden thing for years and done nothing. Ditto for the China thing. Remember 1.5 billion is One thousand Five hundred millions!

        While people may look at accepting a bribe as being small potatoes, the fact that you are subject to BLACKMAIL thereafter IS a big deal. Ostensibly the big worry over the dossier was that the Russians “had something” on Trump they could squeeze him over in the future.

        • I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. My point is it is a distraction. A distraction that the dems. love. It shouldn’t be the focus, the focus is all the Illegal “outside the norm” Crap that has been going on the last three years.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            Every time they go for the “distraction” it seems to blow up in their faces. I know, “WE” have to deal with the crapola peddled by the media which makes me even doubt myself some time but I have to say there do seem to be more thinking people out there who vote than robots.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Seems the new Ukrainian President has some concerns about the guys firing as well as everything else involved.

      President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all, I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.

      Now is are Mr. Trump’s comments which led to the response. Please note the quote you posted DOES NOT EXIST IN THE TRANSCRIPT. So where did you get it?

      The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.

      As for why it would be wise to NOT accept anything at face value in Ukraine? Because it is Ukraine. Keep in mind the prosecutor worked for the guy the USA and EU wanted out. The one that is now living in Russia. He was fired by the next guy, after Biden threatened to withhold the money………….IF HE ACTUALLY DID. It is Biden you know. The whole story could be crap.

      But it looks like the FOG is not just from Biden’s bragging. The fired prosecutor gave sworn testimony that he was investigating the gas company and was fired for doing so. That the EU or IMF wanted him gone is irrelevant to the WHY. He either was or was not investigating and was or was not fired for that reason. The bigger question might be why were so many outsiders wanting to hang this guy out to dry. Were they really trying to uncover something, or were they trying to cover up something so it would not be uncovered???? Like I said…IT IS UKRAINE.

      • Now is are Mr. Trump’s comments which led to the response. Please note the quote you posted DOES NOT EXIST IN THE TRANSCRIPT. So where did you get it?

        An interview I watched yesterday (I typed it out from the youtube video). It was one of his impromptu Q&A’s in front of a helicopter. He has made this assertion repeatedly in a variety of ways. In fact, right after your question to me in the above, you quote Trump saying:

        “Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. ”

        The words vary slightly, but the sentiment is exactly the same. He was a very good prosecutor.

        Trump: “Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. “

        Nothing Zelenski said supports this. He says the next prosecutor will be “his guy” and will look into it. And that he is familiar with the situation. But at no point does he back up the ex-prosecutor or confirm or support Trump’s assertion. He is non-committal.

        In fact, doing so would have probably been to his advantage. “yes, Mr. Trump, I agree, that bastard Biden pressured us to fire a very good prosecutor.” Trump would have shit himself with joy. But he didn’t say that.. instead, he offered up some mild “we’ll look into it” type of statement.

        As for why it would be wise to NOT accept anything at face value in Ukraine? Because it is Ukraine. Keep in mind the prosecutor worked for the guy the USA and EU wanted out. The one that is now living in Russia. He was fired by the next guy, after Biden threatened to withhold the money………….IF HE ACTUALLY DID. It is Biden you know. The whole story could be crap.

        Sure.. who knows?

        BUT my question stands.. what evidence do we have that the prosecutor was actually a good prosecutor and was investigating Biden’s son (and/or his company)?

        Because, to me, the whole thing kind of hinges on that question… all the EVIDENCE I have says he sucked… so that would mean Biden was right to pressure for his ouster.. even if that means threatening to withhold aid. I mean, you don’t want to give money to a corrupt country, after all – isn’t that the basis for support for why it was ok that Trump held up Ukraine’s support? I mean, it makes sense as long as it’s allowed by the relevant laws.

        BUT if we have some evidence that the prosecutor WAS an aggressive “very good, very tough prosecutor,” and/or that he was actively investigating Hunter Biden or his company, then that changes the landscape, doesn’t it? That gives us pause to question Biden’s motives. But right now, the only support I have seen for this interpretation is Trump’s assertion that it was so. (note, even if this is the case, it still doesn’t prove that Biden did anything wrong, but if this isn’t the case, the it does strongly suggest that Biden didn’t do anything wrong – have fun parsing that sentence’s grammar).

        I have decent – not great, but decent – evidence to suggest he was a do-nothing or corrupt. I have no evidence to suggest he was this “very good” prosecutor or that he was looking into Hunter Biden. Given this, I am inclined to believe that Biden did nothing wrong unless you can show me support to the contrary, which is what I’m asking for.

        The fired prosecutor gave sworn testimony that he was investigating the gas company and was fired for doing so.

        Ahhhhh… this is why I should read through your posts before starting to respond… don’t suppose you could give a link for this?

        That the EU or IMF wanted him gone is irrelevant to the WHY.

        Not really…. it’s possible that he was investigating the gas company AND he was a corrupt do-nothing in a broader sense. This seems… incongruous to me, but I can’t rule it out without further evidence. It’s all RELEVANT.. I just won’t know how the pieces fit together until I have all the pieces.

        Accepting your assertion that he testified under oath that he was investigating Hunter Biden’s company and was fired for it (how does he know that?), then the evidence is as follows:

        Do-nothing: failed to cooperate with UK probe against the CEO (strong), wanted out by IMF, EU, US (decent).
        Very tough: Trump’s assertion (absolutely worthless), the prosecutor testifying that he was tough (very weak)

        I mean, it’s not like an ousted prosecutor is going to smile and say “yup, you got me, I was in the tank for the CEO the whole time.. good call pushing me out!”

        He either was or was not investigating and was or was not fired for that reason.

        That’s what I’m trying to ascertain!

        So maybe you can supply evidence that he was being aggressive against other companies? That he brought lots of corruption charges to court? That he was doing his job well? Maybe there’s an article from the Kiev Times talking about the ongoing investigation into the company? Something?

        Because the prosecutor’s self-interested word for it is pretty weak, and Trump’s word isn’t worth a bucket of warm piss.

        The bigger question might be why were so many outsiders wanting to hang this guy out to dry.

        According to them, he wasn’t doing his job. And they were concerned.

        I have seen nothing very little to suggest otherwise.

        Were they really trying to uncover something, or were they trying to cover up something so it would not be uncovered???? Like I said…IT IS UKRAINE.

        Sure, whatever… but back to my original point: what evidence can we bring to bear to suggest he WAS a “very good, very tough” prosecutor? I mean, if he was, there should be a record of his success somewhere, right? Otherwise, it would seem right to suggest that pushing him out for being a do-nothing was a good call.

        Again, the only hard FACT I have is that he failed to cooperate with a UK probe of Burisma’s CEO which enabled him to get away with $25mm of (allegedly) laundered money. That’s it.

        And, given that, it’s easy to see why the UK might want the guy gone.. and that would have nothing at all to do with Hunter Biden.

        • so that would mean Biden was right to pressure for his ouster.. even if that means threatening to withhold aid. Want to know how I read this statement. I read it exactly the same way you read Trump…..you agree that using aid as a pressure tactic is ok.

          • What’s wrong with withholding aid until you’re confident that the people you’re giving it to are doing something about corruption and won’t… say….. let the CEO of Burisma make off with $25 of it, which he’ll deposit in London, triggering a money-laundering investigation by the UK which will be stymied by non-cooperation by the Ukrainian prosecutor, forcing the UK to release the funds which he’ll then move to the Caymans?

            I mean.. . that kind of thing could theoretically happen, right? And you wouldn’t want to give more funds until you’re confident that it won’t happen again, right?

            And a good way to do that might be replacing the prosecutor with someone who will, you know, prosecute. Right?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              I have a different question. If Congress and the World were so concerned about corruption then why did they approve spending money before it was addressed????????????

              • If Congress and the World were so concerned about corruption then why did they approve spending money before it was addressed????????????

                Great question.

                I have no idea.

                They probably shouldn’t have, but we all know how firmly Congress’ collective heads are wedged up their collective asses, so…. ::shrug::

                I have a different question.

                Can’t we have TWO questions?

          • you agree that using aid as a pressure tactic is ok.

            It’s a bit of a gray area to me… like the above, maybe.

            But MOST OF THE TIME, I would think it would fall under the header of “lawful but awful.”

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          Read this very carefully………… whether the Prosecutor was or was not corrupt or was or was not investigating the company is irrelevant to the BS being tossed at Trump.

          It only matters in the world of political ass-hattery. Which is where Giuliani comes in.

          V.H. nailed it. This whole thing is about the Russia and DNC BS of 2016. Biden got tossed into the mix because of his statement being released to the public. Look at Trump’s call. That is how it fits together.

          Seems the only reason you are focused on the prosecutor is because Trump said he was a good one, so you are really just beating that same tired old horse about Trump lying or exaggerating.

          The current Ukraine govt. is reviewing all this. We will supposedly have the truth once they are done investigating. If you believe that is possible in Ukraine. They are trying, they really are, but they are fighting a long history of corruption.

          • I have not read this or watched, have only heard of its existence. Its Glen Beck, but I heard its pretty good info.
            https://www.glennbeck.com/glenn-beck/all-the-evidence-for-ukraine-the-scandal-explained

          • whether the Prosecutor was or was not corrupt or was or was not investigating the company is irrelevant to the BS being tossed at Trump.

            AGREED!

            It IS, however, relevant to the BS being tossed at Biden.

            It only matters in the world of political ass-hattery.

            Well, I mean, it also matters if Biden gets the nomination and is busy being tainted by a BS investigation in Ukraine due to Trump pushing a conspiracy theory, no?

            I mean, we can imagine a world wherein Biden did nothing wrong, was legitimately trying to protect the US’s interests, and then Trump came along and pushed the Ukrainian president into investigating his political rival, which caused enough damage to his campaign that Trump won an election he might not have otherwise won… right? We can imagine that scenario, can’t we? This might matter under that scenario, right?

            CONVERSELY, we might also imagine that Biden DID do something wrong and got away with it… and now he stands a decent chance of becoming President… seems pretty important to establish that he’s corrupt in this fashion before the election so that voters get to weigh that in their calculation, right? We can imagine that scenario, can’t we? This might matter under that scenario, right?

            So it’s pertinent. I’m trying to establish whether there’s reason to believe the prosecutor was good.. because that helps me know which of the above two scenarios might be more likely.

            political ass-hattery. Which is where Giuliani comes in.

            Well he is the czar of political ass-hattery…

            Seems the only reason you are focused on the prosecutor is because Trump said he was a good one, so you are really just beating that same tired old horse about Trump lying or exaggerating.

            NO!!!!!

            I’m asking about the prosecutor because Trump asked the president of another country to investigate his political rival… pertinent to that is the question of whether the allegation has any grounding in reality… pertinent to that is whether the prosecutor was good or bad.

            IF he was good, then odds go up that Biden engaged was corruptly trying to help his son.
            IF he was bad, then odds go up that Biden was trying to perform a legitimate job function.

            The question is at the root of whether Trump is “pressuring a foreign government to investigate his political rival based on a conspiracy theory” or whether he is “doing his job in a way that just so happens to oh so conveniently screw his political rival.”

            And, again, at the root of this is the million dollar question: WAS the prosecutor “very good, very tough,” or was he a do-nothing. Evidence suggests the later.

            The current Ukraine govt. is reviewing all this. We will supposedly have the truth once they are done investigating.

            Right.. supposedly, anyway… as you say….

            But just answer this: SUPPOSE that the prosecutor WAS a do-nothing or corrupt. And SUPPOSE that Trump knows this (or reasonably should know it). Does his pushing of the conspiracy theory and asking president Zelsdfnsakdjfnski for a “favor” to investigate his presumptive political rival… does that constitute an abuse of his position in your mind?

            If we can establish that the prosecutor was “very good, very tough,” then this strongly backs Trump’s case. If we can’t, then that hurts his case.

            IF the prosecutor was “very good, very tough,” and Trump knows this, then there’s a good reason for Trump to ask for the investigation… even if he’s politically motivated, it’s still a legitimate act.

            So can we support that? Because, again, all I have right now is your assertion that the prosecutor testified on his own behalf that he was good, and Trump’s word which, again, isn’t worth a damn. Conversely, we have several international agencies wanting him out, and his failure to cooperate with the UK on a laundering probe against the CEO of Burisma (before Hunter Biden started)… so by that, the preponderance says that this is a non-issue.. and that would suggest that it may be an abuse of Trump’s position to use it to harm his political rival ahead of an election.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              The stuff being tossed at Biden is handled the same way as the stuff tossed at Trump.

              Biden NEVER says the money was withheld due to his Son.

              BUT……….. where Biden is hanging out is his LIES about knowing anything about his Son’s business ventures. Nope, didn’t know……ignore that photo of me playing golf with my son and the head of the gas company. Ignore the photos of my son getting off air force 2 in China when I met with the Chinese, right before he got a fat contract with China.

              Now question for you. Given your view that Trump’s lying should disqualify him from being POTUS, I assume you agree that Biden should be disqualified for the same reason. Yes or No?

              • The stuff being tossed at Biden is handled the same way as the stuff tossed at Trump.

                Except that it’s not… Trump is the President of the United States asking a “favor” of a country that very much needs the aid. This “favor” is to launch an investigation into a conspiracy theory in order to taint his political rival ahead of an election.

                Not exaaaaccccctttttly the same thing.

                <Now question for you. Given your view that Trump’s lying should disqualify him from being POTUS, I assume you agree that Biden should be disqualified for the same reason. Yes or No?

                … I don’t seem to recall saying this…

                Lying makes them liars. If we “disqualified” politicians for being liars, there wouldn’t be… you know what.. I’m on ok with this.. let’s disqualify the lot of ’em!

                They are disqualified if they commit crimes which, you know, legally disqualify them. Otherwise, they’re just assholes who may or may not get my vote based on what my alternatives are.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              “So it’s pertinent. I’m trying to establish whether there’s reason to believe the prosecutor was good.. because that helps me know which of the above two scenarios might be more likely.”

              No, it does not. Maybe in your muddled thinking but no rationally. The underlying issue is the investigation of numerous allegations surrounding the 2016 election and possibly any linkage between Biden, or other Obama Administration people, and wrong doing. The prosecutor could have been bad and yet Biden still corrupt.

              BIDEN IS CORRUPT. But whether that matters to anyone besides those supporting Trump is yet to be seen. Looks by the way you constructed your scenarios you don’t care if he lies. Only if Trump lies about the prosecutor being good or bad.

              • The prosecutor could have been bad and yet Biden still corrupt.

                Could be..

                But it SUGGESTS that he wasn’t corrupt in THIS INSTANCE. Given that Trump is push to have him investigated by a foreign government based on this, I find it PERTINENT.

                BIDEN IS CORRUPT.

                Of course he is.

                They ALL are.

                Trump. Biden. Obama. Reagan. Your town dog catcher.

                But whether that matters to anyone besides those supporting Trump is yet to be seen.

                Here’s the thing.. Biden might have done something wrong here or he might not have. I don’t know. But he has certainly done something wrong.

                They all have.

                No one – and I mean NO ONE – plays politics at the highest levels without doing something wrong, corrupt, or illegal to one extent or another.

                Biden is no exception.

                He’s not a saint. And, even if he were, there are so many laws of such complexity, it is literally impossible to not violate one of them.

                I don’t have a problem with investigating Biden and prosecuting him if the evidence warrants it. I don’t have a problem – and in fact prefer it – if he ends up in jail for the rest of his life. I don’t even care if Hunter winds up in the cell next to him and Bernie Sanders on the other side. And Warren in the women’s prison up the road. Lock ’em all up. Where can I sign the petition?

                But I DO have a problem with the President using the power of his position to pressure another government to investigate his rivals… FOR POLITICAL GAIN.

                If everyone is a criminal – and they all are – then the Chief Executive acting in this manner is not “finding guild” but rather deciding who to punish, then working backward to find the guilt which justifies the persecution. It is not at all dissimilar to what the Blue Team in congress is trying to do to Trump – adjudging him guilty, then working backward to justify the charge – not because he’s guilt, not because of what he did or didn’t do, not because of “justice,” but because “Trump has to go down, so we just need to find the right bullet.”

                I’ll tell you what. I will drop my entire line of questioning and just agree that you’re completely right on everything on this subject – I’ll even donate $5 to MAGA – if you can just give me an honest “yes” to the following question: Do you believe that Donald Trump would have asked for this “favor” and pushed this much for a foreign investigation if, instead of Biden, it was a political ally?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              “But just answer this: SUPPOSE that the prosecutor WAS a do-nothing or corrupt. And SUPPOSE that Trump knows this (or reasonably should know it). Does his pushing of the conspiracy theory and asking president Zelsdfnsakdjfnski for a “favor” to investigate his presumptive political rival… does that constitute an abuse of his position in your mind?”

              NO!

              To many SUPPOSES in your construct. Nice how you even inserted “reasonable should know”, which is nothing but your personal opinion. And even if he did know my answer is NO.

              Look, there is a ton of garbage floating around about Russia, the DNC, Clinton, the 2016 elections, Biden, etc, etc.. Ukraine is a character in that story. I am thankful that Mr. Trump asked the new Ukrainian President to help “us” by investigating these allegations and putting them to bed. Let the chips fall where they may.

              Per the phone transcript released to the public, this is all that has happened and there is NO EVIDENCE of any other motivation. What the Dems should have done was get on board and pushed for QUICK completion of any such investigations. Then if Biden is clean he would be free of all garbage being tossed around next year.

              Political prediction????? Sure. If they find nothing, and if Mr. Trump feels the Ukrainian President is his buddy, he will accept the outcome but Giuliani and the talking heads will not. They will continue using the FOG to keep their base stirred up. But Mr. Trump will do just like he did with the Birther thing. “If it were not for me we would have never gotten to the bottom of it. I made him produce his birth certificate.”

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius, you and this prosecutor nonsense. You taking a bunch of runny Bull Shit, putting it in a box and then telling me “look, the bull shit is solid because it isn’t running all over”.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              Try this if you can’t read the affidavit. Go to the underlined link to the affidavit in the story.

              https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

              • For instance, Burisma’s American legal representatives

                Because they’re Burisma’s legal representation… not the US government. Their job is to protect Burisma… I would think this is obvious…

                1.) If the Ukraine prosecutor’s firing involved only his alleged corruption and ineptitude, why did Burisma’s American legal team refer to those allegations as “false information?”

                … Because their job is to represent Burisma. If the old prosecutor was their buddy, then it make sense to say the allegations against him were false.

                You would expect them to say “yup.. you got him.. he was in the tank for us the whole time!”

                2.) If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden has adamantly claimed, why would Burisma’s American lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?

                Because they’re Burisma’s lawyers and now they have to wonder what the new prosecutor means for them… you would… what? Expect them to do nothing?

                Some media outlets have reported that, at the time Joe Biden forced the firing in March 2016, there were no open investigations. Those reports are wrong. A British-based investigation of Burisma’s owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for documents was not met. But the Ukraine Prosecutor General’s office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me. One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.

                NOW, THIS! THIS is interesting.. this is the meat of what I was asking that you’ve fought and obfuscated against all day…..

                “A British-based investigation of Burisma’s owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for documents was not met.” This supports Biden’s alleged position that the guy sucked.

                But then…

                “But the Ukraine Prosecutor General’s office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me. One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.” Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh…. so…. time to go digging…..

                If that last one pans out, then I have no issues with opening an investigation.

                (I will still have an issue with Trump pushing it for political reasons, however).

                From my digging….. Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden’s account, though they claim the pressure was applied over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day.

                If Hunter Biden wasn’t appointed to the board yet, why was the US applying pressure to remove the prosecutor already..?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              This Sir is a load of crap:

              “Except that it’s not… Trump is the President of the United States asking a “favor” of a country that very much needs the aid. This “favor” is to launch an investigation into a conspiracy theory in order to taint his political rival ahead of an election.”

              This is nothing but you repeating a narrative pushed by the Democrats which is NOT BASED on any facts presented.

              Mr. Trump as that Ukrain “do us a favor” as in we the united states. There is no link between the funds and his request. The funds were released, some reports say not even delayed. Ye the investigation isn’t done. So it it were connected by turn loose of the funds? Oh, and then there are the diplomats who said it was not connected and the Ukrainians who said they weren’t aware of it being withheld except what they read in the news. You ASSIGN MOTIVE where you have no evidence of motive.

              Today you are a hypocrite of major proportions. You condemn those that would do this same kind of unfounded accusations towards others, then do it to Trump.

  52. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/03/report-irs-whistleblower-with-secondhand-information-claims-treasury-official-tried-interfering-with-trump-tax-audit/

    Looky here, we have another, “whistleblower” how convenient. They want Trumps taxes, so a leaked decides to help them out.

  53. Trump: “She [Pelosi] said ‘we can’t impeach him for this conversation, that’s a great conversation!’ ”

    If Pelosi said that, I will donate my life savings to Trump’s reelection campaign.

  54. Canine Weapon says:

    Elaina Plott, WH corespondent posted her text with Rudy two days ago:

    Of course.. I’m not entirely sure what he means by a Jaw Suit…

  55. Sigh…..this Ukranian thing…………………much ado about nothing. Not worth the air to debate it. It means nothing and certainly is not impeachable……but……what the hell.

    I would rather thay come and try to take guns. I noticed a new Titanium rail on the stern of the Hammer….anxious to see what it is for.

    • Sigh…..this Ukranian thing…………………much ado about nothing. Not worth the air to debate it. It means nothing and certainly is not impeachable……but……what the hell.

      Maybe, maybe not.

      Probably not.

      I think the Blue Team is going to eat a face-full of dirt on this one and hand the re-election to Trump on a silver platter unless he doesn’t something monumentally stupid… which is always a possibility.

      I noticed a new Titanium rail on the stern BOW of the Hammer….anxious to see what it is for.

      [reads intelligence briefing] Well, when you couple that with the twin Saturn V’s strapped to either side of the hull, I’d say you have a pretty good argument for a hyper-sonic battering ram that’ll cleave through an aircraft carrier like a hot knife butter.

  56. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    I’m starting to wonder here. It seems that a US official blackmailing foreign governments seems to be OK with some. See I look at it different. I see the US as having overthrown a government because WE said it was corrupt. Then WE installed a new government which WE again said was corrupt which was then voted out of office in favor of a new government which WE now say is corrupt.

    I am fairly certain the corruption shoe….is on the other foot.

    Matt…..anybody ever tell you you missed your calling? Your contortions indicate you would have made a fine Rabbi.

    • It seems that a US official blackmailing foreign governments seems to be OK with some.

      I don’t know that I’m “OK” with it.. but it seems……. reasonable within the context.

      If I’m going to give your country aid, it seems reasonable to withhold that aid until I’m confident that you’re doing something about the corruption in your country, so that my aid doesn’t wind up being stolen / misused.

      GENERALLY SPEAKING, I don’t like the idea of the government using “aid” as a tool for coercing other governments to do thing they don’t want to do, but it IS a fairly standard tool. That you insist on calling this “blackmail” suggests that it’s somehow different than all the other times we attach strings to our aid.

      For example, Pence has attached strings to foreign aid to for women’s health that it needs to push abstinence only. Would you charge that he is “blackmailing” other countries to push abstinence only? Or would you say “that’s the US’s money, and they can take it on our terms or not at all”?

      Mathius: “Hey can you give me $50 to help me make rent this month?”
      SKT: “Ok, but only if you promise you won’t actually spend it on hookers and blackjack.”
      Mathius: “STOP BLACKMAILING ME!”

      See I look at it different. I see the US as having overthrown a government because WE said it was corrupt.

      Didn’t overthrow a government. We pushed out a prosecutor who, by all evidence, wasn’t doing his job. And we did this as a precondition of given them money.

      I am fairly certain the corruption shoe….is on the other foot.

      Of course you do.

      Because everybody here seems to believe that only the Democrats are ever corrupt.

      Matt…..anybody ever tell you you missed your calling?

      Yes.

      I probably should have been an engineer, to be honest.

      Your contortions indicate you would have made a fine Rabbi.

      Shalom!

  57. “When you hold the highest office in the land, it comes with unique responsibilities. Not just to be above impropriety, but to be above the appearance of impropriety” – Mike Pence

    Is Trump above the “appearance of impropriety”?

  58. North Korea says underwater-launched missile test succeeded

    https://apnews.com/d6a459d8c4774153ad71de95e9effea0

    Thoughts?

  59. Happy birthday to Charlton Heston!

  60. Hmmm……..

  61. Just A Citizen says:

    SPLASH………….. Schiff’s impeachment rocket crashing back to earth before it could reach orbit………

    https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/10/04/big-update-narrative-schiff-pushing-cherry-picked-texts-just-got-blown/

    Meanwhile, I have been trying to explain to the commentors on The Hill why yesterdays text message and supposed phone call by the diplomat were not the EARTH SHATTERING event hey believe. Why would they believe it? Because that is what CNN, Politico and the Hill pushed in their headlines last night.

  62. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    “But I DO have a problem with the President using the power of his position to pressure another government to investigate his rivals… FOR POLITICAL GAIN”

    I would also, but since there is no evidence to this effect I guess you can rest easy for now.

    “Do you believe that Donald Trump would have asked for this “favor” and pushed this much for a foreign investigation if, instead of Biden, it was a political ally?”

    Loaded question. It presumes the criteria is ally vs. adversary without placing these in context. First you would have to answer: “Would Trump view anyone an ally if they were involved in the Russian collusion story or the efforts to undermine his presidency by supporting the Mueller investigation or if they were constantly calling him a criminal and calling for his head every day?????

    The proper question is: Would Trump have called for the investigation of Biden even if he were not running for POTUS. My answer is YES.

    Furthermore, I think Trump is hoping the investigation catches a whole lot more than just Biden. Like maybe Clinton, Brennan and a whole lot more.

    I personally think he will be greatly disappointed.

    • Loaded question. It presumes the criteria is ally vs. adversary without placing these in context.

      Yes.

      THAT is the context I’m offering for this question.

      Biden is an opponent. He is running for the office Trump currently holds.

      An ally is someone who helps Trump politically. Imagine Jared Kushner were in this spot, having allegedly done what Biden allegedly did. Does Trump push President Zeldfsadifnsdkjbfkski to open an investigation into Kushner?

      “Would Trump view anyone an ally if they were involved in the Russian collusion story or the efforts to undermine his presidency by supporting the Mueller investigation or if they were constantly calling him a criminal and calling for his head every day?????

      If the person is doing these things, then they’re adversarial and not allies.

      If a person were an ally, would Trump still have done what he did?

      The proper question is: Would Trump have called for the investigation of Biden even if he were not running for POTUS. My answer is YES.

      Probably. Trump still has a hard-on for Clinton and she’s not running.

      He’s a petty man-child and a bully, and if he thinks he can score points by persecuting a person – whether they’re a direct opponent or not – he will do so.

      But that’s not the question I asked.

      I asked, if it wasn’t Biden, but a political ally who had allegedly done the things in Ukraine which Biden has allegedly done, would Trump be asking for the “favor” of opening an investigation into them?

      It’s that simple: Is trump chasing this lead because he wants to take down a rival or is he chasing this lead because he would change it no matter who was on the other end of it. And I don’t think if Jared Kushner or Mike Pence, etc, were the one being implicated, that Trump would be chasing it. Do you?

      Furthermore, I think Trump is hoping the investigation catches a whole lot more than just Biden. Like maybe Clinton, Brennan and a whole lot more.

      Of course he would. If he could take down Biden AND Clinton, you’d probably have to scrape him off the ceiling with a spatula. The more enemies he can take down, the happier he’ll be.

      But, again, that’s the key.. ENEMIES. He wouldn’t be pursing this if his allies were on the other side. Why? Because he doesn’t actually care about it. He just wants to USE it to taint his political rival for personal political gain…. exactly like the Blue Team in congress is trying to do to him.

      I personally think he will be greatly disappointed.

      Probably.

      But it won’t matter. The Blue Team is working diligently to guarantee his reelection anyway.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        YES I do think he would have asked. For the reasons I stated. Because for them to be mixed up in this they would be a RIVAL by definition. Anyone on the other side of this would NOT BE AN ALLIE.

        Trump is not trying to “taint” his “enemies”. HE IS SEEKING REVENGE because HE BELIEVES the Russian Hoax was orchestrated by people within the Govt. and Dem and Rep parties WHO WERE BREAKING THE LAW. He is not beyond hanging a few of the Never Trumper Republicans if they are involved.

        He understands this is destroying the country and his ability to MAGA. He believes there are TRAITORS to the nation working against him and he intends to uncover them so the American people will realize he has been right all along. He has been the victim of an attempt to throw him out of office and it started before he was sworn in.

        This is not about digging up dirt on a political opponent. It is much more than that. And I PERSONALLY THINK IT IS JUSTIFIED AND PROPER. It also shows some COURAGE because I am sure people urged him to back away after the Mueller report. But he is determined to reveal the stench so he forged ahead.

        • Oh, boy, JAC…

          Did Gman ship you a mysterious neon liquid? Put the cup down and back away slowly.

          Anyway….

          Trump is not trying to “taint” his “enemies”. HE IS SEEKING REVENGE because

          Because? Because? Who cares why, because.

          Trump is not trying to “taint” his “enemies”. HE IS SEEKING REVENGE

          Fine. Not attempting to taint his enemies, but rather exact revenge.

          Is it an appropriate use of the foreign policy powers of the office of the Presidency to exact revenge on people?

          This isn’t even about the “Russian hoax”… this is whether Biden did an illicit favor for his son. This whole topic is just a pretense for hurting Biden for political gain to exact revenge.

          That’s not ok, Jac…. it’s not ok.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            YES, it is appropriate when that revenge involves simply revealing the ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES of those involved. It is not revenge in and of itself. I thought I had made that pretty clear. How do you get revenge against those who did illegal things to you? You expose their illegal activity and then you send them to jail. Although there is a slim chance of that happening.

            THIS is not about Biden. He was a side comment in a long conversation. Only because YOU and the DNC media are focused on Biden is Trump now howling about Biden. I happen to think this is a mistake on his part, by the way. He could handle the media much more effectively in a way that would help in with the public, without calling Biden out specifically.

            So now your argument is he should not pursue investigation of what he thinks is illegal activity just because it could be viewed as Revenge. Add that to “it involves a political opponent” and you wonder why corruption is never exposed.

            • So now your argument is he should not pursue investigation of what he thinks is illegal activity just because it could be viewed as Revenge

              Jesus, JAC, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

              My argument is that he shouldn’t be targeting people for “revenge” (or whatever) and then finding the crime they committed as a justification.

              Either he goes after corruption – GREAT – or he doesn’t.

              But everyone in Washington is a criminal. Himself included. Pence included. Jared included. Probably even Ivanka. Hell, maybe even Baron, I don’t know. If they had a dog, that dog would probably also be a criminal.

              The order of operations is backward. THAT is my problem.

              He has decided that Biden has to go down, so that’s why he’s “pursuing the allegations of [this] crime having been committed.”

              He wouldn’t give a flying rats’ ass about this alleged crime if the person who allegedly did it was an ally. But it’s an enemy, so he does care. It’s an opportunity for “revenge.” And you call it a “side comment,” but I call it a paragraph including an introduction to Rudy and a DA for an extended conversation on the subject.

              The order of operations is backward. Biden has to go down.. what can I get him on. This thing? Ok, let’s make sure that gets investigated. Not because of the crime but because of the person.

              This is the same problem as what’s going on with Blue Team in congress and Trump. Trump has to go down, so they’re going to investigate him until they find something they can prove he’s guilty of.

              It’s backward.

              If someone he liked had committed this crime, he wouldn’t care.
              If Biden had committed some other crime, Trump would care abut that.

              Why? Because the thing he is trying to do is to get Biden.

              It’s an abuse of the Executive branch.

              Imagine if Obama had just unilaterally opened up investigations into every Republican in a major office or on a new network. Just, given the DA that instruction. Find something that they did wrong – a crime – and charge them with it.

              I mean, he’s just pursing crime, right? Nothing wrong with that, right? He’s just upholding the law, right?

              I get that this is a bit hyperbolic, but I think it’s illustrative. You can’t choose the target, then find the crime. You can’t SELECTIVELY enforce the law such that it oh so conveniently just so happens to screw your enemies and not your friends.

              It’s not ok when Democrats in congress do it to Trump. It’s not ok when Trump does it to Biden.

              You think the Democrats in congress would give a shit about any of Trump’s various mini-scandals if Obama had done them? Of course not. They only care because they’re out to get Trump. They’ve decided he’s guilty, and the only question left for them is “guilty of what?” Trump is doing the same thing to Biden.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                “My argument is that he shouldn’t be targeting people for “revenge” (or whatever) and then finding the crime they committed as a justification.”

                Well good then, because that is NOT WHAT HE IS DOING.

                But that really has not been your argument Mathius. It is that because he is investigating all this stuff and because Biden’s name is also in the mix of “stuff” that he is ONLY doing this to get to Biden.

                My take he is doing this to get the truth, and he believes that by doing so he will get his revenge. Not that he seeks revenge therefore he is constructing a witch hunt, truth be damned.

                What is really the unknown question, the one ignored by most (except those who really, really hate him) is HOW did he come to believe all this “stuff”. Why does he think there was a massive illegal conspiracy???? Was there some evidence he saw? Is it only based on the other media reports which cast shadows on the whole thing? Or is it Rudy and Sean Hannity whispering in his ear.

                This question has come up on the left. You know why? Because it to can fit their impeachment narrative. Cause the guy who listens to others must be unstable. Nice how that all works out for the Hate Trump crowd.

                When someone produces evidence that the investigations he requested are ONLY about political payback or efforts to ONLY damage Biden I will admit it and criticize it. But until then I stand by my opinion, because that is all the evidence presented supports.

  63. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    I did not post Solomon’s story for you to opine on it. You did that a week ago. I posted it to provide the link to the actual “sworn testimony” of the prosecutor.

    I don’t think I have ever claimed that Biden’s blackmail was directly linked to his Son. But it may be linked to some connection to the company by someone else. I think it more likely it was related to Europe/USA’s desire to undo anyone tied to the Govt. which we did not support, the one which was to friendly with Russia.

    To S.K.’s argument……….I recall it was John Kerry who met with the opposition to make it known the USA supported the ouster of the sitting govt. I have argued that was not a coup by the USA. But it is interfering. Not as bad as having your NGO directly campaigning against the opposition, but still interfering.

    • Not as bad as having your NGO directly campaigning against the opposition, but still interfering.

      We love to interfere with foreign governments.. but then we get pissy when foreign governments interfere with us… ::shrug::

  64. Just A Citizen says:
    • You can pretend, if you want, that there was a purpose in hiring Hunter Biden beyond currying favor with his father.

      I would pretend no such thing.

      It is blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain and who isn’t drowning in liberal kool-aid that this is why they hired him and why they paid him so much.

      While this is nothing new – relations of senior politicians landing highly paid cushy jobs for which they’re under qualified – it is still bullshit and is rightfully called such.

      I’m not entirely sure can be done about it… how do you “prove” that he didn’t just interview very well? I mean, our BS detectors might be blaring, but legally? How do you actually make it illegal for people to accept good paying jobs because they’re related to someone in office?

      I mean, if my father were the President, you can bet your ass I’d slip it into conversation at every job interview I had and imply that I had his ear. And, in my case, while it’d be true that I had his ear, the odds of me influencing anything he does is exactly zero.

      Anyway, while I do not doubt for one second that H. Biden was hired for his access to dad, nor do I doubt for one second that he used that access to at least gain dad’s ear, I have nothing little to suggest that J. Biden actually did anything wrong as a result. (Mathius is still digging on that link you posted previously, but it’s dense and hard to get to objective facts).

      THAT SAID, even if we stipulate that the Bidens were corrupt and ought to be in jail (and I’m happy to stipulate this), it doesn’t change the fact that I believe Trump is pursuing this line of inquiry for political advantage. He’s using the foreign policy powers of his office to conduct opposition research and/or drum up an investigation to harm his political opponent ahead of an election. And, unless he would ALSO behave this way if there other party were an ally, that’s not OK.

  65. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Re: Trump and Biden’s apparent dishonesty…..”If not now, when?”

    Or perhaps we should just let it slide……………………………..

    • Or perhaps we should just let it slide……………………………..

      Nope.. no need to let it slide….

      But I’ll offer you the same question I offered JAC (and to which I still haven’t received an answer): If it weren’t Biden, but a political ally, say Pence or Jared, do you believe that Trump would still have brought it up with the Ukrainian president, asking for a “favor” that they be investigated?

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        First of all are you being dishonest or just unaware that the favor comment was in relation to something quite different?

        Then I will answer with the following……If there were evidence or if you prefer strong suspicion backed by a bragado comment of Jared or Pence regarding their use of possible blackmail, then and only then can I answer or YOU, ask the question.

        Sort of like, an exaggeration, I know, but like FDR asking on December 8th if we should attack the Dutch for Pearl harbor. Answer would be “WHEN and IF”.

        • First of all are you being dishonest or just unaware that the favor comment was in relation to something quite different?

          I am unsure what his “favor” was or was not in relation to. I read the summary same as you. Rational minds can disagree.. That’s something that happens when you have a President who can barely form coherent sentences being recapped in summary notes.

          Maybe the favor was to him.. maybe it was to the US.. maybe he said flavor and they just misheard?

          It’s hard to say what his words mean because, quite often, his words literally have no meaning.

          Then I will answer with the following……If there were evidence or if you prefer strong suspicion backed by a bragado comment of Jared or Pence regarding their use of possible blackmail, then and only then can I answer or YOU, ask the question.

          In other words, you won’t answer the question.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            One cannot answer a question if there is no basis for it. Hypothetically one would say yes under EXACTLY the same circumstances. But comparing apples to oranges when the oranges are out of season is an exercise in stupidity. Somehow by saying “YES” to an imponderable, you are making an equivalency where there can be none. Since my Dad was alive and 17 when John Dillinger was robbing banks you would have to ask me if my dad should have been shot down by Melvin Purvis if he was robbing banks. Now, just how much sense does that question make?

            Some spectrum guy on the radio yesterday pointed out that there were 541 words between “favor” and “Biden”. Right after “favor” was “crowdstrike” one part of the DNC/Russia/ collusion hoax. That I believe was the “favor” asked. If ya wanna sketch that through the other 530 odd words between, well, that IS a stretch but you would be in great company with Adam and Nancy and Joe Scarborough.

            • One cannot answer a question if there is no basis for it.

              I can answer all manner of hypothetical.

              I can even imagine that a political ally of Trump’s might have committed a crime comparable to that which Biden is accused.

              I know it’s tough to reallllly, realllly, stretch our brain out to the radical notion that there might be people on Trump’s side of the aisle who have done corrupt things in their lives, but let’s see if we can wrap our brains around it.

              I have faith in you. I think you can do it. I believe in you.

              I know the notion of a Trump ally being corrupt is a ludicrous proposition, but you’re a very smart man with more than a century of life-experience.. I’m believe that you, of all people, can achieve this miraculous feat of imagination.

              Why don’t you give it another shot?

              I know it’s hypothetical since, of course, no Trump ally would ever commit a crime, nor even be accused of one, so I understand that, having no basis in reality, the answer could be anything, anything at all, but why not give it your best shot?

              A Trump ally allegedly commits a crime in another country… does Trump personally ask the President of that country to investigate it?

              • “A Trump ally allegedly commits a crime in another country… does Trump personally ask the President of that country to investigate it?”

                Yes he does, but not for the same reason he asks for a political foe to be investigated. He wants information on his foe in order to damage him/her politically. He wants information on his ally in order to plan how to protect him/her politically.

                In my opinion, any president would do this.

                Murf

              • Let me hasten to add…I’m not saying I like the reality of it, just that I believe that is how it is.

                While still on the subject…what would President Mathius do if a foe allegedly committed a crime in another country? Or an ally?

                Murf

  66. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Too many remind me of the timid townsfolk in “High Noon”. Will Kane stands alone.

  67. I want to be clear about something here.

    We’re all criminals according to the law.

    You’ve probably committed at least one felony today and haven’t even realized it.

    I’ve committed several.

    This becomes a problem when it’s not a question of “who is a criminal” but rather “who does the government want to prosecute” and then working backward to find the crime.

    Is Biden a criminal? Almost certainly. Did he do anything wrong with Burisma and the prosecutor? I don’t know, but he definitely did something for which he can be jailed. Should he spend the rest of his life in jail? Almost certainly. And several lifetimes after that.

    BUT is he being pursued because of his alleged crime? Or is this alleged crime being pursued because of who he is?

  68. Even simpler question:

    Is Trump pursuing Biden because of his alleged crime?
    Or
    Is Trump pursing this alleged crime because of who Biden is?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Trump is NOT PURSUING Biden. It is that simple.

      Trump is pursuing investigations that will answer the allegations/rumors/inuendo/etc. etc. surrounding the Russian collusion hoax and any and all things that are related, included the possible wrong doing of VP Biden due to Biden bragging about him making them an offer they couldn’t refuse.

      He is pursuing the allegations of crimes having been committed.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        If you expand your horizons here I think you will see the web that surrounds US dealings under the Obama Administration with a government in the Ukraine who owed its very existence to the Obama Administration. I think the Biden Dealings are more than tangential.

  69. Governor Abbott to Mayor of Austin……clean this city up or I will do it or you.

  70. It did not go through the first time…….so…….

    From: The Colonel
    To: City of New York

    “Illegal Alien”

    Now, come get me.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      LMAO……………. They would melt in the heat before they got 50 miles inside the border.

  71. A couple of my observations on the Trump-Ukraine call. First this was a typical first contact between two executives. Start with the niceties and move on to business. One of Trump’s points was that we would like help with the 2016 election interference. Both parties knew that the Ukraine was involved. The message was when you get your guy in place have him contact my guys. This is a typical conversation between business executives. The executives do not handle the details but make it clear that the subordinates have a clear path to negotiate.

    The second point I would like to make is that unless you are a mind reader, you do not know what Trump’s intentions were other than what is stated in the transcript which is vague. As such, he gets the benefit of doubt. Legally it is called reasonable doubt.

    Now with respect to the Lahey, Durban, Menendez letter there is no doubt. The wanted information on collusion with Russia from the Ukraine with a subtle warning that they control foreign aide. Those condemning Trump for his comments on the phone must also condemn these Senators because their interference was just a political.

    • This is a great “satire” troll hit on AOC. The whole thing was put on by a Right Wing group.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        No, No, if it was Lyndon LaRouche, it was NOT right wing. An insult to all right wingers. Besides, it makes perfect sense except we should eat people of child bearing age. They have a much bigger carbon footprint and if we eat them they cannot have babies. In effect….a twofer!

  72. Perhaps it is time to teach the real storyabout the War between the States with its relationship to slavery…..What is not taught in the schools is that the slave trade was a Southern Democrat movement….and it took a Republican President to end it….and when it ended in the South, it did NOT end in the Northern mills until 1869.

    Wonder what they have to say about that?

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Look all those yahoos think that slavery never existed until the US was formed and they apparently, based on all the C-Span hoopla this past month at Jamestown, think that was 1619!

      Did I neglect to mention that they also believe slavery was exclusively white on black?

  73. Trump is attacked, sued, and impeachment has been mentioned over emoluments. On businesses that he has owned for years before he became President. These businesses weren’t created to take advantage of his position as President. Then we have Biden, who’s son is making lots of money solely because of his father’s position and contacts. Biden’s situation is really clear and in your face but I wonder how many family members of our politicians on both sides of the aisle have become rich in the same way. So why should I take these attacks against Trump seriously, just because he chose to let his family run his already established businesses? So emoluments vs. becoming rich by politician, opinions.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Unfortunately there is NO precedent I can think of about Trump’s businesses. Had Perot been elected, we might have seen something because of his computer businesses and I wonder but doubt that there was a spike in peanut purchases from Jimmy Carter.

      The only other thing I can imagine would be large purchases of books written by a candidate . If 100,000 copies of “It takes a village” were purchased during Hillary’s presidency from a sole source one might question the purchase.

%d bloggers like this: