Crat Cowardice

11234The whole impeachment inquire is an act of cowardice because the Crats can’t win fairly in an election anymore.  It will not go anywhere because if it did they would get crushed for years to come.  I’m amazed at how the Liberals seem to fall for the Liberal media’s BS.

Here’s a pic from trail cam at a new area I’m scouting.  🙂

MOULTRIE DIGITAL GAME CAMERA

Comments

  1. 😎

  2. Dale A Albrecht says:

    The Democrats have a seriously short memory plus Trump is not being supplied good ammunition to vocally remind the “PEOPLE” if just a few years ago Obama and Hillary were chanting that Mubarak in Eygpt must go. Corruption, you name it. A staunch ally, especially after Sadat was assassinated by the Islamic Brotherhood for making peace with Israel. Food and lack of jobs plus the Brotherhood was disrupting enough of Eygpt’s bread and butter tourism. Mubarak went, charged with corruption eventually found innocent. The Islamic Brotherhood took over and ripped up their constitution and started provoking Israel. The army removed the Brotherhood wanting nothing to do with another war and humiliating defeat. But both Obama and Kerry very publically threatened Eygpt that if they DO NOT reinstate the terror group Islamic Islamic britherhoid back to power the US would WITHHOLD $Billions of ordered military weapons. Egypt did not yield to the Obama administration pressure. But I do believe they are buying from other sources now, hedging their bets.

  3. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Though Susan Rice is in a book tour giving a back hand to Trump on Syria it was a light slap. She did not however mince words about Hillary and Benghazi. Of Rice being put from and center on what was so obvious a lie about the killing of ambassador Stevens and his security team. With HRC indisposed.

    I thought it appropriate because remember when HRC was running against Obama and saying what would he do when awaken at 9300 with a crisis., implying she has vast experience of managing international events …as it turns out she had none plus was a gleeful murderer of foreign leaders

    Trump us trying to extract the US from bullshit interventions from many previous leaders. He’s the only one who has made any progress with North Korea un my whole life. Others just paid them off. Much less where is the UN it was their war. Oh I forgot sitting by as useless as tits in a (whatever)

  4. We got our powered restored about 3:30 pm Friday. So we were down over 3.5 days. Just to show how generous PG&E is, they will not charge me for the power I did not consume during the period.

    • It’s seems the wildfires didn’t care about the power outage. Your State is a freaking mess, I really feel for Ya.

      • PG&E was advertising the upcoming wind event and possible outages. At the same time the Forest Service decided to have a controlled burn in the Sierras. Naturally they did not get it out before the wind hit so now we have an uncontrolled fire and heavy smoke in the area. The AOC syndrome is catching.

    • Yeah but…you got your power back in time to watch Penn State take care of Iowa. So far, so good. Looks like I’m gonna have to cheer for the Nittany Lions and the Badgers for the remainder of the season.

      • They certainly made a thriller out of the game. On to Mich next week.

        On the PG&E thing. Out here there is a lot of political fallout. It remains to be seen if anything will come of it. PG&E did pull maintenance funds and distribute them as profits for several years. Thus the degradation of the power lines and other equipment. The state has mandated a high percentage of renewable power (hydro not included) which has driven up costs since that power is more expensive. Naturally those costs are passed on to rate payers. The state has mandated that they purchase power from home solar at retail rates although I do believe that has now ended. PG&E is responsible for maintaining the grid voltage level so when solar and wind is not available, they either have to have hot ready rapid reserves or purchase the same on the spot market. The PG&E management bought into the AGW stuff so give out subsidies for electric cars (over and above the state and federal tax subsidies). This is typically the charging costs for first 2 years. The Public Utilities Comm. (PUC) in CA is corrupt as well as the PG&E management. PG&E gives large donations to politicians. So the basic system is a mess.

        No consider that CA claims to be the leader for the nation in clean energy along with many other things. If the nation follows CA they will get the same results and we will continue to slide towards 3rd world status.

        On another issue, a couple of years ago MoonBeam convinced the voters to pass a new gas tax to fund highways. This was in addition to the existing tax which the state had ripped off for other purposes. They staunchly promised to not touch the new funds and only apply them to highways. Well last week our new Gov. signed and EO and moved gas tax money to fund railroads and other projects. I all likely hood he will get away without without any consequences.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Here is my take on the PG&E thing.

          It is just like when the School board threatens to cut kids education if the public calls for more accountability. Or the Council threatens your health and safety if you don’t approve a bond issue.

          PG&E was being harassed by litigation. So how do you push back against the political lawyers harassing you? You cut off power the next time the wind blows. Eliminating any monetary risk and pushing the political risk onto your detractors.

          • Yes, the move is political. They want the legislature to indemnify them for their past losses. The PUC has leveled meaningless sanctions and Newsom is threatening to demand a $100 rebate to each household and $250 to each business. The money would be better spent on more tree trimming and upgrades. I would be happier if the demanded the end to executive and employee bonuses and an end to dividend payments with all the money being diverted to infrastructure. They could also stop the increasing requirements for “clean” energy which just drives up the cost of power.

            Time to invest in horses and buggies.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          I just completed a 1500 mile trip from NC to the Mid Hudson Valley.

          I pulled up and made a list of highway capable electric cars. The average miles between charges was 122 miles. Based on that average I would have had to find a charging station a minimum of 12 times while on the road. All cars to get an 80% charge at a quick charging station was 30 minutes. So I’d have had to stop more times or sit longer to get more charge. Calculate even more time list getting off the hwy funding a charging station or waiting for someone ahead of you to finish charging their vehicle. Much less at my stop in historic Fredericksburg at a b&b the parking was on the street. I probably would have pissed away 6-12 hours for the charging of this vehicle that will save the planet. Whereas my explorer SUV from start to finish I filled up 5 times and am still running around on the last fill up. Average time at a station was less than 10 minutes. No ripping off my friends power at their house in NY to get a full charge. Total fuel costs $175.

          Amtrak was more $ plus it entailed drive to the city. Park at the convention center. Get a bus to Wilson, catch the train, late evening reach Penn Station. WAIT WAIT WAIT catch train in AM to Poughkeepsie was more than 24 hours. Multiply that times 2.

          Airfare from Raleigh to Stewart RT was $306. Plus $60 extra to check my bag because they changed the size allowed in the cabin from 24″ to 21″. Plus 6 hours R/T from Nrw Bern to Raleigh plus a daily parking charge, plus UBER getting from Poughkeepsie to Newburgh. $25-$50 getting up at 0300 to get the plane at 0600.

          Our economy would grind to a halt.

          • I pulled up and made a list of highway capable electric cars. The average miles between charges was 122 miles. Based on that average I would have had to find a charging station a minimum of 12 times while on the road. All cars to get an 80% charge at a quick charging station was 30 minutes.

            I get maybe 80 miles, but a Tesla can get up to 300+. I can get that up to 100-110 if I drive like a grandma. If I drive aggressively or have my heater on, that number can go all the way down to 40 miles.

            (note, there is a “reserve tank,” and I believe it’s an extra ~10%, but I’m not counting that)

            I have a level 2 charger at home, which takes ~4 hours from empty to full. I can get to ~80% in about an hour give or take. An L2 uses a 240v plug (like what your dryer uses), so this is a special setup I had to install in my garage. An L2 uses a standard outlet and can be used anywhere, but takes ~2-3x as long.

            A rapid charging station uses a level 3 charger, which does this even faster, but obviously, they are fewer and further between.

            An electric car is fantastic for my 11mi (22mi round trip) daily commute. I use maybe a quarter of my juice on a normal day or up to half if the weather’s bad or I speed too much or whatever. I can commute 3-4 days without charging, but it’s super convenient to charge in my garage, so I have never done this.

            HOWEVER, it sucks for longer hauls or when I have to transport anything. It’s also a two seater, so it’s not a family car.

            I pulled up and made a list of highway capable electric cars. The average miles between charges was 122 miles. Based on that average I would have had to find a charging station a minimum of 12 times while on the road. All cars to get an 80% charge at a quick charging station was 30 minutes.

            THE POINT is that an electric car is good for what an electric car is good for. It’s not a direct competitor of the internal combustion engine. It’s better for the things it’s better for, it’s worse for the things it’s worse for.

            Almost everyone living in a city could/would be better off with electric. Probably most country-folk, too.

            ALMOST. Anyone who drives more than ~50mi a day, or has to carry large loads, etc, would not be well served. There are plenty of 4-seater options, so it can be a family car, just mine isn’t.

            The problem is that you’re comparing the ICE’s best attribute to the electric engine’s worst attribute in a contest of that attribute. There’s no question that the ICE is better for long-distance or sheer power. But electric is better for nearly everything else.

            Total fuel costs $175.

            Speaking of electric being better…

            That same trip would have cost you a few dozen bucks in electricity. You might have spent more on snacks.

            I figure my daily commute round-trip costs me ~$0.40. Figure 22 mpg is a fairly standard efficiency for an ICE car, so that’s the equivalent of a gallon of gas used, or ~$3. Savings is around 86%.

            Wouldn’t you like to save 86% of your fuel cost.. .forever.. AND not decrease our reliance on the middle east and Texas?

            Our economy would grind to a halt.

            Again, only if EVERYONE switched over.

            That’s not going to happen. It’s just not a practical solution for everyone.

            But for the vast majority of people, it’s a great answer. And the more we build up the infrastructure, the better it is.

            I charge at the train station. I charge at mall. Sometimes I charge at my office. The more practical and widespread this becomes, the less and less the range and recharge-time issues matter. Right now, there are only 2-4 chargers in a lot, and only certain lots.. but that will increase with time.

            With enough infrastructure, I imagine 95% of people would be perfectly well served by an electric car.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I’m surprised that they didnt charge you for your power conservation efforts.😁

      like Spain drops a surcharge on those who installed solar panels, because the power companies were losing revenue.

  5. Stephen K. Trynosky says:
  6. LOS ANGELES, CA—Beto O’Rourke came under fire for his attack on religious liberty at the LGBTQ+++ town hall last night.

    But O’Rourke stuck to his guns—metaphorical guns, of course—and fired right back (again, only in metaphor).
    “See, this is the problem with this country,” he said. “You propose taking away guns, curbing free speech, and taxing people for their religious beliefs, and people immediately jump to that old, archaic, so-called ‘Bill of Rights.'” At this moment, he used finger quotes. “That’s why, when I am president [this got some chuckles], my first action in office will be to rename the Bill of Rights the Bill of Wrongs.”
    O’Rourke pointed out that the Bill of Rights actually has a bunch of injustices and wrongs: for one, it doesn’t allow O’Rourke to take everybody’s private property. For another thing, it doesn’t force everyone to believe the same things O’Rourke does. Finally, it allows people to say things that O’Rourke does not like.
    “The so-called ‘Bill of Rights’ is actually a long list of roadblocks to progress,” he said. The audience cheered wildly. One transgender black woman started rolling around on the floor as though she were in a Pentecostal church service. Don Lemon fainted of joy.
    At publishing time, O’Rourke had committed to forcing Americans to quarter British Redcoats as one of his first acts in office.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      One of the Progressive Party platform items, from good o’ Teddy’s day, was to make amending the Constitution easier. Cause you know, it was a road block to Progress.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      If the polling data is accurate, that is the trends and not the precise numbers, then the strategy is working. They know it and will continue until the polling turns against them.

      Meanwhile, they have filled the airwaves with their propaganda. Drowning out the efforts of Mr. Trump to deal directly with the issues or provide us with the counter arguments. It is also drowning out his surrogates.

      Personal Note: Mr. Trump had one of two choices when he came to office. Continue bashing the press or back off and treat them like all other presidents in recent times. He chose to continue fighting, even increasing the rage against them. He got exactly what the Press has promised to do to anyone who ever challenged them. “You don’t pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.”

  7. My view of the political spectrum: Marxists, Progressives, Liberals, Rhinos, Socially liberal but fiscally conservatives Libertarians) , Conservatives, Neo conservatives (war mongers). White nationalists are racists socialists as are BLM and Antifa. Somewhere in the middle are pragmatists who just want solutions that work. Leftists are the Marxist-Progressives.

    Pragar’s test for leftist vs liberal is if you believe in separate dorms for blacks, you are a leftist not a liberal. A liberal would treat all races as equal which frankly is the way true R’s would vote.

    Unfortunately the Democratic party is a party of leftist not liberals. There is no war in the party to bring it back to its roots.

    There is a war on the Republican side to weed out the Rhinos and bring the party back to its basics of fiscal conservationism and and individual rights.

  8. https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/10/14/taibbi-trump-faces-permanent-coup-from-adversaries-more-dangerous-than-him/

    If these geniuses in the press can see the problem, then become part of the solution. Start naming the leakers.

  9. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7569619/Horrific-video-meme-Donald-Trump-massacres-fake-news-media-shown-resort.html

    I certainly do not support these types of memes, but I would like to know if all the ones protesting this also protested the Kathy Griffiths severed head, the Caesar play in the park, the blow up the WH actress or the when was the last time an actor assassinated a president and the Antifa beat downs? All of these incidents should have been condemned universally. To not do so us hypocrisy.

    • This video is actually a year old or so. Dumb internet garbage made for clicks to make money. Meh, not worth even being concerned about.

  10. Speaking of the colonel’s birthday, today is my mother’s birthday.

    Saturday is my younger brother’s birthday. I got him his usual birthday card.

    • Is that the same James O’Keefe who has been repeatedly caught releasing deceptively edited videos against Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and NPR?

      The same James O’Keefe who was even called out as a liar by The Blaze?

      • He’s the same one the Left hates by producing accurate investigative reporting that the Left has tried desperately to debunk. The Blaze? Who the hell is that? LOL, I have heard the Liberal media scream “deceptively edited about these videos, only to have video forensics prove them wrong (as usual).

  11. SACRAMENTO, CA—California is being heralded as a progressive utopia after eliminating electricity entirely.

    Working by candelight at his desk, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a new law that bans electricity, propelling the state into a progressive futuristic paradise. Newsom said he got the idea while experiencing the latest round of rolling blackouts in the state. He decided to make the blackouts the law of the land.
    “Other, backward states still use carbon-heavy electricity, gas for heating and cooking, and wasteful air conditioning,” he said proudly as people applauded around him. “But not on my watch. California has progressed beyond these archaic concepts.”
    The law also bans vehicles, forcing pedestrians to use innovative new horseless carriages.
    Next on the legislative docket? The elimination of water-wasting toilets, to be replaced by just going on the sidewalk. A pilot program in San Francisco has been very successful, according to the homeless population there.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      He should also ban windows because by allowing sunlight in it’ll impact the candle makers business. But, i forgot the Calufirnua are also all vegans. NO tallow. But then again no beeswax because bees will be a protected species and destroying a nest is forbidden

      • But then again no beeswax

        Something something.. California… something something.. minding their beeswax…

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    I think the author of this piece forgot one key question. One that I identified after having long conversations with all the California Cops who decided to move to my part of the country.

    WHO are they policing on a daily basis?

    If you put the best person, with the best training, who has the greatest respect for humans in a war zone on a daily basis, they will eventually react to all situations as a threat.

    This is true in the military and it is true in law enforcement. I don’t know the situation for this officer but I have seen the tainted and outright prejudice that has developed in police who deal with the cesspool of society each day.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/14/opinions/atatiana-jefferson-police-shooting-death-alexander/index.html

    • I saw this and meant to bring it here for an opinion.

      I hadn’t seen the body-cam footage… hard to see how he could possibly have thought he was justified in his action..

      What you seem to be suggesting though is “cops deal with so much of the dregs of humanity that they can’t help but act in such wildly reckless ways.”

      I can’t help but imagine that this cop was just a kid, maybe a rookie on one of his first late-night patrols.. a bad area.. too much adrenaline coursing through his blood.. he shouts and maybe make a sudden movement and he just.. reacts…

      I’m not a cop, and I’m not in possession of all the facts. I have no relevant experience. I don’t know the rules and protocols and training requirements.

      But I do know that if you’re minding your own business in your own home and some unidentified voice shouts at you “put your hands up show me your-” and then shoots you dead through your window, there’s something wrong here.. and it’s not your fault.

      • The cop screwed up big time, no telling what was going through his mind. I wouldn’t want to be a cop these days. I would be constantly on guard for an ambush, especially in high crime areas. Going to a high crime area for a welfare check wouldn’t change that, it would heighten it. But that’s me.

        • Going to a high crime area for a welfare check wouldn’t change that, it would heighten it.

          So would you have shot the woman?

          • I would think not. I learned as a youngster hunting to identify the target. Even as a military instructor, identification is a safety must. The cop screwed up big time, maybe he should have picked a different line of work.

            • So, then, what would you, Commissioner Gman, do next?

              Should the cop be punished? Prosecuted? Sent back to training? Should training be overhauled? If you let him off the hook, what message does that send to your other officers?
              If you make an example of him, is that fair to him? How do you stop it from happening again? What about the community reaction? Questions of public trust and confidence? Questions of race / BLM which will inevitably arise (he’s white / she was black)?

              • I would get the facts first, then take the appropriate actions. Lets not have anymore knee jerk reactions.

                I do wonder how many cops with body cams shoot and kill bad people that never makes the national news. That number would be interesting to know.

              • Just take it at face value.. I’m not asking you to actually do anything. You aren’t going to go out and personally lynch the guy.

                Just, at face value, off the cuff, how do you think you’d handle it, given only the evidence and fact you currently have or can reasonably assume?

                Cop was on call in a sketchy area, saw movement, he’s a young guy, probably not a lot of experience, too much adrenaline.. called out and shot within a second or two without identifying himself.. no reason to assume malicious intent..

                It doesn’t have to be a perfect answer, and I’m not trying to “gotcha” you… I’m honestly curious. I have no idea how I’d balance the competing interests of (A) justice for the woman and (B) appropriate consequences a stupid and terrible but seemingly honest mistake by an cop and (C) maintaining order, discipline, cohesion, and standards within my department and (D) restoring public confidence in the police as a whole.

                That’s a lot of conflict, and i honestly don’t know how I’d even begin to go about de-tangling it all.. just wondering about your thoughts.

              • I really wish i had more knowledge of this issue. I’m out in the woods these days 🙂

                C, is the easiest answer, constant reminders of safety and rules of engagement.

                D is the one that wont be fixed anytime soon. Cops are under too much scrutiny, especially in high crime areas. We have no issues here with this matter, it seems to be a problem in black communities.

                A, dead people dont get justice.

                B, let our legal system do its job.

              • It is pretty simple actually…..High crime neighborhood….open door…neighbor does the right thing….the cop is very young and only on the job 2 years. Sees open door but does not ring doorbell….does not call for backup….walks around back and does not announce police…

                He simply did not follow protocol…he has been fired, arrested and posted bail.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Why is everyone calling for the soccer organization to do something? Why are they saying they can’t understand without Blacks on the directorship?? What the hell is there to understand and what are they supposed to be doing about it???

    These groups have been kicked out of stadiums across Europe. What else do they want a non government body to do?

    Could this be the result of decades, centuries even, of living under heavy State control. We lose our ability to deal with anything and want some institution to deal with it.

    Guess I just do not understand.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/15/football/england-bulgaria-reaction-racism-spt-intl/index.html

  14. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nancy-pelosi-announcement-watch-live-stream-as-pelosi-addresses-press-today-about-trump-impeachment-inquiry-live/?sdf

    If we have a vote, we’ll be admitting we should of had a vote. And how dare republicans think process matters. Now why do they keep saying a vote isn’t constitutionally necessary. The house has the right to have an impeachment inquiry, but how can they claim the house wants to have an impeachmentinquiry, if they don’t want to vote for one. Pelosi isn’t the house. These committees aren’t the house. Anyone know on what they base this claim?

  15. Canine Weapon says:

  16. https://www.thenewneo.com/2019/10/15/matt-taibii-hating-trump-but-hating-what-the-deep-state-is-doing-to-trump-more/

    “I don’t believe most Americans have thought through what a successful campaign to oust Donald Trump would look like. Most casual news consumers can only think of it in terms of Mike Pence becoming president. The real problem would be the precedent of a de facto intelligence community veto over elections, using the lunatic spookworld brand of politics that has dominated the last three years of anti-Trump agitation.”

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Yes, you are quite correct. We will have created a new “PRAETORIAN GUARD” who will pick and choose the Presidents (emperors) of THEIR choice.

  17. Moderation please………………

    • Screw moderation, I will repost it myself…..VH…this is the answer to your question on the claim basis………..

      Yes….it is in the rules of the House. They can also drop all transparency and they can also not invite Republicans and they can also disallow character witness’ and they can also disallow cross examination. The majority can also change the rules to fit their particular interests and re-write rules as they go along.

      In short, it is the definition of Kangaroo Court. Pelosi is very smart…she knows how to play this political game. She does not have the votes for impeachment and she knows this. She also knows that it will not get through the Senate. So, it is full steam ahead in the “Get Rid Of Trump” scheme and that is what it is…..a scheme. If they have the proof, they would want Trump out of office ASAP knowing that Pence cannot win the presidency against a dog catcher. They have no proof….they have conjecture and a bunch of anonymous, never to be produced, so-called whistleblowers that do not know crap from crisco.

      The House can prolong this “inquiry” for as long as they want to prolong it. The theory behind it is to keep the pressure on the public. They will not rattle Trump and they know that so they have to sway the masses with innuendo. Hard ball politics.

      The other thing they can do, and are doing it, is “cherry pick” what they want out of whatever dismal testimony that they recieve. The House can also decide what to release to the press and they can also decide what to put into a report.

      So, there you have it.

      • In short, it is the definition of Kangaroo Court.

        The way I saw this put the other day was… interesting.

        The talking head made the case that, in an impeachment hearing, the House acts more as a prosecutor before a grand jury. The question isn’t “is he guilty” so much as “is there enough evidence to go to trial.” In this view, the House does not have to be “fair” or “even handed” or obey any reasonable standards of transparency. It just has to decide if there’s enough “there” there to go to trial.

        The trial, itself, is held in the Senate. THERE, the President has to get an fair hearing. In the actual trial, he gets to face his accusers, present his own evidence, etc.

        I have to say, I’m not entirely on-board with this view, but it is interesting.

        So, it is full steam ahead in the “Get Rid Of Trump” scheme and that is what it is…..a scheme.

        Correct on all counts, as far as this goes.

        It is absolutely a scheme to taint Trump (odd.. I originally typed “Bush”… must be a Freudian Slip..). I agree, completely, that she doesn’t have the votes to win in the Senate, so what’s the goal here of prosecuting a losing case?

        Two items you’re missing: (A) Pelosi didn’t want to do this.. she caved to pressure by the left and (B) there’s an off-chance that, in the course of these proceedings they either find the magic bullet or support for Trump crumbles enough to let them actually win. That later one is a long-shot, I think, but it’s not entirely outside the realm of possibility.

        If they have the proof, they would want Trump out of office ASAP knowing that Pence cannot win the presidency against a dog catcher.

        Well, I mean… did you see the debate? Honestly, I’m going to have a really tough time in this next election…

        And I think Pence is awful.

        I’ve heard Ol’ Bloomie might be running.. that’d be interesting..

        they will not rattle Trump and they know that so they have to sway the masses with innuendo. Hard ball politics.

        Nonsense.

        Trump can say he’s “energized” all he wants.. but the man has a persecution complex a mile wide. There’s no way he’s not FUMING. His twitter is borderline unhinged. There is no way that the idea of being impeached isn’t driving him up the wall.

        It’s even conceivable he might do something illegal to derail the “Presidential harassment” and, in so doing, open himself up to impeachment on more solid ground. Remember, it’s not the crime that gets you, but the cover-up.

        The other thing they can do, and are doing it, is “cherry pick” what they want out of whatever dismal testimony that they recieve.

        The house can do this… but only the senate can convict, and that won’t fly there.

        The House can also decide what to release to the press and they can also decide what to put into a report.

        Yup… kind of like the way the Republicans kept selectively leaking closely cropped or misleading tidbits from their interminable Benghazi trial?

        For the record, I dislike this tactic regardless of who is doing it to whom.

        • This is more akin to the Star Court of Inquisition than a grand jury. Impeachment is a political process not a legal one conducted in a court. If you want the people to ultimately concur with the results, then it should all be conducted in public so that the public can judge for themselves the veracity of the witnesses.

          As for Trump being rattled: It is not paranoia if they the are truly after you. The attacks on Trump have been nonstop for 3 years without any real evidence of wrong doing. Meanwhile the mountains of evidence of foreign collusion is on the other side, is obvious and blatant. We have an election in just over 12 months. Stop this nonsense and let the people decide.

          As for Benghazi, that investigation would have been far shorter if the Obama Administration had cooperated instead of stonewalling at every opportunity. Trump is being accused of withholding evidence but Obama was far more guilty of that. We eventually learned from the investigation that security in Libya was ignored, we were running guns out of the place, Hillary and others new from day one that it was an organized attack, help was available but not sent in to aid the defenders, witnesses were not made available to Congress, that the Administration lied about the cause for up to 2 weeks blaming it on a video, that Hillary was not awake for the 3 am phone call, and she was running an illegal server. Had the individuals involved been in the military, they would have been court martialed for dereliction of duty.

        • Yup… kind of like the way the Republicans kept selectively leaking closely cropped or misleading tidbits from their interminable Benghazi trial? One glaring major difference. The Democrats were not kept out of any of the meetings.

  18. And, now you have more facts coming from the Police shooting in Fort Worth……the eight year old nephew that the woman was babysitting and playing video games at 2 am…..has told police that she had pointed a gun at the window because of a noise she heard outside.

    So….now you have a series of circumstances. A police officer arrives at a home for a welfare check….meaning a neighbor sees the front door open, calls police to report it as very unusual and it is a very high crime neighborhood…..so far so good. Observant neighbor in a high crime neighborhood reports a very unusual incident knowing that the lady lived there with an 8 year old. He does not go over there but does call the police. The police arrive and actually did call for back up. One goes around the back to secure the back door and the other is standing in front of the house. So far so good……………..

    It appears that the break down in protocol is not knocking on the door and announcing “POLICE” …..the officer in question goes around to the back with a flashlight, shines it in a window, apparently sees a gun pointing at him and he fires as his training dictates. He sees a threat. Ugly…and not following protocol. Had they announced POLICE and rang the doorbell or even knocked on the door, it probably would have been avoided……

    What a shame….a young police officer has made a terrible mistake and his life is now ruined….why? For not following protocol.

    A woman, who lives in Texas and hears a noise outside her window at 2 am, does the correct thing…she protects her home. Not hearing any announcement of POLICE because there was none, she points her weapon at the source of the noise. Castle Doctrine in full force. Fully justified. Not being a trained how to defend…she does not take cover behind anything…she stands in the open with a pointed gun. She dies.

    Point is, no one knows how they will react until they are in a life/death situation. The only other point to bring out……is following protocol. When you do not follow protocol, bad things happen. There is no discrimination and there is no racial issue here. Simply a series of mistakes made from both sides but the POLICE had the greater role….they have a protocol for exactly this…..terrible lesson and two lives ruined……not to mention the life of the 8 year old who witnessed it in total.

    The Mayor of Fort Worth and the Chief of Police have both recognized the issue and will take responsibility…..they own it. Nothing more to be said.

    ————————–

    Now, the racists and activists are not satisfied. They want changes. They want police better trained….well, it is like the addage bringing a horse to water but cannot make him drink. The officers were trained. They had a protocol in place. They go through training classes each and every year as part of the Fort Worth Police program…….sometimes, people get lax and stupid is as stupid does. What a shame.

    The racists and activists want everybody fired…..sigh.

    • the eight year old nephew that the woman was babysitting and playing video games at 2 am…..has told police that she had pointed a gun at the window because of a noise she heard outside.

      Ignoring the obvious question of WHO THE BLOODY HELL LETS AN 8 YEAR OLD SAY UP TO 2 AM??!

      It seems to me perfectly reasonable to point a gun at a window when you heard a noise and have no reason to suspect that it’s the police. Especially in a notoriously high-crime area.

      That WOULD make it more reasonable for the cop to shoot her, however.

      • It seems to me perfectly reasonable to point a gun at a window when you heard a noise and have no reason to suspect that it’s the police. Especially in a notoriously high-crime area. It is entirely reasonable.

        • Now, the initial report is that he was arrested for murder…….The officer did not follow procedure…I get that. However, if he peers into a window and fires at someone pointing a gun in his direction…..to me……that eliminates murder. I can see manslaughter or something similar.

          A bad situation all around.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            But you are not teh DA who these days are apparently being bought and paid for by donations from guys like Soros.

      • It seems to me perfectly reasonable to point a gun at a window when you heard a noise and have no reason to suspect that it’s the police. Especially in a notoriously high-crime area.

        Here’s where I will disagree. As a youngster, I was taught to never point a gun at anything until you have identified the target and plan on shooting. This would no apply to police or combat, but for hunters and especially the average person, it’s a safety rule that should be a constant. How many people have been killed by accident claiming the gun went off by itself (which never happens, but if the gun isn’t pointing at the person to begin with, no death). In the service, we taught to hold the weapon at a 45 degree angle down until identification is confirmed. Handling a weapon safely can save lives, even your own and more importantly a family member.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      So what you’re telling me is that if I’m going to break into your home, I should bang on the door and shout “police” first so you think home-defense is unnecessary and I can gain a tactical advantage?

      Did I get that straight?

    • Is it protocol to knock and yell police , in a situation where they think someone may be in the house illegally, before they get in position? I’ve seen a lot of police movies where they go around back, etc.

      • Yes……the first one on the scene evaluates and calls for backup….when back up arrives, they post the front, and the other goes around back to stop anyone from escaping out the back door. The cop on the front posts himself to be out of primary fire at the front door. He radios to his partner that he is about to knock/ring before breach. That is the protocol. If the knock or the ring does not get response, then the officer will breach. The back up officer in the back yard will position himself for immediate breach if a call for help comes, otherwise, his job is to secure the escape route.

        In this case, the officer uses a flashlight and starts peering in windows……not a very good move before knocking or announcing.

        • It seems that it was dark, inside and out, hence the flashlight. He was getting in position and was also looking out for his other cop. While this is a terrible outcome, I’m not so sure that a crime was committed. I am of the thinking that the cops are in the mindset of a possible crime, such as a home invasion. Of course more will come out and will tell the whole story, but from what you have said, the picture I see is just an accident. It will be interesting how the cops side goes and if the protocol was being followed at the time.

          Now, I haven’t seen the video footage as of yet. I’m withholding judgement until more comes out.

          • The body cam did not show much…..the flashlight was shining on the window and there was a tremendous glare on the cam…..the youg lad of 8, which saw the whole thing, is the story and he said that she was pointing a gun at the window because of a noise she heard outside.

            Yes, it was an accident…nothing racial about it at all….home invasions are a way of life over in that part of town…lots of gangs. However, it is clear to me, an outsider, that protocol was simply not followed….flashlights should not be shining into windows prior to a breach.

            My opinion and……I have actually read the protocol. Murder will not fly and the bond was posted easily. I can see manslaughter.

            • I can see manslaughter.

              I don’t know how to support that, given what we’re seeing/hearing.

              But I imagine the public is going to lose their freakin’ mind if he doesn’t. White cop kills innocent black woman by shooting her through her own window without any (real) warning and gets a slap on the wrist…?

              You and I may not believe race has anything to do with it, but you tell that to them. BLM is going to shit a brick.

              This poor kid is going to be flogged to death. And I can only imagine how he already feels after what happened. His career and life are over, just like that, and he has to live with killing her for the rest of his life. All because of one slip-up of protocol.

              • Manslaughter in Texas is 2-20 years. In his case, it does not matter the time…he will have to be in isolation. You cannot put an ex-cop in general population…he will die. Murder in Texas carries a 5-99 year term unless it is captial murder which carries execution. Texas does not differentiate between first and second degree murder. Manslaughter and murder are both second degree felonies.

            • This will be interesting how it evolves. I see an accident, not a crime.

              • I’m all for holding cops to a higher standard.. but I agree. Given that she pointed a gun at him (even though she was totally justified in doing so), his response cannot reasonably be seen as criminal.

                But that’s not going to stop the shit show that ensues if he gets a slap on the wrist.

              • I tend to agree with you 🙂

              • No, his response was most likely survival….he shoots. Her response to a strange noise was, likewise, survival. Sad happening and there will be a shit storm….however, why would you consider manslaughter that carries 2-20 a slap on the wrist……given these circunstances.

  19. Well, I mean… did you see the debate? Honestly, I’m going to have a really tough time in this next election… No, I did not see the debates. I do not have to. It is pre-determined. But….you are in the position of voting for the axe murderer now.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Mathius doesn’t mind voting for left-leaning ax murderers because he knows they they won’t be able to pass their loopiest policies, so it’ll just be a general tug in the “right” direction.

      That is because he’s a statist and an idiot.. but I repeat myself.

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    LMAO this morning

    “Arguing with leftists is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon is going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious.” – from RealScience

  21. The Pluralist reported:
    A man who criticized President Donald Trump’s immigration policies in the name of progressive Christianity was killed last week by an undocumented immigrant who avoided deportation by hiding in a local “sanctuary church.”
    Sean Buchanan, a father of five from Colorado Springs, was driving his motorcycle on Highway 83 when Miguel Ramirez Valiente swerved into his lane and killed him. The immigrant was charged with reckless driving with a revoked license.
    Ramirez Valiente received national media coverage in January when he sought sanctuary in All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church in Buchanan’s hometown. Speaking from the pulpit, he told assembled reporters that he had fled gang violence in El Salvador in 2005. He said he wanted to stay in the United States to care for his wife and three children even though his asylum application was denied…
    …When he killed Buchanan, Ramirez Valiente was driving with a suspended license thanks to a 2018 DUI. He was also arrested for reckless endangerment in 2011 and domestic violence in 2016. A district attorney dismissed both charges.
    After the crash, a close female acquaintance anonymously told ABC 7 Denver that Ramirez Valiente is “an alcoholic and an abuser.”
    Sean Buchanan was a liberal immigration activist.
    In the years leading up to his death, Buchanan publicly advocated on behalf of asylum seekers like Ramirez Valiente. On Facebook and Twitter, he shared political commentary rooted in a liberal vision of Christianity in between marketing and business tips.

  22. https://www.westernjournal.com/undercover-cnn-footage-emerges-appears-show-network-picking-favorites-among-democratic-field/

    I would normally post the video, but nothing here is truly stunning. CNN is in the tank for the Crats. Watch at your leisure 🙂

  23. NEW YORK, NY—ABC News has been praised as a bastion of journalistic integrity and in-depth reporting after being the first ones to air authentic footage of a 164-foot-tall lizard monster rampaging through Syria.

    The footage, dubbed “Slaughter in Syria,” shows the monster, dubbed “Gojira” or “Godzilla” by people screaming in the video, shows the terrifying monster rising from the ocean to attack coastal cities throughout the region. Desperate locals try to fend off the monster with depth charges, a huge electric fence, tanks, and fighter jets. But mostly it doesn’t work and they just scream a lot.
    Some experts believe we created the monster through too much nuclear testing and some drone strikes and feel we should study the monster. As these experts were opining on the matter in Syria, Godzilla appeared again and destroyed them with his atomic breath.
    “Here we can see the harmful effects of Trump’s actions in the region,” said an anchor grimly. “May God have mercy on us all.”
    Fortunately, at the last minute, the US military returned and used a weapon called the “Oxygen Destroyer” to defeat the monster for good.
    ABC News reporters warn, however, that Godzilla may return to Syria soon fight other monsters, most notably in a disappointing attack in 1998 and pretty cool attacks in 2014 and 2019.

    • WESTERVILLE, OH—After presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren was pressed on her plan to raise taxes on the middle class, Warren boldly answered the question by coming out as a gay man.

      “I’m glad you asked,” she said. “Actually, this question has encouraged me to address some other things about my life, and I’m now ready to come clean: I have loved and had romantic encounters with men throughout my life, and I choose now to live as a gay man.”
      Warren gestured to her opponent Pete Buttigieg and nodded. “Just like this man here, I am gay.”
      The audience stood and applauded her bravery. Not wanting to be outdone, Buttigieg quickly came out as a double-gay lesbian trapped in a man’s body.

      U.S.—After Trump moved some troops from Northern Syria, he was immediately blamed for causing violence in the typically peaceful Middle East.

      Syria, which was known around the world as an idyllic paradise until January 20, 2017 at 12:00 PM EST, is now in shambles thanks to some minor troop reassignments. Trump tried to restablize the Middle East by announcing a deployment of 2,000 U.S. troops to defend the famed bastion of democracy and freedom Saudi Arabia, but it was too late. The damage had been done.
      “It’s sad that the usually serene resort destination of Syria has been transformed into a war-torn hellscape under Trump,” said Hillary Clinton. “Under my watch, the Middle East was basically a big golf resort.”
      Barack Obama and George W. Bush joined in their condemnation of what Trump has done to the Middle East. “It’s like they say in Texas,” said Bush. “Attack Iraq once, shame on me. Attack it twice, well, then you won’t get attacked again.”
      “Trump has betrayed our allies, the Kurds,” said one man in Arizona who had just googled “who are the Kurds” a few minutes before. “Look at all this violence he’s causing in the usually utopian paradise of Syria.”
      The nation has called on Trump to allow U.S. soldiers to stick around for another few centuries in order to bring our various conflicts to a satisfactory conclusion.
      At publishing time, the Pentagon had issued a reminder to the nation that “we’ve always been at war with Turkey.”

  24. https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2019/10/16/new-york-passes-law-thwart-presidential-pardon-power/

    Really getting tired of New York. Using the law in this way is just unacceptable.

    • The newly signed law creates a narrow exception in the state’s double jeopardy law, which prohibits the prosecution of a person who’s been tried for the same crime by the federal government. The change takes effect immediately.

      Ahhh… that’s interesting…

      The new law allows NY to “pursue investigations into any pardoned individual who served in a president’s administration, worked directly or indirectly to advance a presidential campaign or transition, or worked at a nonprofit or business controlled by a president.”

      Obviously, that’s a direct shot at Trump.

      No two ways about it. This law was enacted so that, if Trump pardons someone in his inner circle, that that shield of the pardon will hold only against the charged federal crime and won’t create a shield against the state crime.

      I’m having trouble deciding how I feel about this…

      Double-Jeopardy exists to stop endless prosecution. NOT to allow the President to exert de facto pardons over state charges. The purpose of the clause is so that, if you’re charged, you can’t be charged again and again and again until you lose. Additionally, you can’t be charged for “lesser and included” crimes – so if they can’t make murder, they can’t try you again for murder II and then manslaughter. The point, again, is to limit the power of the government to repeated prosecutions, not to enhance the power of the Presidency.

      A Presidential pardon creates a “shield” against a “lesser and included” state charge. If you are charged in federal court for murder, you cannot be charged in state court afterward (or, couldn’t be anyway, until this new law). By vacating the penalty for the conviction, the pardon had no bearing on double jeopardy.

      What NY seems to be saying is: the Presidential pardon shouldn’t create a shield against state prosecutions.. double jeopardy need not apply since the person has already been found guilty or admitted guilt, it’s more a question of denying the state the right to peruse punishment.

      That’s… interesting….

      I’ll have to mull that over.

      My gut says it won’t fly.

      The salient test is called the blockbuster test (something like that) … basically did the ACT constitute two separate crimes that can both be charged or are you hearing the same crime again under different lights. It seems clear to me that, in most cases, this would be the later, and would therefore be in clear violation of the 5th Amendment.

      The INTERESTING thing about it is the legal challenge NY is apparently presenting to this interpretation. They aren’t trying to say “it’s not a new crime” per say but rather, since the first trial, having resulted in a pardon, didn’t put the person in “jeopardy of life or limb,” that it isn’t really relevant. Since this is now the only time they’re “really” in jeopardy. Again, I don’t think that flies. But it IS interesting.

      THAT SAID, I’m generally not in favor of blowing holes in the 5th Amendment… not even to spite Trump. Those holes have a nasty habit of expanding over time and almost never get repaired. I’d rather leave the 5th intact, even if it means some bad actors get away.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Then there is the issue of writing laws to target only one person, or “office holder”. What about pardons issued by a Governor???

  25. “The way I saw this put the other day was… interesting.

    The talking head made the case that, in an impeachment hearing, the House acts more as a prosecutor before a grand jury. The question isn’t “is he guilty” so much as “is there enough evidence to go to trial.” In this view, the House does not have to be “fair” or “even handed” or obey any reasonable standards of transparency. It just has to decide if there’s enough “there” there to go to trial.

    The trial, itself, is held in the Senate. THERE, the President has to get an fair hearing. In the actual trial, he gets to face his accusers, present his own evidence, etc.”

    You might note there are several legal steps required before one gets to a grand jury.

    I just find this whole thing crazy, the house is supposed to be the voice of the people. No vote, no voice of the people. Trying to get rid of a duly elected President should at the least, require a vote by the people’s representatives.

    • You might note there are several legal steps required before one gets to a grand jury.

      It’s an imperfect analogy. One is judicial the other is legislative.

      Not that I necessarily agree with what’s going on, but there’s no reason the process has to be the same for both, or even comparable. The House can literally impeach for any high crime or misdemeanor. And the process is entirely up to them.

      According to Republicans in 1997, even that wasn’t necessary. In 1997, Lindsay Graham asserted, “you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.”

      the house is supposed to be the voice of the people.

      The People want him gone.

      His BASE wants him to stay.

      Those are two separate sets.

      No vote, no voice of the people.

      There was a vote. It took place in 2018.

      That’s when The People elected representatives to represent them in votes such as this. This, by the way, is exactly in the same way that The People elected Obama to a full second term during which he had the power to appointed SCOTUS judges, but the right seemed to believe that even though The People had spoken, they should be given the chance to change their mind to side with the Republicans rather than abide by the results of the election.

      Trying to get rid of a duly elected President should at the least, require a vote by the people’s representatives.

      It does.

      They will have to vote.

      Then the Senate will have to vote.

      That’s how impeachment works.

      Maybe I’m not getting what you’re trying to say…?

      • I have said many times that the HoR should impeach. It’s not for the reasons that Liberals will scream, but I still stand by that. As far as polls, I wouldn’t trust them all that much anymore. People have figured out how to play the pollsters. For example (using your link) I’m an Independent, and you know how I would have answered.

        This isn’t going anywhere, all political theater.

        • I have said many times that the HoR should impeach. It’s not for the reasons that Liberals will scream, but I still stand by that.

          What’s your reasoning?

          • Because it’s politically destructive to the impeaching party. The Republicans paid dearly after the Clinton fiasco. That was at least a fair process. However, this one is openly BS and I think that any person with a 1/4 of a functioning brain can see this. The Crats have been after Trump since he won the election.

            I don’t think Pelosi will have a vote to impeach. But the Crats have already done a lot of damage to themselves with their actions.

            I still laugh when I think about HRC’s response to Trump saying he would not accept the election results if he lost. The Crats still haven’t accepted the results.

            My prediction as of today and subject to change, Trump wins in a landslide and the Republicans take the House back and add seats in the Senate. As long as the economy keeps rolling, they will keep all three for the foreseeable future, at least until the Deep State gets us in another war or the economy goes to crap.

            None of this will matter much if Trump is assassinated. I also think we might see an increase in political assassination attempts.

            • The Republicans paid dearly after the Clinton fiasco.

              Maybe… but it weakened Clinton enough that the Blue Team lost the next election by a fraction of a percent in Florida.

              However, this one is openly BS and I think that any person with a 1/4 of a functioning brain can see this.

              It’s politically motivated, sure, but I definitely think Trump did something wrong.

              I think an investigation is warranted.. impeachment is just political at this point.

              The Crats have been after Trump since he won the election.

              Correct.

              Just like the Republicans were after Obama from the moment he won the nomination.

              Just like the Democrats were after Bush right up until they lost their balls in 9/11, and then after him again late in his second term.

              Just like the Republicans were after Clinton.

              And so on.

              I don’t think Pelosi will have a vote to impeach.

              She will.

              And she’ll win it.

              And then it will die in the senate unless something radical shifts between here and there.

              But the Crats have already done a lot of damage to themselves with their actions.

              It’s really interesting g-man.. I consume a lot of left AND right leaning media. SUFA is, by far, the most gung-ho in this kind of opinion.

              The rest of the planet does not see it your way.

              I participate in SUFA to get the opposition view (and because I’m an addict).. do you consume any left-leaning media?

              I still laugh when I think about HRC’s response to Trump saying he would not accept the election results if he lost. The Crats still haven’t accepted the results.

              This is such bullshit.

              You and Trump.

              We lost. We accept that.

              That doesn’t mean we have to put up with him being a shitty criminal President for four years in deferential silence.

              The Democrats aren’t trying to reinstate H. Clinton. Or even Pelosi.

              If you look at it from the perspective of the left – that Trump did something horrifically wrong and (probably) illegal – why should they have to sit down and shut up about it just because he won an election? Did the Republicans do that for Clinton in ’97?

              My prediction as of today and subject to change, Trump wins in a landslide

              Eeks out a win, but calls it a landslide and his kool-aid drinkers agree with him and insist it’s true even though it’s objectively false.

              and the Republicans take the House back and add seats in the Senate.

              Moderate losses for Red Team in both.

              As long as the economy keeps rolling,

              Tick tock.. only a matter of time. This whole thing is doomed to collapse. Red Team would like nothing better than to pin it on Blue Team like they did in ’08.

              they will keep all three for the foreseeable future,

              One way or another, Trump is done in 1-5 years.

              Then again, you probably would back him if he insisted that the term limits only apply to Democrats and then appointed himself without an election to a third term. Just so long as he keeps trolling those stupid libtards.

              When Trump is gone, the Republican party is going to have to contend with the ashes of the American political landscape.. the Blue will still be a “party” but the Reds will be a personality cult wherein they can’t elect that cult leader.

              at least until the Deep State gets us in another war

              The “deep state” doesn’t exist.

              And even if it did, it can’t “get us in another war.”

              or the economy goes to crap.

              Tick… tock…. tick… tock….

              ::adds another Put position::

              None of this will matter much if Trump is assassinated.

              Naw.. all the armed crazies are on his side.

              Then again, as with Bush, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a fake “assassination attempt.”
              It’d be just like him to claim martyrdom and just like you Republicans to back it to the hilt.

              I also think we might see an increase in political assassination attempts.

              Naw.. I don’t think Trump is quite at the point where he’s going to start murdering his opposition…. he’s more likely to jail them.

              Ohhh.. you meant the LEFT was going to assassinate the RIGHT? Well that makes sense… you are incapable of seeing the left as anything other than a bunch of violent bloodthirsty deranged lunatics. Makes sense you’d expect us to start acting like your caricature of us.

              • The rest of the planet does not see it your way.

                This is MY opinion, not the planets. But I have a whole hell of a lot of people who agree with ME.

                Ohhh.. you meant the LEFT was going to assassinate the RIGHT? Well that makes sense… you are incapable of seeing the left as anything other than a bunch of violent bloodthirsty deranged lunatics. Makes sense you’d expect us to start acting like your caricature of us.

                Just can’t keep the personal attacks out of things can you. But to clarify, I expect Crats to get whacked just as much as Republicans. But, since Trump has taken office, the score is

                Left assassination attempts against Republicans = 1
                Right assassination attempts against Crats = 0
                This does NOT count the physical attack on Rand Paul by his lunatic Liberal neighbor.

              • The deep state doesn’t exist

                Of course not! It was the elected leadership, not the unelected clowns at the top of the IC, who plotted, then executed the whole Russiagate fiasco. 🙄

              • Yes, I do take in Left leaning media:

                It’s mostly bullshit.

              • Gman,

                Just can’t keep the personal attacks out of things can you

                Feel free to retreat to your Safe Space™.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                I am tossing the BS flag on this one. Absolutely no foundation for this claim at all.

                “Maybe… but it weakened Clinton enough that the Blue Team lost the next election by a fraction of a percent in Florida.”

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Talk about a bunch of BS moral equivalency. Sir Mathius, you have a creepy brown fluid dripping from your ears and eyes.

  26. Elijah Cummings has died. May He Rest in Peace. Said he died from long term heath complications, wasn’t aware he was even sick.

    • He had a stroke after reading Trump’s letter to Erdogan?

      • Diplomacy…plain English style. 90+% approval with the Rs. Pass the Kool Aid.

        • Diplomacy…plain English style.

          5th grade English.

          90+% approval with the Rs.

          Oct 1-13:
          87% approval amongst Republicans
          34% approval amongst Independents
          5% approval amongst Democrats.

          Pass the Kool Aid.

          Now, certainly, it makes sense why Blue Team hates Trump (though 5%! Wow!)… but why does he have 2:1 disapproval amongst independents?

          • Those Independents are probably the ones who have already realized that their D party left them. The #walkaways, the #blexits, etc. Makes sense that they probably still don’t like Trump.

            • If the independents are just “Democrats who have left the Democratic party,” then “the left” or “the liberals” in general outnumber the Republicans roughly 2:1.

              And we may not agree on everything, but we agree that we don’t like Trump.

              • Moody’s just analyzed who would most likely be the the next president. Given the current economy and other economic related details, they concluded it will be Trump in a landslide. They reasoned that even if there were an economic downturn, there is not enough time to impact the mood of the voters.

                I will add that the current crop of socialist Dems are unacceptable to the general public. If Bloomberg enters the race with a centrists message and some common sense economic and foreign policies, he would be a strong contender.

                Mathius, your take on the 2000 election is off a bit. Yes it was close. The Repubs were punished in 1998 for the impeachment fiasco just like they were punished in 2006 for their fiscal irresponsibility. Bush 43 got elected in 2000 because Gore was a terrible candidate. Gore lost for the same reason Romney lost in 2012, both wimps.

              • They reasoned that even if there were an economic downturn, there is not enough time to impact the mood of the voters.

                This is very poor reasoning.

                I will add that the current crop of socialist Dems are unacceptable to the general public.

                They certainly are hard to swallow, even by my standards.

                One caveat, right now, they’re in primaries. They will have to track to center for the general, so whoever wins will probably be more palatable at that point. That’s how it always goes… ::shrug::

                If Bloomberg enters the race with a centrists message and some common sense economic and foreign policies, he would be a strong contender.

                I’d be open to hearing what he has to say.

                Bush 43 got elected in 2000 because Gore was a terrible candidate. Gore lost for the same reason Romney lost in 2012, both wimps.

                I don’t see it that way, but I was only 17 at the time, so what do I know?

    • Whoa! I don’t like the guy, but this is a shock. I wasn’t aware he had any problems either. RIP.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I have been thinking about WHY we did not know this morning. This is not the first Icon of the left which died and then we find out they were sick for some time. All the while still holding a public office. Why does the Press keep quiet on this situation????

      I hate the comparisons but in this case, just imagine McConnell being this sick and the Press remaining silent.

      • If McConnell died, it wouldn’t matter why or how or what prior illnesses he had… people would be saying the Democrats murdered him.

        It wouldn’t matter if he was struck by lightning on the Capitol steps in full view of the Washington press corp while giving a live interview on Fox News. Trump would be tweeting that Hunter Biden and “Killary” had orchestrated it.

        And his base would agree and demand an investigation into the matter.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          Please read the words before providing another one of your democratic party defense reactions.

          I was talking about the lack of media coverage regarding his illness. It was obviously well known, given press comments this morning. So why were we all in the dark????

          But lets use your attempt. The Press was constantly hounding Trump and his witchdoctor report regarding his health. How much press has there been on Bernie’s heart attack since he announced he was baaaaaaaaaaaack?????

          I guess you can blame Reagan for this.

          • I was talking about the lack of media coverage regarding his illness.

            I know you were… I’m asking a tangential question.

            It was obviously well known, given press comments this morning. So why were we all in the dark????

            Because there’s just waaaaaay too much going on to keep up with everything and, given the non-war in Turkey, the trade war in China, the impeachment, and so on, Eli just never rose to the surface of our attention.

            The Press was constantly hounding Trump and his witchdoctor report regarding his health.

            To be fair, (A) Trump is the president and (B) that report was an obvious lie. If he weighs whatever it was – 220(?) – I’ll drive my smart car to your house, stopping every 100 miles to recharge, and take you out to a steak dinner at the restaurant of your choice.

            In fairness, the media attention was only the tiniest bit about “the President is a fatty” – everyone who has eyes knew that. It was “hey, look, he got his doctor to tell obvious lies to us and we’re supposed to just accept that.”

            How much press has there been on Bernie’s heart attack since he announced he was baaaaaaaaaaaack?????

            Not nearly enough. You could watch, though, as his prospects basically evaporated in real-time. All the Bernie-bots mind-sync’d and just said “welp, I guess Warren ain’t so bad!”

            It’s going to take a bit of time for it to sink in, but he’s toast.

      • On a related note, here are some question for you JAC:

        With the understanding that Trump is a big guy in his 70’s who doesn’t eat well or exercise (and who may or may not be eating Sudafed like candy, but who almost certainly has a history of cocaine use), it is entirely plausible that he dies in the next few years of completely natural causes. GIVEN THIS, under what circumstances could this happen wherein people would NOT blame the “deep state” or the Democrats?

        I imagine if he tripped on his way out of Air Force One, on camera, and face planted on the tarmac, it might be tough to blame Clinton, but I honestly think some people still would (he stumbled because he was drugged!). But if he just had a random heart attack and died in his sleep – as 70 year olds in questionable health sometimes do – what happens then?

        And, to the contrary, what if he WERE killed? Even if it’s a lone gunman, would there be any way to avoid civil war at that point?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          1) Which people? I don’t know anyone who would blame the Deep State or Democrats if Trump died of a heart attack.

          2) Pence becomes POTUS.

          3) No Civil War if he is killed.

          Second time I saw you make a comment about eating Sudafed. What is that about?

          • 1. I’m book-marking this response. I hope I don’t need it, but if I do, I’m going to beat you over the head with it. 🙂

            2. Well, yes.. but I really meant in terms of public response…

            3. I’d like to believe that… I tend to agree not a full-out civil war.. but large scale protests / riots, etc. Lots of “civil unrest” like no one other than SKT has seen in their lifetimes.

            4. Sudafed… this one is mostly for fun, not serious.. at least, not to me, and not without a lot more hard evidence… I’m surprised you haven’t seen this one already.. it’s the conspiracy theory de jure on the left… Well.. here we go….

            Trump snorted Adderall all thru the day on ‘Apprentice’ he also ate UK. Sudafed like candy. But at night and at parties he switched to cocaine and high-end Methamphetamine that was hand-delivered by Bikers. The point is he was always high. That hasn’t changed. @realDonaldTrump

            — NoelCaslerComedy

            Noel worked with Trump for years on Apprentice and Miss America pageants. They were long-time friends.

            So, what to make of this? Well, nothing, really. It’s just one guy saying a thing about another guy.

            I mean, sure.. snorting adderall might help explain the endless sniffing he does.. but, then again, so might the well documented cocaine use in the 80’s and 90’s.. sure, he DID do coke (who didn’t back then?) but that doesn’t mean he still does. And, anyway, it was just sniffing, that could just be a cold or allergies. Maybe he was allergic to Clinton’s bullshit.. that’d be completely understandable.

            But then again, the Sudafed.. Sudafed is a controlled substance, which is why you can only find it behind the counter in the US and you have to show ID and sign a register for it. The reason is that drug dealers refine the active ingredient into meth. (NO, I’m not saying Trump is on meth). But that active ingredient, still causes euphoria, focus, a high-energy “manic” phases and a low-energy “come down” phase. You’ll note the friend specified the European variety which, according to some, contains higher concentrations of that ingredient. I haven’t bothered to fact check this myself. But who cares? This is all bullshit anyway!

            Now that manic / depressive cycle is something we’ve definitely seen from Trump. But, hey, that could just be his natural cycle. I’m not exactly at my best all hours of the day. Try talking to me before I’ve had my Red Bull. And, anyway, a President is under intense and constant scrutiny. So it’s tough to call this out as a “symptom.”

            Another side effect is pupil dilation. Something people have noticed and remarked on repeatedly for years now. Still, I mean, who knows… take enough photos.. cherry pick the ones you want… hard to draw a hard conclusion.. still it’s… weird.. and I’ve noticed it myself even before I ever heard of this sudafed conspiracy theory. So, who knows.. maybe he just has an eye problem.. maybe that’s why he doesn’t like to read?

            The thing about addicts, though… they always have a stash… let’s look at Trump’s infamous Taco Bowl photo…

            (taken straight off his twitter)

            Nothing to see here, right?

            Let’s take a look at that open drawer, though….

            What’s this, now? An open drawer full of Sudafed, including the famous European-only variant?

            But, Mathius, I hear you say, you probably have a drawer full of cold medicine, too! And I do! Though I don’t have several boxes from at least two continents in an open drawer in my office.. but to each their own, I guess.

            Which is why this is not enough to draw a conclusion from.

            But… well… it is interesting… 🙂

        • You are auditioning for a job at CNN! I knew it. Nobody could be so full of shit and NOT work in the Liberal media. Either that or your poking Maddow behind your wifes back. She’ll catch on if you keep acting like her, she’s really rubbing off 😛

          • You are auditioning for a job at CNN! I knew it.

            I’m what you call “offer only.”

            Nobody could be so full of shit and NOT work in the Liberal media.

            A-hem.

            Either that or your poking Maddow behind your wifes back.

            I like Maddow, but she’s not into guys and, frankly, I can do a lot better, anyway!

    • Have you seen California’s newly proposed gun control law? Any persons over the age of 66, will be required to turn in all firearms. Supposedly, in Califonia, I guess, that is where seniors start losing their logical reasoning and that makes it hazardous for the Senior citizen and anyone living around them.

      IT does not have a chance of passing but that it is even thought of is tragic.

      • Can we pass this for old people’s driver’s licenses, too?

        PLLEEEAAAAASSSEEEEE??

        There is nothing on this planet more maddening than getting stuck behind a septuagenarian who can barely see over the wheel cruising at 40 in the left lane in her 1972 Buick with her blinker on for the last 15 miles while she keeps drifting precariously over the lines making it too dangerous for anyone to pass.

  27. With respect to the Turkey/Kurd conflict, if Congress wants the Kurds protected, then declare war on Turkey along with allocating the funds for same.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Yep, he is RESPONSIBLE for getting us out of Syria. At least I hope he follows through on the rest. Next up will be us leaving Afghanistan. Then watch all the howling from the hypocrites.

        • We’re we wrong to condemn Obama for leaving Iraq?

          • We were wrong for going in there…..and I fought in it. We were wrong in pulling out the way we did it…..and we are wrong for being in Syria and we are wrong for pulling out the way we are doing it.

            However, quite to the contrary of what everyone thought,……Mathius included……trump is a loose cannon that will get us into a war. I have kept my guns clean and ready…..and no war. His predecessor cannot say the same.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            V.H.

            Yes we were correct. In that case, in the situation at the time.

            However, you may recall I was critical of folks hammering him for wanting to get out of both places after complaining about us being involved where we shouldn’t have been.

      • You post that leadership quote as if it is something worrisome…….those of us in leadership positions in the military live under this rule all the time. As a Colonel, I know that I am responsible for what happens and for what does not happen…..hell, this is a quote straight from West Point….this is not a Donald Trump original.

  28. The “deep state” doesn’t exist.

    I wonder why you say this! You know that I am not a conspiracy theorist. I pay no attention to them………………..but I feel that a deep state does exist and it is very powerful…….very powerful.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Every POTUS since Carter has proposed combining the federal land mgt. agencies into a single entity. The cost savings would have been huge. Increased efficiency and better public service……… one stop shopping instead of multiple stops and traveling to far away places.

      NONE have succeeded. Each effort was opposed by the rank and file employees and their Retiree groups. These people howled to high heaven and the Retirees lobbied Congress to stand in the way. Even the Sagebrush Rebellion failed to create the power needed to overcome the Deep State.

      And this is just the lowly, almost insignificant, land mgt. agencies. Not those who are part of the Military Industrial Complex or Welfare State.

      • We have 27 intelligence agencies. Why so many? Most are top secret. Do we actually know what they do? Their record is abysmal having missed most of the major events in the last 50 years. On top of that, they have interfered with many governments over the years including toppling regimes only to have far worse ones take their places. Now we have them trying to topple our own government. JFK wanted to break them up. He did not get the chance. Was it the deep state? I sure hope Barr is loaded for bear because we need some serious house cleaning.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    Well stated, and written by someone who actually seems to understand negotiating.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/10/republicans_in_congress_time_to_walk_away.html

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Considering the inquiry is ongoing the authors arguments seem rather flimsy. I’m stuck at “without a crime”.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Ray

        I was focused on the idea that you should walk away from the hearings if the process is not in fact open and fair. I do think some of the content is a bit off when it comes to specifics. But the broader point of the threat to balanced govt. is spot on. In my opinion.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Ray

        Which arguments do you think flimsy and why??

      • Ray,

        It’s nice to see you ’round here, but I’m sorry, you’re just waaaaay off base.

        You see, when the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.

        Trump CANNOT commit a crime for another reason, too. You see, he is a living god, an eldritch entity beyond comprehension of us mere mortals, who shapes reality by his mere thoughts and whims. When he says that someone is a good hire, it is so. When he, months later, says that same person is terrible, it is so. But he has not changed his mind. It was always so. He has now never said otherwise, for he cannot have been wrong for he wills that not to be the Truth. Reality, Ray, reality exists only within his furtive scampering thoughts. We dance amongst his flickering ideations, existing for a time, and then never having existed at all. It is not that we die, but rather that we never were, for his will is eternal and passes forward and backward in time like a game of 4th dimensional chess.

        Thus it is that what Trump has done is not a crime because he wills it not to be such. If he says – hallowed be his word – that there was no collusion, no quid pro quo, then it is definitionally impossible for the universe to exist in an opposing state. He has said – blessings unto him – that the inquiry is baseless Presidential harassment, thus it is baseless Presidential harassment. There is no truth but what he wills.

        But worry not, Ray, for sooner or later, his mind may wander to the big red button on his desk which summonses a waiter with an ice cold Diet Coke. And when this happens, you and I and the impeachment may pass from his capricious thoughts. And all this, all of your suffering will not merely end, but will never have been.

      • I have heard this “without a crime” nonsense by the Liberal media and it’s pundits, but I’m afraid they are all full of Mathius Poop.

        The Constitution also allows for a president to be impeached by Congress “for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

        Pretty cut and dry . Treason. Bribery. other HIGH Crimes and misdemeanors (not Felonies, but crimes none the less).

        • full of Mathius Poop.

          That’s “full of colonel poop.” HE’S the Texas Longhorn bull.

          The Constitution also allows for a president to be impeached by Congress “for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

          CORRECT.

          Although, again, the Republicans didn’t feel that way in ’97.. but I digress…

          Soliciting a “thing of value” for his political campaign from a foreign government very much COULD constitute a crime.

          If – IF – that case can be affirmatively made, then he committed a crime.

          That would be grounds for impeachment.

          His boosters are sitting around and running their mouth, such as in this article, that he’s being impeached without having committed a crime and that’s bullshit. He’s being impeached FOR committing this crime. It’ll be up to the senate to determine if he’s actually “guilty” and what the punishment should be. But the Republican talking point that he’s being impeached for no crime is nonsense.

          At best, they might assert he’s being impeached for a drummed up crime of which he is innocent.

          Pretty cut and dry . Treason. Bribery. other HIGH Crimes and misdemeanors (not Felonies, but crimes none the less).

          I’d also like to assert that if you think he’s gone 3 years without committing ANY crimes, however minor, I have a bridge to sell you.

          Most of us can’t go a day without some violation or other.

          • Soliciting a “thing of value” for his political campaign from a foreign government very much COULD constitute a crime.

            Soliciting a “thing of value” for his political campaign…..

            Interesting, but the call transcript don’t back this up AND if Biden don’t win the nomination, it’s totally moot. At the same time investigating corruption isn’t a crime and the Crats are not above the law and can be investigated, despite the belief that investigating a Crat is somehow a crime.

            • It’s convenient that you have the apparent authority to substitute your opinion of what is and is not a crime for that of House of Representative.

              YOU say the transcript doesn’t back that up. I say it might… in conjunction with other evidence which may yet come to light.

              At the same time investigating corruption isn’t a crime and the Crats are not above the law and can be investigated, despite the belief that investigating a Crat is somehow a crime.

              Nobody is saying the Democrats are above the law (though Trump sure seems to think that HE is).

              What the Democrats are saying is that you don’t get to use the office of the Presidency to exert pressure on foreign governments to dig up dirt and taint your political rivals under the GUISE of “fighting corruption.”

              See that subtle difference?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            “Soliciting a “thing of value” for his political campaign from a foreign government very much COULD constitute a crime.” TRUE. But note, the solicitation is for something of value. Actual value.

            “If – IF – that case can be affirmatively made, then he committed a crime.” TRUE. IF it is proven that he solicited something of true value for the sole purpose of his campaign then it is a violation of the law prohibiting such.

            “That would be grounds for impeachment.” FALSE. As previously discussed by you, that is a political decision and thanks to Clinton we know that committing an actual crime is not grounds for full impeachment and removal from office.

  30. Now, what is the media and congress going to bitch about……..there is a US brokered Cease Fire with the Turkish forces. They are pulling back now….there is a guarantee of religious minority protection from the US and Turkey….Trump played the economics card on both sanctions and aid……..and tied a permanent cease fire to the future aid and sanctions. The Kurds are protected.

    And he will pull the rest of the troops out at the same time.

    So………………………..what we have here…….Troops will be out and a permanent cease fire in place and the Kurds have a home.

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    I never have liked this Jackass and always wondered why others did. Guess my BS radar was more acute. Anyway, I hope he gets roasted over this………but as with all hopes….I won’t be holding my breath.

    https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/10/17/joe-biden-lied-years-car-accident-claimed-life-wife-daughter/

    • JAC…….Joe Biden has lied more times than Trump and continues to do so…..but he is not called a serial pathological liar like the call Trump….I wonder why? Could it be…………………………..because he is Democrat?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        NO WAY………..That ain’t it at all………….. eyes rolling and looking towards heaven. NOPE, couldn’t be that at all……………

  32. Is it not interesting how the media and the news hacks have suddenly become experts on foreign relations…..at Mathius’ urging, I have started switching around to the different lefty sites and news media….CNN, right this minute, is having a plexy over the fact that Trump has pulled the troops, negotiated a cease fire, has set in motion a permanent cease fire tied to sanctions (they are calling it blackmail), and has protected our allied Kurds all at the same time…and they are falling over themselves how wrong it is that he did this…..in the manner he did it.

    READ THE DAMNED BOOK…..it is perfect. The Art of the Deal……worked great………………………………………….so far. So, on the Syria deal, we moved farther and faster in 10 days than two PRESIDENTS did in 12 years.

    • Blackmail – of course – he isn’t really the President , you know, so anything he does is either an impeachable offence or criminal, no Presidential powers allowed. Policy disputes are now federal cases.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Ehhhhh – I dunno Colonel – I’m scouring the interwebs – nothing reliable that demonstrates this is anything but a temporary ceasefire where all parties have agreed to all terms and conditions. Who is monitoring compliance against this thing? What of the Kurds disputing that they’ve allegedly agreed to all the same T&C’s as the Turks (or whomever is proxying their fight)? I’d slow pace on the victory lap – seems there’s quite a bit more to be had here.

      • No victory lap yet, I agree….but to broker even a temporary cease fire is amazing given they have never done this before. I saw a Kurd spokesman on the news saying what you are saying but they ARE at the table and will be heard and Turkey and the Kurds have NEVER done this before. In addition, I have seen, much to my surprise, that we are not abandoning the Kurds at all…..simply pulling out troops and leaving a small set of advisors there with funding. This is ok by me….but it appears that there will be a clear and concise line. Turkey will never get the Kurds out….and the Kurds will never control the southern border…but they are getting themselves in a position to be part of the bargaining process where they have never had a seat at the table before.

        Now, call what you want….but to those of us that have been there before and understand what is going on…..this is a step that has not been done since the end of WWII. And, if it holds and the peace process gets finalized, at the very least there will be some tacit lines drawn.

        Nothing will solve the ethnic lines and squabbles and there will be the occasional dust up as there always is (ask Israel about this)…..but this is the best that I have seen in my lifetime in this region and no other POTUS has gone even this far.

        My whole point is………….everyone was worried about Trump and war mongering…..so far, he has not. Bush and Obama were the master intervenors……..

        • Just A Citizen says:

          OK, maybe “masters” at intervening but they were abject failures at “fixing what they broke”.

  33. Moderation!

  34. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/how-evil-is-the-left-this-evil.php

    Seen a couple short videos of the violence but none as clear as this one.

    • I wonder if the Lefty sites show this stuff? Probably not. It’s not news to the Left, just another day being a Lefty 😛

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    Colonel

    Oh me oh my, dear oh dear. There is going to be a real shit storm coming me thinks. Care to opine on the appropriateness of this Admiral popping off ………… calling for the removal of a seated President.

    https://thehill.com/policy/defense/466369-former-special-ops-commander-our-republic-is-under-attack-from-the-president

    • He’s retired. His opinion is just that, his opinion. I didn’t see where the op-ed was published, but I would suspect some liberal media rag who would never publish an op-ed that is positive for Trump. Nothing to see here 😀

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I dunno guys – someone like McRaven speaks….I listen. He’s earned that I think. (Although still pissed its his fault we’re still taking our damn shoes off in airports)

      • (Although still pissed its his fault we’re still taking our damn shoes off in airports)

        That’s why I show up to the airport wearing nothing but a Speedo.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        My question goes not to his criticisms but his outright calling for removal of a sitting POTUS. That causes me heartburn because it starts looking like the Military interfering with our politics. In the story he makes sure to mention that an active officer approached him to do something.

        As Spousal Unit Leader puts it, “Trump’s job is to be the wrecking ball”. The million dollar question is “What comes next?”

  36. WASHINGTON, D.C.—Democrats House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer all stormed out of the meeting on Syria with President Donald Trump, each side accusing the other of being “unhinged.” Apparently, the meeting broke down when Trump suggested they all order lunch and get “sandwiches.” When asked what type of sandwich he wanted, Trump suggested “hot dogs.”

    The room was dead silent for a few seconds before Pelosi yelled, “What did you just say?”
    “I said the type of sandwich I like is a hotdog,” Trump clarified.
    “Are you insane?” Pelosi demanded, barely keeping herself in control. “Are you really calling a hotdog a sandwich?”
    “It’s meat between two slices of bread,” Trump said nonchalantly. “It’s a sandwich.”
    Pelosi was now on her feet and shouting. “That’s not what it is!” Pelosi then turned to the other Republicans in the room. “How long are you going to put up with this madness? How long?” None of the other people would meet her eyes, though.
    “They, like me, also enjoy sandwiches!” Trump yelled. “Especially with ketchup!”
    At this point Pelosi stormed out of the room along with Schumer and Hoyer. At a later press conference, Pelosi said, “All we can do now is pray for the president’s health — his mental health. He has a sick, sick mind.”

  37. It causes me physical pain to agree with Ted Cruz.

    Maybe the beard is helping his brain?

  38. Canine Weapon says:

    This cake made me think of the colonel.

    Yes, it’s a cake.

    • I didn’t see a cake. Am I blinded?

      • Canine Weapon says:

        That “steak” is actually a cake.

        • You are a dog, naturally all you think about is food.

          • Dogs are just stomachs with paws.

            What I want to know is why no one has yet bred horse-sized dogs? I mean, legitimate horse-sized. Like a Clydesdale, but, you know, dog.

            I mean, we turned wolves into tea cup yorkies… why can’t we turn them into buffalo-sized dogs instead? I want a dog I could ride into battle.

    • My son would love that cake and the cupcake holding it, since today is his 21st birthday…which has me scared to death. He still hangs out with all his childhood friends, who have all turned 21 this year. Scary!

  39. Some interesting claims by people:

    Trump is attacking our Republic. HMMM! has anyone seen this attack?
    Trump is the most corrupt President ever. HMMM! Proof, please.
    Trump is destroying our Democracy….HMMM! We don’t have a Democracy.
    Trump withheld aid to Ukraine to get dirt on Biden. HMMM! They got the aide, still no dirt though.
    Pelosi says Trump had a meltdown. HMMM! Trying to work with her may constitute one to a sane person. Those cameras were just their just in case, right?

    SMH 🙄

  40. I’m shocked – shocked, I say – to find that the G7 will be held at a Trump resort.

    • I’m not shocked, yes, I know you’re being sarcastic. Why, why have this totally unnecessary fight. It’s just Stupid. And why start an unnecessary fight with Mattis, of all people!! Not to mention Perry.

      • And why start an unnecessary fight with Mattis, of all people!!

        What extra-special amazes me about that one is the Republican base’s non-reaction.

        Republicans have always been obsessed with hero-worshiping the military. Support our troops. Thank you for your service. Yada yada yada. I think I’ve been fairly vocal about my disdain for this in the past (not for APPRECIATING the military, but for the fetishist worship of the military).

        The military consistently votes for Republicans by 10-20 point spreads.

        If a Democrat had come out and bashed a wildly popular general like that, there’d be an absolute shit-show. Unamerican! Treasonous! Troop hating! Disloyal! Hurting moral! Putting lives in danger by supporting the enemy! You name it. I think you can easily imagine all the acquisitions the Republican base would be throwing at the Democrat.

        But Trump does it and…. crickets.

        Has the Republican base simply given up ALL their positions and ideology in favor of just being Trump’s supporters? They would have NEVER stood for something like that under Obama or even Bush II, and sure as hell not H. Clinton. So what happened?

        • I think I’ve been fairly vocal about my disdain for this in the past (not for APPRECIATING the military, but for the fetishist worship of the military).

          You did do the obligatory bow, correct?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Mathius – I am equally shocked. Never in a million years saw this coming. Its not even masterful at this point – he said he was going to do this (break the law by the way), now he is doing it. He is openly wiping himself with the very laws he is sworn to uphold, he brags about it in rallies and the crowd cheers louder. Do we at least given him credit for being so brazen and doing it to our faces?

      • Trump is the *ugh* master *ugh* of “turning into the skid.”

        Whatever charge is thrown against him, he either immediately hurls it back at his opponent or just doubles-down and insists that, yes, he is doing exactly what we accuse him of, but we’ve got the wrong interpretation and it’s totally cool and we should “just get over it.”

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Given all the controversy over his hotels I have a hard time believing he hasn’t adequately protected himself from actual criminal violations. Then again, who knows for sure.

        As for the “appearance of conflict” I agree, unforced error. But then there is another side of that which says that we all benefit by him showing off his stuff to foreign leaders. Kind of like you or me inviting them to our house because it is far grander than anything Uncle has to offer. I can see this other argument but think the appearance of conflict outweighs that benefit.

        Unless……….. the goal is to make sure that the “I don’t care what you think” brand is protected. That he feels that is of far greater value than the cost of “appearance of conflict”.

        Now what if he comps much of the cost of the summit??? Or what if he reduces charges to below going market rates? The conflict still exists but the USA is benefiting as well. Does that make any difference to ya’ll.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      On the Doral G-7 location, from Mulvaney.

      “Mulvaney rejected those arguments on Thursday, insisting that Trump would not profit from the gathering. He asserted that it would be “dramatically cheaper” to host the event at Doral because the facility had agreed to host the G-7 at cost.

      “I get the criticisms. So does [Trump]… but no, there’s no issue here on him profiting from this in any way, shape or form,” Mulvaney said. “If you think it’s going to help his brand, that’s great, but I would suggest that he doesn’t need much help promoting his brand.””

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    I find myself wanting for words to express what I am thinking about this………….. Mathius??? Mathius????? Help me……

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/hillary-clinton-says-tulsi-gabbard-is-a-russian-asset-groomed-to-ensure-trump-re-election

    • Just A Citizen says:

      P.S. I have seen comments made at The Hill and Politico for almost two months that follow this narrative. I thought they were all just kooks. Apparently this goes deeper in the Dem mainframe.

  42. Who the hell knows?

    Clinton is persona non grata in the Democratic Party these days… I’m not listening to an hour of her talking unless there’s a gun to my head. And maybe not even then. But I probably could stomach listening to that specific section if you could point me at it.

    As for Tulsi…? Who cares. She’s nobody. The nominee is going to be Biden or Sanders Warren. Anyone on the left who tries to run a 3rd party vs Trump, especially by out-lefting them… I think the left learned it’s lesson when so many stayed home because Clinton was “just as bad as Trump” – I think they’ll understand that they have to vote and they have to vote for the lesser of two evils or they’ll get stuck with Trump again.

    THAT SAID, I still think Trump is going to eeeek out a win against a weak Democratic opponent (and that he’s going to call it a landslide, unprecedented, bigly!) (and that his base is going to agree even though it’s objectively false) (and that the left is going to bitch and moan about the lying) (and that the right is going to call it just sour grapes and “get over it.”)

    ANYWAY, not that I care about this kind of nonsense.. but I think what Clinton is saying when she says that Tulsi and Stein are “Russian assets” isn’t in the sense of a spy-vs-spy Get Smart kind of way, but rather that they are assets in that they have value to the Russians. That is.. helping Tulsi and Stein help the Russians, not that Tulsi and Stein work for the Russians… is that your take?

    So, in this view, the Russians are going to try to help Trump again, just like they did in ’16, and they’re going to do it by aiding 3rd parties to break off key support from the Blue Team candidate. That makes sense, I guess.

    Does anyone think the Russians WON’T try to meddle? This would be an effective way of doing it. (Assuming they wanted Trump to win rather than Blue Candidate).

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      If the Russians supported Gabbard it would be because they would want her to win. Just as they did with Trump. I would expect them to support Gabbard over Trump.

      Clinton used the term “being groomed” so that denotes more than just a coincidental association.

      But none of that is the real point and I suspect you understand that. Russians, Russians, the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming………. now the mantra of the Democratic Party and their hovering-sputtering Queen Bee.

      The Russians have been meddling in our internal affairs since shortly after the Communists took control of Russia. Well, actually before that when they exported their bankrupt Marxist ideology by hiding in the suitcases of all those Germans that migrated here in the late 1800’s.

      • If the Russians supported Gabbard it would be because they would want her to win.

        If she’s not the Democratic Party candidate, then she’s not going to win.

        That’s just political reality. Unless Biden and Trump get into a brawl and both die from infected bites, no 3rd party candidate is going to win.

        And, frankly, not even then. It just means it’d be Pence against [to be determined].

        The only effect of signal boosting a 3rd party candidate is to split off support from the Red or Blue teams and create a win for the other party.

        Clinton used the term “being groomed” so that denotes more than just a coincidental association.

        I didn’t see that. Yes, the term does seem to imply what you say.

        Again, I’m NOT going to listen to an hour of her talking, so I’m not going to be 100% on the mark.

        But none of that is the real point and I suspect you understand that. Russians, Russians, the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming………. now the mantra of the Democratic Party

        Well… they did seem to do something in 2016…

        I’d like for them not to do that again in 2020..

        Even if that means Trump winning, I’d prefer to avoid Russian interference in the election. I’d rather win the right way than lose the wrong way.

        (to be clear, I do NOT stipulate that the Russians are on the side of the left. I think they wanted Trump to win and will probably want him to win again in 2020)

        The Russians have been meddling in our internal affairs since shortly after the Communists took control of Russia.

        Way before then!

        Well, actually before that when they exported their bankrupt Marxist ideology by hiding in the suitcases of all those Germans that migrated here in the late 1800’s.

        If you say so.. it certainly wouldn’t surprise me.

        But I’m not concerned with ancient history. I just don’t want them buying facebook ads to convince would-be Democratic voters to “throw their vote away” in support of some 3rd party in order to help Trump win. I’m not concerned with hidden Marxist pamplets – I’m concerned with the internet and hacking and such.

        And I think you agree – whether it’s for Trump or [TBD], you’d rather they kept their noses out. And, since they won’t, you’d rather WE kept their noses out for them.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Of course they’ll meddle. They’d be stupid not to. As for HRC? Violent agreement – why does anyone care what she says or why?

      One thing I am in slight disagreement on – election is today – Trump does win in a landslide. The opposing candidates as a lot are just awful. The economy is too good for Trump not to win – even if the deficit spins right off the graph – no one cares.

      • The opposing candidates as a lot are just awful.

        Yes… for now… the have to track center for the general.

        Right now, with such a crowded field, they have to out-left each to absurd degrees.

        The economy is too good for Trump not to win

        It’s reeeeaaaaaaallllly not.

        It might feel that way, but this whole thing is a hair away from a 2008-caliber collapse.

        It’s going to collapse… the big question is “before or after the election.”

        even if the deficit spins right off the graph – no one cares.

        Right.. and the Republicans will never care about debt or the deficit again until a Democrat is in office. Then they’ll suddenly remember the emergency situation.. just in time to use it to insist that the Democrats can’t do anything they want to do because we can’t afford it.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          I see you are stereo-typing Republicans again. I thought you didn’t like that kind of argument?

          • I have no objection to saying that about the REPUBLICANS or the DEMOCRATS.

            These are definitionally partisans. They aren’t allied for ideology, they’re allied for party. And they deserve our scorn and derision.

            Are you a Republican? No, of course not. You’re forced into their camp on election day because of a lack of other options, but you’re not “one of them.” Likewise, I am forced to caucus with the Democrats, but I sure as hell am not one of them.

            HOWEVER, I am “left” and you are “right.” When you attack the “left” you’re encompassing the whole ideology (unless otherwise specified). When you say things along the lines of “the left is deranged,” you’re saying that everyone who disagrees with you politically is deranged… it’s not “the far left” or the “leftist politicians” or “left-leaning party hacks” etc. THAT’S the objection… does this make sense?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              The LEFT is deranged……………. because they all support STATISM. All they argue about is the form, but never the function.

              As for the D vs R, I do recall when I said Dems were for open borders you came back with “stop stereotyping” or better, “stop lumping all Dems together”. Yet here this morning you say Republicans don’t care about the deficit except when a D is in office.

              Sorry my friend but your hypocrisy on this point is showing. But instead of owning it you now try a diversion moving from party to ideology. You do realize don’t you that if you use ideology is it much easier, not harder, to make blanket statements about a group. Unless of course that ideology is to have no ideology.

              • The LEFT is deranged……………. because they all support STATISM. All they argue about is the form, but never the function.

                STATISM is good… within reason.

                ANARCHY is a pipe dream.

                I am deranged for other reasons.

                I do recall when I said Dems were for open borders you came back with “stop stereotyping” or better, “stop lumping all Dems together”.

                Maybe… but I think it’s worth noting that not all Dems DO support open borders. In fact, most don’t. I think you’d be hard pressed to find any Democrat who will actually say, like I do, that the borders should be thrown wide open and anyone (who isn’t a known danger) should be allowed to come here whenever they want.

                You do realize don’t you that if you use ideology is it much easier, not harder, to make blanket statements about a group

                Maybe you should just stop making blanket statements about the left and the Democrats?

                In the spirit of fairness, I’ll amend my statement above: “Right.. and the Republicans [politicians and talking heads] will never care about debt or the deficit again until a Democrat is in office. Then they’ll suddenly remember the emergency situation.. just in time to use it to insist that the Democrats can’t do anything they want to do because we can’t afford it.”

                Unless of course that ideology is to have no ideology.

                But then your ideology would be.. but then.. but then… ::vague popping noise::

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Ray,

        A large number of people who call themselves Democrats care what HRC has to say. It may be shrinking but it is still bigger that most of us would think. But we should pay attention more because she can be a tool for the larger narrative which is affecting all discussions around the elections, and our foreign policy.

        Romney is really owed an apology from the Democratic Party in general and Mr. Obama in particular.

        Personally, I do NOT see Trump getting re-elected. Not unless the Dems grossly overplay the Impeachment hand. But all evidence is that their strategy of trickling out bad news on almost a daily basis is working to erode support. It won’t take much for those handful of swing states he won last time to go back to the Dem.

        Now watch as the Media works it’s tail off to push that Indiana Mayor to the front of the pack.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Off-topic – tis why I spend most of my screen time (what little I have with a 10 and 8 yr old) watching Shawn James and his YouTube channel “My Self Reliance”. Look him up. For some reason I fixate that JAC or Gman are Shawn James. Don’t knock because he’s a Canadian (wink).

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Ray

            Will check it out. The “Canadians” are my neighbors, that is the western variety, heh, heh.

            Have been spending most of mine studying Permaculture and Sustainable Farming ideas. Figuring out how to feed communities with more local production.

            • studying Permaculture and Sustainable Farming ideas. Figuring out how to feed communities with more local production.

              I’m a huge fan of vertical farming… I’d love to see it really take off…

              Honestly, I’d consider quitting my job to start one. I figure, especially where I live, a super-locally sourced 100% organic “farm” could do wonders.

              One thing I’ve been wondering… if I’m growing my crops indoors, then I can control the atmosphere… what would happen if I gave my plants a 100% CO2 environment to grow in? Like Jurassic bugs, would they grow huge?

              • As JAC will testify, I have a killer greenhouse……I do vertical farming…..but, it is tough to do. Requires a great amount of time……the best things to grow are tomatos and peppers. It is very difficult to grow melons and things that get heavy….then you have to build pyramid type trellis that will hold the weight of things. So commercially in high rises, it would probaly not be beneficial.

                I also try container gardening…..and that is tough when it comes to veggies. You can keep critters and soil borne critters away but you become infinitely more susceptible to airborne and lack of moisture. You must water containers much more.

                Now, one other thing that I have tried is bare root vertical (upside down)…but you need a good humidifier to keep everything moist.

                ________________________

                Otherwise, send the DPM out to plunder.

          • Naw..

            JAC is Jordan Peterson.

            Gman is Burak Özdemir

            • I’m WAY better looking than him. Plus, I don’t have to cook for a Harem. I’ll have too check out Ray’s stuff, sounds like it could be interesting.

        • Worked well with the endless Benghazi hearings….

  43. I’m shocked – shocked, I say – to find that the G7 will be held at a Trump resort.

    Out of curiosity about all these hotels, why is this a problem? I do not think you can claim using office to enrich oneself……….every single office holder in the US Senate and House has enriched themselves, using their office……………..so…………………what is the big deal?

    The only red flag that I see would be if they were charging above the norm…..that would be price gouging……but staying at a Trump resort, af applicable and within normal limits….the problem is exactly what?

    • No problem for the sane among us. The Left however, would have a meltdown if Trump single handedly cured cancer, ended world hunger, made total peace on earth and/or made everyone in the US a millionaire. Orange Man bad! 😛

  44. Mathius surmises………. It might feel that way, but this whole thing is a hair away from a 2008-caliber collapse.

    I do not see it………unless the Dems take control then I see a huge pull back….people, like me, will divest and sit on money instead of having it taxed away. Is this the same collapse that everyone has been waiting on for years now?

  45. Just A Citizen says:

    I would like to offer up something that will give several some heartburn. As one of those who constantly presents information on how our Founders and the Framers of the Constitution felt about things, what they were hoping to create, etc, etc. let me offer this.

    If they were in charge today they would impeach POTUS Trump immediately. And not for any of the supposed crimes the Dems are trying to lay on him. Simply for the reasons that Mathius raised in the beginning. That the man brings dishonor and shame to the office. His behavior alone would probably been enough during those olden times.

    Of course, back then anyone who was openly seeking the office would be unable to get elected. It was simply bad form to actively seek public office.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      THAT actually works for at least two of the last three presidents.

      See, I think the current president is playing by the rules of THIS society. I remember reading numerous times about how the Redcoats thought it unsportsmanlike and a violation of the “code” of war for American sharpshooters to “pick off” their officers. Times change, standards change, rules change. Who ever woulda thought JAC that we would be living in a society where MEN could compete and WIN sporting events for women? And, nobody really complains.

      Trump’s “behavior” is actually the least of our problems. He is a child of the times. My buddy Teddy Roosevelt was a scandal for his times. President’s just didn’t do what he did.

      By the way, I am not saying it is a “good” thing, just that it is the way it is. If you think this is bad, just live another 20 years! Hah! Cigar in the oval office under the desk indeed.

      If you remember my friend, The Former Trump AG was a true gentleman, a true Southern gentleman and stepped out of the way in a Senatorial, Southern and gentlemanly manner to ALLOWTHEDEMOCRATSTOSTEAMROLL a bogus Russia investigation! In an earlier time, the founders time, a more “civil” time, Trump would have slapped Adam Schiff silly and met him on the mall at dawn with pistols. Prefer that?

      Think for just one minute, had not Russia collusion happened (the BS that is) how very different Trump could have acted!

  46. Yea Texas………………….we are now a permanent right to work state.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Took ya’ll long enough.

      • We have always been a right to work state, my friend but it is now in our state constitution and cannot be changed.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Ah, I see. Congratulations.

        • now in our state constitution and cannot be changed.

          That which is added.. can be removed…

          • Yes, sir….it can be………………………if you can find the votes in Texas. But until we made it part of the State Constitution, even though Texas recognized a “right to work” and has for decades……the right to work is now embodied in law. In the past, unions have laways claimed that even though Texas has recognized and it has always been a “right to work” state, since it is not in the law, it can still, therefore, be considered as a possible defense on the dues checkoff clauses. Not any longer. It is now written in law and employers can now use it as a defense to union dues check off clauses.

            Now, this is something that I never understood anyway…..years ago, we had an operation in Jacksonville, Illinois….those employees voted in a chapter of the Teamsters Union….which in Illinois, is pretty strong. We did not care if they wanted in a union up there since everybody was union….so we formed a seperate company just for Illinios. We would negotitate in good faith…no problems. We did negotiate all terms and conditions of the contract in good faith as it pertained to mandatory bargaining items as defined under the NLRA. One thing that was not a mandatory bargaining issue was the ‘Dues checkoff” part of the contract that stipulated that he company would deduct the dues and then send a check to the Teamsters. We decided that it was too much trouble to conduct this so we decided not to agree to a dues checkoff…..it was not out responsibility to deduct union dues not our responsibility to pay them….it was up to the local to collect from the individual members. So, we negotiated all pay and benefits and monetary provisions of the contract. Everything was settled except that. The union filed suit and lost it because it is not a mandatory bargaining subject and any strike would be classed as am “economic strike” whic is illegal.

            So, the Teamsters had to collect their own dues……two years later, the Teamsters union left us alone and since no one hardly paid their dues…..it went by the wayside. So, why companies bargain dues check off is beyond me. Unions go broke if they have to collect their own dues.

            • It’s always been an article of faith with me that it’s far, far easier to get your money if you don’t give it away first rather than trying to claw it back afterward.

              A refund is far harder to get than just refusing to pay until it’s right.

              Unions understand this – if the money never hits the employees pockets, it’s no big deal, but if it gets away from them and they have to try to get it back from them….

              I’m 99% sure that’s why payroll taxes are withheld rather than billed… well, that and by making me pay weekly, they get an interest free loan..

              • Precisely…….I knew that where truck drivers were concerned…..they were on the road all the time and if they had the money and then got billed for it, the spousal unit, after awhile, starts saying we sure could use that money elsewhere, honey…………….and that is what happened. After 2 years they voted out the union…..and we had a union free company in Illinois known for crossing picket lines. I also paid my drivers a percentage of the actual haul…..so if they did not work..no pay. Add the two together and it did away with the union.

              • So, while Texas was a right to work state…meaning that you did not have to join a union as a condition of employment, there was nothing in the law or constitution about it….now there is. It IS a right to work State. And it has survived many a legal challenge. In Texas Legislature law, it will take 85% vote to take it out.

              • the spousal unit, after awhile, starts saying we sure could use that money elsewhere, honey

                It’s weird.. I handle the finances in my family. The investments, the taxes, etc.

                But my wife was super eager to handle paying off the credit card bill… she just snatches that thing right off the mail pile before I can even see it. She pays it straight away, like clockwork. She really is wonderful. The instant she’s done, she’s so security conscious that she shreds the thing and then burns the shreds and flushes the ashes down the toilet.

                I sure am a lucky man!

              • YUP………..I promised her I would not tell.

  47. https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/18/warrens-plan-to-tax-what-she-cant-ban/

    I’d say she plans to tax guns until the consequences of all those laws effectively bans guns.

  48. Early in this legislative session, the House did vote to NOT start an impeachment investigation. I would think that that vote is still the formal position of the House until a new vote is taken. If so then the current inquiry is in fact an improper effort.

    • July 16[, 2019]: Congressman Al Green introduces as a privileged resolution an article of impeachment, the third time this has been done.[154][155] The resolution was voted to be set aside by the House of Representatives by a 322-95 vote the next day.

  49. So….Riddle me this…………………If speech is intended to do harm, then the “freedom of speech” becomes in question…..so…….if there are leaks and lies that are intended to do harm….why would it be so wrong to file slander or some such suits?

    If I cannot call a Mexican a “greaser”, then how can you call a POTUS a moron? Or even back to the POTUS….how can he call anyone the names he calls them? So, I guess, it is freedom of speech for me…but not thee?

    • If speech is intended to do harm, then the “freedom of speech” becomes in question…..so……

      Define “harm”?

      I can harm your interests with impunity. I cannot harm “you.”

      if there are leaks and lies that are intended to do harm….why would it be so wrong to file slander or some such suits?

      Whoa there, cowboy..

      Let’s split those two apart, shall we?

      if there are leaks and lies that are intended to do harm….why would it be so wrong to file slander or some such suits?

      Leaks may be privileged information or classified or otherwise protected from disclosure. There may be NDA’s involved or other mechanisms which impact this question. In truth, while I’m pretty well verse in the law for a lay person, I am not a lawyer. I do not know the answer to this question.

      if there are leaks and lies that are intended to do harm….why would it be so wrong to file slander or some such suits?

      Lies which are intended to do harm are called slander (if spoken) and libel (if written). These ARE illegal and you CAN file suit against someone for telling harmful lies against you.

      The standards vary, with “public persons” having the least protection and private citizens having more. This is why you can have rags the Enquirer which tell obvious lies – Trump level lies. Because suing them is really tough – the onus is on the victim to prove that the author knew they were lying at the time of publication – it’s a hard bar to clear. As a result, suing a tabloid is effectively a tactic to beat them to death with legal costs rather than actually win a case against them.

      Beyond that of course, you have to prove harm. It’s not just “did you lie” but did you lie harmfully.

      The colonel’s favorite color is a particularly noxious shade of lime green.

      That’s (probably) a lie.

      But, as it does not harm you, you can sue until you’re blue in the face, but you’re not going to recover a penny. Thus I am judgement proof, thus you have no tools to legally stop me.

      BUT if my lie is harmful, you ask “why would it be so wrong to file slander or some such suits?” and the answer is… it’s not. It’s not always wise however, to sue. Especially from a position of being a public figure, your odds of success are generally terrible and, anyway, you come off looking thin skinned. But you can sue.

      If I cannot call a Mexican a “greaser”, then how can you call a POTUS a moron?

      You CAN call a Mexican anything you want. That is, there’s no LAW against it.

      The First Amendment stops the government from stopping you from saying things. It doesn’t stop society from punishing you.

      There are, as you know, certain exceptions to the above. Libel/slander and Clear and Present Danger being the obvious ones.

      then how can you call a POTUS a moron?

      Important to note, the TRUTH is an absolute defense to libel/slander.

      So you can call Trump a moron all you want and there’s nothing the government can do about it because it’s true.

      But, again, as you know, just because the government can’t do anything about it, doesn’t mean your words won’t have consequences. If I said that on InfoWars (do they even have a comments section?), even though it’s true, I would get banned. And no one would be violating my rights.

      —————-

      All that said, we should be leery of using the law as a weapon.

      Trump, amongst his many failings, does this too often. He is what’s called a “vexatious litigant.” Which is to say, he uses the law, lawsuits, threats of lawsuits, to weaponize the law against his enemies/opponents. He hasn’t done this as President (that I know of), but as a businessman, he did it all the time and was quite open about it.

      For example, he would make a point of never settling, even if he was doomed to lose. Why? Because he understood that the if he could just make it expensive and time consuming enough, that he could make people give in to him. If you knew that you’d eventually win against him, but you’d have to pay millions in legal fees to get there, you might not bother in the first place. So, even though you have every right, he throws the law up as a barrier. This is an abuse of the law.

      He constantly sued and threatened suit against people, not to win, but to threaten them with draining legal costs in order to control their behavior. He used the law as a business weapon.

      Now, Trump is hardly alone in this. He may be egregious, but he is far from the only one. So I single him out here only because I don’t like him.

      I’ll also add that, in certain cases, a court may actually enter an injunction against a vexatious litigant. To my knowledge this is pretty rare, and reserved for only the worst offenders, but when this happens, you cannot file a lawsuit without first proving to a judge that your suit has merit and a reasonable chance of succeeding. In other words, if you abuse this tactic too much, the courts can step in a stop you. But, again, it’s pretty rare.

      My point in this is that people can say or do what they want.. we live in a free society.. but when we start suing people every time they say something we don’t like, it has a chilling effect on free speech. You might not say X, not because you don’t believe it, not because it’s not true, but because you know Trump might consider it a lie and then drag you into a year-long multi-million dollar lawsuit.

      CNN has a story they want to run – it’s credible but not iron clad – but they hold back because they don’t want to get sued for libel and have to defend themselves from a multi-million dollar pointless lawsuit. Suddenly CNN is only publishing pro-Trump articles because they’re too afraid to do otherwise. See how that can go?

      An interesting tangential case might be Gawker. Peter Thiel (a Trump super-donor) had a grudge against Gawker, an internet rag, stemming from prior negative coverage When Gawker published a Hulk Hogan sex tape (eww), Thiel intervened and personally financed Hogan’s suit, rendering it so expensive that it literally dragged Gawker into bankruptcy. Was Gawker wrong? Sure. Should they have lost or settled? Yes. But Thiel was able to use to law as a weapon and kill a company he didn’t like. This is what we should fear – that the rich and powerful can use the law to control freedom of speech through expensive lawsuits and threats thereof.

      • Important to note, the TRUTH is an absolute defense to libel/slander. Yes, if it is true. But, for example….calling the POTUS a moron is not a subjective issue. The term moron is specifically defined……if a person calls a POTUS a moron and is public about it…..in your layman definition, why is this not “HARM”…………..or are you saying that being disparaging is not causing harm…..what if it actually changes someone’s mind in voting…why is this not harm?

        The same issue applies to the existing POTUS and his name calling with the intent to do harm….such harm being to malign or slander someone to keep people from voting for them?

        Please, stay away from the “higher standards” argument because you will fall on deaf ears. The standards are the same for the POTUS as they are for the drunk laying in the street. Social prominence should not be an altering standard.

        • But, for example….calling the POTUS a moron is not a subjective issue. The term moron is specifically defined

          So, no… no. Just… no.

          You don’t get to take what someone said and parse it into technical definitions and then fight that.

          The question is “did this guy lie.” Not “did he misspeak” or “did he use a word incorrectly.”

          A LIE requires “intent.”

          If I think the word “moron” means “brilliant statesman” and I call him a moron, it is a complete defense if I can demonstrate that that is what I meant.

          Obviously, the court is going to look at that defense with a jaundiced eye. But in a more practical example, if I think it means “just a generally stupid person or a person who says or does stupid things,” it doesn’t matter if there’s a DSM V definition, that’s not what’s going to be considered.

          The law doesn’t criminalize mistakes and errors in speech. It criminalized lies.

          if a person calls a POTUS a moron and is public about it…..in your layman definition, why is this not “HARM”

          A) It’s true, so it doesn’t matter if it’s harmful or not.

          B) Hurt feelings generally don’t count. You have to cause material / serious harm that results in actual tangible harm. If it’s serious enough that it can count as harassment or something, that might rise to the level where you can start thinking about monetary awards.

          But for a public figure…? I’m sorry, but the answer is just “no.” It has to HARM the person.

          C) How is Trump “harmed” by someone saying what half the country already thinks? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. And if it’s not a duck, you really haven’t “hurt” it by stating what the obvious evidence suggests. Trump says and does profoundly stupid – dare I say moronic – things. Even if he could score a 160 on an IQ test (his IQ is one of the highest, I hear), it wouldn’t change the fact that he’s given us plenty of reason to believe he’s stupid, so why should we be penalized for beliving that?

          The same issue applies to the existing POTUS and his name calling with the intent to do harm….

          Again, his juvenile name-calling is mostly localized to public figures. As such, they generally have no recourse. Even if that “name calling” and various other insults and insinuations resulted in mental anguish or damage to their “brand,” it’s just borderline impossible to breach the First Amendment right to free speech in these kinds of cases.

          By the way, the first thing you’d have to do is prove that Trump knew what he was saying is a lie. Given that Trump has no consistent worldview from moment to moment, good luck with that.

          such harm being to malign or slander someone to keep people from voting for them?

          So why hasn’t Clinton sued Trump for his many and obvious lies about her?

          Sure, he said some true things, but plenty of lies, too, no?

          And those lies hurt her.

          And she lost the election in part because of those lies, no?

          Well…. no.

          There are all kinds of problems with this.

          A) It has to be untrue. That’s not the same as “not true,” which is to say not a fact, but rather a fact that is wrong. An “opinion” for instance, cannot be false. So just calling her a loser cannot be “false” – it’s just his opinion. It has to be a factual question like “criminal” – but even then, there’s tons of wiggle room to argue he meant it metaphorically.
          B) You have to prove he knew what he was saying was false when he said it. As mentioned above, for someone with a brain like Trumps, that’s just… not something you can do. He will seemingly believe anything at any time and change on a dime for any reason. He has been known to cite fringe conspiracy theory websites as though they were the gospel truth. And while what he says might be factually wrong, it doesn’t matter because he believes it.
          B.2) To expand on this, the onus is on Clinton to prove that Trump knew it was a lie. Not on Trump to prove that it wasn’t. So Clinton would need a document or something where he overtly discussed whether to say this thing he knew wasn’t true, or a witness account, etc. Good luck proving that.
          C) Even if she can get this, she needs to prove damages. She would need to be able to demonstrate that this lie caused that harm and control for everything else going on in the world and politically. In a helter skelter campaign where everyone’s logging shots at everyone else over the course of months, good luck showing that that specific lie flipped the necessary votes in this state causing her to lose the election.
          D) Next you need damages. I sincerely doubt you can prove a monetary value of “losing the Presidency.” You’d have to put a price tag on it and say “this is the amount of damage this lie did to me in dollars.” And then you’d have to prove that to a jury. Yet again, good luck with that.

          It’s just a simple fact that the 1st is a very strong shield. The Founders wanted a system where anyone could criticize politicians and leaders without fear. Even if that meant that they have to suffer undue insults.

          Please, stay away from the “higher standards” argument because you will fall on deaf ears.

          Well, unclog your ears, because that’s how the legal system is set up.

          The standards are the same for the POTUS as they are for the drunk laying in the street. Social prominence should not be an altering standard.

          And yet it is.

          Don’t like it, go change the law.

          Trump has repeatedly talked about changing the law so that he could sue people who said mean things about him.. because he’s a thin-skinned diaper baby who needs a safe space to protect his snowflake fragile ego.. even though he knowingly injected himself into the middle of a blood-sport.

          • Don’t like it, go change the law. There is no law to change….I said that social prominence is not above the law….any law….I said (and I stand by it) that social prominence should never ever ever ever be and altering standard. I know that it is done. I even take advantage of it as a Colonel……….but I am nothing more than a human (some people even disagree there)…..but being a Colonel does not make me any more or less socially acceptable by definition (other than officer and gentleman by act of Congress). You take advantage every chance you get (do not try to be Polyanna on me)…it is human nature….but in the eyes of a blind law….no one should get a leg up simply because they “made it.”

            • I know you feel this way. I get it, I do.

              For me, I think people who CHOOSE the spotlight have willingly stepped into the arena and just have to accept that they’re going to be subjected to more discussion, including more lies.

              It’s just a practical reality. I get not liking it, but it just.. is.

              I really feel bad for people who are thrust into the spotlight… Some random schmo says or does something and is suddenly in the national spotlight getting their whole lives scrutinized and anyone can say anything they want about him with near-impunity.. blech!

              For what it’s worth, you have to remember that the Framers were very keen to ensure that the Political class couldn’t criminalize criticism.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Yes, but they were still fighting duels with those who insulted their honor. Maybe reinstating dueling in the D.C. area would address the problem.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            I am eagerly awaiting the “additional whistle blowers” who have personal knowledge of the phone conversation.

      • You don’t get to take what someone said and parse it into technical definitions and then fight that. Why not? You do it all the time….a moron has an IQ below 70. Period. Full stop. You have always said that words and deeds matter. So, why is it insensitive to call a Muslim a “rag head” and it is not insensitive to call a POTUS a moron…..when he is far from it.

        • Why not? You do it all the time

          Because I am a CIVILIAN and not a JUROR.

          a moron has an IQ below 70.

          Common usage does not adhere to that definition. That is a medical / textbook definition.

          In fact, per our friends at Dictionary.com

          noun
          Informal. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment:
          I wonder why they elected that narrow-minded moron to Congress.
          Psychology. (no longer in technical use; now considered offensive) a person of borderline intelligence in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.

          But it wouldn’t even matter. Because a LIE is about intent. It is not about the actual specific meaning of the words you use. If I say D13 is female, but I meant to say Anita is female, I haven’t lied. I saw simple wrong or I misspoke. Even though the thing I saw wasn’t true, even if it hurt your feelings, it’s still not a lie.

          Again, per our friends at Dictionary.com

          LIE
          noun
          a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

          I call Trump a liar not just because the things he says are objectively bullshit.. but because I believe that he knows they are not true when he says them. When he says he had the biggest inauguration crowd, that is just simply and objectively false statement. And there’s no credible way he doesn’t know that, unless he surrounded himself with yes-men who are so eager to pad his fragile ego that they lied to him about it, and he was so willfully naive and driven by confirmation bias that he just accepted it.

          So either he is a LIAR or he is a MORON.

          … or both.

          So, why is it insensitive to call a Muslim a “rag head” and it is not insensitive to call a POTUS a moron…..

          Well, one is a racial slur and the other is an attack on a specific person who has – undeniably – publicly said and done several moronic things.

          So, you know.. there’s that…

          But the short answer is that “insensitive” is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe your best friend is Muslim and your relationship is such that you call each other these kinds of names and no one’s feelings are hurt.

          Maybe you’re so in the tank for Trump and your entire identity is subsumed by your cult-like idolity of The Trump, and anything less that wholehearted praise for your Dear Leader sends you scurrying to your safe space, in which case calling him a moron is deeply offensive to you.

          The short answer is that we, as a society, calibrate to what we, as a society, find offense and acceptable. Whereas once “rag head” might have been widely acceptable, today it would get you kicked out of most cocktail parties.

          It’s not a question of law.. but a sort of “free market” of ideas. We The People have a shared culture and that culture permits and doesn’t permit as it wills. Who says it, why, when, where, how, and to whom.. these all play into the informal calculus of what is “insensitive.”

          a moron…..when he is far from it.

          Well that’s like your opinion, man.

          I think there’s a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest that he IS a moron (common usage). At least, there is a case to be made..

  50. For example, he would make a point of never settling, even if he was doomed to lose. Why? Because he understood that the if he could just make it expensive and time consuming enough, that he could make people give in to him. If you knew that you’d eventually win against him, but you’d have to pay millions in legal fees to get there, you might not bother in the first place. So, even though you have every right, he throws the law up as a barrier.

    Let us take Trump out of this….and insert various venture capitalists….you name them. Using the law as a barrier and weaponizing it is a time worn arrow in the quiver just like a quarter back sneak is in football. In Business, there are no rules….you win…..you win anyway you can by legal means. You enter a hostile takeover of a company, fire everybody, take the cash, liquidate the assets….and walk away. Big boy’s game. You might have destroyed a thousand families and bankrupted a company but you did it LEGALLY albeit by being a shit head…but you still did it. The Warren Buffets of the world did not get big by being nice guy. They got that way by being ruthless and cruel and inhumane….so…it is the way it is, I suppose. They get big because they buy their way into a company, get control of 5% of common stock and engineer a takeove. Buffet is a master of this. Do you hate Buffet?

    • Let us take Trump out of this….

      But I don’t wanna!!

      and insert various venture capitalists….you name them. Using the law as a barrier and weaponizing it is a time worn arrow in the quiver just like a quarter back sneak is in football.

      Correct.

      In Business, there are no rules….you win…..you win anyway you can by legal means.

      Yes. This would be squarely in the realm of “lawful but awful.”

      You enter a hostile takeover of a company, fire everybody, take the cash, liquidate the assets….and walk away. Big boy’s game. You might have destroyed a thousand families and bankrupted a company but you did it LEGALLY albeit by being a shit head…but you still did it.

      Correct.

      Again, “lawful but awful.”

      The Warren Buffets of the world did not get big by being nice guy.

      True. But it doesn’t mean I have to like it or think they’re good or ethical just because they din’t break any laws.

      Also, not for nothing, but OF COURSE they broke laws.. probably a ton of them. There are just too many laws and they’re too complicated and archane and hard to avoid breaking. Trump and Buffet and Zuckerberg have probably committed more felonies (or had them committed on their behalves) than you’ve drank Dr. Peppers in your entire life.

      They got that way by being ruthless and cruel and inhumane….

      Almost all of the time.

      Maybe not 100%.. but easily 90%+.

      so…it is the way it is, I suppose.

      Yup.

      They get big because they buy their way into a company, get control of 5% of common stock and engineer a takeove.

      Sure.. that’s one highly effective way.

      Buffet is a master of this. Do you hate Buffet?

      Which one?

      No, I don’t hate Buffet. But I don’t think he’s necessarily a “good guy” or that he’s “using the law the right way.”

      • This would be squarely in the realm of “lawful but awful.” Excuuuuuuse me? Awful by whose definition? It is awful if you are on the receiving end, I agree, but that is “subjective” thinking. It is not awful in the eyes of the law, verdad?

        I like to compare it to war…..what ever it takes to win……WHATEVER it takes. I did not find it awful to come face to face with Viet Cong who were using single shot, french made, bolt action, single shot rifles, vintage 1950…..and I get on the radio and call in an artillery strike (vintage 1970) and watch them explode into tiny pieces….that was not awful….it was really fun……and I won. But I took advantage over them…..not because it was necessary but because it was prudent, quick, decisive and fun to watch “red vapor” dissipate in the air.

        • Excuuuuuuse me?

          You’re excused.

          Awful by whose definition?

          Mine.

          That’s why -I- said it.

          It is awful if you are on the receiving end, I agree, but that is “subjective” thinking. It is not awful in the eyes of the law, verdad?

          It is NOT awful in the eyes of the law. The law has no eyes. The law is blind.

          I like to compare it to war…..what ever it takes to win……WHATEVER it takes.

          You can make that comparison.. and it’s a reasonable comparison.

          BUSINESSMAN Mathius agrees with you.

          CITIZEN Mathius thinks that is very bad.

          I did not find it awful to come face to face with Viet Cong who were using single shot, french made, bolt action, single shot rifles, vintage 1950…..and I get on the radio and call in an artillery strike (vintage 1970) and watch them explode into tiny pieces….that was not awful….it was really fun……and I won. But I took advantage over them…..not because it was necessary but because it was prudent, quick, decisive and fun to watch “red vapor” dissipate in the air.

          I have no comment on this one…

          I think I’ll let Hawkeye field this one for me.

  51. Ya know, Sir Mathius……………you are not consistent in your analogy of name calling….it seems to be ok to use names for your “enemies” but you couch things differently for
    everyone else.

    You love to split superlatives.

    Here is an example that was glaring to me………you said that it is ok to call Trump a Moron.This is intended to do hurt, emotionally and politically, it is a derogatory remark designed to hurt not only him but cast dispersions upon family. You claim that it is ok to use terms IF they are true but you cannot use the specific definition to define truth……you use the broad brush (that you hate)…saying that his IQ may not fit the definition of moron but I perceive his decisions to be moronic so, therefore, he is a moron and, therfore, because I really believe it, it is not slander.

    So, I fought against Muslims in Afghanistan and Kuwait. They are backwards low life imbecilic morons…They do not have the IQ to step around camel shit and cavort with sand fleas. Their very presence on this earth is offensive. They earn the name rag head because……….they wear rags on their heads. They are stupid. This is what I observed…..so……, therefore, they are stupid and backwards and unworthy of occupying space on earth, much less breathing and I find it offensive that they are even here in the US and I have seen nothing to change my mind. This is what I have observed.
    ————————————-
    Now, in your mind, you justify it by saying that this is what you have observed….yet you call supporters kool aid drinkers.

    However, MOST LIKELY, you would consider my definition of Muslims as a phobia or racial and that by calling them names is…well….what was it you said…..”a racial slur”….soooooo, my friend….why is my observation a racial slur and yours is truth? You observe and I observe. Whom is correct?

    ————————————-

    Special Note to DPM……………” I thought Mathius was the alter ego…but you appear to have lost control”…………….or to put it in language that you can understand… Ahoy, I thought ye had control o’ yer alter ego…but it appears that ye do nah. Wha’ gives, ye rotten pirate?

    • You love to split superlatives.

      Yes.

      it is a derogatory remark designed to hurt not only him but cast dispersions upon family

      What about “family”? I’m calling him and him alone a moron.

      Because he says and does things which are moronic.

      I use “Trump” as shorthand for “Donald Trump,” not his family. I don’t think anyone is reasonably confused by this.

      You claim that it is ok to use terms IF they are true but you cannot use the specific definition to define truth

      Well, there’s some good evidence to support that opinion.

      The “specific opinion,” if you will, is a stupid person, per our friends at Dictionary.com. They state that the medical definition of sub-70 IQ is no longer in use. So I’m not saying he has an IQ below 70 (I’m not not saying that either)… I’m just saying I consider him to be dumb.

      you use the broad brush (that you hate)…saying that his IQ may not fit the definition of moron but I perceive his decisions to be moronic so, therefore, he is a moron

      Yes, again, per Dictionary.com, a “moron” is just a stupid person. I am not saying anything about his actual literal tested IQ score.

      A person who says and does stupid things regularly enough can easily be considered stupid.

      … if the shoe fits…

      and, therfore, because I really believe it, it is not slander.

      Well.. it’s absolutely not slander.

      First of all, it’d be libel.

      Second of all, it’s not libel either.

      It’s not libel because it’s true. 🙂

      And it’s also not libel because I BELIEVE IT.

      If I believe it to be true, then it’s not libel.

      If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong. But it’s not a “lie” to be wrong.. it’s just “wrong.” Libel only considers “lies.”

      It is not a crime to be wrong, no matter how wrong you are or what the impact of your wrongness may be.

      It IS a crime to lie harmfully about a person.*

      *terms and conditions apply.

      So, I fought against Muslims in Afghanistan and Kuwait. They are backwards low life imbecilic morons…They do not have the IQ to step around camel shit and cavort with sand fleas. Their very presence on this earth is offensive. They earn the name rag head because……….they wear rags on their heads. They are stupid. This is what I observed…..so……, therefore, they are stupid and backwards and unworthy of occupying space on earth, much less breathing and I find it offensive that they are even here in the US and I have seen nothing to change my mind. This is what I have observed.

      I might consider this offensive and wrong, but that doesn’t really matter.

      As far as libel is concerned, IF YOU BELIEVE IT, then you’re in the clear.

      Also, attacking a large amorphous group, rather than a specific person, makes it very hard to establish “actual harm”… so even if they could win the suit against you (which they couldn’t), it’s highly unlikely that they’d be able to prove any damages. In other words, you’re in the clear.

      Now, in your mind, you justify it by saying that this is what you have observed….yet you call supporters kool aid drinkers.

      Of course, “kool aid drinkers” is a metaphor, I think you’ll stipulate that, right? What I mean to say is “people who are deluded to the point of (near-to-absolute) blind adherence to the support of Donald Trump.” I do not mean to say they are actually purchasing Kool-aid brand beverages and consuming them.

      FURTHER, just to be clear, I don’t refer to “supporters” as kool-aid drinkers.. I refer to his more obsessive and seemingly non-critical supporters (*cough* gman *cough*) as such. I do not, have not, and will not, refer to every supporter of Trump’s as a Kool-Aid drinker. But for some, well, if the shoe fits…

      FURTHER, as this is my honest opinion, you cannot win a libel suit against me. And, even if you could (you couldn’t), you’d never win damages as there is no actual “harm.”

      However, MOST LIKELY, you would consider my definition of Muslims as a phobia or racial and that by calling them names is…well….what was it you said…..”a racial slur”….

      As JAC helpfully pointed out, “Muslim isn’t a race,” so I guess I have to just fall back on generic bigotry.. but yes.

      But it still YOUR opinion (I hope it’s not your opinion and is just for demonstration purposes). And, as such, you are entitled to say what you believe.

      Just as I am entitled to be offended.

      And the government can’t do a damned thing about it.

      But I can kick you off my blog, block you, report you to the site administrator, boycott you, publicly shame you, or anything else along those lines.

      Freedom of speech does not mean “freedom from consequences.” It just means the government can’t persecute you for saying things they don’t like. It also means that I can’t use the power of government to persecute you because I’m offended.

      soooooo, my friend….why is my observation a racial slur and yours is truth? You observe and I observe.

      What is “truth”? Both are statements of opinion.

      There is no objective way to “prove” that Trump is a moron. Nor can it be absolutely disproven.

      There is no objective way to “prove” the things you said about Muslims. Nor can it be absolutely disproven.

      We are both entitled to speak our minds, to state our opinions.

      Even Trump is accorded this freedom – one he thoroughly abuses.

      There is a difference between a stated fact and a stated opinion.

      I CONSIDER your statement to be a slur. That is MY interpretation of it, that is my OPINION. I consider it offensive. I am entitled to interpret it as such. I am entitled to ban you from my blog, unfriend you on facebook, block you on instagram, and boycott your business. Because I am free.

      You CONSIDER my statement to be offensive. I’m not sure why you’d be offended by my opinion of someone else, but sure… it’s your right to be offended. It is YOUR interpretation that my statement was offensive, that is your OPINION. You consider it offensive. You are entitled to interpret it as such. You are entitled to ban me from your blog, unfriend me on facebook, block me on instagram, and boycott my business. Because you are free.

      Same goes for Trump.

      What CAN’T happen is the government intervening to tell you what you can and cannot say and punish you for ThoughtCrime.

      Whom is correct?

      Well, I am, of course!

      Special Note to DPM……………” I thought Mathius was the alter ego…but you appear to have lost control”…………….or to put it in language that you can understand… Ahoy, I thought ye had control o’ yer alter ego…but it appears that ye do nah. Wha’ gives, ye rotten pirate?

      I’m sorry, he can’t hear you right now. He’s……… indisposed.

  52. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Jeff Sessions is the classic example of what happens if you are old style gentlemanly politician these days (they hand your head to you and expect you to smile). C’mon guys I told you we are in Alan Drury “Advise and Consent” times where anything goes!

  53. times where anything goes!

    Anything goes, you say?

    • Hmmmmm…………….navy fire drills?

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      ANYTHING!

      • Canine Weapon says:
      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Boys are girls, girls are boys! Men beat women in women’s races. men marry men, men marry women women marry women Women marry men, Men and women marry other men and women. Congresswomen marry their brothers before they diviorce them and remarry their common law husband before they divorce them and marry their campaign coordinator whom they gave $ 250,000 of YOUR money too! —-Anything Goes—–

        From the master himself. The references are a bit dated but you can catch teh drift…….

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          Incredible sophisticated lyric! Ahhh to be able to use words correctly……………..

    • Ooooh kay……

      First of all, I feel like a biiig piece of the puzzle is missing. Why does she have sole custody, for starters? Why is she his full medical proxy and not joint?

      There are a couple red herrings… that the child is 7, “an age when kids can’t decide on a Christmas list” doesn’t mean that all seven year olds are indecisive. It is entirely possible that she has decided firmly and formed an identity around being female. I don’t know – you don’t know – the article doesn’t say. But you can be sure the court, especially a Texas court, considered this question.

      The article makes a big point of the fact that she is biologically and medically male. This is true. It is an absolute, cold, hard, unequivocal fact that this child has an XY chromosomes, male anatomy, etc. But it willfully ignores the separation of “gender” and “sex” that is so vital to the idea of being trans.

      The mother is trying to limit the access of people who don’t acknowledge her preferred gender. And the article makes hay of the idea that classmates won’t abide, when this is clearly not her point. She’s after blocking the father from using the “wrong” name/gender when it is (presumably) something that has a negative psychological effect on the kid. I’ve spoken before that I know two trans people (one M->F, one F->M) – neither minds a slip-up here and there, but both have openly complained about people who deliberately and maliciously insist on using the wrong name/gender.

      All that said, the article is, of course, hopelessly biased and one-sided, but I still have a hard time getting my head around backing something like this.. it’s the permanence of it without medical need… at an age when, despite what I said earlier, a lot of kids may yet change their minds.

      I guess I’ll only say this: Doing nothing is also a decision. Denying the child this treatment will result in permanent changes as well. Those changes include an Adam’s apple, different facial and bone structures, deeper voice, different musculature, different morphology, and that’s to say nothing of whatever the hell goes on in a brain during puberty. That she’s seven means there’s still some time, I guess.. I don’t know.. I’m not a doctor.. but “doing nothing” means that, if she does ultimately end up identifying as female, it’s too late for her to get the best possible outcome.

      So the mother faces a binary choice: act or do not act, but both are permanent. So the question she faces isn’t “how can I do this to my kid” but “is it more likely that her current mindset will hold and that this is the outcome she’ll long-term want, or is it more likely that she’ll change her mind and long-term prefer to be male”? That hinges on an understanding of the child.. is it more likely that this is a “phase” or an “identity”? Seems like the kind of thing a mother is the most likely to be able to answer..

      • Two choices let a 7 year old develop normally or shoot him up with drugs. Not a hard decision. Except for the crazy pushing an agenda.

        • What is “normal”?

          Is it “normal” to give vaccines? That was once highly ABnormal, no? Or is it “normal” / “natural” to let them die of Polio?

          Not that the two are exactly equivalent, but “appeal to nature” isn’t necessarily a sound argument either. Likewise, an “appeal to normalcy.”

          There’s an intrinsic bias in your assertion.. it’s the assumption that the “normal” / “natural” way is inherently “better” and the “shoot him her up with drugs” way in inherently worse.

          But there are plenty of cases where the “shoot her up with drugs” method IS the superior approach. Surely, if the kid suffered serious depression, we’d be wiling to give drugs for that. Or if she had any of a host of other kinds of diseases whether physical or mental, the “shoot her up with drugs” approach would be preferable to the “natural” approach, even though all of those treatments would once have been considered radical and abnormal.. and many would still be abnormal even today.

          Just because something is “NORMAL” doesn’t make it better. Doesn’t make it “right.”

          It is “NORMAL” to die in your 60’s or 70’s. I think it’s better to shoot ourselves up with drugs and die at 80-90 or even older. Don’t you?

          But if – IF – we accept, as many do, that gender dysphoria is a real mental disorder, then the question transforms into “do we treat this mental illness or leave it untreated”? And, in this framework, you would be suggesting “we shouldn’t treat her illness because it’s not ‘normal’ to treat her illness” which, I think you’d agree is not a good argument.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            You are talking about a “protected” status here which cannot be questioned. There are now more than a few states where you as a parent would not be allowed to bring your child to a counselor who would try and “get through” to the kid and delve for the root cause of the confusion, if there is such.

            An analogy if you will. Nobody doubts Munchausen syndrome. many of those affected kids believe, have been convinced, by a disturbed parent that they are sick. Can you not see a comparison here?

            Munchausen is NOT a “protected” status though. Munchausen gets you 5 to 10 in the pen or Coo-coo shack. .

            • There are now more than a few states where you as a parent would not be allowed to bring your child to a counselor who would try and “get through” to the kid and delve for the root cause of the confusion, if there is such.

              I’m not sure this is true. Can you back that up?

              An analogy if you will. Nobody doubts Munchausen syndrome. many of those affected kids believe, have been convinced, by a disturbed parent that they are sick. Can you not see a comparison here?

              Yes.

              I can – absolutely – see how this could apply.

              I would point out that I do not have all the evidence and that the court would certainly consider this.

              I would tell you that my trans cousin (M->F) has a total wack-a-loon of a liberal for a mother. My wife and I both think it’s highly probably that she had a hand in her transition.. that she encouraged it somehow. Zero evidence, of course, but just a feeling.

              So, yea, I can see how this can be at play.

              That doesn’t mean it IS at play, however.

          • What is normal? Sometimes you make my head hurt 😐. There is a normal in how a human being grows and develops. Doctors get involved when things outside the norm occurs. There is a difference between physical problems and mental or emotional problems. These children’s bodies are not sick, they don’t need fixing, especially when the supposed fix does actual harm. And no one knows if what they are doing is really what the child will want when they actually grow up.

            You know it has been reported over and over again that at least 80 % if not more of children who goes through puberty Naturally, accept their biology. So if any argument should be made, it’s that none of this experimental transgender stuff should happen before puberty. Denying them the natural benefits of puberty is more likely to make them stick with transferring when they probably wouldn’t have it they had gone through puberty.

            • Spell check is annoying.

            • There is a normal in how a human being grows and develops
              Sure there is!

              There’s “lived to the ripe old age of ‘died in childbirth.’ ”
              There’s “died of Polio at age 3.”
              There’s “children should be seen and not heard.”
              There’s “children should work in the sweat shops to support their families.”
              There’s “children should work in the coal mines.”
              There’s even “children should play on the iPad all day.”

              There’s lot of “normal.”

              The “normal” to you, there’s “normal” to me, there’s “normal” to a Malaysian child, there’s “normal” to a Japanese child, there’s “normal” to today, there’s “normal” to 100 years ago, there’s “normal” to 100 years in the future.

              How presumptuous to assume that, because it is normal to us, here, and now, that it is necessarily “right” or “for the best”?

              Doctors get involved when things outside the norm occurs.

              Like….. gender dysphoria…?

              There is a difference between physical problems and mental or emotional problems.

              Generally.

              Although mental disorders can certainly manifest physically or be brought about by physical events like trauma or tumors.

              These children’s bodies are not sick, they don’t need fixing,

              The children… in total… are sick.

              In TOTAL, the child is ill.

              He/she has a mental illness.

              An incurable mental illness.

              A biological male who identifies as female cannot be “switched back.”
              A biological female who identifies as male cannot be “switched back.”

              So, in TOTAL, the child may benefit from, as it where, “matching the hardware to the software.”

              especially when the supposed fix does actual harm.

              “Doing nothing” also causes harm.

              It causes suffering, depression, mental anguish and potential suicide.

              Just because one harms the body and the other the mind does not make the former automatically more important.

              And no one knows if what they are doing is really what the child will want when they actually grow up.

              BINGO!

              That’s the key, right there.

              You don’t KNOW. No one does.

              But the parent who knows the child, in conjunction with a trained psychiatrist has the best chance of getting the right answer.

              And if their best guess is “it’s not a phase,” then “doing nothing” nets a worse outcome than “doing something.”

              You know it has been reported over and over again that at least 80 % if not more of children who goes through puberty Naturally, accept their biology.

              I’m always leery of “it has been reported.”

              But, yes, it may surprise you that I completely buy this.

              I think it’s highly likely that nearly all cases of trans are.. err… transient.

              I think it’s highly likely almost everyone who is trans as a child will probably “grow out of it.”

              Which is why it’s so important to be as sure as you can be.

              I don’t advocate for this willy-nilly. I don’t even “advocate” for it at all.

              I just think that in some, rare, cases, a considered opinion by a mother and a medical professional, may reach the conclusion that early reassignment surgery is the best path for that particular child.

              So if any argument should be made, it’s that none of this experimental transgender stuff should happen before puberty.

              Firstly, yes, it’s “expirimental” but a lot of it is fairly well understood. It’s not like they’re throwing darts. They don’t know everything, and biology makes it hard to ever be 100%, but they have a pretty decent handle on it.

              Secondly, the problem with waiting for after puberty, again, is that this is a choice which comes with consequences. Forcing a biologically male child to go through puberty will give him an Adam’s apple, more height, bigger frame, more muscles, facial hair, etc. Forcing a biological female to go through puberty will deny her those things, and add breasts. Some of these things are reversible or able to be mitigated somewhat, but not all.

              Waiting has a cost – it means that the child cannot grow to be the most reassigned they could be.

              Denying them the natural benefits of puberty is more likely to make them stick with transferring when they probably wouldn’t have it they had gone through puberty.

              Maybe.

              Probably.

              But not for every child.

              Some children just are who they are. Sometimes, you can take the preponderance of the evidence and say “this child isn’t going through a phase.. she’s never changing her mind. Others might, but not this one.. this one is practically set in stone. So I should do the things that give this child the best shot at the body she wants.”

              Playing the odds is smart. Most kids grow out of it. But when you are super confident, it just makes sense to aim for the best outcome.

  54. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    If, in your film collection you have a copy of the classic “The Ox Bow Incident” please destroy it. Earlier today the POTUS was castigated for having said that he is the victim of a lynching. Apparently white men can no longer (or were ever) lynched.

    • I’d guess taht maybe this has more to do with his victimhood complex than his race…

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        My Dad would probably start an answer to you with, “When you get your head out of your ass and put yourself in his position, maybe it will become clearer to you”….or some such.

        Try this one on. See yourself (yes, YOU) as an innocent person accused repeatedly of being a traitor to your country. Follow that up with numerous false accusations about being a sexual predator, then we can go onto stealing, lying blackmail, extortion etc. When you think you have that out of the way, you are brought before a Grand Jury and accused again of blackmail and extortion. Now keep in mind, if you will, the people in power accusing you of all this probably, not possibly have done far, far worse and nobody is even looking at it.

        Just sayin…..

        • See yourself (yes, YOU) as an innocent person accused repeatedly of being a traitor to your country.

          Done.

          Follow that up with numerous false accusations about being a sexual predator,

          Done

          then we can go onto stealing, lying blackmail, extortion etc.

          Done.

          When you think you have that out of the way, you are brought before a Grand Jury and accused again of blackmail and extortion.

          Done.

          Now keep in mind, if you will, the people in power accusing you of all this probably, not possibly have done far, far worse and nobody is even looking at it.

          Done.

          ———–

          Well that feels pretty shitty and I’d be pretty outraged. OUTRAGED, I tells ya!

          ———–

          But then I’d have to take a step back and be intellectually honest with myself to consider if I’ve given them any reason to make such accusations…?

          Maybe I’ve done things like invite foreign interference into domestic elections – hey I thought it was a joke, but I can see how others might not take it that way… especially when the Russians immediately proceeded to try to hack the server I’d suggested…

          Maybe I’ve spoken openly about barging into the changing rooms of women – some under age – at Ms America Pageants?

          Maybe I’ve cheated on all three of my wives? At least once with a porn star and then paid to hush it up and then lied about paying.

          Maybe I’ve been caught on tape lying about being able to grab total strangers by the pussy and that they’ll let me get away with it because I’m rich?

          Maybe I’m a blatant and constant lair? Sure, maybe I think it’s hyperbole or a joke or salesmanship or “braggadocio” or “trolling” .. but maybe the people listening are hearing the actual things I say and think those sounds emanating from my face have actual meanings?

          Maybe I held up aid to a foreign country then asked the president of that country to investigate my political rival.. sure, maybe I didn’t mean it as a quid pro quo.. maybe I thought it’s a serious concern that they address and investigate potential corruption… but if I’m being honest with myself, maybe I can see how others might see it that way, no?

          Maybe I decided to hold an international conference at my own golf course while everyone and their mother seems to be staying at my hotel and the VP is driving 360 miles round trip just to stay at my golf course in Ireland… sure, I don’t see anything wrong with that.. but maybe I could see how rational other people might see it as a bit self-dealing..? Maybe they could find it suspicious that Doonbeg was losing millions each year but is now suddenly profitable?

          Maybe I’ve extensively and deliberately antagonized broad swaths of the population to the point where they hate me enough that everything I do will be interpreted in the worst possible light?

          Maybe I’m NOT the victim in all this? At least, not completely. Maybe I’m at least partially to blame? Maybe I could have been a better person, a less hostile, more conciliatory, more civil, more honest, more transparent, less self-dealing President? Maybe then this wouldn’t be happening?

          Donald Trump is what I’d call a “happy warrior.”

          He launches himself into the bar fight and throws elbows left and right, he breaks pool ques over people’s backs and stabs people with broken beer bottles. He’s got a bar stool in each hand and is spinning in a circle like a dervish, not caring who he flattens.

          He gives and good as he gets. And then some.

          He is a bruiser in this arena.

          For years before he even truly entered politics, he lobbed bombs at Obama from the outside, heckling him about his birth certificate and “sending investigators to Hawaii.”

          And, since long before his election, he has been a total asshole who has said and done many questionable and borderline things.

          He doesn’t get to play the victim.

          He set himself up for this. He chose it. He gleefully participates in it.

          But when he takes an elbow, somehow that’s the foul?

          Nope. Not buying it.

          • Ladies and gentlemen, this speech comes from someone who not 3 feet above justified a mother’s decision to transition a 7 year old boy to a girl! Who is out of touch here?

            Please.

            TRUMP DIDNT GET US HERE!!! And there are plenty of measures showing he’s outsmarted and out hustled every other person in Congress and the intelligence community. And guess what? it’s working. The level of corruption he’s exposed is more than any of us, including Congress, could ever have imagined. And why are they all so pissed? Because he’s hitting them in the wallet. He’s shown how globalism has affected America. How the elite have taken advantage of the people they supposedly work for. And his ideas have created spinoffs across the globe. How many more countries have elected populist leadership since Trump was elected? How many small voices have taken to social media and other mass communication to spread the message that it really is on US to change how politics affects us?

            But no, you can’t credit him for any of that. Your worried that he’s going to make a few bucks on renting a room to foreign leadership, as though he needs any marketing help. You’re still crying about lies about crowd sizes or how things he does MIGHT appear. It’s exhausting. Maybe if all you haters got past all that stuff and gave him credit for things he’s accomplished against all odds, maybe then we could get somewhere. Or we can just let Trump find the end arounds and when he’s done with his 8 years he can claim he did it all himself. That will give you guys something to whine about til eternity.

            Meanwhile work will be in progress on Mt Trumpmore…under budget and ahead of schedule.

  55. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    The drug companies, pharmacies and distributors who are settling with cities and towns on the Opioid thing are fools.

    It is not that they don’t have a responsibility here. It is that the settlements are NOT going to anybody affected, not to distraught parents, children or spouses, not to people physically injured but to towns and cities to balance their damned books!

    • The only way these settlements “work” is if they wind up costing the drug companies enough that this kind of behavior is economically disincentivised for the future.

      .. Or if it amounts to the “death penalty” the company, landing them in bankruptcy. You can bet other drug companies will pay attention.

      But, otherwise, yea, it helps the towns make some cash and the slap on the wrist lets the politicians act like they accomplished something for The People.

  56. There are two threads being used. How about moving to the new one to make it easier!

%d bloggers like this: