White House Orders Conway Not To Testify On Hatch Act Violations

350px-US-WhiteHouse-Logo.svgHouseofRepSealI have previously testified and written about the questionable litigation strategy of the House Democratic leadership in fighting privilege assertions, including recommending cases that it should litigate as a matter of separation of powers.  This week another conflict has arisen as the White House again invoked absolute privilege over a staffer.  The White House said it will not allow presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway to appear before a House committee looking into her repeatedly violation of the Hatch Act, a federal law that limits political activity by government workers.  The position of the White House in entirely untenable and would fail in the courts.  This is the type of case that the House should litigate with vigor.

In a letter from White House lawyer Pat Cipollone, Democratic Chairman Elijah Cummings of Maryland was told that Kelly was ordered not to appear or to testify.  It is a manifestly improper position to take. Conway (who for full disclosure was one of my former students) is accused of repeated and defiant violations of federal law. That is the very touchstone of congressional oversight and a core function under the separation of powers. Under this approach, staffers could commit any number of federal violations or crimes and simply defy congressional committees in their investigation of the matters.

Notably, the Special Counsel, Henry Kerner, is a longtime congressional GOP staff member and has denied Conway’s assertions that this is merely an effort to silence her. As I have previously written, this is a direct and existential challenge to the Office of Special Counsel.  They had to act in the face of such flagrant and repeated violations.

As I have discussed before, it is not clear to me that the Democrats actually want to go to impeachment or complete most of these investigations.  There seems a type of planned obsolescence where the leadership will run out the clock while assuring its base that they are really investigating Trump for a purpose other than embarrassment and harassment.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems to want to use investigation to gather material for the 2020 election but stop short of any substantive effort at impeachment. 

This however is the type of defiance that cannot go unanswered by the House if it is to maintain its constitutional position as an equal branch of government.

 

615 thoughts on “White House Orders Conway Not To Testify On Hatch Act Violations”

  1. OT: Andy Ngo just hospitalized with internal hemorrhaging in the brain after a violent attack from Antifa. Another example of leftist violence. The Peter Shill’s of the world deny this is happening because they didn’t see the video on the Washington Post.

    Video and explanation of milk shakes later in the video (quick drying cement):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUVjPCg-a4Q

    Take note of the cowards behind the masks. I wonder if Peter Shill was there so he can report the truth?

    Where is the Mayor of Portland or is he pulling a Charlottesville?

  2. OT: Judicial Watch: Justice Department Granted Immunity To Hillary Clinton’s Lawyer Who Destroyed 33,000 Emails
    Judicial WatchJUNE 28, 2019
    Heather Samuelson also testifies under oath in Judicial Watch court-ordered deposition that,

    contrary to what she told the FBI, she was in fact aware that

    Clinton used private email account as secretary of state

    (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s White House Liaison at the State Department, and later Clinton’s personal lawyer, Heather Samuelson, admitted under oath that she was granted immunity by the U.S. Department of Justice in June 2016:

    Samuelson: I was provided limited production immunity by the Department of Justice.

    Judicial Watch: And when was that?

    ***

    Samuelson: My recollection, it was June 2015 [later corrected to 2016].

    A complete copy of her deposition transcript is available here. Samuelson also revealed that, contrary to what she told the FBI in 2016, she was, in fact, aware that Sec. Clinton used a private email account while secretary of state:

    Judicial Watch: Ms. Samuelson, when did you first become aware that Secretary Clinton used the e-mail address hdr22@clintonemail.com while she was at the State Department?

    Samuelson: I believe I first became aware when either she e-mailed me on personal matters, such as wishing me happy birthday, or when I infrequently would receive e-mails forwarded to me from others at the department that had that e-mail address listed elsewhere in the document.

    ***

    Judicial Watch: Okay. And who were the State Department officials?

    Samuelson: I recall Cheryl Mills, but it could have been others.

    Samuel’s admission to Judicial Watch that she became aware of Clinton’s non-State.gov emails during her service in the Clinton State Department White House Liaison Office during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state (January 2009 – February 2013) contradicts the notation in the FBI’s May 24, 2016 302 report on Samuelson’s interview with FBI agents:

    Samuelson did not become aware of Clinton’s use of a private email account and server until she was serving as Clinton’s personal attorney.

    After Clinton left office, Samuelson worked for a year in the office of the White House Counsel before becoming Clinton’s personal attorney, where, in 2014, she was primarily responsible for conducting the review of Clinton emails and sorting out “personal” emails from government emails, which were returned to the State Department under the direction of Cheryl Mills and Clinton lawyer David Kendall. After the emails were returned to State, Clinton deleted the rest of the “personal” emails from her server, wiping it clean. Samuelson conducted the review of emails on her laptop, using Clinton server files downloaded from Platte River Networks, which housed the Clinton email server. Judicial Watch questioned her about a “gap” in the emails she discovered:

    Judicial Watch: I believe you, during your interview with the FBI, you were asked about a gap in e-mails that you noticed in Secretary Clinton’s e-mails from January 2009 to March of 2009. Do you recall that?

    Samuelson: I do.

    Judicial Watch: Okay. Can you explain to me what that gap was?

    Samuelson: My understanding is — well, I’m sorry. I should say my recollection is when we received the documents — the file from Platte River Networks, there was a period of time that was missing in her e-mails. And that period of time was January 2009 to March 2009.

    Judicial Watch: And what did you do as the result of discovering this gap in the e-mails from January 2009 to March 2009?

    ***

    Samuelson: I asked Platte River why we did not have — why they did not provide those.

    Judicial Watch: And what did they tell you?

    Samuelson: They said they did not have that information.

    Judicial Watch: Did Platte River have access during 2014 to the server that housed Secretary Clinton’s e-mails to her Clintonemail.com account –

    ***

    – and was there any discussion as to whether they could obtain Secretary Clinton’s e-mails from that server from January 2009 to March 2009?

    ***

    Samuelson: I did ask them, and they said they did not have any e-mails from that period.

    Samuelson also testified in her deposition that she created an “after action memo” in or around December 2014 to memorialize the email search. Samuelson’s lawyer directed her not to answer questions about this memo.

    During Hillary Clinton’s transition as secretary of state during her tenure, Samuelson was in charge of political-nomination (“Schedule C”) hires for Clinton’s transition team at the State Department. When questioned by Judicial Watch lawyers about Brock Johnson, whom she hired as a special assistant to Secretary Clinton as a “favor” to controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band (co-founder of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative), Samuelson testified that on occasion Band sent referrals of individuals they should consider hiring. Johnson later worked, in coordination with the Obama White House, when the State Department falsely responded to a Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) FOIA request that there were no records showing Clinton’s email address.

    The deposition of Samuelson comes out of Judicial Watch’s July 2014 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:

    Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
    Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.
    On December 6, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers and Clinton aides, as well as Heather Samuelson, to be deposed or answer written questions under oath. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.” Judicial Watch’s discovery is centered upon whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act by using a non-government email system and whether the State Department acted in bad faith in processing Judicial Watch’s FOIA request for communications from Clinton’s office.

    “The news that the Obama DOJ gave immunity to Heather Samuelson, Hillary Clinton’s lawyer responsible for the infamous deletion of 33,000 emails, further confirms the sham FBI/DOJ investigation of the Clinton email scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And it is curious that Ms. Samuelson changed her story about what she knew and when about the Clinton email system. Attorney General Barr can’t reopen the Clinton email investigation fast enough.”

  3. Americans in California have no confidence in their government considering the latter has contempt for them

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/ammunition-sales-surge-in-california-ahead-of-background-check-requirement-11561800600

    Ammunition Sales Surge in California Ahead of Background-Check Requirement

    Starting July 1, ammunition purchasers will face scrutiny designed to block felons and others barred from owning guns

    Sales of ammunition in California gun stores have surged in advance of a first-in-the-nation background-check requirement for most ammunition purchases that goes into effect July 1.

    America’s most populous state already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Now bullet buyers will have to show their IDs and undergo a check that for the first time blocks sales to felons and others who are also barred from possessing firearms.

    Shooters Pro Shop in Roseville, Calif., has sold ammunition at nearly triple the normal rate for the past month, said owner Jeff Jordan.

    “We’ve had a few people who have purchased in excess of 10,000 rounds,” he said. “That’s a lot for one person.”

    Ammo sales have also tripled in the past week compared with a normal week at West Coast Ammo in Temecula, Calif., said owner Jason Griffith.

  4. OT: The left can’t get their facts right or they lie alot
    —-

    CORRECTION: THE SEGREGATIONISTS WERE DEMOCRATS
    The Associated Press’s story on last night’s Democratic presidential debate is now accompanied by this correction:

    In a story June 27 about the Democratic presidential debate, The Associated Press reported erroneously in some versions that former Vice President Joe Biden worked with Republican segregationist senators. In fact, the senators were Democrats.

    A reader wonders: “How many times can reporters and editors make this mistake?” Good question! But I am not sure it is a mistake. I wouldn’t be surprised if some reporters, knowing that the Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and being fully aware that the Southern segregationists were all Democrats, keep saying “Republican” on purpose, in order to smear the Republican party and to confuse readers into thinking that segregationism was a bipartisan phenomenon.

      1. DSS, I came across a quote that I thought was very thoughtful.

        “All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”

        I didn’t include who said it which is obvious if one reads carefully. Has the world turned upside down?

        1. The person who made the above quote would be called a Nazi today and would be crucified by the left for such words. The person who I quoted above was Bill Clinton. That shows how crazy the left has become.

    1. Thank goodness that Donald Trump places our national security ahead of consideration of the terrorist Jamal Khashoggi who probably deserved to be in his present state of being. Forming a stronger aliance is much more important than the petty affair discussed only for poltical reasons. Such smart action by the President reduces the need for American troops to be placed in harms way.

      Good going Mr. President. Keep ignoring the stupid people that hurt American security by making everything political.

        1. “Kashoggi was not a terrorist..”

          Was he a terrorist that blew himself up? No, for then he would be dead and no one would consider killing a dead man a second time. He was a big supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood “destroying the western civilization”. That tells me a lot about Kashoggi and also Anon who might also want to destroy western civilization not with bombs but with being stupid. Kashoggi had been threatening the stability of the Saudi Government and to them he acted like a terrorist as well. I have no love for the Saudi’s but I can understand their actions of killing Kashoggi though I disagree with the outcome. Of course Obama did the same to Americans only he didn’t dice and slice them. He just droned them and blew them up into little pieces.

  5. One interpretation of the first Democratic debate: Warning none of the names mentioned were anonymous and this was not sanctioned by the Washington Post. Never the less despite the lack of anonymous sources this review provides a good interpretation of what happened at the first debate.

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274144/debate-losers-daniel-greenfield

    Debate of the Losers

    9 radicals with no shot at being elected to anything redistribute each other’s time.

    June 27, 2019
    Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

    On a sweltering night in Miami’s Arsht Center for the Performing Arts, a 90-year-old building slightly older than Joe Biden, 9 candidates with no shot at anything and the tenth, the first fake Native American candidate, gathered to humiliate and be humiliated on national television.

    On a set designed to look like a cardboard cutout White House, 10 cardboard cutouts of candidates, hoping to sit in the real White House, frantically searched for their 15 seconds of fame, while ignoring moderator questions and going over time.

    All the millionaire candidates agreed that the economy wasn’t working for ordinary Americans like the ones they see on TV.

    The speeches about the misery suffered by ordinary Americans in a booming economy at the hands of giant evil corporations fell flat to a base in which a third of Democrat primary voters earn over $100,000.

    “Who is this economy working for?” Elizabeth Warren asked, doing a hand hatchet chop in a tribute to her imaginary Native American heritage while claiming that it was just working for those at the top.

    Like her.

    Not only was Warren wealthier than most of the other candidates on stage, but she was called on three times as often.

    As part of their commitment to redistribution, the socialist candidates redistributed each other’s time. But, despite their supposed commitment to redistribution, they resisted speaking time socialism.

    This was supposed to be a debate and the moderators did try to ask occasionally challenging questions, while the candidates courageously evaded and avoided them and instead delivered prepared speeches attacking Trump and insisting that the economy wasn’t working for most people who weren’t as rich as them.

    Instead of going after Warren, the field of starving losers went after the weakest member of the herd who still had a few percentage points to his fake name. Bill de Blasio and Julian Castro jumped on Beto O’Rourke, like starving hyenas pouncing on a midget gazelle, in an orgy of blood and talking points.

    Despite O’Rourke’s Kennedyesque buck teeth, he went down like a marshmallow.

    Democrats wondering how he would perform in a debate against President Trump could only imagine the hipster being slapped around a stage for three debates straight.

    Castro and Bill de Blasio went after O’Rourke from the left in a radical primary where the moderates were on the run and the only acceptable non-radical position was protecting union health care plans.

    Julian Castro declared that transgender people aborting babies should be paid for by taxpayers as his idea of “reproductive justice”. Then he demanded that the other candidates agree to legalize illegal migration or be forced to listen to him practice enunciating, “Guatemala.”

    Elizabeth Warren delivered all her remarks in the hysterical pitch of a paranoid schizophrenic grandma demanding to know why all the songs on the radio are telling her to kill her parrot. That included a call to take away everyone’s health insurance and replace it with filmstrips of Karl Marx lifting weights.

    Bill de Blasio smirked his way through a call for a 70% tax rate. “There’s plenty of money in this world,” he gloated. “It’s just in the wrong hands.”

    The wrong hands were any but his own oversized mitts which clenched greedily at the touch of money.

    The moment they had a chance the 2020 losers, whose campaigns never even took off, launched into one single factoid that would make them stand out to the audience of confused viewers wondering who they were and where Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden were.

    Cory Booker reminded viewers and voters at every opportunity that he was not only African-American, but lived in a “low-income” black community. Booker claimed that people had been shot on his block. His neighbors have said that he hardly shows up at his official New Jersey address.

    He actually lives near a miniature indoor golf course in Washington D.C.

    “As an African-American man in an African-American community,” Booker began one of his speeches, convinced that the audience would forget he was black unless he reminded them of it every time.

    Julian Castro claimed that his working-class background meant that he knew what it was like to rent a house. Castro, who doesn’t speak Spanish, pronounced “Jose”, “Oscar” and “Honduras” with the exaggerated care of a white Dos Equis pitchman.

    Tulsi Gabbard constantly reminded viewers that she had served in the military. Tim Ryan wanted people to remember that he was from Ohio. Not everyone in Ohio was as happy to be associated with him.

    John Delaney wanted people to know that they would never have to look at him after this night.

    Beto O’Rourke randomly broke out into awkward Spanish while Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren looked on in horror. Booker’s horror was understandable. He had memorized his own speech in bad Spanish and Beto’s stunt had upstaged his stunt.

    The high school Spanish got worse with a panicked O’Rourke being asked a question in Spanish.

    Bill de Blasio announced that what set him apart from all the other candidates was raising a black son.

    And then there were the bizarre and goofy proposals.

    Jay Inslee promised to put union members to work in the wind turbines of the future, offering two contradictory proposals in one.

    “We must understand that this is a climate crisis, emergency,” Jay Inslee rasped. “I am the candidate who said this has to be the top priority.”

    Tim Ryan called for “trauma-based care in every school” and announced that he wanted to “dominate the solar industry”.

    Cory Booker claimed that African-American transgender people were being lynched.

    Tulsi Gabbard claimed that appeasing Iran would put the American people first.

    The single most shameless moment may have come when Bill de Blasio, who refuses to use his father’s last name, Wilhelm, tried to exploit his father’s service in WW2.

    The highlight of the loser debate was when a technical malfunction shut down the debate at the top of the second hour. Rachel Maddow, a Russia conspiracy theorist, somehow exercised enough restraint not to shout, “It’s the Russians. They’re finally here.”

    But Maddow brought her own obsession with locking up Trump to the table, demanding to know if the President of the United States might be impeached and forced to watch MSNBC for the rest of his life.

    Indeed, despite all the obsession with a Russian conspiracy, Beto O’Rourke was the first candidate to mention Russia, 95 minutes into the debate. Russia, as a topic, did not come up until the very end of the debate when more candidates cited the weather as the greatest geopolitical threat than Russia.

    A technical malfunction was the perfect embodiment of a technical malfunction of a debate of losers.

    9 politicians with no future met up on a stage, made promises that they don’t understand and will never be able to keep, recited simplistic talking points, and doubled down on every radical position.

    And the tenth, Senator Elizabeth Warren out-radicalized them all.

    The losers would almost all clamber back into the Iran nuclear sellout. Almost all of them wanted to ban guns, borders, and the economy. None of them had much in the way of a plan.

    All of them had rhetoric.

    And that’s all the loser debate amounted to.

    9 losers with less chance of becoming president than freezing to death in a Miami summer met on a neon stage. Don’t bother remembering their names. By 2020, you won’t hear them again.

    1. IMO, the second debate was more productive. It sounded like Sen. Harris will, if elected, put food on my table.
      And Bernie Knows Best will finalize the government takeover of healthcare, rather than settle for the c. 50% of government funded/controlled health care we currently have.
      I may have been too hasty in overlooking the potential cost savings of the Bernie plan.
      I think it was John Delaney who stated that if hospitals were reimbursed only at MediCare rates, they’d all have to shut down.
      This could produce enormous saving in the MediCare Part A program.🤑

      1. Tom, the first debate was a total flop. The second one had some interest but the only interesting thing was how they all doubled down on giving things away. Not one of them mentioned the deficit or Venezuela. I was waiting for them to tell us how we could save money on the military by getting rid of it having Russia and Cuba maintain our stability.

        1. So you don’t want Kamala Harris putting food on your table?🤭
          And you’re not on board the massive savings Bernie’s plan might produce if all of the hospitals folded?🤔
          And if you or your kids have taken on college loan debts, you don’t think Bernie’s cancelling of $1.5 Trillion with the Sanders’ magic wand is a good idea?
          Not very “progressive” of you, Allan.🧐

  6. Listen to ‘The Daily’: Corroborating E. Jean Carroll

    Ms. Carroll told two women that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in the 1990s. The women went public for the first time with Megan Twohey, a New York Times reporter.

    TRANSCRIPT

    0:00/29:35

    Michael Barbaro

    From The New York Times, I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.” Last week, E. Jean Carroll came forward with the most serious allegation yet of sexual assault by the president. Today, the two women in whom she privately confided after the alleged attack go on the record for the first time with my colleague Megan Twohey. It’s Thursday, June 27.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/jean-carroll-trump-sexual-assault.html

  7. Kamala Harris really beat up on Joe I guess. He’s not a racist but he’s a racist? I dont get it. Poor Sleepy Joe! I feel for the guy.

    Well, that’s good news for Trump at least. he would crush Kamala, and could not run as well against Biden

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-28/major-biden-donor-pulls-support-over-segregationist-comments-slams-debate

    Andrew Yang says NBC muted his mic; NBC swears it aint so!

    https://twitter.com/williamlegate/status/1144470868556308484

    I believe Yang before I believe the lying fake news NBC!

    1. Mr. Kurtz,
      I don’t think the issue is really whether Joe is a racist or too “touchy- feely” with women.
      What really matters to some opposing candidates is “Can I score points by implying that he is racist?”.🤔 ( Or maybe a pervert; .maybe they’re saving that one for later).

  8. Thanks Kurtz.

    Trump has no intention of a ground war with Iran. Look at its geography. However, he can affect its actions and the actions of the other players in the region. That is the classic way of managing such affairs.

  9. “…only the best and most serious people.” – Donald Trump

    “Trump’s Chief of Diplomatic Protocol Resigns After Accused of Carrying Whip at Work”

    JUN 28, 2019

    https://www.democracynow.org/2019/6/28/headlines/trumps_chief_of_diplomatic_protocol_resigns_after_accused_of_carrying_whip_at_work

    “There was a shake-up on President Trump’s team heading to the G20. Trump’s chief of diplomatic protocol, Sean Lawler, has resigned, after he was accused of carrying a whip around his office and intimidating staff.”

    1. good thing my workers don’t mind me having a couple swords in the corner, daggers to open my mail, and brass knuckle paperweights on my desk. but im not in politics am i. just part of the peanut gallery

  10. allan had some smart comments about iran implications.

    here, a russian guy fleshes out what they may be thinking about it. a good watch!

    don’t worry Democrats, the Russians won’t take over your brains if you watch them for a minute, you can do it!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-yG_sOdbYY

    POTUS, holding the tiller where the seas are rough, good work DJT!

    1. Not only wise but very gorgeous.

      Observe the soothing calm strength of her voice, the gentle wave of her hair, the silver streak, her olive complexion, the dark eyes, the pursing of her lips, the line of her jaw, the swell of her cheekbone, this woman is exceptionally beautiful.

      ancient greeks called this kaloskagathos – beautiful inside and out.

      https://i.imgur.com/HLBw4FK.jpg

  11. TRUMP REMINDS US HOW HE GOT THE MUELLER PROBE

    JOKES WITH PUTIN ABOUT MEDDLING

    At his first meeting with Putin since Robert Mueller’s Russia probe concluded, Trump made light of the robust evidence showing Russia engaged in a “sweeping and systematic” campaign to disrupt the election in Trump’s favor.

    After he was asked by reporter whether he will talk to Putin about election interference — a topic he failed to mention himself, Trump responded: “Yes, of course I will.”

    But he didn’t stop there. He turned to Putin, seated next to him, smiling and pointing his finger in the Russian president’s direction, and said jokingly, “Don’t meddle in the election, president. Don’t meddle in the election.” Putin, after appearing to hear the translation, laughed while Trump grinned.

    The episode at the G-20 conference, an annual gathering of the world’s 20 biggest economies, will do nothing to ease the long-standing perception that Trump is too friendly toward Russia — a relationship that has alarmed Democrats and Republicans alike and led to congressional investigations.

    But it could have been expected, according to his current and former advisers. They say Trump often bristles at being told what to say or do. So when pushed, the president simply mocks what is expected of him, even when it comes to Russia.

    And each time he refuses to conform to expected behavior toward Russia, it inevitably causes a firestorm in Washington. But Trump’s advisers don’t think the controversies hurt him politically. Instead, they think his strategy of branding all investigations into his relationship with Russia as a “phony witch hunt” orchestrated by Democrats and the media has helped defuse the issue outside the nation’s capital.

    Edited from: “Trump Can’t Help Himself When It Comes To Putin”

    Today’s POLITICO

    1. meanwhile, its probably good they have a rapport, since Russia has nukes pointed at all of us.

      but the endless Russia conspiracy propaganda innuendos receive fresh air from the fake news all the time.

      do you really think telling Russia not to meddle is going to do anything? Like they were scared by the stern warning from Theresa May. Puh-leeze!

      Russia’s going to meddle some regardless, and it’s up to the US electoral system to guarantee it’s own integrity against all threats from without and within. But bring up something like voter fraud and the lying press assures it IT NEVER HAPPENS!

      here’s a blast from the past from South Bend, which is much in the news due to Democrat Mayor Pete. What were Democrat honchos doing in South Bend before Mayor Pete, two cycles back?

      https://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Butch-Morgan-gets-prison-time-for-election-fraud-211893851.html

      I would say, one good thing for the US to do if it wants others to respect our elections, is respect other nations elections. and not worry so much about a pittance of Russian-paid facebook ads.

      1. Kurtz, Trump’s stupid joking illustrates how utterly clueless he is. It was precisely that attitude which earned him a Special Counsel Probe in record time. Yet we’re supposed to believe a ‘conspiracy’ at the FBI was the real reason’. It’s like Trump supporters will engage in any mental gymnastics to deny the obvious.

        1. It was precisely that attitude which earned him a Special Counsel Probe in record time

          I can never figure out if you’re stupid or you think we are.

          1. Tabby, you’re saying that jokes about national security are ‘normal’ for a president?? Yeah, I guess you ‘are’ stupid.

            1. Peter, it is your inability to understand what is being said that is stupid, either that or you like to promote talking points even if you know they aren’t true. That is stupid as well unless you are being paid to do so.

              Which one are you?
              1)Stupid
              2)Stupid
              3)Paid

                1. He certainly likes to hear himself talk. At a quick glance, well over 20% of the nearly 600 comments are his.

                2. The Brainless Wonder speaks. Why should he do such a thing. I don’t go after you. You come after me. I guess that means you are lonely.

                    1. One has to put together all the statements by anonymous which is more than one person. When I reply I use the assumption they are all the same and thus you may not understand the context. Use a defineable name.

                    2. “Said like an authoritarian.”

                      Dummy, what I said was the following:

                      “When I reply I use the assumption they are all the same and thus you may not understand the context. Use a defineable name.”

                      You had earlier asked:

                      “WTF are you talking about?”

                      That is why only a dummy would associate his name with Diane anonymous and Brainless anonymous because one can’t tell who they are talking to, One can’t even be sure that the two aren’t one person. or if Diane occasionally tries to sound more like Brainless anonymous using the anonymous moniker. We can’t even be sure right now if this isn’t Brainless anonymous doing the talking.

                      If this confuses you or you find a loss of context blame it on your use of the anonymous moniker. You have a choice. Come out of the confusion and “Use a defineable name” or suffer the confusion. Your choice. Not authoritarian at all.

                3. Actually, these comment threads would benefit more by banning the weasels who always hide in a sea of anonymouses.

        2. “Trump’s stupid joking illustrates how utterly clueless he is.”

          No, it demonstrates how clueless Peter is and how the left doesn’t have any policy to cling to that they can demonstrate will work and be affordable. The most industrious thing the left is able to do is produce voters that don’t exist.

          1. Alan, show me evidence, from a recognizable source, that voting fraud is widespread in any U.S. city or state. You won’t find it. That’s why Trump’s Voting Fraud Commission went nowhere.

              1. Unkown person called anonymous that could actually be Diane or the Brainless Wonder provides a source but that source is not the Washington Post and I don’t think that op-ed used anonymous sources. I believe I read that in the past and the source is acccurate, but without the writers quoting an anonymous source it cannot be considered a good source because without anonymous sources it cannot come from the Washington Post.

                Believe it or not what I say above is how Peter Shill’s mind works except for the discussion of who the anonymous person is on this blog who finds it necessary to post anonymously along with the garbage. Get a job with the Washington Post.

                1. 235,000,000 Americans are of voting age. And the Heritage Report lists 1,000 cases of ‘voting fraud’. That only sounds like a ‘widespread’ problem inside the rightwing media bubble.

                  1. Sometimes without help and resources one can only observe the tip of the iceberg and that is what the 1,000 number is, only the tip of the iceberg. However, videos demonstrate how prevalant cheating is on the left but we know, Peter, that you don’t accept those sources because they are videos of living identifyable people rather than your preferred anonymous sources that have been mostly proven wrong.

                    1. Over 40 years, we’re looking at a pretty small chunk of ice. Hardly, an iceberg.

                    2. “Over 40 years, we’re looking at a pretty small chunk of ice. Hardly, an iceberg.”

                      Are you related to the Captain of the Titanic?

            1. The reason Trump’s Commission went nowhere was he wasn’t getting any cooperation. James O’Keefe doesn’t get cooperation either but he had the ability to film fraudulant actions in real time. The fact that multiple complete videos are available showing this and the fact that at least one state changed their laws after seeing the video at their polling booths means nothing to you because it wasn’t an anonymous source from the Washington Post.

              That is stupid as well.

    2. “TRUMP REMINDS US HOW HE GOT THE MUELLER PROBE”

      Did that joke cause the unmasking and the spying. Did it make members of the FBI lie? It’s all nonsense and juvenile.

      That joke is an excuse for the left to act using the government to spy on the opposition and to screw up the nation so that the new President wouldn’t be able to function. A tremendous hoax that is being revealed while Peter pretends nothing happened.
      Peter also pretends that what O’Keefe shows on video isn’t real even though the FBI has accepted his video to help in prosecuting Clinton activists and Clinton campaign employees. Nothing is true to Peter except those sources that carry the leftist flag and those sources can be anonymous sources that have been proven wrong most of the time.

      1. On the Google front for all those Fascists that believe that politicians and the billionaire companies (and billionaires) should run a country…

        “LEAK: New Google RESIST Doc Shows “Internal Beginner’s Guide To Protesting,” “Resist@Google”
        by Staff Report June 27, 2019 in News Posts / Press Releases / Top Stories / Tech / Google
        Newly leaked doc shows coordination of protest through internal “Resist@Google.com” group
        Suggested signs include, “Resist,” “No Ban No Wall,” “#NoMuslimBan #No Wall”
        EXAMPLE CHANT: “From Palestine to Mexico, All the walls have got to go”
        The full document can be accessed HERE.

        (New York) — Project Veritas has obtained a document from an insider at Google which appears to show internal suggestions of how to protest political events.

        Said Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe:

        “This document leak is the fourth in a series of leaks from inside Google and their subsidiary, YouTube. This new document appears to show internal coordination of political protests which contradicts Google’s public statements that they are politically neutral. More tech insiders are coming forward and we will continue to work with them to expose the secrets of Silicon Valley.”
        (Do you work in Big Tech? Project Veritas would love to hear from you.)

        The document, labeled “The Beginner’s Guide to Protesting (#GooglersUnite)”, states it was created to:

        “assemble best practices and ensure that everyone feels comfortable and pumped about Resist@Google.com marches/protests.”
        The document includes politically-charged “Example Chants”:

        In the section titled the “Do’s and Don’ts”, the document tells readers that they should not “feel obligated to stop at crosswalks” and that the “point is to disrupt.”

        The full document can be accessed HERE.

        Google executive Jen Gennai’s said in response the first of four Project Veritas Google reports:

        “Google has repeatedly been clear that it works to be a trustworthy source of information, without regard to political viewpoint. In fact, Google has no notion of political ideology in its rankings.”
        More insiders can securely share their stories with Project Veritas at VeritasTips@protonmail.com. Project Veritas seeks impactful stories from insiders in technology, government, media, and education.

        Continued with actual document at: projectveritas.com/2019/06/27/leak-new-google-resist-doc-shows-internal-beginners-guide-to-protesting-resistgoogle/

    3. I suppose the excuse a joke by Trump is the reason for:

      “Explosive Docs Reveal Obama Admin Efforts to Undermine Trump Days Before Inauguration

      The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has released new documents revealing the Obama Administration ramped up efforts to undermine then President-elect Trump just days before his 2017 inauguration.

      ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow announced on FoxNews.com that his organization obtained records that show the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), under Director James Clapper, “eagerly” pushed to enact new procedures to increase access to raw signals intelligence before the end of the Obama Administration and just days before President Trump took office.

      Sekulow writes:

      By greatly expanding access to classified information by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, the Obama administration paved the way for a shadow government to leak classified information – endangering our national security and severely jeopardizing the integrity and reputation of our critical national security apparatus – in an attempt to undermine President Trump.

      The ACLJ obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency.

      The explosive documents confirmed what Sekulow already suspected: “the Office of the Director of National Intelligence rushed to get the new ‘procedures signed by the Attorney General before the conclusion of this administration,’ referring to the Obama administration.”

      The documents also show that ODNI employee Robert Litt told the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense’s Director of Intelligence Strategy, Policy, & Integration, “Really want to get this done…and so does the Boss.” Boss, most likely, being a reference to DNI Director Clapper.”

      1. wow. Clapper is scum. However, he’s entitled to a fair trial for these crimes.

        Time to take this rogue actor down a notch as a lesson to all others who would do so in the future.

        1. “No source here. Yet Alan chides the Wa Po for allegedly using ‘anonymous’ sources.”

          I don’t post the source names that Peter Shill doesn’t feel are reputable even if the sources have been shown to be accurate.

          That op-ed was not from the Washington Post which uses anonymous sources all the time that prove to be wrong. The op-ed though not written anonymously on the net is anonymous here so that should satisfy the criteria the Washington Post uses and thus Peter Shill’s criteria.

  12. Dem presidential candidate Bill De Blasio screams to Cubans in Miami “Hasta la victoria, siempre” which is an infamous communist rallying cry of assassinated communist guerrilla Che Guevara.

    Nice! Way to go you Commie!

    🐷

    1. it’s a good slogan, in spite of communists using it. i kind of liked “si se puede” too!

      bill de blasio won’t deliver any victories to anybody, that’s for sure. he’s a goof.

      here’s a spanish political song i really like:

      Cara al sol con la camisa nueva,
      que tú bordaste en rojo ayer,
      me hallará la muerte si me lleva
      y no te vuelvo a ver.

      Formaré junto a mis compañeros
      que hacen guardia sobre los luceros,
      impasible el ademán,
      y están presentes en nuestro afán.

      Si te dicen que caí,
      me fui al puesto que tengo allí.

      Volverán banderas victoriosas
      al paso alegre de la paz
      y traerán prendidas cinco rosas
      las flechas de mi haz.

      Volverá a reír la primavera,
      que por cielo, tierra y mar se espera.

      ¡Arriba, escuadras, a vencer….

      1. What is the significance of the red stitching on the shirt? Or is it the sentimental tie to loved ones? And why 5 roses? It’s so easy to miss the cultural references from another country.

        For which movement was this song penned?

    2. Che didn’t make himself too popular in Bolivia when he took his act there.
      Judging from the number of posters I saw of Che in college dorm rooms, frats, etc., Che was more popular on college campuses than he ever was with the Bolivians.😄

      1. posters I saw of Che in college dorm rooms, frats, etc.

        I have approached a few undegrads wearing a t-shirt of Che and schooled them on what he did in real life. their responses have always been priceless: “I just liked the t-shirt”

        Those Pell Grants are really going for worthy causes!

        1. I’d forgotten all about the Che T-shirts, Estovir.I take it that your observations of the “Che Fan Club” may have coincided with what I observed on campuses in my years at college. There are said to be still-existing monuments of that fool on California campuses.

  13. OT: A funny thing happened on the way to the debate. Part of the news panel believes that illegal aliens are already American citizens. That is the mindset of the MSM and many on the left.

    —-
    FACT CHECK: NBC Debate Moderator José Diaz-Balart Falsely Claims Obama Deported ‘3 Million Americans’
    Jerome Hudson27 Jun 2019
    “The Obama-Biden administration deported more than 3 million Americans,” Díaz-Balart said in a question addressed to Joe Biden.

    That statement is false. Foreign nationals are deported from the United State, not citizens.

    As president, Obama was dubbed “deporter in chief” by pro-immigration activists and groups, as deportations of illegal aliens — not American citizens — totaled hundreds of thousands under his tenure. By the time he left the White House in January 2017, the number of illegal immigrants deported by Obama had reached nearly 3 million. Indeed, as ABC News reported in August 2016, Obama had deported “more people than any other president’s administration in history.”

    1. Obama was doing his job deporting illegals. Unfortunately, like the CBP guy who commented here the other day explained, he changed up some systemic things that have pushed the current influx to epidemic proportions.

      Illegals may be good decent people, just looking for a better life. But they are not Americans and they must follow our laws. If conditions deteriorate, we must continue to enforce our borders by any means necessary. This necessarily will lead to much tragedy but it’s best if tragedy mostly stays in Honduras and doesn’t come here.

      1. Kurtz, we cannot have open borders and entitlements. We should not be the safety valve for our southern neighbors. The leaders of those nations stay in power in part because of that type of safety valve.

        Illegal aliens and legal aliens may be brother and sister but the later follows our laws and because of their being law abiding their entry into the US takes years and sometimes never occurs.The left seems to favor all sorts of illegal actions. They even believe in using government to spy on their rivals and the people.

        1. Julian Castro Dem POTUS candidate wants to “decriminalize” border jumping. He’s an anarchist and a traitor. Let him go move down there, muy pronto!

    2. Good call. However ….When it comes to deportations Obama surpassed all presidents combined in XX Century. The MSM are pigs

      Jose Diaz Balart is not left wing. He and his brothers (US Congressmen, Lincoln and Mario) have always been very even handed. They are Cuban refugees who know first hand about immigration unlike Kamala Harris, Warren, et al

      August 2016

      https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

      How many people have been deported under Obama?

      President Barack Obama has often been referred to by immigration groups as the “Deporter in Chief.”

      Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, which doesn’t include the number of people who “self-deported” or were turned away and/or returned to their home country at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

      How does he compare to other presidents?

      According to governmental data, the Obama administration has deported more people than any other president’s administration in history.

      In fact, they have deported more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century.

      President George W. Bush’s administration deported just over two million during his time in office; and Obama’s numbers don’t reflect his last year in office, for which data is not yet available.

  14. OT:

    Under President Trump, America is respected again

    President Donald J. Trump left Washington yesterday for Osaka, Japan, the host city for this year’s G20 Summit. When world leaders sit down with President Trump over the next few days, they know they’re meeting with a negotiating partner who isn’t bluffing when he says he’ll take tough action to protect American workers.

    Free, fair, and reciprocal trade deals are a key component of President Trump’s pro-jobs, pro-growth strategy. At the G20, U.S. officials will continue working with our allies to confront unfair trade practices that hollow out our working class—including intellectual property theft, unfair labor practices, and forced technology transfer abroad.

    On the way to Japan: President Trump stops in Alaska to thank our troops

    After touching down in Osaka, President Trump had dinner with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison. The two discussed several pressing, shared challenges, including North Korea and Iran. That meeting was the first of many for President Trump over the coming days, where trade and national security will be at the top of the agenda.

    “We are a country that’s respected again,” President Trump said before taking off for Japan. “They didn’t respect us 3, 4, 5 years ago. They respect us again.”

    This week is also an important opportunity to tell the story of America’s economic revival under President Trump. Our citizens prosper when the world economy is growing, ensuring strong and stable markets for American goods and services. Pro-growth policies, such as tax reform, have added millions of new jobs, brought our manufacturing sector back to life, and restored confidence in the U.S. economy.

    The world can follow America’s lead. Countries can unlock their full economic potential by investing in training to reskill workers for high-demand industries. They can also benefit by fully empowering women to participate in their economies and governments—an effort the Trump Administration is helping to lead through Ivanka Trump’s Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative (W-GDP).

    1. That’s some hilarious s..!
      Don’t look back Fatso, but nobody’s following you.

      Obama put together every nation in the world for the Paris Accord, more than a dozen on the Pacific Rim in the TPP, the western democracies for Russian sanctions, and our democratic allies plus Russia and China on the Iranian nuclear deal. Trump can’t swing a deal with his own party in Congress and most Americans and the rest of the world hate his guts.

      1. You are right Obama put together all those failures and along with a planeload of cash and let Iran collect $150Billion so they could fund terrorist groups to bomb Israel while at the same time funding Iranian ambitions for a nuclear warhead along with a missile system to deliver it. All this while they were yelling “Death to America”. He aided our enemy China who could pollute as they wished while we outsourced our industry and jobs to China so they could militarize and threaten us.

        You are good with names Anon but just like the last time you know nothing about how those names negatively affect America and the American worker.

        Obama set us up for potential future wars that Trump is trying to prevent. Germany is providing more military for NATO. The US is now oil independent making it so we are no longer faced with with the problems of the oil rich nations. Now China is the one that has to worry about the impact of problems in the middle east reducing the flow of oil. All this while Russian oil falls in value which reduces its ability to expand its power.

        You are a know nothing that can only talk using sound bites. Anything more than that and you are totally lost.

        1. Alan, no one guessed that China would rise and become a great power? Their current status in the world has left you dismayed..?

          My 8th Grade Social Studies teacher referred to Red China as a ‘sleeping giant’. Every observer of international politics knew that China, by sheer population and physical size, would eventually become the dominant Asian power.

          But in Alan’s estimation, China’s current status is all Obama’s fault. And somehow my 8th Grade Social Studies teacher had the foresight to imagine our first Black president would drop the ball on China. ..That’s how ridiculous it sounds, Alan..!

          1. China was probably in the throes of the Cultural Revolution when you were in the 8th grade, Peter.
            It was a mess with one economic fiasco after another under Mao & Co.
            Hong Kong was the glittering, booming part of China destined to be returned to Mainland China by the end of the 20th Century.
            Japan was becoming the economic powerhouse in Asia, and assuming that you were in the 8th grade in the 1960s, there were no signs that China would emerge as a major power.
            They did have the bomb by 1964, were supporting Communist regimes and insurgencies, but there were at that point no signs…..none….that China would emerge as an economic and industrial power.

            1. Tom, China had more people 50 years ago than most countries have today. You thought they’d all stay poor forever..???

              Apparently my 8th Grade Social Studies teacher was brighter than your’s.

              1. Without knowing who your teacher was, or what the teacher actually said, or when the teacher said it, I won’t make comparisons of teachers.
                The fact is that damn few people saw China as an emerging global power in the 1960s.
                Now if you were still in the 8th grade in the 1990s, for example, there was a growing consensus that China was on the rise.
                Everything that I pointed out in my previous comment was factually correct.
                You seem to believe that a huge population somehow will inevitably result in a nations economic success.
                It was a change in leadership that occurred over time after Mao’s death in 1976? that ditched some of the insane economic policies of Mao.
                Do you really thing that continued Maoist policies would have guaranteed China’s economic success simply because of its huge population?
                That is ridiculous. It was by no means inevitable that
                reformers would ultimately prevail in the power struggles that followed Mao’s death.
                Your theme…”It’s the population that makes a nation’s economic power inevitable…..is simplistic and unrealistic.
                There were the “moderates” like Deng who instituted reforms; the size of China’s population did not have a damn thing to do with whether the reformers or the hard-core Maoist would rule China.
                That ignores the the other big factor, America’s trade deals with China…..a critical factor in the growth of the Chinese economy.
                Is a massive population is the key to becoming an economic powerhouse, why hasn’t India’s economy come even close to the growth rate and size of China’s economy.
                Irrespective of what you may have learned, or think you learned, in a remedial 8th grade civics or social studies class, your understanding of economics is severely deficient.

                1. ZING! Tom hit the mark with the comment about India

                  Maos Great leap forward of 58-62 was a disaster and the Cultural Revolution was pure insanity.

                  It’s hard to believe he was so incompetent a national leader after the big success of leading the Communists from a ragtag group of peasants with handmade hemp sandals into a force capable of ousting the Japs and then the Nationalists. But, the reason is very simple. Central planning is vastly inferior to market based planning and now everybody knows it. But they didnt fully get it back then.

                  But hey, they want to bring it back to America, starting with health care, yeah, why not give it a third or fourth try? Maybe next time it will work. and somehow we won’t all end up in a ditch covered with lime.

            2. I would say that the success of Taiwan was apparent by the late 60s and it was full well the intention of the Chicoms once Mao was gone, to make the same thing happen there. They let some time pass and then the Deng Xiaoping regime made it happen.

              Nixon did a smart thing making nice with them, unfortunately, our trade policy over many decades and different presidential regimes, failed to address Japanese, Taiwanese, and Chinese competition, until TRUMP.

              Next up: Vietnam, which is competing against China just as China competed against us. Here is a very complicated situation!

            3. Tom, Peter Shill is showing symptoms of multiple personalities hence his various profile names. Don’t argue with Peter Sybil Shill because she will turn on you

          2. I didn’t read Allan’s comment as no one knew China could become a great power. He said that China “could pollute as they wished.” That was one of the biggest criticisms of the Paris Accord. The US had to make great sacrifices to rein in carbon emissions, while China, the largest source of carbon emissions, was allowed to keep increasing carbon until 2030, when it was hoped it would peak. There is no real teeth to any effort to rein in China’s carbon at all. While they have made steps to increase non-fossil fuel energy, their carbon emissions have sharply increased in 2018. While their emissions flattened briefly, it was due to a brief economic stagnation, as well as outright fraudulent self-reporting, rather than to any effort to abide to the Paris Accord. Our own reduction in emissions may arguably have been due to increasing use another fossil fuel, natural gas, over coal, with some contribution by renewables.

            The Paris Accord hindered us economically, and cost us financially, while it gave China essentially free rein. That was not fair, nor good for the environment. In that sense, Obama did put the US at a disadvantage with China. Intellectual theft of American companies by China was also rampant at that time. The latter has been part of Trump’s negotiations with China, but I suspect the country will resist curbing such piracy.

            In general, I think China will prove resistant to giving up anything for anyone – not their GDP growth, intellectual piracy, societal control, unequal trade, tightening restrictions on Hong Kong, pollution, or anything else. After all, when it’s smoggy out they just tell their people it’s fog.

            https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/390741-chinas-rising-emissions-prove-trump-right-on-paris-agreement

            1. There is no teeth in any of the Paris Accord as it is a statement of goals and individual nations are free to adapt as best they can.

              The US and the rest of the western world is responsible for the bulk of already released carbon through our industrial revolution which resulted in our higher standard of living. The US continues to have the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world. One must be both naive and think they’re a princess to expect the rest of the world to agree to stifle their standard of living so we can maintain ours. The Accord is a compromise meant to fairly work on a problem which affects us all regardless of national boundaries, and the objections of people like Karen who seek sabotage not solutions should be rejected.

              1. Anon is part of the Blame America Crowd. The US produces more than other nations so its per capita emission is higher, but the US I believe has done more than any other nation in reducing those emissions. The US has also been the major factor in the rise of the standard of living of billions of people along with reducing world starvation.

                I think Anon should return to his cave absent all the features of modern life.

                1. As a matter of fact, the US has the highest rate per capita of carbon emissions and is of course one of the main sources of previously released carbon over the last 150 years.

                  The point of the Accord is that the time for blame is passed and the world’s people recognize we need to act together or we’re all f…d.

                  1. the third world emits a lot of carbon too. the less developed nations in the middle, they had a justifiable position that they were less farther along in the development cycle and so they needed room to operate. these were legit elements in the negotiation.

                    however, the US should not abandon its strategic interests in the meantime. for the US to suddenly shut down industry and throw its borders open to refugees and tax the hell out of the middle class to pay for whatever schemes? that would be a disaster with even more unintended consequences that could end up far worse. like destabilizing america and plunging it into a civil war. you think that can’t happen here?

                    what if america ends up in civil war. we have most of the loot and the best nukes. do you really want to destabilize this country by further impoverishing its declining middle class and flooding it with foreigners?

                    one of the biggest unspoken threats to an even bigger climate change disaster is what happens if nukes pop off somewhere.

                    of course if we had a big nuclear winter I guess that might trigger a global famine. then global warming and global overpopulation would be solved in a few years with massive worldwide dieoff.

                    maybe the crazy globalists want a nuclear weapons exchange somewhere? i often wonder this. seems unlikely but think about it.

                  2. Compare air quality in the US to China and see what you get.
                    Then compare water quality.

                    Take a factory in China and compare its emissions to produce the same products.

                    When you finish your comparisons you will find the US is very clean in comparison. Not only that but you will find how the US has been constantly improving air quality not seen in most places. Yes, carbon is produced when cows fart and humans breath. You need to start using the correct metrics and recognize that the production of goods by the US is huge and yes that production does produce carbon emissions, but moving that production to China increases carbon emissions and most countries are unable to manage such production.

                    By the way you apparently don’t realize but CO2 is what plant life uses to create O2. Humans and animals breathe O2 and release CO2.

              2. Climate change is very clear. The causes are less clear. Adaptation is now the name of the game. Cutting carbon emissions is not a bad idea but adapting with civil engineering projects to address the climactic changes is what needs more attention asap.

                Any kind of massive tax scheme to impoverish private people at the expense of a slow moving, feckless new “green economy” bureaucracy is not going to help much at all, it would probably hurt the process of adaptation.

                This is a moment when strong executive leadership is needed, and cooperation from legislature. And yet, where’s the infrastructure bill? We can’t seem to even get the train moving let alone make it run on time.

              3. Anon – “One must be both naive and think they’re a princess”. Look, I’m tired of you constantly insulting me, including the sexist remarks. It’s such a rude, lazy way to avoid adult conversations about real problems facing the world.

                From now on, I’m not going to read your posts any longer. Don’t ask me questions going forward, because I won’t read them.

                1. Too much for Princess Karen’s tender ears. She can spit it out, calling her perceived opponents every name in the book while assigning them dark motives. Let’s all hope she goes somewhere other than her preferred right wing echo chambers so she can actually learn something.

                  As for me, I gave up hope that she was conscious enough to engage, let alone correct her many wrong ideas, but I’ll continue to answer so others are not led astray by her endless and voluminous stream of nonsense.

                  1. Anon, I’m not going to let you become the big sexist here. If anyone’s going to be a male chauvanist, it’s me! dammit! So I will think about something sexist to say and come back later with it, I promise.

                    1. Women need to submit to bleeding out of their privates for a few days every month, and also carry babies in their bellies for 9 months, and then feed them from their own bodies for another year. Is that sexist enough for you? I’m of the belief that men don’t have to do these things. Can’t do, in fact.. Very unfair, I know! Blame nature.

                    2. “Women need to submit to bleeding out of their privates for a few days every month, and also carry babies in their bellies for 9 months, and then feed them from their own bodies for another year. Is that sexist enough for you? I’m of the belief that men don’t have to do these things. Can’t do, in fact.. Very unfair, I know! Blame nature.”

                      Kurtz, prove to me men can’t do all those things and show it to me from a reputable source, the Washington Post. Look it up. You can’t find anything from the Washington Post saying men “Can’t do, in fact.”.

                      I am posting Peter Shill’s response to you before he gets the chance.

            2. Karen, I spent a good amount of time in China and the people know its pollution. In some areas it is close to unliveable and China has had to do modifications. You may know better than I but it is my impression that American diplomats in Bejing are rotated due to the potential damage from pollution. I was lucky because when I was there the air was relatively clean.

              1. Every Chinese person who’s come to America can tell you what a horrible environmental situation it is with air pollution, unsafe water, etc. To say nothing of unsafe food products produced by unethical businesses which bribe corrupt officials to look aside as they poison their own customers for short sighted profiteering. A perplexing situation in country that is run by Communists who supposedly care about the people. And to be honest probably most of them do but it’s a difficult situation in a country that has always for millenia had trouble with local corruption,

                we are lucky to live in America. I wish the Chinese best with getting their domestic living conditions improved. Probably what’s coming for us all may cause us one day to look back on these days as good ones.

                1. I travelled multiple times in S.E. Asia and China (over a month at a time) without a tour, hiring drivers for cars and boats along with translators so I went to areas not normally toured. In fact sometimes I had to leave the translator behind because they are licensed and not supposed to go to certain places. They were fantastic trips, but one cannot forget that a totalitarian regime runs China along with some of the other countries.

                  I think China is in trouble and has become more repressive in recent years. Such repression inhibits innovation and creation but they did an amazing job at least before Xi. You are right about the attitude towards people. They are more concerned with revolutionary trends than the people. Bribery is normal in a lot of Asia so expect that our businessmen in some way have been involved in that type of activity that is illegal in our country. We can’t survive economically unless we are willing to work in the fashion necessary to survive.

                  1. those sound like awesome trips allan!

                    who can do anything in china without bribes. certainly not local chinese people, let alone foreigners. xi jinpeng locked tens of thousands of corrupt officials up, and barely scratched the surface. the irony of this from the historical perspective is that in various episodes in chinese history, corrupt officials were the big problem then as now. good luck with that mess! the main lesson i take from it is be careful how much power you let the government people have because you can be sure a lot of them will abuse it!

              2. Allan – I’ve worked with many Chinese Americans, and known people who lived in Hong Kong for a while. The air pollution in both areas is highly toxic.

                I don’t know why more people aren’t talking about this, but the pharmaceutical industry is following the trend of much of the rest of America, and outsourcing a lot of operations overseas, including China and India. China is infamous for contaminating many of the products it produces with toxins, and for fraud in several scientific fields. This is going to bite us in the butt so bad.

                1. Karen, one of the Indian pharmaceutical producers had a lot of quality issues at least in the past and despite what people think generics are not necessarily identical to brand name drugs . Our search for more and more things at lower and lower prices is counterproductive.

                  Pollution is horrid in Asia. When we were in Cambodia and other portions of Asia my wife looked at how they dried shrimp and the waters the shrimp came from. When we returned home she refused to buy those products coming from that region.

                  There were parts of China where I found it difficult to breath. If you have allergies, asthma or COPD you should stay away from those areas.

                  1. That’s a good point about the shrimp, especially since they are filter feeders. Your travels must have been amazing.

                    1. Thanks. I actually like to speak to people that have never seen Americans. Some of them live in dire poverty and have no education but are wiser than a lot of left wing folk on this list.

                2. Yes, Chinese products may be dangerous, like putting Melamine into infant formula because Melamine (tub surround plastic sheeting) tests as protein, so they can put in less actual protein and still pass routine testing. So, this is where vigorous FDA surveillance comes into play. How hard do you think the anti-regulation Republicans will look for cheating in compounding drugs and infant formulas imported by Big Pharma? Not very. Just like they fail to regulate everything else, because regulation costs Big Pharma profits.

                  1. Regulations act in both directions but on the whole I believe regulation has helped the biggest in pharma so I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

                    The high Billion dollar costs to come out with a drug force smaller companies to sell to larger ones. If two drugs treating the same problem come out on the market at the same time and the poorer drug is taken by Pfizer with the better drug trying to go into the marketplace alone one would find that the poorer drug will survive and the better drug might disappear.

                    A little bit of knowledge is dangerous Natacha. It causes you to sound foolish.

          3. “My 8th Grade Social Studies teacher referred to Red China as a ‘sleeping giant’. ”

            You apparently didn’t learn your lessons Peter or your teacher didn’t understand the subject matter. Take note it was a ‘sleeping giant’ that we fed and outsourced to for all sorts of reasons including climate change so that China took our industry and polluted more than we did when they took over parts of our industry. We permitted China to steal our industrial secrets and permitted them trade deals that were a disadvantage to us. None of our recent governments did a good job and Obama was a coward while Biden’s son made personal deals set at the same time Biden was dealing with them. His son was even on the plane with Biden during some of these trips.

            You are totally ignorant.

            1. Wait– Wait– ‘Alan is concerned about pollution..?’

              Donald Trump is doing everything he can to dismantle environmental regulations; many of which were put in place by Obama. Yet according to Alan, it’s Obama’s fault that China has added so much pollution global environment..! So instead Trump is going to make up for lost time and allow the U.S. to add even more pollution than China!

              Then Alan calls ‘me’ ignorant..??

              1. “Then Alan calls ‘me’ ignorant..??”

                Peter you are ignorant. In all this time you still haven’t been able to even learn how to spell my name. You also don’t understand balance between benefit and harm (think unintended consequences something seldom done by those on the left). One of my homes is in an environmentally sensitive area. My left wing environmentalist neighbor has done everything possible under the law to destroy the environment. He is amazed that his neighbor and friend has the most environmentally friendly yard.

                You equate rules and regulations to preventing pollution and environmental damage. That is because you don’t think past your nose. Another neighbor of mine bought the house next door and planned to keep it vacant for a number of years. He leveled the house and leveled all the trees that birds nest in. I asked him why and he told me that by leveling it now he didn’t permit some species from moving in preventing him from building. Your environmental laws have caused the destruction of tremendous pieces of land and inhibited economic growth which permits individuals to be more environmentally friendly.

                I am all for smart regulation but left wing dumb regulation is just plain dumb.

                1. I should add that every time one of our industrial plants moves to China the pollution created is multiplied multiple times. That pollution travels all over the world.

                  1. Alan I don’t know ‘what’ your neighbor is doing or ‘what’ regulations you’re even talking about. I don’t know ‘what’ state or city you’re even referring to.

                    But if you care about the environment, Trump is the worst thing that ever happened to the world. He is sabotaging our response at a time when Climate Change has reached a tipping point.

                    1. tipping point has probably passed. it would be good if somebody in charge looked into planning for the disastrous effects of climate change instead of just wasting more energy on impossible schemes to tax carbon emissions that nobody will ever agree to in the meantime.

                      trump is aimed at more immediate problems but if he wins a second term let’s hope that he takes his unorthodox style and puts it into effect on that

                      keep in mind that trump opposed many Republican trends in two ways a) avoiding more foreign wars and b) bucking free trade dogma in favor of more fair trade and better industrial policy

                      maybe he can buck the Republican trend to ignore climate change too in the next term.

                      but it’s got to be something constructive and not just window dressing like shutting down coal mines, that didnt’ really do much, and reversing obama policy on it hasnt harmed much either. not really a big effect either way.

                    2. Peter, you have to learn balance and that is something Trump understands. The debate is not all or none rather how the balnace should be tuned. We need to protect our economy and our environment. Instead of blaming Trump for protecting our economy provide specifics so that we can protect both. That is something you are unable to do. If you did it I might agree with you and Trump might agree as well, but right now the left is more interested in stopping Trump from being successful and everything has become too political on both sides.

                      “I don’t know ‘what’ your neighbor is doing”

                      Example: I won’t use exotic trees because exotics are not necessarily friendly to birds and other animals. I also don’t do things that pollute the ground water and though I am not hysterical about climate change I don’t like to waste or pollute so I control what I buy. I skip a lot of junk from China which turns into environmental waste after the environment is polluted by China’s industrial production. I would pay a bit extra to have things made in America because of jobs and pollution and I would pay extra to Americans so that we didn’t need illegal workers that bring the salaries of American citizens down.

                    3. yeah allan silicon valley loves to cook up more gadgets using rare earth metals all the time which are mostly mined in china. they whine about trump and the environment on the left hand even as their right hand is buying all the stuff needed to make billions, a system which depends on a country with no labor unions and little environmental regulation.

                      i mean a lot rare earths are actually not that rare, but the mining and extraction process involves a lot of chemical waste, and it’s so much easier to just let China do it on the q.t. and ignore the negative externalities over there as they hypocritically pretend to be oh so concerned about the environment and fetch up all the green votes! what a racket.

                      these were some of the objections to NAFTA but DEMOCRAT Bill Clinton brushed it all aside., then they criticize Trump for wanting to redo parts of it. amazing!

                      things are complicated and it ill serves the public debate when some people in leadership are always being painted as monsters.

                    4. Kurtz, I think the Chinese also use places in Africa when mining for rare earth elements. AS you have stated we all but stopped such mining here because of pollution and cost. I don’t know if that was the best idea.

                    5. this reminds me of a certain California Democrat donor by the millions who was also a real estate developer who had some interesting lawsuits about environmental problems over the years gone by.

                      I won’t say his name because I think he was not really a bad guy, overall. overall, a very fine person from what i know of him, in spite of being a Democrat money man.

                      but yeah there is a real problem with fake crocodile tears on the left about environmental problems, that is, the ones that’ don’t hit them in their pocketbook that is. mostly the Democrat leadership sees the rank and file as a bunch of suckers who are easily deceived.

                      i have seen this dynamic with unions. you can see how they pander to the Left on foolishness like BLM etc etc even as they take the money from the Democrat controlled police unions who are the ones that actually take the hits to protect the cops from frivolous lawsuits and unjustified firings. maybe the cop unions should wise up and start working more with Republican candidates?

                  2. yeah and the same was true of mexico too, piss and nonexistent local laws about toxic waste and effluvium. unintended environmental damage caused by globalization. it’s happening in vietnam now too, same pattern.

                    1. I’ve been to Mexico many times and remember the market place in Mexico City where woman selling things looked 50 plus years old but were in their 20’s. I’m sure there has been improvement but people have to recognize how good we have it in the US.

                    2. it’s partly because our system of property rights and old torts like “nuisance” actually help protect the environment overall rather than just having massive amounts of public land owned by the government which abuses the land with impunity and can’t be sued for waste.

                      but get a budding “socialist” to wrap there heads around that, it wont be easy!

          4. I don’t think that’s what Allan said. You’re putting words in his mouth.

            China is a strategic competitor in many ways and we need a firm POTUS to contain them. That was the strategy for Obama — “pivot to asia” was not a bad idea, remember that? and yet he failed to deliver. Why is complicated; i would not blame it all on Obama, very complicated situation, and the Chicoms play chess very well, no matter who is in charge her. Now, the problems are much the same but the strategy has shifted to trade and tariffs, which was an incredibly long overdue good idea that Trump delivered.

            Let’s stay strong against negative Chinese mischief, without thinking of the people or nation as an enemy in itself. Same thing is true of Russia.

            1. “That was the strategy for Obama — “pivot to asia” was not a bad idea, remember that? and yet he failed to deliver.”

              I think that is Michele’s complaint as well.

              1. ha. i would guess that like a lot of “famous couples” they are essentially a business partnership and the personal side of things is mostly a facade.

                1. Mooch twice received lucrative promotions during the period between 1997 and 2006, but there isn’t much indication of a ‘business partnership’ before or after except that she provided a larger and more regular income than he could for the 1st dozen years of their marriage. Cynical observers of Obama have contended that his futzing around forced her into a breadwinner role that did not sit well with her while their godmother Valerie Jarrett was able to arrange undemanding (but handsomely paid) employment for her which put her in the hopper for other such jobs. I’m not sure what the ‘facade’ is supposed to be hiding. Neither Obama has a history or sexual or amatory scandals. The media are crookedly incurious about the misbehavior of Democratic pols, but the supermarket tabloids aren’t and they put the bee on John Edwards. There’s a certain amount of chatter among generic conspirazoids and alt-right types that BO must be homosexual (largely one suspects because these sorts are fetishists of what they fancy is inside information and because the alt-right types in particular cannot imagine a prominent negroid without a history of successfully hitting on other women), but given his known dispositions, tastes, and hobbies, that’s implausible.

        2. The money Iran received as part of the nuclear deal was their own, held since the Revolution, and with a negotiated interest rate favorable to the US..

          That deal, the sanctions on Russia, the TPP, and the Paris Accord all remain in force, and with all parties on board except our trolling presidents tiny mitts.

          Trump has led no one, and that includes his own party of wimps.

          1. Another failure of leadership from Fatso

            “US gets no commitment from NATO for help on Iran threat

            By Lolita C. Baldor

            The Associated Pres”

            1. That is a failure of leadership by former administrations. Trump has been doing just fine with NATO and NATO is not really the vehicle to manage Iran.

              Actually if the US and Iran come to more serious blows and the Strait of Hormuz is closed the Chinese and the Europeans are more likely to be hurt than the US which is essentially oil independent. European governments are fickle and some are set to commit national suicide. Companies, however, follow the green.

              1. Yeah and Russia will sell more oil if that happens and who is Iran’s friend Russia so Russia might not be too sad if the straights shut down. And Russia is a local rival to China so they would benefit in that way too. Always the question with Iran relates more to what is russia trying to accomplish than the mullahs who are usually between a rock and a hard place. The mullahs are clever not crazy however, that is just propaganda.

                A big regional war with Iran is not desirable, to say the least. The last three years have been a modest plus in that respect.

                1. China is the bigger threat. Yes Russia will benefit as to price but their friend China won’t. We will increase production as the price rises since some of the fracking is not profitable at today’s price. Over all we might see the benefits to the US in the long term outweigh the losses. Too complex to adequately assess.

                  Unlike you I think the Iran deal was a giant failure and our way of handling things under Obama has increased our risks. Trump has been quite good in handling things in the middle east. Take note of the stupid leftist criticism of him when he didn’t bomb the Iranians. Time is on our side and not bombing at this time was a smart thing.

                  1. yes it hardly matters what he does, to them, they always say it’s wrong. they’re so full of garbage. they stink. lying press!

          2. Anon – you don’t release a pallet of cash to a terrorist nation who starts their day in schools across their country with “Death to America! Death to Israel”, openly plotting to nuke both at its earliest opportunity.

            Obama gave pallets of cash to a terrorist nation in exchange for hostages, and then he lied about it. State confirmed in 2016 that the money was conditioned on the release of prisoners, a fact which Obama vehemently denied.

            https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/iran-payment-hostage-release-227170

            “Republicans are claiming vindication after the State Department confirmed on Thursday that the United States conditioned the release of a $400 million cash payment to Iran on the departure of American prisoners from Tehran.”

            Obama’s State denied it was a ransom payment, because it predicted the Hague Tribunal was going to order the US to repay the money anyway. For one, exchanging money for prisoners is a ransom payment, and claiming it would be paid anyway is semantics. For another, Bill Clinton had ordered that $400 million given to Americans in payment for legal judgements against Iran. That would have been our response to any Hague decision.

            The money did indeed belong to Iran. We had frozen it like any terrorist’s assets. The money had then been adjudicated paid out to Americans as legal compensation.

            In addition, the nuclear deal did not curb Iran. Please read the below on how the deal evolved from stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions, to allowing it. His concerns about inspections did prove true. Iran did not allow inspections in military sites. Inspections could only take place in certain agreed upon locations, and even those required 21 days advanced notice. Iran did ban UN nuclear inspections in general.

            https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/07/27/the-real-problems-with-the-iran-nuclear-deal

            1. Karen’s article is from 2015, 4 years ago.

              The US and Israel confirmed this year that Iran was complying as it has been since it’s beginning. The IAEA has also been verifying with on-site inspections since the deal took place.

              The money Iran received was their money, held since the revolution and interest was negotiated at terms favorable to the US.

              The rest of Karen’s complaint is standard fair from the group of mental cripples pretending that things were better when Iran was months from a weapon and that will now get a better deal. Unfortunately, their leader is incapable of making any deals because he’s both stupid and unstable and has now proven himself as also not trustworthy. That stench is rubbing of on our country and we’d better right that in 2020.

          3. “The money Iran received as part of the nuclear deal was their own,”

            Anon, this wasn’t voluntarily held and it was held for a reason. No, only Obama would give it back to make a deal that guarantees Iran the right to have nuclear weapons in the future.

            What is amazing is that Trump has been acting against Russian interests more than anyone else and the US has reduced pollution more than those in the Paris agreement. China didn’t have to comply which meant more jobs and industry moving to China. You are a fool that has no understanding of international affairs.

            Trump has done wonders despite the left’s total lack of regard for American citizens and workers and despite, as you say, his own party of wimps. At present we are seeing how the Obama Administration misused its power in spying on the Trump administration and making it possible for so many leaks in our government.

            Fortunately Trump found the magic wand that Obama was ignorant of and the country is moving in a better direction.

          4. the iran deal was not that bad in my opinion but not that great either. again it’s not really that big of a thing either way.

            the big risk entailed in backing out of iran deal, is if the europeans find a way around it by building up alternatives outside the USD as world reserve currency and trade medium. that hasnt happened yet but they’re working on it. could be a bad unintended consequence if they get very far down that road.

            trump’s main success with iran is just not getting into a hot war with them. that could have happened by now with a weaker potus. like obama who lied to the people by running as a peace candidate ,and then let us get sucked into libya and syria.

            i predict that the fireworks last week in the gulf will die down. but i also predict they will get the bomb one way or another.

            the big strategic threat with iran is not really them getting the bomb. they can get the bomb, any big sovereign can get one by now. the big threat is them building up more friends in iraq, pushing more resources into hezbollah, which could make them too bold, to perhaps attack israel, which could always touch off a way bigger war with potentially destabilizing outcomes for the whole region. iran needs to be contained mostly as a conventional power is my opinion, not so much the whole nuclear thing

        3. You would do well to drop the insults. They undercut any argument that you might be trying to make.

          1. Anon is a liar and a pig. That is not an insult. It is the honest truth.

            You have little meaning in any debate because your persona is mixed in with a lot of trash. Computer errors that cause the generic name are not desireable but at least those that have the problem try to correct the problem so their persona doesn’t get mixed up with all the garbage.

              1. “Jonathan permits anonymous commenting.”

                That is up to you, but I said you mix yourself with garbage. Most people are commenting anonymously but they are identifiable persona. If you like the smell that is your choice but except for the Dopey Duo I try to stay away from discussing things with one that is totally unidentifiable.

    2. The Left is completely out of touch with Americans. Witness the Q & A during the first night of Dem debates between Rachel Madcow and former Rep. John Delaney (D., Md.). She tried to shut him down but he steamrolled her left wing agenda. The topic is the Americans stupid, not Mueller, Russians, collusion, Impeachment nor prosecution of Trump
      No wonder her ratings are in the toilet

      https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-first-democratic-primary-debate-2019-n1022816?mod=article_inline

      MADDOW:
      Congressman Delaney, because of the accountability issues that Congressman O’Rourke was just describing there and the real political landscape in which Nancy Pelosi is saying that impeachment will not be pursued in the House, it raises the prospect — and the Mueller Report raises the prospect that President Trump could be prosecuted for some of those potential crimes down the line. No U.S. president has ever been prosecuted for crimes after leaving office. Do you believe that President Trump could or should be the first?
      DELANEY:
      I guess there’s always a first.
      MADDOW:
      Should he be?
      DELANEY:
      I don’t think anyone is above the law. I don’t think anyone is above the law, including a president. I support Speaker Pelosi’s decisions that she is making in the House of Representatives right now as speaker. I think she knows more about the decision as to whether to impeach the president than any of the 2020 candidates combined.
      MADDOW:
      Conceded. On the issue of prosecution…
      DELANEY:
      So — but I do think — I do think the — no one is above the law, and this president, who is lawless, should not be above the law. But I will tell you, Rachel, the one thing when you’re out doing as much campaigning as I’ve done, 400 events, all 99 counties in Iowa, this is not the number-one issue the American people ask us about.
      It’s not. They want to know what we’re going to do for health care, how we’re going to lower pharmaceutical prices, how we’re going to build infrastructure, what we’re going to do to create jobs in their communities.
      You know, last year in our country, 80 percent of the money for start-up businesses went to 50 counties in this country.
      There’s over 3,000 counties in this country. That’s what they care about. They care about what’s going on in the public schools. They care about what’s going on with jobs in their communities, with their pay, with their health care, with infrastructure. These are the issues, these kind of kitchen-table, pocket-book issues…
      MADDOW:
      Understood.
      DELANEY:
      … are actually what most Americans care about. They never ask about the Mueller Report.
      (CROSSTALK) MADDOW:
      Congressman, thank you. Your time is up.
      DELANEY:
      They never ask about it. They want to know how we’re going to solve these problems.
      MADDOW:
      Your time’s…

      1. “The Left is completely out of touch with Americans.”

        Estovir, they are also out of touch with realism. All of them have big plans with what they think is a way to pay for those plans. Unfortuantely all the money for those plans comes out of the same bank account which is relatively small compared to the size of the plans. They need to live in Venzuela for a year and see how it feels when they run out of toilet paper.

  15. To bad Trump didn’t show up at the debate last night and start debating all of them. That would have been great.

    1. https://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711
      Ind.Bob,
      I don’t think he could compete. We saw 2 of those on the stage last night who are going with MediCare for all. And Bernie has told us that the average family will save c.$5,000 😄😎😂🤣under his brainchild, MediCare for All.
      That’s tough to beat……you have a candidate who can take a “He couldn’t pay for it” type of program in Vermont, applying it to all 50 states, and actually SAVING families🤥 $5,000 a year.
      And forgiving c.$1.5 Trillion in student loan debt.
      Trump needs to “one-up” the threat posed by these financial alchemists like Sanders. In addition to writing off the $1,500,000,000,000 in student loan debt, the GOP platform should pledge to cancel all existing mortgage debt and auto loans.
      Then claim that taxing “the rich”, the pharmaceutical industry, and companies like Amazon will pay for these massive write-offs. And for good measure, that GOP platform needs to show that its candidates can turn water into wine, and feed massive crowds with a few fish and loafs of bread.
      Until and unless the GOP can “outbid” these idiots with magical accomplishments, the outlook seems very dim.

        1. Thanks for the linked article, Tom Nash. It’s from 2015, so we’ve moved on…

          He got this wrong:

          “Republicans will continue to control the House after the 2016 election.”

          He concluded:

          “…Sanders’ positions are really good, progressive and would help Americans.”

          He’s correct.

          “He’d just be really bad advancing them.”

          Would he? Time may tell…

          1. Republicans did continue to control the House after the 2016 elections.
            It was in the 2018 midterms that the Democrats got control of the House.
            The author thinks Bernie’s policies are great, but Bernie isn’t so great.
            I don’t know if Sanders will ultimately be able to sell his con job about putting everyone on MediCare and saving to the average family $5,000.
            Or using a magic eraser to make $1.5 Trillion in student loan debt disappear.
            There’s a problem with both the salesman and the product he’s selling; the author of the article thinks the problem is primarily the salesman, but not the snake oil he’s trying to sell.
            In any case, I doubt that the author has any reason to believe that Sanders’ personality is any different in 2019 than it was in 2015.

      1. the idea of cancelling student loans is preposterous. seriously they need to grow up. the price would go on the tax payers. it’s a nutjob fantasy that only universities could like. and screw them!

        kids should just start making other plans than going to college because thats what everyone says they should do. they could always focus on working and starting businesses and maybe do better than 4 years of expensive useless propagandization.

        1. Sanders has slipped. His contributions in the last cycle were fantastic. The situation is different now.

          Nonetheless, i feel he deserves a lot of respect for his career over the long haul. We should want more ferment of ideas not less. It’s great that he has opened up the space for discussion, even with some of the ideas that are not good ones. Sometimes people need to look to the edges for good ideas.

Leave a Reply