The Win-Win Impeachment: How Everyone Got What They Wanted . . . Except The Public

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on how the impeachment trial played out perfectly for everyone with the exception of voters.

Here is the column:

After the impeachment acquittal of President Donald Trump, every network and newspaper rushed forth with “winners and losers” stories. Some said Trump was the ultimate winner while others said he won nothing in a trial that was fixed. Some said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) triumphed while others declared her utterly undone by a sham House investigation.  

It is all part of the same zero-sum construct: For one to win, the other must lose to the same degree. 

Politics, however, is not a zero-sum game. Not only did all political sides win, they seemingly all worked for the same result — an acquittal. 

Speaker Pelosi and The Science of Failure:

For years, Speaker Pelosi openly opposed President Trump’s impeachment. As I wrote previously, the last thing she wanted was to remove Trump and bring about a Pence administration. She wanted Trump wounded but alive in 2020.  

Pelosi had two additional goals. First, Democratic voters grew increasingly impatient with congressional Democrats professing a desire to impeach without actually doing so. This included an impeachment-heavy pitch in the 2018 midterm elections that delivered the House to Democrats. The voters were beginning to see that they were being played, so a failed attempt was the best alternative: Bring an impeachment that was guaranteed to lose with the shortest investigation, thinnest record and narrowest grounds.

Second, it was important to convince voters that the failure was due entirely to Republicans. By rushing the vote before Christmas, Pelosi relied on Senate Republicans to block witnesses so that the House could blame them. (History was on her side, since Democrats voted as a bloc to both block witnesses and a full trial in the Clinton impeachment.) 

It did not matter that a rushed impeachment made no strategic sense. In my House testimony, I repeatedly asked why Democrats would rush forward with an incomplete record when just a couple months would dramatically strengthen their case with witnesses and court orders. Democrats simply declared there was no time to waste in voting for impeachment. They then did nothing for a month after their vote, as Pelosi engaged in the ridiculous pretense of holding the articles of impeachment to coerce the Senate into calling witnesses and holding a fair trial. It was transparently contrived, since Pelosi was destroying the rationale for a rushed House vote. Yet, Democratic voters bought it and blamed Senate Republicans.  

Thus, Pelosi won. She kept Trump in office while enraging the Democrats’ base for the 2020 election. And impeachment leaders like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) hit record levels of contributions for fighting a fight he was meant to lose.

President Trump and The Art of Outrage:

A failed impeachment proved even more beneficial to President Trump. As shown when he triumphantly held up newspapers with the headline “Acquitted,” impeachment enabled him to claim victory over a “deep state” and Democratic conspiracy. 

He also was able to again highlight the dubious business dealings of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter. While Democratic senators opposed trial testimony by Hunter Biden, Trump told voters they should get the whole story. A Hill-HarrisX poll found 54 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agreeing that “Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine are an important campaign issue that should be discussed.” 

Thus, Trump won, too. According to Gallup, Trump’s popularity reached his highest point, 49 percent – better than President Barack Obama’s polling at this stage in his first term, even without an impeachment. The trial turbocharged Trump’s support, with a breathtaking 94 percent popularity among Republicans. It also proved a windfall for GOP fundraising; the Republican National Committee raked in $117 million online from late September through this week and picked up 1 million new donors. Trump’s campaign coffers swelled to $103 million — compared to less than $85 million combined for the Democratic presidential contenders. Trump’s haul grew almost 25 percent during the House impeachment investigation, from October to December. 

The Media and Managed Mania:

The greatest winner, of course, was the media. Despite the steady drumbeat of media criticism, Trump has single-handedly saved the industry from an economic free-fall. Cable networks like CNN and MSNBC have profited handsomely by offering unrelenting attacks on him; he is the greatest boon for the media business since the invention of the printing press. 

In a rare moment of honesty from a television executive, CNN’s Jeff Zucker told an industry group two years ago: “We’ve seen that anytime you break away from the Trump story and cover other events in this era, the audience goes away. So we know that, right now, Donald Trump dominates.” The notion of replacing the scurrilous Trump with the staid Pence is enough to put Zucker into a tight fetal position.

The same goes for Fox News. While long the dominant cable network, Fox posted unrivaled ratings during the Senate trial, beating not just its cable competitors but the networks.  

What the media needed was a heated but failed trial that kept Trump in office, still fueling headlines. Echo-journalism requires angry readers and viewers who find solace in hearing one side of the Trump saga. For the media, replacing Trump with Pence would be like going from a Mardi Gras romp to a Gregorian chant.

Bolton and The Selling Books Through Silence:

There were individual beneficiaries, too, but none come close to the likely windfall of former national security adviser John Bolton. He used impeachment to shamelessly plug his forthcoming book with tweets like, “For the backstory, stay tuned ……. .” 

Whereas his former aides came forward at personal risk to defy the administration — including some now fired from the White House — Bolton insisted on receiving a subpoena while careening between threatening litigation on one hand and inviting compelled testimony on the other. Rather than disclosing information he had to share, the Senate was hit by lethally timed leaks from his book draft. When the House asked him to submit an affidavit before the trial ended, Bolton reportedly refused. It left many suspicious about Bolton’s motivations. After all, you can’t sell an affidavit on Amazon. 

It did not seem to matter that the republic was in crisis. The only thing that would have been catastrophic for Bolton would have been a court compelling him to testify for free, or Trump actually being removed. Instead, we’ve all been forced to “stay tuned.” And, like fired FBI director James Comey and his own tell-all book, Bolton almost certainly will become rich.

Of course, there is one set of losers in all of this: the public.

American voters remain the greatest chumps the world has known. Both parties continue to play them in scam after scam, filling the public’s dresser drawers with the political equivalent of $5 “solid-gold watches.” Yet, the public continues coming back for more, trained to rage with the same Pavlovian bell used every election.  

The simple fact is this: While the two parties, the media and Bolton got what they wanted, the public may have gotten what it deserves.

200 thoughts on “The Win-Win Impeachment: How Everyone Got What They Wanted . . . Except The Public”

  1. OT: This is quite interesting for everyone especially those that support Biden.

    Biden Gets Borked In Historic Irony He Helped Create

    By IRA STOLL, Special to the Sun | February 10, 2020

    Who is to blame for an electorate that values youth over experience, that has elevated Pete Buttigieg and Barack Obama over Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton?

    The culprit is, in a significant way, Mr. Biden himself.

    I realized this during the New Hampshire Democratic primary debate hosted Friday by ABC News. Asked about possible Supreme Court choices, Mr. Biden bragged, “I almost single-handedly made sure that Robert Bork did not get on the Court.”

    When President Reagan nominated Bork in 1987, Bork was 60 years old. Bork had been a professor at Yale Law School and had served as solicitor general of the United States and as acting attorney general. Bork had for five years ridden the District of Columbia Circuit for the United States Court of Appeals.

    Bork’s defeat in the Senate at the hands of Mr. Biden and his colleagues was a turning point in many ways. One of the most significant ways was that it upended the standards for desirability in a judicial nominee. Pre-Bork, the most desirable thing was to have lots of experience so that senators would be convinced that the nominee was qualified for the job.

    Post-Bork, the most desirable thing became to have as short a paper trail as possible, so as to minimize the chances that a nominee’s writing could be distorted or seized upon in a way that could ultimately derail the nomination.

    People haven’t focused on it quite yet, but what we are and have been witnessing is a similar transformation in presidential politics. In presidential candidates, as with post-Bork judicial nominees, lengthy government experience has become a liability rather than a strength.

    Look at how Vice President Biden’s long track record has hurt his own candidacy. He’s been attacked for his vote to authorize the Iraq War and for his opposition to federally mandated busing to combat school segregation in Wilmington, Delaware. Merely entering into a discussion of these matters, regardless of the merits of the underlying issues, has the effect of underscoring Mr. Biden’s age, in a non-flattering way.

    Call it irony, or call it poetic justice, or call it, even, the Borking of Biden, even though the attacks on Mr. Biden, at least so far, probably have not been quite so distorted as to merit fully the term “borking.”

    The triumph of youth, or of a blank slate, over extensive government experience isn’t limited to the Democrats, either. Donald Trump, unlike Hillary Clinton, had no Senate vote record to defend, no Benghazi. Mitt Romney’s record turned into a negative when Republican opinionmakers faulted his Massachusetts health reform and his evolving public statements on abortion.

    Plus, the internet has made this all worse. In the old days trashing a rival’s record required hiring opposition researchers to go comb through libraries of microfilm or video archives. Nowadays it’s all on Google.

    There is something, though, about the Democratic swoon for Messrs. Obama and Buttigieg that is particularly emblematic. It goes beyond the mere mechanics of campaigning or of opposition research. The short-on-experience candidates are the personification of judging on intentions rather than on results. They are the perfect representations — Bernie Sanders, in a way, too — of a party that prioritizes virtue-signaling over actually getting things done.

    In April of 2019, after seeing Mr. Buttigieg in Boston, I described him as “downright impressive” and “the most interesting Democrat running for president.” That was before Michael Bloomberg got into the race, but the “impressive” part still applies.

    When Mr. Biden attacks Mr. Buttigieg as unaccomplished, as he did in a campaign commercial over the weekend, it seems condescending. To say that Mr. Buttigieg is ill-prepared for the presidency isn’t dismissive. It’s a kind of praise. Paradoxically, in the current moment — a moment Biden helped to create by borking Bork — being unqualified for the presidency is the best qualification a candidate can have.

  2. Elvis, I was thinking about the policy discussion you desired regarding soybeans and tariffs. I’m waiting for you discussion to start as soon as you figure out what policy you are talking about. There is one I am interested in but not specific to soybeans so I will tell you what just crossed my desk.

    “Chinese oil demand is now down 20% from this time last year.”

    That is important and that is not factoring in the the problems created from the coronavirus. I am anxiously waiting for your policy discussion.

    1. Here’s a quick primer on the effect of a tariff war on soybeans, Allan.

      Article is from 2018, prices have fallen from that. Soybeans traded at 10 and change in November 2017, in the beginning stages of tariff war talk. Traded at 9.62 when the article was written. Trading at 8.87 this morning after dipping to as low as 871 earlier this month.

      Solid cause and effect.

      Now, can prices fall for other reasons? Yes. 2013 had a market glut that drove down prices in a hurry. But they’d rallied about halfway back before tariff war activity set in 2017.

      Keep in mind, there have been two separate Trump farm bailout stimulus’ in response to tariffs hammering the market. I trade Bean Oil for a living. That market is sheltered a bit more but has turned down as well. Crop reports with favorable fundamentals only have short reaction upturns followed by quick fall offs. Price movement is now greater in the night markets because that’s where the majority of foreign activity is (primarily South American and Russian). in other words, sweeping change to grain markets as a direct result of Chinese buyers going elsewhere to fulfill demand. Those contracts in the states will now need to beat South American and Russian prices in order to swing the market back. Incidentally, that reality functions in opposition to Trump’s stimulus activity which will keep American product treading water at prices just high enough to insure market share loss.

      Upshot? Trump has driven grains into the predicament coal faced in relation to natural gas and it may be a fatal blow to the market. Would this have happened anyway? Maybe it was just an amplification of the inevitable. Maybe not. Either way, Trump is in a political game entirely with his ag policy as he seeks to buy off votes in the upcoming election with his bailouts. That combined with his tax breaks have blown a hole in budget deficits. In other words, he’s set the table perfectly for a financial crash.

      1. Elvis, I see you are able to copy another person’s work product but can’t seem to link it up with your own. What is the specific policy that you have objection to? Most of the above is well known.

        What you are doing is saying let’s discuss cars and speed. Wow. Cars move at different speeds. Congratualtions. You have aced the fact that cars can travel at different speeds. The real discussion might be what speed should be legal on the the interstates. But then you would have to further explain what your policy discussion is. Does it have to do with the death rate, amount of gas used etc. That is where we are at in your soybeans and tariffs. That demonstrate a lack of awareness of the policy matters involved.

        Elvis, I wait patiently for you to provide a base of discussion for soybeans and tariffs.

        1. So many abstractions! Ha. Whose work product has been copied? Why should I be justifying for you what you claim to be readily known? Why do you use the phrase “where we are at”? Why do you act like it’s anyone’s job to write a term paper for you to disregard sources on? Did someone ever teach you that divide and conquer strategy defeats itself and becomes contrived at a certain point? And since my guess is you’ve been to law school, did someone not teach you the limitations of negotiating in bad faith?

          I thought Biden was tripping all Biden style when he said “lyin’ dog faced pony soldier” the other say. Now I know who he was talking about.

          1. Don’t be foolish Elvis you are the one that said let’s discuss soybeans and tariffs. I didn’t ask for such a discussion. I just asked for you to tell us what policy decision you wanted to talk about. Your response is quite obtuse and like your question is more a muttering of words than any cogent sensible suggesstion of policy.

            Why do you start things you can’t finish?

              1. “Looks like I just finished this “discussion”.”

                Elvis, that is a good decision of yours. Take your losses.

                I think you told me that you build outdoor walls and earlier I said you probably did a good job. Take a look at your first step. You made sure you had a solid foundation.


                1. My losses? Ha.

                  Curious Allan, do you think you’re making a point here? And if so, what is it?

                  1. “My losses? Ha.”

                    I remember that type of response from my grade school days. The one’s that made such a response never graduated high school. I’m sure you did but I wanted to see the picture you created in some people’s minds.

                    “Curious Allan, do you think you’re making a point here? And if so, what is it?”

                    I’m not making a point Elvis. I am just stating the facts.

              2. it’s understood that the trade war has negatively impacted domestic production of soybeans. this is clear.

                what is debatable is the future path.

                I anticipate the trade war will not be a long term problem. why?

                soybeans are very suitable for cultivation in the midwest states like Illinois and Indiana and many others. the terrain, the size of land-holdings, the climate, the productive enterprises, have all staked their claims on soy and corn and those factors will endure and continue to have the same financial merits.

                alternative crop demand such as for hemp has “underwhelmed” as the demand for CBD oil has not materialized to the level its promoters expected.

                if some financially weaker producers enter bankruptcy, the fields will not lay fallow. they are often renting land in the first place and some other producers will plant the fields in due time.
                Over decades I know that landholders of ag land out here, almost never let good fields go unplanted unless they’re slated for residential or commercial development and that demand is slackening or probably will slacken. they can easily find a new tenant to plant the fields. so.

                i would be there will be plenty of soy planting going on out here in flyover in a few months hence

              3. also the wet springtime last year was a bigger factor limiting production than the trade war. it was a mess in the midwest and fields were too muddy and corn went in late as ever. farmers and landlords will be keen to make up losses by doubling down if the weather is favorable.

                it will not likely be as wet this year. but we will see.

                1. it was a mess in the midwest and fields were too muddy and corn went in late as ever.
                  When conditions make planting late in the spring midwest farmers plant soybeans instead of corn, but trade wars made soybeans not an option last spring.

                  1. Beans are trading in the mid 8’s right now and that’s with a couple of stimulus bills artificially holding things in place. Hard to make a run of it at those prices. Bigger farmers could possibly, not the smaller guys. And the upshot of the trade war is that the Chinese shopped elsewhere. Every time Trump has talks with them there’s a slight rally based on optimism and markets are largely driven on emotion, even in a fundamental sense. But when realization sets in that there really is no ‘deal’ it further sets Chinese supply channels with non U.S. markets. They won’t come back and buy at previous levels just because it’s the U.S. those contracts are mostly gone which is why a lot of those fields ten years from now will likely be filled with solar panels and windmills.

                2. The wet spring was a huge negative last year, but the trade war was equal if not worse. Self imposed hurdle. Nature you can’t control. Sketchy policy is just self destructive.

      2. Upshot? Trump has driven grains into the predicament coal faced in relation to natural gas and it may be a fatal blow to the market.
        There is a simple solution. Allow higher blend rates for fuel ethanol in motor gasoline. The gasoline market could (and would) absorb almost twice as much ethanol as it is now.

        US farmers would rather not be dependent on sales to foreign markets anyway and the only thing holding back higher sales of fuel ethanol is federal regulation.

        “In that study, 40 different vehicles ranging in age from a 2003 Chevy Silverado to a 2016 Lincoln Navigator used more than 1 million gallons of E30 sold in Watertown since May 2016.

        Through more than 80,000 test miles and 20 million consumer miles driven, on average, the vehicles increased fuel mileage, increased horsepower, saved fuel and had no check engine lights or mechanical issues.”

        And E30 will cost less.

        1. This and alternative use of fields are legit answers, for sure. Bean oil can convert as well.

  3. A very crude anonymous poster wrote that I am a fan of Project Veritas and James O’Keefe. It so happens to be true and as long as Veritas has the video’s proving what is being displayed I will continue to be a fan. One would hope that actual video recordings would make people smarter but unfortunately some are wired so that facts contained in audio video make them the opposite.

    What is amazing is that some can’t believe their eyes and ears. They are dysfunctional.

      1. Margo, a lot of people hate Jame’s O’Keefe because he undresses them making them vulnerable so they feel they have to assail his character. They keep trying to sue him and keep his video’s hidden. So far in court I think Veritas has had 7 wins and no losses. He is protecting essential rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

        Many on the left would like to abridge those rights.

        1. i dig okeefe his exposes of the crazy radical anarchist bernie bro campaign flunkies were awesome

    1. “Allan says:February 11, 2020 at 4:33 PM

      A very crude anonymous poster wrote that I am a fan of Project Veritas and James O’Keefe. It so happens to be true and as long as Veritas has the video’s proving what is being displayed I will continue to be a fan. One would hope that actual video recordings would make people smarter but unfortunately some are wired so that facts contained in audio video make them the opposite.

      What is amazing is that some can’t believe their eyes and ears. They are dysfunctional.”


      Calm down, Allan. Nutters abound. And some of us recognize an outlier when we see one.

      As I understand it, the guy (Kyle Jurek) been reported to the Secret Service. He’ll likely be monitored.

      Again: Jurek is an outlier. These outliers exist at both ends of the spectrum, and sometimes in-between.

      Take some deep breaths and stop getting all worked up. We’ll know that you’ll keep posting (and saying) inflammatory sh!t, but do try to calm down.

      1. “Take some deep breaths and stop getting all worked up. We’ll know that you’ll keep posting (and saying) inflammatory sh!t, but do try to calm down.”

        It seems you are projecting and at the same time trying to be insulting and inflamatory. That is a bad substitute for intellect.

        Jurek might be an outlier but he is not the only one. You like to forget things that are contrary to what you want to believe. Your emotions seem to dominate what you believe is thinking.

        1. More prattle from Allan @ 10:06 pm.

          “Project Veritas is an American Right-wing activist group.[1][2][3][4] The group uses “disguises and hidden cameras to uncover supposed liberal bias and corruption”.[1] The group is known for producing deceptively edited videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups.[5][2][6][7][8][9][10] In a 2018 book on propaganda and disinformation in U.S. politics, three Harvard University scholars refer to Project Veritas as a “right-wing disinformation outfit.”

          Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. October 15, 2018. p. 358. ISBN 9780190923631.

          1. This joker can say what he wants but Project Veritas has been instrumental in the conviction of people, states changing their voter laws, helping the FBI arrest the vandals during the inaugeration of Trump and a lot of other things. Unlike the opinion hit piece copied by anonymous Project Veritas uses video recordings that can be reviewed by everyone. They can decide for themselves as to what the videos mean.

            What to believe garbage or actual videos?

              1. Anonymous @ 11:15 PM is a left-wing disinformation coward who lacks the test!cles to use a real name


                1. Poor Anonymous @ 12:42 PM. The word “pathetic” suits you — and yes, your balls are missing.

              2. “‘Project Veritas as a “right-wing disinformation outfit.”’

                This is the ranting of ignorance. Though more frequently Veritas reveals wrongdoing by the left than the right Veritas has gone after people on the right and organizations that are neutral. It is not the fault of Veritas that the left is so much more crooked than the right and is violent as well.

                One has to laugh at Anonymous. What is his proof? Nothing, just his word which isn’t worth more than his generic alias. What is Veritas’s proof? Videos of those that have done wrong where those videos are open to the public so each person can judge for themselves.

              1. This joker can’t even remain on topic. He is responding to ” Project Veritas has been instrumental in the conviction of people, states changing their voter laws, helping the FBI arrest the vandals during the inaugeration of Trump and a lot of other things” He feels all he has to do is copy something from somewhere without tying it into the discussion. This time it is white supremacists. I don’t think most on this blog like white supremecists but as most people know white supremecists frequently come from the left, Nazi, national socialist. Socialist, get the word anonymous or does that like everything else pass you by?

  4. That Stupid Anonymous person continues with his insulting replies despite the fact that he was provided what he thought didn’t exist and asked for. That is what one expects from a stupid person.

    1. Again: Allan continues to see himself in others.

      He’s a fan of Jame’s O’Keefe and Project Veritas.

      1. And that’s wrong because? I myself enjoy a good Project Veritas video. They’re usually quite interesting and informative. Even better was the aftermath of the Scott Foval/Bob Creamer expose. I thoroughly enjoyed the Scott Foval twitter thread reaction to being unceremoniously dumped by the DNC. If in fact it was actually him and not a spoof account. And even then. I laughed until I cried.

  5. Turley’s explanation of the Democratic strategy is intriguing and probably correct. I do have to say though, the last line of the piece bothers me. The public doesn’t deserve this sort of political gaming. Sure, the public has bought into the rage-fueling narratives promoted by politicians and the media, but to place the blame on the public is odd to me. Where else are citizens supposed to turn if both major political parties give them nothing but content-less anger? I guess I feel like the elites are playing with fire here, and they ought to know better.

    1. An excellent point. I love the Prof, but sometimes just the teensiest hint of elitism peeks through. Well, what the heck, he’s certainly earned it, more than most.

  6. A very Stupid and arrogant member who uses an Anonymous alias chose insult while demanding proof of the violence stated in the Bernie videos. There are multiple videos and I am not sure they are all at this site but enough are. There may be more videos that will be released later.

    1. “A very Stupid and arrogant member who…”

      Allan continues to see himself in others.

  7. I was a bit offended by the closing categorizing voters as, chumps and trained in rage, but Professor Turley’s not wrong. It’s an accurate description of too many of us.

    If your opinions are informed by:
    news outlets
    And you never make an attempt to verify any of it,

    you’re a chump

  8. Jonathan Turley, how can you be sure that “the public” didn’t receive the desired outcome?

    1. Thank you, Mr. Benson. A very well written and in fact a charming piece of writing. I will do my best to comply and if I don’t, I will be expecting my fellow commenters to call me out.

  9. Good stuff Margot.

    You sure have the right guy at the top if staying cool is the plan. Absurd is likes a wholesome family man and you want an Obama like Mr Cool, shoulder brushing responses.

    Yeah, Trump ……….and ……….:-)Trump.


  10. Mespo means he got one good – breaking 49% for him is a high water mark – outlier poll (538 shows all polls which say he’s really at about 43%). That is until he crashed the prayer breakfast and did the “Here’s Donny!” monologue in the East Room – the one where he cursed on live network TV. At least he didn’t wear a beige suit!

    Good times!

  11. Pelosi got exactly what she wanted. This was all about damaging Trump prior to the 2020 election, and an attempt to use her position of authority to get dirt on Trump. This was always about the election.

    Democrats can’t run on the economy. It’s booming with the reversal of Obama’s policies.

    Democrats can’t run on illegal immigration. Many Americans don’t want open borders. It’s out now that the “kids in cages” thing was actually under Obama.

    Demcorats can’t rely on their candidates. It’s a competition between whose policies can put us all into the poorhouse fastest.

    They can’t win a fair fight, so they had to try to wound Trump.

    Meanwhile, Republicans need to tell the difference between a battle and a war. They get played with regularity.

    Based on the evidence, this was another false allegation. But unless Republicans can communicate with voters who watch the MSM, they have a difficult time explaining their position. Demcorats have successfully brainwashed their base to believe all Republicans are evil. It’s gotten to the point that Republicans are afraid to leave their homes with a MAGA hat, afraid to speak their minds on politics in a mixed gathering of friends, family, or social media. Now setting up a registration tent is dangerous, since that last maniac plowed his van into one. They are afraid to come on Republican on college campuses for fear they will be assaulted or their professors will punish them via grades. They are afraid to invite a conservative speaker for fear the unhinged Democrats might riot. They are afraid to join any sort of women’s march because that’s just a ruse for a Demcorat rally. Conservative women are not welcome, nor is it safe for them. They are afraid to say they want any sort of limit on abortion. Even women who say so might be kicked in the face by deranged Democrat males.

    How bad is it? According to Time, 62% of New Hampshire Democrats would prefer an asteroid wipe out all life on Earth than Trump get re-elected. Wrap your brains around that for a moment. Democrats would rather everyone die than Republican Trump take office again. A reasonable person would understand Trump has done nothing to warrant choosing to turn our planet into a lifeless rock spinning in space to stop him. That’s the slavering masses whipped up by Pelosi, Schiff, and the media. They have created monsters, and I think they need to read Mary Shelley on what happens to the creators of monsters.

    I have seen my position harden greatly. Age of Rage on both sides? More like stand up for yourself or be destroyed. We are dealing with people who would prefer we all die than to have Trump in office again. How far will they go? There is nowhere to hide to avoid Democrat persecution. It’s in the workplace. In family gatherings. Online. In college. On the street. Take the high road and it’s like doing nothing as the seeds of fascism stirred.

    It grieves me that the days of having fun talking about diffferent ideas on governance have become the stuff of legend. How enjoyable that must have been, to have friends you could disagree with over politics and remain close friends. One by one, I have seen my Demcorat friends lose their moderate stance, and descend into madness against Trump and Republicans. Trump is just a man who likes to brag and quarrel on Twitter. He’s done very well as President, and he sure hasn’t been stumbling around like Rodney Dangerfield. He is not the existential threat to Earth that he’s been made out to be. They have been screaming hysterically that Trump was going to kill the Jews and black people, but it turned out, Democrats have mostly been the source of political violence on a daily basis. As it turns out, Trump is not the anti-Christ the atheists feared.

    1. “How bad is it?”

      I’ll tell you how bad it is. There’s a bill making its way through the House of Representatives called “The New Way Forward”, or as I like to call it, a bill to bring about state sanctioned white genocide. Tucker Carlson devoted an entire segment to it. Truly chilling. And if I recall correctly, it currently has 32 co-sponsors. That it was even proposed is bad enough, that it has even that many co-sponsors is surreal. No wonder Chris Matthews had an unusual moment of clarity.

      My father actually warned me decades ago that something like this would happen.

      I would love to hear the Prof’s thoughts on this bill at some point.

    2. I agree with Karen that Pelosi won the visuals and delivered the message most of us democrats wanted when she ripped up Mr 44% stack of BS.

      On the issues she brings up, Trump has done well pretending he’s not nursing the longest period of economic growth since WW2 by writing hot checks that already has our kids heading for the poor house. The CBO predicts yearly deficits over $1 trillion for the next 10 years. Meanwhile, Obama’s last 3 years yielded more job gains than Trump’s 3, an almost dead even GDP growth rate without the $ trillion deficits. Trump’s promised 3% GDP rate has happened in only 1 quarter and the hinted at 4% -“it will be easy” -……. never.

      On immigration, a majority of Americans – no, not you Republicans – favor reform like the 2013 bipartisan bill that House republicans killed under the Haster Rule – look it up Karen.

      As to brainwashing, Karen – a Trump and Rush Limbaugh fan who claims to care about name calling and divisive language – is the queen of victimhood, a martyred Our Lady of the Deplorables, but blind to the damage she, her heroes, and friends on this blog do to public discourse. Demonizing is only a sin if she’s the target as she celebrates the worst offenders of our or any American age and takes no note of even the name calling on this blog or apparently the career Rush built on that skill.

      1. I am new to this blog, so can you help me out here? Is it the fashion here for people to get so viciously personal with other commenters?

        Or does it just happen from time to time when someone gets triggered? Don’t get me wrong, I get triggered too, on occasion. But I do try not to resort to name calling, unless someone else draws first blood. And even then, sometimes I just walk away or ignore.

        1. I am new to this blog, so can you help me out here? Is it the fashion here for people to get so viciously personal with other commenters?

          Oh, pretty much.

        2. Margot, I addressed the points Karen advanced and noted how false several were, and noted her hypocrisy on the subject of stereotyping political opponents.

          By the way, absurd spends almost all his energy on slandering those he disagrees with, and without any substance or point.

          1. OK, but this:

            “As to brainwashing, Karen – a Trump and Rush Limbaugh fan who claims to care about name calling and divisive language – is the queen of victimhood, a martyred Our Lady of the Deplorables, but blind to the damage she, her heroes, and friends on this blog do to public discourse. Demonizing is only a sin if she’s the target as she celebrates the worst offenders of our or any American age and takes no note of even the name calling on this blog or apparently the career Rush built on that skill.”

            I mean, really. That’s where you lost me. If you want to change hearts and minds, there’s better ways to go about it.

            Believe it or not, there’s a lot of name calling and shaming among conservatives/Republicans on certain sites. I just spent seven months in one such meat grinder. Dissent from the party iine, or object to something a politician is doing, and BAM, you get creamed just as if you were a dem or a Bernie bro’. In fact they’ll even call you that. It’s almost enough to make a person want to become what they’re accused of.

            1. Ok Margot, but Karen posts here all the time and there is nothing inaccurate in my description of her regular position and there is a serious point in sarcasm.

              If you intend to post here and stay civil, I welcome that and will reply in kind. Most here -Kurtz is an exception – go right to the insults and avoid substance. I hope you’ll be a strong but reasonable opponent – we probably won’t agree on much from what I sense are your politics – and maybe we’ll both learn something.

              1. bythebook, you are too kind, so let’s see if we can have some fun. I am a NPA (no party affiliation), with some paleo-conservative leanings. And I guess some liberal, too, in the classical sense. Both the National Review and The Atlantic drive me up the wall, equally. Unlike the conservatives who go on the Bill Maher show, I don’t have some craven desire for approval from the left. But if you saw some of my posts on a couple of the more conservative sites where I used to post, you’d see I don’t have a craven desire for approval from the right, either. I don’t know what that makes me, I really don’t like the word “moderate” either.

                I did vote for Trump. Doesn’t mean I’d vote for him again, though. I will say this: If I were one of the powers that be, and I wanted to bring the people who comprise his base under control, I couldn’t think of a better person to do it. In fact it occurred to me just the other day that this might possibly be the whole purpose of his presidency.

                1. Margot, thanks for the background which I find a little hard to read (grasp) but that seems purposeful and interesting. I’m a garden variety left center democrat who came of age during the civil rights movement and which in retrospect convinced me of the necessary and beneficial potential of the federal government, and the product of a large state U, which similarly leads me to believe in the potential benefits of state governments.

                  Your question implies a plot of which Trump may, or may not be aware. Interesting again, but I am skeptical of conspiracies, and especially ones by “the powers that be”. In my opinion, at the top there are multiple powers, not one, and they scrap for control too, and do not have a clear path to control.

                  Is that what you suggested?

                  1. bythebook, it seems that we come from roughly the same era, if not the same political philosophy. But I absorbed enough of it to perhaps understand where you are coming from. I will answer your post at greater length tomorrow, as I have hit that time of night where my thoughts are less coherent. But I do want to pursue it, some of what you said dovetails with a documentary I saw recently that discusses the American system of economics, as differentiated from the usual capitalism vs socialism. A third way, if you will, as instituted by FDR. I had to completely re-arrange my thinking and recognize that “free trade” as we know it is no such thing and basically propaganda.

                    PS: I enjoy a good conspiracy theory and certainly believe that conspiracies exist.

                  2. So, picking up where we left off, bythebook, this: “at the top there are multiple powers, not one, and they scrap for control too, and do not have a clear path to control.”

                    That is very true and I think it is the one thing that saves us from total control. I like that different factions scrap, it’s better that way.

                    Regarding whether or not there’s a plot of which Trump may or may not be aware, (I’m assuming you mean whether he’s a knowing participant or not), the point I was making is that the people who comprise his base are the ones that a controlling faction (or cabal, if you will) would find the most dangerous to their goals. One can always tell how dangerous they are considered to be by the degree of effort and stratagems deployed to suppress and subjugate them. The stratagem known as “The Long March Through the Institutions” has accomplished much to soften up the opposition, especially in academia. But it hasn’t been enough, so…

                    What if a charismatic figure arose who could convince that base that he has their best interests at heart and will protect them? What if he was so charismatic that he could persuade them to his way of thinking and get them to vote against their interests, or acquiesce to their own demise? What if he could get them to agree to things like red flag laws and stuff like that, just because he went along with it?

                    Now, I’m not saying that’s Trump. But it could be. Having seen some of the base in action on line, including political operatives masquerading as Trump supporters, it is truly frightening. I was thrown off a Trump forum just for questioning why Trump was endorsing John McCain and Paul Ryan during the first campaign, and throwing Paul Nehlen under the bus. The virtual Trump supporting mob descended on me like a pack of wild dogs, it was that bad. If Trump was endorsing John McCain and Paul Ryan, by God, that was good enough for them, and I was a chicken tendie- eating Bernie bro’, that’s what! And they had a ball doing it, too. Of course, later on, when McCain and Ryan stabbed Trump in the back, it was a different story. McCain and Ryan were savaged. Of course, no one mentioned that I and others tried to warn them.

                    I’ve actually seen Trump tell supporters at a rally exactly how he would screw them over (flood the country with H1B visas and have China build factories here, this was at a Michigan rally) and the crowd goes wild clapping and cheering. I even noted that Trump had a sort of puzzled look on his face when that happened. He knew the crowd should have gone silent, but they didn’t. It was a beta test, I guess.

                    Anyway, I’ve gone on bloviating long enough. I hope I got my point across. Sometimes I get carried away by my own writing, lol.

                    1. Sorry to gate crash, but this discussion has been fascinating. Sort of putting a finger on the electrical give and take of the Trump realm as it further solidifies and gathers etheric weight rather than resembling the slow motion projectile vomiting of a wayward traveller on a New York street.

                      Carry on. Ha..

                    2. Margot, anyone person can gain control of the nation and even convince a significant portion of the voting public that his interests are only beneficial. We saw that with Mao, Hitler, Lenin and Stalin, etc.

                      This country has a unique system of republicanism and federalism dividing the country up while creating many checks and balances. Today it is mostly the left that wishes to rid us of that multiplicity of voices along with checks and balances. That leads precisely to the man you fear most.

                    3. I hear you, but who is the man I fear the most? If you think it is Trump, then you are mistaken. Probably my fault, I didn’t express it very well.

                    4. “I hear you, but who is the man I fear the most?”

                      Margo, I don’t think that you pointed directly to any man. I took it as a generic fear of absolute power. Absolute power is why I brought up the ideas of republicanism, federalism and checks and balances. I should have added the Constitution which is the law for those that pass the laws that govern us. Those things protect us from absolute power and that is why the left wishes to rid the nation of them. The left is inherently dictatorial.

                    5. Thank you for the clarification. In fact the person I feared the most was Hillary Clinton. I realize she’s just a tool, but sheesh, we really dodged a bullet. I don’t fear her any more, though.

                    6. “Thank you for the clarification. In fact the person I feared the most was Hillary Clinton. ”

                      You are welcome. Hillary is a good choice for one to fear. I still fear the people that stood behind her. Many are still powerful and/ or still in government along with those that worked along side of her. Some were doing the same things as Hillary and they are to be feared as well. Our Constitutional Republic is very fragile.

                    7. Margot, sorry for the slow response – on a semi-vacation with family out in the boondoggle. I’m glad we agree that there is not one “them” but competing power groups, and in my opinion we the people are in charge if we only realized it. Of course influence buying through rear guard actions like Citizens United means some us “people” are greater than others – “money doesnt talk, it swears”.

                      Trump is too impulsive to be a conniving cog in a larger wheel, and too meglomaniacal to be part of a team. He represents plutocrats – to his Mara Lagos guests after the tax cut ” you all just got a lot richer” – while pretending to be for the little guy, Even at that, the average TruMp voter was better off than the Hillary voter. I don’t think there is a conspiracy. Just a successful con man winning with 43%. How long we the people allow him to continue is on no one else but us.

                  3. i agree with by the book that “the top” is comprised of many different factions. so global financiers is one, though they too are not united; the military industrial complex, though it too has many factions (pentagon, industry, intel, et al)

                    social groups exist! and they exist at different levels. just as a state is comprised of counties, or an industrial trade “chamber of commerce” type organization is comprised of rivals, or an ethnic group is comprised of tribes and factions and so forth. groups exist and they are important. here’s where “leftists” have an edge in their thinking, because, conservative Americans are habitually disposed towards thinking too much about “individual” this and that, instead of the power of groups as such,

                    and i would add, that as many groups and organizations and factions as there are, they are all certainly ready willing and able to engage in “conspiracy” which is to day, a hidden plan of concerted action among multiple actors, for illegal or illicit goals.

                    1. “here’s where “leftists” have an edge in their thinking, because, conservative Americans are habitually disposed towards thinking too much about “individual” this and that, instead of the power of groups as such,”

                      Agree. I love this country ( I differentiate Washington from the country) and I am most grateful to each and every citizen who has made it possible for me to have had a very nice life within its borders. Without them, that wouldn’t have been possible.

            2. I am an enthusiastic Trump supporter but not a doctrinaire Republican. Of course the Republicans have always shied away from doctrine anyhow but you get the idea.

              Some folks say I’m so far to the right i come out on the left. that’s ok,. let’s find common ground for interesting discussions!

              1. “Some folks say I’m so far to the right i come out on the left.”

                Many people tend to think in linear terms, but going so far to the right that one comes out on the left illustrates the circular nature of thought. Imagine a circle with a point in the center at the bottom and then two vectors of direction, one following the left arc, one following the right arc. Both diverge from each other until they reach the center point of their respective arcs and at this point are as far apart at they’ll ever be. As they continue on following their respective arcs, they begin to converge until they meet in the middle point at the top of the circle.

          2. By the way, absurd spends almost all his energy on slandering those he disagrees with,

            The term ‘slander’ does not mean what you pretend it means.

        3. Margot, most of bythebook, and a few other commenters, are only personal ad hominem. Remember, when someone resorts to personal insults regularly, they cannot make a reasoned argument. It’s the downside of talking to strangers online.

          Welcome to the Turley blog!

          1. Karen, I made my points and here you are making a content free attack on me. I said your claims on the economy and immigration were false, and why. I then called out your hypocrisy on name calling and stereotyping while your 2 heroes are Trump and Rush, both purposefully divisive name callers. Your pretense to sensitivity on the problem goes only one-way.

            Your turn

            1. Bythebook – I honestly remarked that most of your remarks are ad hominem. Frankly, many of them are just personal insults against me. You remarked that this observation was an attack on you.

              In what way is truthfully observing that you consistently insult me an attack on you? Are you trying to be ironic?

          2. “Welcome to the Turley blog!”

            Yes! Welcome to the Good Ship Lollipop — or as some call the comments section: the great big Ship of Fools.

            Karen will “educate” you. She’s got all the answers. /sarc

        4. “No informed, sane, and decent person can defend Trump. That’s a fact, not an opinion.

          This is absurd x 2 on February 24, 2019 at 2:35 PM
          That’s a fact, not an opinion.

          At this point I can’f figure if this remark is indicative of camp or stupidity.”
          This may give some perspective, some history, of how and when some of the personal attacks start.
          About a year ago a “Jan.F.” a self-describe newcomer to this blog, made the comment that Absurd XIX replied to.
          “Jan F.” then became “Anon” or “Anon1”.
          After Anon1 was banned, it appears that the same person reappeared using a new name, “byethe book”.
          I would say that when a person new to this blog immediately starts spoiling for a fight, they’re likely to get it.
          There are a few here who spew nothing but insults, and sometimes it will flow back in their direction.
          JanF.- Anon-Anon1- byethebook will discuss the issues, but from the perspective that he/ she is absolutely right every time, and that he/she wins every argument.
          “I already won this argument” and similar self-praise is how he/she will sometimes try to end a debate.
          The comment above from (then) “Jan F.” gives an example of how to start out on a blog if one is trying to invite personal attacks.

          1. ( Absurd XIX was Absurd x2 when the exchange quoted above took place, about a year ago).

          2. I see. Well, I hope if I make personal attacks someone will call me on it. The Prof is a gentleman and a scholar and I’d like to live up to his standards of civility, if I can. His work is very important and I certainly would not want to demean it by slurring others. I think it is a privilege to be able to be here. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed myself and came here to seek some clarity on certain points of law as they pertain to politics and the survival of my country.

            1. I see that JT is still on his Trump can do no harm speaking circuit. Why not just go on FOX NEWS and ask for a job? Trump is sure to see the proposal.

              FishWings on November 14, 2018 at 4:08 PM
              Better yet, get a job on FOX first, and then ask for a job. That way he will feel that you are qualified.
              Margot , Here are a couple of sample comments from one commentator.
              “Fishwings” has also accused Prof. Turley of tailoring the positions he takes in order to get appointed to the Supreme Court.
              If you’ve read these columns and threads for very long, you’d know that these examples of those kinds of remarks are not uncommon.
              There are a number of those commenting here who claim to “know” that Prof. Turley has all kinds of ulterior motives.
              We may disagree on this, but I don’t see that telling those kinds of fools that they are fools is “demeaning” to either Turley or to this blog.

              1. I was referring to myself. However, I do think it is very poor form for a commenter to slap the proprietor of a blog or website. Disagreement can be expressed without taking personal shots at the individual who operates the blog/website. I like to compare it to a host who gives a party, and the commenters are guests who are drinking the booze and eating the hors d’oeuvres. They should be gracious to the host for being invited, rather than thanking him by over-indulging and puking on the floor.

                With that said, I think the Prof would be an excellent choice for Supreme Court. But that’s just me.

    3. Do you suspect republicans would also hope the earth to be hit by an asteroid if it meant pelosi would become president? Its such a silly argument way off into right field. Both parties are corrupt, not just the dems.

  12. If you think Republican voters or Republican reps or Trump or the Trump administration or Flynn or Kavanaugh wanted any of the vile Democrat smear campaign, you are confused. All of the above have watched as Democrats have spent over 3 years constantly lying, scheming and concocting fake news in an attempt to harm conservatives and the President. President Trump only played the horrible cards the Democrats dealt – and he won.

    1. As the Prof pointed out, the Republican VOTERS didn’t get squat out of it, although I can tell you that from reading some of the comments on a couple of the conservative websites, some of the more brainwashed Republican voters THINK they got something out of it. That is why the Prof pointed out they were played for chumps.

      However, the Republican representatives in the House and Senate had a field day. They got to bloviate to the base and get some face time, They got to campaign off it and as you may have read, the RNC and Trump pulled in a boatload of money. Made me sick when I heard Gaetz and Jordan gasbagging like crazy, knowing how they stabbed their constituents in the back by voting for that H1B visa immigration bill (again, illustrating how voters are played for chumps). The Senate got to have their little ritual. I thought Mitch McConnell was going to propose marriage to John Roberts.

      Really, this would never have happened if the Republicans in Congress has refused to participate. But they went along, with great alacrity, I might add.

      1. Margot:
        Well the Repubs got their President back on track for re-election, proved the bad faith of the House managers and enforced the rule of law over lies. That’s something and if you don’t believe it just watch h the Dims heads explode from now until November.

        1. “just watch h the Dims heads explode from now until November.”

          Pfft. That’s normal, that’s what they do, nothing new there.

          My point was more along the lines of: let’s say you have two gangs and one gang is spoiling for a fight. They really can’t have one if the other gang doesn’t engage or even show up. What’re they gonna do, punch the air?

          1. Margot:
            “My point was more along the lines of: let’s say you have two gangs and one gang is spoiling for a fight. They really can’t have one if the other gang doesn’t engage or even show up. What’re they gonna do, punch the air?”
            You really need to go to more fights. It only takes one group spoiling for one and the other group just being there. There’s a fight coming but it’s on the Dim side. The fight is like GrubHub. It’ll find you.

            1. “the other group just being there.”

              I think you’ve hit on something, mespo. Trump’s big crime was just that he was there in the first place. Nothing more, nothing less. Then he made it worse by communicating, which was his second big crime.

              When you think about it, that’s all people object to, really. Being there and communicating. When I was a kid, one of my friends broke a window over at the neighbor’s house. I got punished. When I asked my parents why, they said “You were there”.

              1. ” Trump’s big crime was just that he was there in the first place. Nothing more, nothing less.”

                The real gripe against Trump is that he is an outsider that threatens insiders. Had he failed no one would have paid that much attention to him since he would have been made powerless and effectively a pawn of the insiders.

                The problem is that despite the Democrats absolute hate of Trump along with some Republicans Trump succeeded tremendously well and has benefitted the nation. The left side of the nation is hysterical because almost alone Trump might succeed in severely damaging a movement left for a number of years. Some on the right still want him gone because he threatens them but even some of those appearing supportitive of the President actually are just following the wind and waiting.

                The best outcome is a win for Trump in 2020 along with a Republican wing in the House and Senate where some of the Republicans are replaced by those looking out for the country rather than themselves.

                1. Actually Trump was the perfect Trojan Horse for Republican orthodoxy. He didn’t expect to win. His campaign staff were handing out their business cards to Fox at the election party at Trump Tower until the evening’s proceedings shocked them. The overnight stock markets began to crash, dropping 500 points until Carl Icahn and the big traders headed out to pivot on the dive. Market rallied back by morning, unusual because there is almost always a market drop after an American presidential election, no matter the winner, as the market ‘resets’.

                  Wall Street wanted HRC because Trump’s unpredictability scared their pants off. But something extraordinary happened election night. The Goldman Sachs crew realized that Trump needed help…bigly. Enter Gary Cohn. Mnuchin, etc. More Goldman people got into the higher realms of government, at the same time, than ever before. All of a sudden what terrified them most presented itself as an opportunity — a guy that had famously lost tons of money in the market in his past was sitting on top of a rally that had begun in April of 2009. Perfect opportunity for a gignap!! They jumped in.

                  Trump famously won’t read, unless it’s the pile of op-eds staff would place on his desk. He was famously clueless. No accident that Rex Tillerson called him a moron. The generals in the Pentagon realized they had to whisk him out of the White House to get his attention…telling him he couldn’t withdraw from the Iran pact because they hadn’t violated it. In order to do this, it required an office without windows in the Pentagon because Trump has two main deflections in his hip pocket at the White House: a) point out stuff going on outside at key moments, and b) track things off by getting people soda from staff.

                  Didn’t help. Trump didn’t listen to generals. He ignored Cohn about tariff taxes. He did go all in on tax breaks and we can credit the coming deficit nightmare to it. Just like Dick Cheney before him, certainly.

                  And he’s dedicated to destroying the EPA.

                  So we have the ‘Here’s Donny’ version now. He’s slightly more experienced, but still thinks Concord, New Hampshire is Concord, Mass. Still wears the same goggles when getting spray tanned. Still will hop on Twitter trying to be funny and is shocked when it blows up in his face. Ivanka will go dive on the grenade instantaneously on social media.

                  If Trump wins in ’20 he won’t be around to run in ’24. The Dems will be running against Pence or Haley. The Repubs will have taken people off health insurance, cut SS and Medicare, and created a financial crash through the withdrawal of so much money from the economy through the tax breaks…

                  And Trump will be impeached again. If Dems flip the Senate he will be removed. All pretense of Trump playing 3D chess will have long since worn off. Lindsey Graham won’t acknowledge ever working with Trump on anything….

                  Trump will do himself a favor by taking the L and chilling at Mar a Lago.

                  1. “Actually Trump was the perfect Trojan Horse… “

                    Elvis, the proof is in the pudding. Despite the economic problems of the west and China, the trade deals and other things the US economy is growing and is doing fantastic. The economy was on its way down in the last year of the Obama administration

                    Your story is selective as far as any facts are concerned making what you write useless if one is looking for the truth and not a media matters type of production. Additionally you add so many things together no one can adequately respond unless a book is being published.. In the past you mentioned only a few things so I responded to them and since there was a lack of further response by you we can believe you had no adequate response because you were dealing in superficialities. I guess that could have led to this ‘throw all the sh1t on the wall’ approach to see what sticks. None can stick because it’s an emotional plea rather than an intellectual one.

                    I’ll take one item. Trump knew what he wanted and he tried to hire those he felt could help him. Therefore for the tax bill he hired Gary Cohn who departed shortly after the tax bill was passed. Trump and he disagreed on other things so it was an expected resignation after doing a good on the tax bill.

                    I won’t add more but you can reply with substance on any of the issues you chose in your response. Then I can focus on facts.

                    1. Yadda yadda. As I’ve posted articles before in response to you and you automatically disregard them. Anything I say is public record. How about isolating one of the points in what I posted and we can discuss it in detail rather than the wholesale one trick pony response? Just a thought, because your responses follow a basic pattern: ‘Elvis I don’t like what you say so it’s false. And in addition, you’re stupid’.

                    2. “I’ve posted articles before in response to you ”

                      Elvis, anyone can post articles especially when they aren’t on point and especially when they don’t prove anything. I’ve read some of your articles and for the most part they read like fiction in the same style as your last large posting. They push ideology and forgot about facts.

                      I’ve responded to you over and over again with fact and even in this last response of yours I dealt with one example yet I note despite your present desire to discuss one item at a time you left this item out. I guess you are just writing words to impress us without any serious discussion intended. Maybe that is what people do in Queens that makes them think no one else knows New York better than them, but you already found out differently so go back to any of the things I posted and debate them. I am ready, are you?

                    3. “So let’s discuss tariff taxes on the Soybean market, Allan. ”

                      Elvis, I am not a student of the soybean market so why don’t you tell us what it is about tariffs and soybeans that is on your mind and what your point is?

                  2. I agree wall street wanted hillary, judging from their donations

                    it’s also true a lot of the Goldman guys jumped on the Trump train

                    guys like that are indeed quick to recognize opportunities

                    I’m sure they’ve been cheering on QE 2, 3 and now 4

                    crazy days we live in. i missed out on a lot of gains thinking old fashioned way

                    luckily i have a day job

                  3. Allan = projection meister.

                    Here’s his formula; speak in opinion driven generality and make accusations of lack of specificity. Avoid, avoid, avoid. Your schtick is tired. As to whether I’m trying to ,impress, if I was I’m obviously in the wrong place in the Harrumph harrumph republican lawyer room here. Wouldn’t exactly be an efficient use of my time would it? Wait, don’t answer that, I suspect you’ll just come back with more accusatory hatchet chucking.

                    On the other hand, don’t lie further, you’re impressed. You wouldn’t be chucking such a nutty if you weren’t. You even think my being born in Queens is threatening. Haven’t lived there in decades and you flip everything back to the fact I once shared where I was born.

                    Re: Soybean market in relation to tariff taxes…, how about learning just a bit about it and come on back so we can talk policy. Or even with the topics you’ve claimed as “fact” (basically boiling down to: Trump is an awesome businessman, just look at all the awesome things he’s done)…isolate it down to one thing and we can talk.

                    Right now, you’re just trying to claim high ground without doing the work to support your positions in any way. It’s a lazy game.

                    Grow up. Take a lesson from Kurtz in being willing to talk policy.

                    1. “Allan = projection meister. …

                      Elvis, has frustration over your inability to communicate effectively gotten you to use insults instead of a discussion of policy? Are you deteriorating into an anonymous?

                      “You even think my being born in Queens is threatening.”

                      Not at all Elvis. You made a point of being born in Queens and therefore having superior knowledge of NYC. That failed and the failure seems to have disabled your ability to interact rationally.

                      “Re: Soybean market in relation to tariff taxes…, how about learning just a bit about it and come on back so we can talk policy”

                      You had the question about soybeans and you even included a graph. One might take that to mean you have interest in soybeans with expertise in the subject. I’m interested. Enlighten us with the basics and then tell us exactly what policy regarding tariffs you want to discuss. You left that out of your question. Obviously a careless error since you are the expert on the subject so something specific must be on your mind. Perhaps not.

                    2. “You get off on this, don’t you?”

                      Elvis, apparently that is your hangup. I am here to learn and I am not interested in your ‘feelies’. Let’s get back to the subject at hand, soybeans which is where your interests seem to lie.

                1. ‘mespo727272 says:February 11, 2020 at 5:08 PM

                  “I think you’ve hit on something, mespo.”

                  I usually do.’



                  So says the insufferable mespo.

                    1. OLLY obviously doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “mostly.”

                      Mespo remains full of himself. He’s a jerk.

                    2. “OLLY obviously doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “mostly.”

                      Mespo remains full of himself. He’s a jerk.”

                      Take note how anonymous attacks everything he doesn’t agree with yet he can’t complete an idea with fact or proof. What does that make anonymous? Definitely not one to be taken seriously.

          2. All the one spoiling for a fight has to do is make up false allegations and demonize their opponent in order to improve their chances at winning an election.

            A few members of my own family went bananas in the 2016 election. They threatened not to forgive my lifelong Republican mother if she voted for Trump, called her a Nazi who wanted Jews to die. My mother is one of the sweetest ladies on Earth who never says anything unkind to anyone. Her own relative cut her off, in public, after calling her the most vile names possible. So I pleaded with this relative to stop. That we were family and we all loved her. Just turn this around and stop. Blood is supposed to be thicker than water. She publicly cut me off too and called me a Nazi. Then her friends started harassing me. My own relative. Then another one got political poisoning and told me my sweet innocent little boy was born racist and didn’t deserve opportunities because he is a white male. Then another one said voting for Trump was voting for genocide and cut me off. There was no reasoning with them. They did not even understand this was voter intimidation. The children of one of these people went against their mother and remained in contact with us. My own family became deeply divided with some Democrats throwing away Republicans. I still do not understand that level of animosity. None of us conservatives are racist or even extreme. I guess they watched too much MSNBC and started to take it too seriously.

            All this deeply affected me, and it’s unfortunately hardened me towards this political bullying behavior. I hate it. There is no more reason in the public discourse. No interest in understanding. It’s just paint your face blue and go to war.

            1. Karen, thanks for demonstrating the hypocrisy of decrying the lack of civility in public discourse while cheering on Trump and Rush. You are blind as a bat.

            2. Karen, I am sorry all that happened to you and I can only imagine how painful that has been for you. I would like to comment at greater length and will do so tomorrow, as I am fading fast.

              1. Thanks, Margot. Bythebook’s response to my story is pretty much how he responds to any syllable I utter. He always trolls me personally instead of simply discussing my concerns. It is rather ironic because this is the very behavioral trend I have condemned in the Democrat Party. There is no similar trend where Democrats across the country are afraid to wear political clothing or speak their mind.

                It is true that there is also infighting within each party. Never Trumpers, Trump Can Do No Wrongers, Libertarians, and everyone in between argue. On the Democrat side, identity politics has driven wedges. Lesbians clash with transgender clash with female athletes. There is a gay and trans schism. Feminists have become mean girls, often against other self described feminists.

                This is all fine if it’s debate and reason, but it’s not. It’s tribal warfare. I, for one, have despaired of being able to reason or have a conversation with the hard Left. All I receive are insults. But the moderates are still out there. Just too quiet right now. I know many who don’t speak of politics at all to avoid the ugliness that ensues.

                1. Thanks, Margot. Bythebook’s response to my story is pretty much how he responds to any syllable I utter

                  You’ll notice the Gainesville trades in what Ann Althouse calls ‘civility bull$!t”, which is to say a poseur complaint offered to avoid making a substantive argument. Civility complaints are seldom if ever non-sectarian. Neither Gainesville nor Peter Shill can emotionally process vigorous opposition in an ordinary way, so they maintain the fiction that Limbaugh is some sort of Howard Stern – style ‘shock jock’. They’re enraged the President responds to his detractors with rebukes and insults, but it hardly occurs to them to suggest his detractors actually refrain from uttering slanderous statements in the public square.

            3. Hi, Karen, I said I was going to respond at further length and here I am.

              “All the one spoiling for a fight has to do is make up false allegations and demonize their opponent in order to improve their chances at winning an election.”


              First of all, the term “racist” has become an anti-white slur. That’s the only meaning it has now. Unfortunately, those who consider themselves “goodwhites” love to deploy this term against other whites. In fact it occurs to me that whites use it against each other in much the same manner that blacks employ the n-word against each other. Interesting. Nowhere have I seen it more deployed by whites against other whites than I’ve seen it in Trumpland, where the neo-cons and faux-servatives have gotten their meathooks into the movement. I always call them out on it, too, and you should see the reaction when I do. Fascinating.

              Pro-tip: When someone calls you a racist, never address it, because right then and there, they’ve got you right where they want you. Guilty until proven innocent. Just laugh and flip them the bird.

              I don’t understand the level of animosity either, but to me it’s insanity, so I don’t even bother trying any more than I would bother trying to understand a mental patient who rocks back and forth all day long mumbling to himself.

              Also understand that when people can successfully label others as something despicable, it justifies all sorts of horrors being perpetrated against those who have been labeled.

              1. ” Nowhere have I seen it more deployed by whites against other whites than I’ve seen it in Trumpland, where the neo-cons and faux-servatives have gotten their meathooks into the movement.”

                Margot I see a completely opposite picture. I so happen to end up at rallies on both sides and for the most part the right and Trump rallies are polite and neat while on the other side there always seems to be a lot of hate and mess.

                The most recent videos of managers of the Bernie campain are videod calling for revolution, burning cities down and killing.

                1. “The most recent videos of managers of the Bernie campain [sic] are videod [sic] calling for revolution, burning cities down and killing.” Allan

                  Show us those videos, you inflammatory (no pun intended) idiot.

                  1. He’s referring to the Project Veritas videos. You can look them up yourself. Even Chris Matthews gets it and had quite a bit to say about the issue.

                2. I don’t disagree with you. When I speak of Trumpland, I’m mostly referring to on line activity, where subversive operatives hide behind keyboards. Some of it is very ugly and aimed at well meaning voters who might be a little rough around the edges.

                  1. “When I speak of Trumpland,”

                    Margo when you use that term I just think it is a poor use of a compound noun and confusing as well. It does not describe most of those that will vote for Trump. People sometimes get very heated when they are anonymous. Just listen to the anonymous poster on this very thread. All he does is make a fool of himself. Additionally I believe he hates Trump but doesn’t really know why.

        2. Here you go Mespo:

          Quinnipiac latest – 2020 head to head matchups vs Trump: Bloomberg 51-42 Sanders 51-43 Biden 50-43 Klobuchar 49-43 Warren 48-44 Buttigieg 47-43

          1. “Quinnipiac latest – 2020 head to head matchups vs Trump: Bloomberg 51-42 Sanders 51-43 Biden 50-43 Klobuchar 49-43 Warren 48-44 Buttigieg 47-43”

            “Republican Donald Trump’s lead among men and white voters all but vanishes as Democrat Hillary Clinton takes a 47 – 40 percent likely voter lead, with 7 percent for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson and 1 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

            This compares to a 45 – 40 percent Clinton lead in an October 7 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

            Today, men are divided with 43 percent for Trump and 41 percent for Clinton. Women back Clinton 52 – 37 percent.

            White voters go 45 percent for Trump and 41 percent for Clinton, while non-white voters back Clinton 63 – 25 percent.

            In a head-to-head, two-way race, Clinton tops Trump 50 – 44 percent. “

            ~Quinnipiac Poll 10/19/2016

            You might as well quote Jon Lovitz. He’s more reliable.

            1. Mespo, you’re quoting a poll taken a week before Comey kneecapped Hillary with his investigation announcement. Nate Silver found that event cost her 3-4 points. She won the vote by 2%.

              1. btb:

                “Mespo, you’re quoting a poll taken a week before Comey kneecapped Hillary with his investigation announcement. Nate Silver found that event cost her 3-4 points. She won the vote by 2%.”
                Well, I guess you go by the Liar’s Calendar since the Quinnipiac poll was published on October 19, 2016 (and was taken on 10/17/2016 & 10/18/2016) and Comey issued the following Hillary out-of-jail-free statement in July 5, 2016. But, no matter, we’ve come to expect nothing more from you — the blog’s own Jon Lovitz. Btw, I can only tell you’re lying when your comment pops us. Do you really think I don’t check your outlandish lies? I do and it’s fun.


                1. He’s referring to Comey’s letter in response to an inquiry made by a congressional committee in October 2019, that they were examining some computers. It’s doubtful given all the static which goes on during presidential campaigns that that had much of an impact (recall the SwiftBoat controversy in 2004? Hard for pollsters to discern any impact), nor is it believable that Nate Silver fancies he could isolate its effects from all the other vectors in play, but Gainesville needs this to be true, so he asserts it repeatedly. (Per the same impulse that induced him to make utterances like ‘collusion has been proved’ for months after Mueller’s lawfare crew admitted it was a dry hole).

                  Note, Gainesville fancies his preferred candidate is entitled to every break in a world where candidates are blindsided by false and distorted news stories as a matter of course.

          2. And the 100 milly war chest seems daunting, but it’s basically just enough for Trump to pull down fraud charges. Problem with Trump having a hundred million of other people’s money is Trump having a hundred million of other people’s money. Buckle up. This one’s going to be fun.

Comments are closed.