OT - Why WWC voted with our middle fingers ...

[Tim]

nypost.com

Why working class Americans voted with their middle finger
Kyle Smith

‘We’re voting with our middle finger,” a Trump supporter in South Carolina told a reporter last fall. No doubt.

Many a liberal observer saw the Trump vote as a rageful taunt aimed at racial and sexual minorities. But there is much more to Trump’s support than that, argues law professor Joan C. Williams in her new book “White Working Class: Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America.”

Making an admirable and research-driven effort to see things from the point of view of her subject, author Williams unpacks exactly how the white working class (WWC) viewed the election, and how their history-making choice made a lot of sense given their concerns.

The WWC is plagued by crisis within and without — household income in this group has been all but stagnant for 40 years. The mortality rate for whites 45 to 54 years old with no more than a high-school education has increased by 134 deaths per 100,000 people from 1999 to 2014. Opioids arrived and factories left. Democrats at best didn’t seem to notice; at worst they seemed to be causing misery by supporting NAFTA and mass immigration that drives down wages while imposing environmental policies meant to crush carbon-intensive industries. Then they mocked their victims as rednecks on the wrong side of history.

Williams isn’t interested in mocking her subjects. She is a liberal who is genuinely worried about the plight of the WWC. An admitted silver-spoon baby, she married someone she calls a “class migrant” — a guy from the working class (he’s an Italian-American from Bay Ridge, Brooklyn) who earned a spot at Harvard Law School, where the couple met. Right away, she was unable to hide her fascination with his people. At a family dinner, his father took a dislike to her because Williams seemed to be studying everyone like an anthropologist.

At a high school reunion, her husband returned home still using the habits he had picked up in the upper class, and it led to an uncomfortable moment. “What do you do?” he asked an old classmate. When you’re a lawyer or a financier, part of the global professional class, it’s a perfectly innocent question. Elites love to talk about their jobs, indeed define themselves by their professions. Not so the WWC. They see work devotion as an indicator of upper-class narcissism. They do the bulk of the boring, repetitive, unglamorous work, some of it physically demanding, and they don’t define themselves by their labors at all. That classmate of Williams’ husband replied spitefully, “I sell toilets.”

Modal Trigger

If your answer to the question “Who am I?” is “I’m a professor,” then your identity doesn’t change whether you’re in London, Miami or San Francisco. Elites have a tendency to leave home for college, then flit from one global capital to another. Not so the WWC, which Williams defines as white middle-class people (those in the $41,000 to $132,000 income range) who don’t have a college education. They’re strongly attached to their hometowns, to the people they feel comfortable with, to what they perceive to be the shared values of their communities.

Tradition and stability matter. “The dream is to live in your own class milieu, where you feel comfortable — just with more money,” Williams notes.

Donald Trump epitomizes this idea, having made his fortune “in garish casinos that sold a working-class brand of luxury.” Gold-covered everything is exactly how you’d decorate if you were from Appalachia and struck it rich with no intervening period of finishing school at Stanford or Yale.

To the rootless global elites, though, tradition is subordinated to transgression. What society considers edgy, elites deem worthy of their praise. It isn’t acceptable merely to accept gay life, for example — it must be celebrated. Recalling moving to San Francisco and observing a fully naked man walking down the street, Williams recalls feeling proud of herself for being tolerant of such norm-shattering. Among the elites, she says, “It’s a point of pride not to be one of those petty bourgeois who’s shocked by sexual transgression.”

This attitude not only stuns the WWC but strikes them as a kind of attack on everything they hold dear. To them, bicoastal urban America is a joke to which they don’t get the punchline. They feel excluded, marginalized, left out. Worse than any of this, they feel condescended to, and it infuriates them, Williams writes.

Hillary Clinton did a marvelous job of confirming their suspicions when she said — in New York City, at an LGBT event — that “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

Being called names such as these is exactly what gets the white working class fired up. She might as well have told everyone from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin, “Don’t vote for me.” Outside of Chicagoland, they didn’t.

In one of Williams’ most compelling chapters, she explores how a strong connection to place helps explain why WWC don’t up stakes and move someplace where there might be better jobs. “I associate change with loss,” says one class migrant quoted by Williams, recalling that his father had repeatedly been evicted from apartments.

Instability is an insidious enemy from which the WWC feels a strong need to protect itself, having seen much suffering ensue from it, rather than the opportunity for exciting new adventures. Moreover, being rooted in a community has side benefits with real economic value that couldn’t easily be recovered after a move away from home.

She might as well have told everyone from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin, ‘Don’t vote for me.’ Outside of Chicagoland, they didn’t.

The WWC’s “lack of market power,” says Williams, “means that they rely on close networks of family and friends for many things more affluent folks purchase on the open market, from child and elder care to home improvement projects.” The additional expense of having to pay for child care previously arranged through social networks might nullify any economic gain from moving.

Trump’s base of support correlated strongly with areas where people don’t have college degrees. Why don’t these people just go to college? That isn’t a simple solution either. You might be condemned for trying to rise above your station.

“Getting a swelled head” is seen as an unpardonable sin, as J.D. Vance also discussed in his memoir “Hillbilly Elegy.” For the class as a whole, this is a self-defeating characteristic: How are people supposed to better themselves if their peers ostracize them when they even try? “I feel like I have changed sides in some very important game,” one class migrant says in the book.

Taking on a load of college debt is considerably riskier for a working-class family if you have limited resources. And the college environment is openly hostile to the WWC. “White trash” theme parties on campus highlight the last acceptable form of prejudice. Professors who would be horrified by a racist remark are perfectly at ease stereotyping, say, southerners as rednecks.

Even talking like a college person raises hackles among the WWC. The way managers and technocrats speak is seen as needlessly complex and phony; Trump’s vocabulary of one-and-two syllable words sounds refreshing to the WWC.

Direct, simple speech is seen as honest, and it’s important to maintain the same persona in every context. An auto mechanic quoted in the book says, “You know what I hate? Two-face. I can’t stand that. You’re a fake, you’re a fake. Why be a fake?” A Carnegie Mellon analysis of the final five presidential candidates remaining last spring found that Clinton was the one most likely to vary her vocabulary from speech to speech. Two-face.

That Trump declined to back down from his more colorful statements made him seem courageous and honest to the WWC, and they share his loathing for political incorrectness. The more he was attacked for being “offensive,” the more they were reminded of themselves.

Remarks that would end a career when overheard at a Georgetown cocktail party are utterly routine at the truck stop or on the shop floor, so every episode of pearl clutching at Trump’s rough talk felt like an attack on the way the WWC talks.

If even half of WWC women had voted for Clinton, today she’d be Madame President. But they voted for Trump by a margin of 28 points. That Clinton talked up being a woman didn’t appeal to them; the WWC doesn’t relate to talk of “glass ceilings.” Only elites worry about that.

WWC women want to spend less time at work, not more. They wish they had the option of being stay-at-home moms, and even if they were men they know they wouldn’t be in the running to be CEOs. A woman from Appalachia says in the book, “I’m voting to save my boyfriend’s job.”

Dismissing the WWC as racist doesn’t make a lot more sense than calling them misogynist, Williams argues, citing evidence that upper-class white people are simply better than the working class at camouflaging race-based judgments. You’ll rarely catch managerial types uttering racial slurs, but consider the “Greg/Jamal” study in which corporate recruiters were sent identical resumes, one from “Greg” and one from “Jamal.” The Jamals of the world proved to have a much more difficult time landing interviews.

As for why a $60,000 a year mechanic could feel affinity for a New York billionaire, it’s because WWC consider moguls to be fantasy figures. Trump represents something aspirational; they picture themselves in that boardroom firing people.

Managers, on the other hand, remind them of the bosses they resent. “Most working-class people have little contact with the truly rich outside of ‘The Apprentice’ or ‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous,’ ” Williams writes, “but they suffer class affronts from professionals every day: the doctor who unthinkingly patronizes the medical technician, the harried office worker who treats the security guard as invisible, the overbooked business traveler who snaps at the TSA agent.”

Hillary Clinton reminds them of the prissy know-it-alls who have been bossing them around their whole lives — she’s the lady who tells you there’s no eating in the library, as columnist Jonah Goldberg once put it. They don’t resent Trump, though: They imagine being him and firing her.

Clinton’s rhetoric about helping the poor also turned off the WWC: The have-a-littles disdain the have-nots. Working people in the middle are proud of their discipline and resent the spongers they perceive as being rewarded for having none. They don’t romanticize welfare recipients as being hapless victims of circumstance because they see them at the grocery store every week.

Even when they qualify for aid, they sometimes make a point of rejecting it: “I don’t want a government handout,” they say. “I can do this on my own.” Accepting welfare is seen as a character flaw and leads to a serious loss of social standing in the community, according to a study of rural voters in California. Without such standing, you don’t get considered when there’s a job opening.

Bill Clinton understood this kind of thinking, which is why he signed welfare reform in 1996, when he carried such states as West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri and Louisiana. No Democratic presidential candidate since has won any of those states, and they’re no longer even trying.

Bill famously advised his wife’s campaign to do more to reach out to the WWC, but in what will surely be recalled as one of the defining moments of hubris on Team Hillary, campaign manager Robby Mook replied, “the data run counter to your anecdotes.”

It’s just too perfect that Clinton lost the election in part because she relied on a gay, 36-year-old Ivy League data nerd rather than a two-time winner of a presidential election to show her the path to the White House. If she wants to learn some anecdotes about how to repel people you’re supposed to be wooing, this book is an excellent place to start.

Kyle Smith is critic-at-large for National Review. Twitter: @rkylesmith

[DianeE]

The Supreme Court, even with Gorsuch on it, just put the final kibosh on
North Carolina's voter suppression law. This makes me very happy.
Muslim travel ban is next. Maybe NG (unfortunate initials) is a
stand-up guy after all....

DEM

[luisb...@aol.com]

Democrats and liberals and that type do not understand how Trump happened. They simply don't. Leftists understand a tiny bit better, but not by much. Nor they understand Trump. That's part of the reason it's so darned easy for him to mop up the floor with them on an ongoing basis.

Though I wouldn't put Trump in the same category as Hitler, there are similarities, the main one being that Hitler's opponents in his time also had no idea how he happened. Not a clue. Of course, that ignorance cost them. It also cost the rest of the world. More incredibly, once Hitler was over, they pretty much went back to their pre-Hitler analysis of the world almost like he'd never happened. It looks more and more like the same will happen here.

[Tim]

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 12:18:22 PM UTC-7, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 12:34:43 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:

>> <Snipped>

> Democrats and liberals and that type do not understand how Trump happened. They simply don't. Leftists understand a tiny bit better, but not by much. Nor they understand Trump. That's part of the reason it's so darned easy for him to mop up the floor with them on an ongoing basis.
>
> Though I wouldn't put Trump in the same category as Hitler, there are similarities, the main one being that Hitler's opponents in his time also had no idea how he happened. Not a clue. Of course, that ignorance cost them. It also cost the rest of the world. More incredibly, once Hitler was over, they pretty much went back to their pre-Hitler analysis of the world almost like he'd never happened. It looks more and more like the same will happen here.

Conversely, I choose to patiently await the results of the 2018 Congressional Midterms, before co-signing your bleak forecast, which points towards the imminent demise of the WWC's President Trump.

[Grave Digger]

>
> Conversely, I choose to patiently await the results of the 2018 Congressional Midterms, before co-signing your bleak forecast, which points towards the imminent demise of the WWC's President Trump.

===
Even if Trump found a cure for cancer the naysayers would just say couldn't you do any better? You're a fuckin' racist!!!
The silent majority is no longer a majority....and the midterms are going to be brutal. Maybe Perez will fuck it up for the Dems.

cheers(I need to get on the dole...why work when you can get free shit?)

ron

[Tim]

No shit, Sherlock: In my spare time, while already receiving SSDI and Medicare benefits, I've just recently qualified myself for the Medical (medicaid), VA medical benefits, Dial-A-Ride, and last but not least, the Meals on Wheel's free-shit doles.

miT

[Earl Browder]

Not to rain on your parade, but this was purely a procedural decision, not one based on the merits of the case. The Supreme Court did not actually strike down the NC law, but rather simply declined to hear the case because it was not clear whether the right to appeal the lower court decision belonged to the NC governor or to the state legislature.

That left the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in place for now, but set no precedent on the constitutionality of voter ID laws in general. It's not even clear that Gorsuch took part in the vote not to hear this particular case, since the petitions in the matter were filed before he joined the Court. In any event, the constitutionality of voter ID laws remains open to question and will probably be resolved over the next couple of years.

From the NY Times today:

The decision on Monday not to hear the case turned on procedural issues, not on the substance of the suit, so the court’s leanings remain unknown. In December, state officials asked the Supreme Court to hear their appeal in the case, North Carolina v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, No. 16-833.

Two months later, in an unusual last-minute procedural maneuver, two newly elected Democratic officials — Gov. Roy Cooper and Attorney General Josh Stein — asked the court to dismiss the state’s petition seeking review. Lawyers for the General Assembly opposed the motion.

In his statement on Monday, Chief Justice Roberts said the Supreme Court’s decision to decline to grant the petition seeking review, or petition for certiorari, turned on that dispute.

“Given the blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in this Court under North Carolina law,” the chief justice wrote, quoting an earlier decision, “it is important to recall our frequent admonition that ‘the denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.’”

. . . .

The justices are likely to take a more definitive position on voting rights issues when and if they hear one of several cases that appear bound to the court. The most likely candidate is a Texas lawsuit challenging that state’s 2011 voter identification law.

[Rachel]

that's great mittens! you're set! how's your computer connection? are you set?

sounds like you've got it made!

i've been saving that corn dog for you, ya know... (i had the opportunity, my stomach was growling, but i wanted to do it with you :) )

we should do that this summer....

[Tim]

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:20:32 PM UTC-7, Rachel wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 2:59:46 PM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 2:16:32 PM UTC-7, Grave Digger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Conversely, I choose to patiently await the results of the 2018 Congressional Midterms, before co-signing your bleak forecast, which points towards the imminent demise of the WWC's President Trump.
> > > ===
> > > Even if Trump found a cure for cancer the naysayers would just say couldn't you do any better? You're a fuckin' racist!!!
> > > The silent majority is no longer a majority....and the midterms are going to be brutal. Maybe Perez will fuck it up for the Dems.
> > >
> > > cheers(I need to get on the dole...why work when you can get free shit?)
> > >
> > > ron
> >
> > No shit, Sherlock: In my spare time, while already receiving SSDI and Medicare benefits, I've just recently qualified myself for the Medical (medicaid), VA medical benefits, Dial-A-Ride, and last but not least, the Meals on Wheel's free-shit doles.
> >
> > miT
>
> that's great mittens! you're set! how's your computer connection? are you set?

Good to go with ATT Wireless modem/router

> sounds like you've got it made!

In the shade, Miz Roach, along with moving into a new Mobile Home, all alone, since the first of the year, here in Redondo Beach, Ca.

> i've been saving that corn dog for you, ya know... (i had the opportunity, my stomach was growling, but i wanted to do it with you :) )

Thank yoo sew muchies: I'll be feasting on the generous corn dog remnants, soon as the sun sets, and the lights go out.

> we should do that this summer....

Still trying to solve the logistics situation, here, but that's still remains a sweeeell thought.

VTY, roachtwo

[DianeE]

"Earl Browder" <earl.bro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:836e3225-9fa1-42cc...@googlegroups.com...

elected Democratic officials - Gov. Roy Cooper and Attorney General Josh
Stein - asked the court to dismiss the state's petition seeking review.

Lawyers for the General Assembly opposed the motion.

In his statement on Monday, Chief Justice Roberts said the Supreme Court's
decision to decline to grant the petition seeking review, or petition for
certiorari, turned on that dispute.

"Given the blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek
review in this Court under North Carolina law," the chief justice wrote,
quoting an earlier decision, "it is important to recall our frequent
admonition that 'the denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of
opinion upon the merits of the case.'"

. . . .

The justices are likely to take a more definitive position on voting rights
issues when and if they hear one of several cases that appear bound to the
court. The most likely candidate is a Texas lawsuit challenging that state's
2011 voter identification law.

-------------
I wait with bated breath!

DianeE

[luisb...@aol.com]

Sorry you don't understand what I wrote. The "Hitler" usage probably scared you.

[Tim]

No, luis. in all reality, I became amused at your "Hitler" usage.

It was only your final remark: "It looks more and more like the same will happen here." which I read to mean you were projecting Trumps final demise, which then compelled the response I offered up.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Oh. No, Trump's going nowhere...unless you mean via an Intel coup, which is looking more and more possible. But a Trump impeachment is an NPR fantasy that evidently sells very well to a certain sector of the populations, the audience of people that want to know what’s happening in the world week by week, the people that work during the day and can listen to it. It's short and it’s concise. It’s a certain class of people, its a class of people that take it seriously.

What will likely happen here is that, like Hitler, Trump will be gone...meaning when his term ends...and people will go back to their old way of thinking and acting like nothing ever happened, just like Germans did. Critical theory is way bigger now than it ever was pre-Hitler, it has crossed the ocean, become even more politicized, and has already trickled down to vast numbers of people.

[Tim]

With Ann Coulter now thrusting a stake deep into Trump's heart, it appears, at first glance, all right wing bets will be removed from the table, long before the midterms :(

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ann-coulter-calls-apos-grotesque-015318554.html

[RichL]

If Trump starts losing the "base" (which he will if he keeps getting caught up in distractions and the agenda remains stalled), the dreaded "I" word may happen. Republicans in Congress are notoriously protective of their own hides. I'm not counting on it, but I think it's silly to rule it out.

[RichL]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 1:09:09 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:

> With Ann Coulter now thrusting a stake deep into Trump's heart, it appears, at first glance, all right wing bets will be removed from the table, long before the midterms :(
>
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/ann-coulter-calls-apos-grotesque-015318554.html

Ah, Coultergeist! Does anyone pay attention to her any more?

Limbaugh's lips still remain affixed to Trump's hind quarters. I think he has a far larger listenership than Coultergeist. But if Rush turns against Trump, it's all over.

[luisb...@aol.com]

An NPR fantasy cooked up by one of the so-called experts who don't have a clue about how Trump even got here...and they've had plenty of time to think about it too. Anyway, what would they even impeach him for? He hasn't stolen or killed. The only way you'll get rid of this guy is with an intel coup. You for that?

[luisb...@aol.com]

How in the name of God could Rush ever turn against Trump? Trump is the realization of everything Rush has stood for since he got on the air.

[Tim]

If I over think this, I can see Coulter as the first notable former "Trump Supporter domino", that could now leaning it's way to towards the Limbaugh domino. Then it's either your aforementioned scenario, or gawd forbid, Marshall fucking Law. Yikes!!

[Grave Digger]

>> Marshall fucking Law. Yikes!!>>

Tim...Did I miss something?
cheers
ron

[DianeE]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0bf4feef-1bb0-4c20...@googlegroups.com...

-------------
I am. *Anything*. *Anything* to get him the fuck oiut of there, and the
quicker the better. Stop the insanity. He's. Got. To. Go.

DianeE, who BTW never listens to NPR.

[Grave Digger]

====

""BTW never listens to NPR. <<

All things considered I love NPR

Diane, are you a teacher of young minds?

love
nor

[luisb...@aol.com]

I suspect that many "liberal" people in this thread and in this country would gladly join you in supporting an intel coup, which is already kind of happening in slow motion. Lord knows they've had plenty of practice with Salvador Allende, etc, etc. Always lovely to see democratic thinking on the march (that's sarcastic, btw).

[Tim]

Ron - I hope not. Rather I hope it was just "me" over reacting to Ann Coulter jumping ship from the Trump Train, following O'reilly's forced departure from Fox, and then further projecting the "domino theory" upon the remaining key alt right media players, such as Limbaugh, who might jump ship too, just to preserve his remaining hide, while the massive alt left media gets it's continued free reign to run it's fake news campaign, with their daddy Soros paying for the entire leftist "full court press", that's, since day one, been designed to have Trump impeached .. Howsoever, beyond this minor concern, which might also lead to Trump declaring Marshall Law, I was just venting over my fear based future projection of a hurried Republican downhill slide, which came to my tormented mind, following Coulter's back stabbing of Trump.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Man alive...you sure post idiotic things.

[Tim]

Can only hope it's you who proves to be the real idiot, after the dust finally settles.

[Tim]

Correction: I should have said: I can only hope you're proven to be "correct" after the dust has finally settled.

[luisb...@aol.com]

This is a Bob Dylan group. Not a personal vomit group. You are kindly asked to confine your posts to Dylan. If you aren't familiar with the person Dylan, you'll have to post elsewhere. The country is in enough trouble as it is. Please don't abuse your free speech rights because you only make a crack down guaranteed. Please think of others.

[Grave Digger]

>
> This is a Bob Dylan group. Not a personal vomit group. You are kindly asked to cyoonfine your posts to Dylan. If you aren't familiar with the person Dylan, u'll have to post elsewhere. The country is in enough trouble as it is
====
I love you my brother....just don't preach to your loved ones

"Wiggle ’til you’re high, wiggle ’til you’re higher
Wiggle ’til you vomit fire"

peace and love

ron

[Tim]

Shame on you & fuck off to your viscous hate speech which clearly indicates you're too arrogant/ignorant to even take notice of your own uncivilized words.

Same goes for anyone else, like DianeE, who I've busted several times for hypocritically reading my posts, after kill-filing me as an alleged deplorable.

And to any others, here, there, and everywhere who unknowingly puke out their hidden audacity and their self deluded position that they can magically appoint themselves as a Usenet Group Moderator. thus I kindly ask that you condescending fools gimme a fuckin' break.

Especially when "there's a battle outside(and inside rmd), and it's raging!! So get out of my way if you can't lend a empathetic hand" - which btw, is directed to "all" you annoying wolves in sheep's clothing.

~with love, from me, to you~

[luisb...@aol.com]

Damn. You are one dark, raging motherfucker. So let me break it down for you: you're officially on notice. A-B-C. Easy as 1-2-3.

[Grave Digger]

> >
>
> Damn. You are one dark, raging motherfucker. So let me break it down for you: you're officially on notice. A-B-C. Easy as 1-2-3.

---

is that like Michael Jackson?

love
nor

[luisb...@aol.com]

I'm ever so gently asking him to look at the man in the mirror.

[M. Rick]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 1:03:49 PM UTC-7, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
> I'm ever so gently asking him to look at the man in the mirror.

Soon all the “Marshall Law” morons (among others) will be in my rearview mirror. But I’m looking to go out on a good note. It’s a challenge.

[Tim]

Since I should be charging you goons for the cheap entertainment I provide you, while I'm also being provided a generous amount of free rent in the vacuum between your ears ... Then I'll just declare it an even trade.

[Grave Digger]

>
> Since I should be charging you goons for the cheap entertainment I provide you, while I'm also being provided a generous amount of free rent in the vacuum between your ears ... Then I'll just declare it an even trade.

===

Tim...that's brilliant.

nor

[Grave Digger]

===

the dumb fucked-up elite want Trump out.God Bless America...It's all we have left....
I need to blaze and have dome suds.

cheers

nor

[DianeE]

-----------
Look, I don't even know what "intel coup" means. If it means that the
CIA will run the country, well IMO they can't possibly do more damage
than Trump and his crew of merry pranksters. May I remind you that
George H. W. Bush was CIA Director before he became Vice President? I
didn't *like* him, of course, and he started the shit in Iraq, but he
was at least *competent*. He knew what he was doing. Trump does *not*
know what he is doing, and his supporters practically have to twist
themselves into knots to keep up the pretense that he does.

DEM

[luisb...@aol.com]

Yes, to dance beneath the diamond sky
With my middle finger waving free.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Once Marshall law comes, you won't be in a position to be declaring much of anything, much less charging that free rent. I'm sure you're familiar with the expression, "There's no such thing as a free rent."

[luisb...@aol.com]

Anybody else care to go on record as supporting an intel coup cuz it can't possibly do more damage than Trump? At least Diane has the courage to say what most libbies feel but won't say for obvious reasons.

[M. Rick]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08:13 PM UTC-7, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
> Once Marshall law comes, you won't be in a position to be declaring much of anything, much less charging that free rent. I'm sure you're familiar with the expression, "There's no such thing as a free rent."

It's Martial law. Marshall was a general and an amplifier.

[M. Rick]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 3:09:03 PM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
> Since I should be charging you goons for the cheap entertainment I provide you,

I'm not entertained. I'm using the worst posters here as inspiration for my exit ticket.

[Tim]

Am equally certain, you and your codependent, here, are well familiar with the expression, "Fuck'em if they can't take a joke."

[Tim]

Gotcha' Thumper, so here's to ya... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3vUo5CixgY

[Just Kidding]

Who's Marshall?

(It's "martial" law)

[luisb...@aol.com]

Stop messing with my mind, libtard. He was first Chief Justice.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Dude...Marshall law is no joke. Sounds like you haven't read much Robt Coover.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Skratch that. I meant Wm Burroughs.

[Earl Browder]

Actually, he was the fourth Chief Justice.

[M. Rick]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:54:25 PM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
> Gotcha' Thumper, so here's to ya... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3vUo5CixgY

Not good enough. Any videos of feeding your grandma to the hogs?

[luisb...@aol.com]

Martial was the fourth? Wow.

[RichL]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 2:19:31 AM UTC-4, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 1:44:25 AM UTC-4, RichL wrote:
> >
> > If Trump starts losing the "base" (which he will if he keeps getting caught up in distractions and the agenda remains stalled), the dreaded "I" word may happen. Republicans in Congress are notoriously protective of their own hides. I'm not counting on it, but I think it's silly to rule it out.
>
> An NPR fantasy cooked up by one of the so-called experts who don't have a clue about how Trump even got here...and they've had plenty of time to think about it too. Anyway, what would they even impeach him for? He hasn't stolen or killed. The only way you'll get rid of this guy is with an intel coup. You for that?

Obstruction of justice, baby. Read the newspapers (the real ones, that is). "Hey, Comey, how's about putting an end to that silly Flynn investigation?"

Testimony based on an FBI agent's notes are considered admissable as evidence in court.

It's not going to be just one thing, though. Trump can be counted on a daily gaffe, and some of these things have serious consequences.

Like throwing Israel under the bus, for instance. The fundies aren't going to like that.

[RichL]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:54:22 AM UTC-4, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 8:00:29 AM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
> > <luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:0bf4feef-1bb0-4c20...@googlegroups.com...

> > On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 1:44:25 AM UTC-4, RichL wrote:
> > >
> > > If Trump starts losing the "base" (which he will if he keeps getting
> > > caught up in distractions and the agenda remains stalled), the dreaded "I"
> > > word may happen. Republicans in Congress are notoriously protective of
> > > their own hides. I'm not counting on it, but I think it's silly to rule
> > > it out.
> >
> > An NPR fantasy cooked up by one of the so-called experts who don't have a
> > clue about how Trump even got here...and they've had plenty of time to think
> > about it too. Anyway, what would they even impeach him for? He hasn't stolen
> > or killed. The only way you'll get rid of this guy is with an intel coup.
> > You for that?

> > -------------
> > I am. *Anything*. *Anything* to get him the fuck oiut of there, and the
> > quicker the better. Stop the insanity. He's. Got. To. Go.
> >
> > DianeE, who BTW never listens to NPR.
>
> I suspect that many "liberal" people in this thread and in this country would gladly join you in supporting an intel coup, which is already kind of happening in slow motion. Lord knows they've had plenty of practice with Salvador Allende, etc, etc. Always lovely to see democratic thinking on the march (that's sarcastic, btw).

I suspect you're full of shit.

[Tim]

I suspect you're TIMidly brilliant.

[Tim]

Yikes, ya got me. Now I have to fold on my grandma's carcass bluff. :(

[luisb...@aol.com]

You also believe that BBC is fair and balanced and that Wash DC isn't a 1% paradise and that Trump couldn't possibly win. Don't believe everything you see on MSDNC. TV is called the boob tube for a reason. Trump should be admired for having the guts to go up against the intelligence-military complex that you appear to have remained silent about as it has gradually eroded your civil liberties, strangled the 4th Amendment, and built a stronger and stronger secret shadow government and secret foreign armies.

[nate]

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 12:34:43 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
> nypost.com
>
> Why working class Americans voted with their middle finger
> Kyle Smith
>
> ‘We’re voting with our middle finger,” a Trump supporter in South Carolina told a reporter last fall. No doubt.
......[deletia]....
>
> It’s just too perfect that Clinton lost the election in part because she relied on a gay, 36-year-old Ivy League data nerd rather than a two-time winner of a presidential election to show her the path to the White House. If she wants to learn some anecdotes about how to repel people you’re supposed to be wooing, this book is an excellent place to start.
>
> Kyle Smith is critic-at-large for National Review. Twitter: @rkylesmith


There are a lot of good points in this. And a lot the other way. Thanks.


- nate

[Tim]

note to self: remember that this is the hot headed screwball who quickly tosses you under the couch, as your just reward for agreeing with all he's said. - and don't even bother telling him you plan to discreetly swipe his "MSDNC TV" reference, to make good use of, elsewhere.

[luisb...@aol.com]

note to others: swipe substantive stuff, not gimmicks

[Tim]

Much appreciate your fair minded feedback, Nate!

[Tim]

note to gawd almighty: I'm beggin' you to get this raving lunatic, righteously laid, asap. just to spare him his impending head implosion.

[M. Rick]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:13:32 PM UTC-7, RichL wrote:
>It's not going to be just one thing, though. Trump can be counted on a daily gaffe, and some of these things have serious consequences.

This time the gaffe's on us. Trump wants to end the Russia investigations and he wants loyalty. He figured Comey was vulnerable due to his mishandling of the Clinton investigation that (ironically) helped give Trump the presidency. This is exactly the man that 63 million people voted for. His goal is to win. Their goal is to win. You win the Apprentice. You win the debates. You win by firing the FBI director and ending the investigations against you. The battle lines are drawn. See ya in the boardroom (assuming Comey even gets there).

[Just Kidding]

On Tue, 16 May 2017 21:13:30 -0700 (PDT), RichL <rple...@yahoo.com>

While it may reach a point where Trump simply has to go, we may
actually be better off if he stays in office. If he does, it appears
that he's going to be a crippled, preoccupied and impotent president
who will be unable to pass any of the major legistation that he and
the Republicans want. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing.
Should Trump resign or be impeached, Pence could well be a much larger
threat, especially since he'll be viewed by many in a favorable light
when compared to Trump.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Fantasy land. Trump won't get impeached. No grounds. These Comey notes that nobody has seen but are nonetheless foaming at the mouth about? Lol. He wasn't ordering anyone to stonewall. If true, he did what anyone in their right mind would have (legally) done--asked the FBI director to go easy on his friend. Hillary did far far worse, and you and the New Yorker want that criminal as president. That's how "lock her up" started. I'll tell you, every time I turn on the TV or look at the paper, the stupidity b/w hyperventilating I encounter is absolutely breathtaking. That's a lot of the reason this one guy with his twitter app is able to role over these thousands of well-funded trust fund kids so easily.

[Just Kidding]

It's good to know there are experts like you to let us know the real
deal. ####

Of course, it would help if your reading comprehension was a little
better. Did I say that Trump will or should be impeached based on what
we know so far? No; what I said was that it may reach a point where
impeachment or resignation may come into play. That's future tense.
And if you think it's no big deal for Trump to even ask or suggest
that an FBI director stop an investigation that involves him
personally, then there's no reason to listen to anything else you have
to say because you, like Trump, have no credibility.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Oh..so you don't think he should get overthrown? I'm reading you wrong? If so, I apologize.

But now I'm confused...you don't think the evidence is there and yet you speak of it reaching a point where it's inevitable. Huh? You've totally lost me.

Plus, I don't get the "expert" dig. The ones who purport to know the real deal--the experts--are the ones you take at face value who quote memos they've never seen and predict sure impeachment, not me. I'm not playing expert. They are. And they have nothing to go on except their feelings and hunches and other unscientific things. I'm saying--with ample justification (certain people call it "doing the science") that based on the evidence out there, it's fantasy land (you know...science...evidence). Whether or not you think I have credibility is inconsequential. It's what the courts think of the evidence. You are making judgements based on nothing--what kind of credibility does that give, hmmm? Think about it. Trump could have easily said to Comey, "Hey, I know you guys have to go wherever the evidence takes you. I completely support that. But I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Absolutely nothing wrong with that. The media have no idea what came before or after the sentence that was leaked--leaked with bad motives. And yet they've got you saying it may reach a point where resignation is inevitable. Physician, heal thyself.

[Grave Digger]

====

that is such bullshit....Get over it!

nor

[Tim]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 8:26:22 AM UTC-7, Just Plain Strange wrote:


> It's good to know there are experts like you to let us know the real
> deal. ####

Expert textpert choking smokers
Don't you think the joker laughs at you ?
See how they smile like pigs in a sty, see how they snied - I'm crying

[Just Kidding]

Yes, you're still reading me wrong and you don't seem to understand
what I said, which I think is pretty clear. I said that it MAY reach a
point (i.e., sometime in the future) where Trump is impeached or
resigns, and I never said he could or should be impeached based on the
evidence we know of at this time, nor did I say his removal from
office is inevitable. What I am saying is that his impeachment or
resignation COULD happen if more incriminating evidence about any of
his myriad past transgressions comes to light. And Trump being Trump,
it's also entirely possible that he will commit new impeachable acts
in the future.

Another thing I never said is that Trump should be "overthrown", i.e.,
removed by some sort of coup d'etat. I'm not a big fan of coups except
under the most extreme conditions.

>
>
>Plus, I don't get the "expert" dig. The ones who purport to know the real deal--the experts--are the ones you take at face value who quote memos they've never seen and predict sure impeachment, not me. I'm not playing expert. They are. And they have nothing to go on except their feelings and hunches and other unscientific things. I'm saying--with ample justification (certain people call it "doing the science") that based on the evidence out there, it's fantasy land (you know...science...evidence). Whether or not you think I have credibility is inconsequential. It's what the courts think of the evidence. You are making judgements based on nothing--what kind of credibility does that give, hmmm? Think about it. Trump could have easily said to Comey, "Hey, I know you guys have to go wherever the evidence takes you. I completely support that. But I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Absolutely nothing
>wrong with that. The media have no idea what came before or after the sentence that was leaked--leaked with bad motives. And yet they've got you saying it may reach a point where resignation is inevitable. Physician, heal thyself.

Again, I'm not making any judgments about anything. As I've said
repeatedly, the evidence we've seen thus far almost certainly doesn't
support impeachment and that may be the case even after we see all the
evidence (if we ever do). But the evidence we do know about is
certainly enough to raise suspicions about Trump and his associates
and those suspicions raise enough questions to warrant further
investigation.

As far as what went down between Comey and Trump, even if it happened
as you suggest it might have, it was at the least improper for Trump
to discuss the investigation with Comey at all. And even if he only
asked Comey to let Flynn off the hook in the way you describe, that's
dangerous territory. When you're a government official and the
president asks or suggests that you do something, there's a fine line
between that and a direct order.

[Just Kidding]

Point out the specific bullshit and explain why you think that's what
it is.

[DianeE]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5cc61385-6e39-45d0...@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 8:16:39 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:

> On 5/16/2017 9:54 AM, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 8:00:29 AM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
> >> <luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:0bf4feef-1bb0-4c20...@googlegroups.com...

> >> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 1:44:25 AM UTC-4, RichL wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If Trump starts losing the "base" (which he will if he keeps getting
> >>> caught up in distractions and the agenda remains stalled), the dreaded
> >>> "I"
> >>> word may happen. Republicans in Congress are notoriously protective
> >>> of
> >>> their own hides. I'm not counting on it, but I think it's silly to
> >>> rule
> >>> it out.
> >>
> >> An NPR fantasy cooked up by one of the so-called experts who don't have
> >> a
> >> clue about how Trump even got here...and they've had plenty of time to
> >> think
> >> about it too. Anyway, what would they even impeach him for? He hasn't
> >> stolen
> >> or killed. The only way you'll get rid of this guy is with an intel
> >> coup.
> >> You for that?

> >> -------------
> >> I am. *Anything*. *Anything* to get him the fuck oiut of there, and
> >> the
> >> quicker the better. Stop the insanity. He's. Got. To. Go.
> >>
> >> DianeE, who BTW never listens to NPR.
> >
> > I suspect that many "liberal" people in this thread and in this country
> > would gladly join you in supporting an intel coup, which is already kind
> > of happening in slow motion. Lord knows they've had plenty of practice
> > with Salvador Allende, etc, etc. Always lovely to see democratic
> > thinking on the march (that's sarcastic, btw).
> >

> -----------
> Look, I don't even know what "intel coup" means. If it means that the
> CIA will run the country, well IMO they can't possibly do more damage
> than Trump and his crew of merry pranksters. May I remind you that
> George H. W. Bush was CIA Director before he became Vice President? I
> didn't *like* him, of course, and he started the shit in Iraq, but he
> was at least *competent*. He knew what he was doing. Trump does *not*
> know what he is doing, and his supporters practically have to twist
> themselves into knots to keep up the pretense that he does.
>

Anybody else care to go on record as supporting an intel coup cuz it can't
possibly do more damage than Trump? At least Diane has the courage to say
what most libbies feel but won't say for obvious reasons.
-------------
What are the obvious reasons? They're not obvious to me. He's got to go.
Anyone that gets him the fuck out of the White House is a hero, whatever
agency they work for. As long as it's an *American* agency, of course.

[DianeE]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7b220db0-7323-4200...@googlegroups.com...

----------
No, Martial was a Roman poet.

Wow indeed.

D

[DianeE]

"M. Rick" <insomn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:85e4e2c4-152d-448c...@googlegroups.com...

> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 3:09:03 PM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
>> Since I should be charging you goons for the cheap entertainment I
>> provide you,
>

> I'm not entertained. I'm using the worst posters here as inspiration for
> my exit ticket.
-----------
Come on, throw your ticket out the window.
DEM

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 3:31:53 PM UTC-4, Just Kidding wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2017 08:52:32 -0700 (PDT), luisb...@aol.com wrote:

> >
> >Oh..so you don't think he should get overthrown? I'm reading you wrong? If so, I apologize.
>
> >But now I'm confused...you don't think the evidence is there and yet you speak of it reaching a point where it's inevitable. Huh? You've totally lost me.
>
> Yes, you're still reading me wrong and you don't seem to understand
> what I said, which I think is pretty clear. I said that it MAY reach a
> point (i.e., sometime in the future) where Trump is impeached or
> resigns, and I never said he could or should be impeached based on the
> evidence we know of at this time, nor did I say his removal from
> office is inevitable.

Oh, okay...you mean it in the sense of ANYthing's possible. That's definitely true. People used to talk about Obama being impeached too. That was also possible.

> What I am saying is that his impeachment or
> resignation COULD happen if more incriminating evidence about any of
> his myriad past transgressions comes to light. And Trump being Trump,
> it's also entirely possible that he will commit new impeachable acts
> in the future.

Oh--then I was right. You HAVE already indicted him without evidence. What myriad past transgressions? May I tell you about some actual past transgressions? Hillary. And yet you wanted her in there over this guy! We are clearly living in a post factual age.

>
> Another thing I never said is that Trump should be "overthrown", i.e.,
> removed by some sort of coup d'etat. I'm not a big fan of coups except
> under the most extreme conditions.

Like Trump? That's essentially what has already begun. Are you for this? For what's going on?

> >
> >
> >Plus, I don't get the "expert" dig. The ones who purport to know the real deal--the experts--are the ones you take at face value who quote memos they've never seen and predict sure impeachment, not me. I'm not playing expert. They are. And they have nothing to go on except their feelings and hunches and other unscientific things. I'm saying--with ample justification (certain people call it "doing the science") that based on the evidence out there, it's fantasy land (you know...science...evidence). Whether or not you think I have credibility is inconsequential. It's what the courts think of the evidence. You are making judgements based on nothing--what kind of credibility does that give, hmmm? Think about it. Trump could have easily said to Comey, "Hey, I know you guys have to go wherever the evidence takes you. I completely support that. But I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Absolutely nothing
> >wrong with that. The media have no idea what came before or after the sentence that was leaked--leaked with bad motives. And yet they've got you saying it may reach a point where resignation is inevitable. Physician, heal thyself.
>
> Again, I'm not making any judgments about anything. As I've said
> repeatedly, the evidence we've seen thus far almost certainly doesn't
> support impeachment and that may be the case even after we see all the
> evidence (if we ever do). But the evidence we do know about is
> certainly enough to raise suspicions about Trump and his associates
> and those suspicions raise enough questions to warrant further
> investigation.
>

> As far as what went down between Comey and Trump, even if it happened
> as you suggest it might have, it was at the least improper for Trump
> to discuss the investigation with Comey at all. And even if he only
> asked Comey to let Flynn off the hook in the way you describe, that's
> dangerous territory. When you're a government official and the
> president asks or suggests that you do something, there's a fine line
> between that and a direct order.

Again, it depends on how the whole talk went down. Unless you have Mr. Pussy Pants there in the Oval, any president is going to use his position to make things happen to his advantage. People who compare this to Watergate obviously have not studied Watergate even in a minor way. Of course Trump is going to see how far he can push the guy. And while we're on the topic of Comey, you can bet on one thing--if there had been something seriously bad going on, he wouldn't have held on to it until now when it was payback time. And if he did know it was bad, then guess who's really in hot water. Comey. FBI director knowingly withholds evidence? Lol. Oh my.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Ends justifies the means, eh, New York?

[luisb...@aol.com]

Yup. He was from present day Spain and specialized on calling people out on their shit. That's all I know about him.

[DianeE]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0a52dcd9-c0f8-415b...@googlegroups.com...

.... People who compare this to Watergate obviously have not studied

Watergate even in a minor way.

-------------
Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward, and John Dean have compared this to Watergate.
You're wrong.
DEM

[DianeE]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:346e5fb1-2997-405d...@googlegroups.com...

--------------
I said, what are the "obvious reasons?"
What is an "intel coup?"
Donald Trump is a direct threat to our lives, liberty, and pursuit of
happiness.

Hey, look at this, cousin Bob was just appointed Special Counsel!!!!!

Diane E. Muller

[Tim]

http://www.risingsbunkers.com/pricing-and-floor-plans/xtreme-series-fallout-shelter-for-sale-the-commander/

[Just Kidding]

On Wed, 17 May 2017 14:02:16 -0700 (PDT), luisb...@aol.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 3:31:53 PM UTC-4, Just Kidding wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 08:52:32 -0700 (PDT), luisb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Oh..so you don't think he should get overthrown? I'm reading you wrong? If so, I apologize.
>>
>> >But now I'm confused...you don't think the evidence is there and yet you speak of it reaching a point where it's inevitable. Huh? You've totally lost me.
>>
>> Yes, you're still reading me wrong and you don't seem to understand
>> what I said, which I think is pretty clear. I said that it MAY reach a
>> point (i.e., sometime in the future) where Trump is impeached or
>> resigns, and I never said he could or should be impeached based on the
>> evidence we know of at this time, nor did I say his removal from
>> office is inevitable.
>
>Oh, okay...you mean it in the sense of ANYthing's possible. That's definitely true. People used to talk about Obama being impeached too. That was also possible.

It can be hard to take you seriously sometimes. You can't really
believe that Trump's impeachment at some point isn't a reasonable
possiblity. There may not be any fire yet, but they'll soon be wearing
smoke masks in the W.H. And to compare Trump to Obama is laughable.

>
>
>> What I am saying is that his impeachment or
>> resignation COULD happen if more incriminating evidence about any of
>> his myriad past transgressions comes to light. And Trump being Trump,
>> it's also entirely possible that he will commit new impeachable acts
>> in the future.
>
>Oh--then I was right. You HAVE already indicted him without evidence. What myriad past transgressions? May I tell you about some actual past transgressions? Hillary. And yet you wanted her in there over this guy! We are clearly living in a post factual age.

Transgressions? Like having inappropriate conversations with the FBI
director while he and his campaign were under investigations? Even if
there was no provable obstruction of justice it was clearly unethical.
What about making a false allegation that Obama "tapped his wires"?
How about keeping Flynn on as NSA for nearly three weeks after being
informed by the acting AG that he had lied about his Russian contacts.
And then we have the firing of the FBI director because he wouldn't
halt the Russia investigations. Those are just a few off the top of my
head.

>
>>
>> Another thing I never said is that Trump should be "overthrown", i.e.,
>> removed by some sort of coup d'etat. I'm not a big fan of coups except
>> under the most extreme conditions.
>
>Like Trump? That's essentially what has already begun. Are you for this? For what's going on?

What's going on? You sound just like Trump now, who always wants to
find out "what the hell is going on." If by "what's going on" you
mean the investigation of Trump activities, yes, I'm totally in favor
of it.

>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >Plus, I don't get the "expert" dig. The ones who purport to know the real deal--the experts--are the ones you take at face value who quote memos they've never seen and predict sure impeachment, not me. I'm not playing expert. They are. And they have nothing to go on except their feelings and hunches and other unscientific things. I'm saying--with ample justification (certain people call it "doing the science") that based on the evidence out there, it's fantasy land (you know...science...evidence). Whether or not you think I have credibility is inconsequential. It's what the courts think of the evidence. You are making judgements based on nothing--what kind of credibility does that give, hmmm? Think about it. Trump could have easily said to Comey, "Hey, I know you guys have to go wherever the evidence takes you. I completely support that. But I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Absolutely nothing
>> >wrong with that. The media have no idea what came before or after the sentence that was leaked--leaked with bad motives. And yet they've got you saying it may reach a point where resignation is inevitable. Physician, heal thyself.
>>
>> Again, I'm not making any judgments about anything. As I've said
>> repeatedly, the evidence we've seen thus far almost certainly doesn't
>> support impeachment and that may be the case even after we see all the
>> evidence (if we ever do). But the evidence we do know about is
>> certainly enough to raise suspicions about Trump and his associates
>> and those suspicions raise enough questions to warrant further
>> investigation.
>>
>
>> As far as what went down between Comey and Trump, even if it happened
>> as you suggest it might have, it was at the least improper for Trump
>> to discuss the investigation with Comey at all. And even if he only
>> asked Comey to let Flynn off the hook in the way you describe, that's
>> dangerous territory. When you're a government official and the
>> president asks or suggests that you do something, there's a fine line
>> between that and a direct order.
>
>Again, it depends on how the whole talk went down. Unless you have Mr. Pussy Pants there in the Oval, any president is going to use his position to make things happen to his advantage. People who compare this to Watergate obviously have not studied Watergate even in a minor way. Of course Trump is going to see how far he can push the guy. And while we're on the topic of Comey, you can bet on one thing--if there had been something seriously bad going on, he wouldn't have held on to it until now when it was payback time. And if he did know it was bad, then guess who's really in hot water. Comey. FBI director knowingly withholds evidence? Lol. Oh my.

I think I heard these same arguments on Fox...or was it Limbaugh?
Don't tie yourself in knots trying to come up with justifications for
Trump's actions. You might just strangle yourself.

[Just Kidding]

Crickets. That's what I thought.

[Grave Digger]

>
> Crickets. That's what I thought.

----


This is for Diane
10cc - Dreadlock Holiday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2xwwkX2T4c


gd

[DianeE]

"Grave Digger" <geronim...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e65b759-a158-4407...@googlegroups.com...

------------
I'll bet that one never turned up on Theme Time. Ugh.

DianeE

[Grave Digger]

===

baby...it's one cc above nine...
It's a whole lot of loving/

peace.....nor

[luisb...@aol.com]

Everybody's got their hand out this week, I see.


> DEM

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 7:13:34 PM UTC-4, Just Kidding wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2017 14:02:16 -0700 (PDT), luisb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 3:31:53 PM UTC-4, Just Kidding wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 May 2017 08:52:32 -0700 (PDT), luisb...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >Oh..so you don't think he should get overthrown? I'm reading you wrong? If so, I apologize.
> >>
> >> >But now I'm confused...you don't think the evidence is there and yet you speak of it reaching a point where it's inevitable. Huh? You've totally lost me.
> >>
> >> Yes, you're still reading me wrong and you don't seem to understand
> >> what I said, which I think is pretty clear. I said that it MAY reach a
> >> point (i.e., sometime in the future) where Trump is impeached or
> >> resigns, and I never said he could or should be impeached based on the
> >> evidence we know of at this time, nor did I say his removal from
> >> office is inevitable.
> >
> >Oh, okay...you mean it in the sense of ANYthing's possible. That's definitely true. People used to talk about Obama being impeached too. That was also possible.
>
> It can be hard to take you seriously sometimes. You can't really
> believe that Trump's impeachment at some point isn't a reasonable
> possiblity. There may not be any fire yet, but they'll soon be wearing
> smoke masks in the W.H. And to compare Trump to Obama is laughable.

A reasonable possibility? Based on what? His style? His tweets? This is what happens when mass hysteria sweeps a nation compounded with instant communication and 24-hour-a-day news television/internet.

>
> >
> >
> >> What I am saying is that his impeachment or
> >> resignation COULD happen if more incriminating evidence about any of
> >> his myriad past transgressions comes to light. And Trump being Trump,
> >> it's also entirely possible that he will commit new impeachable acts
> >> in the future.
> >
> >Oh--then I was right. You HAVE already indicted him without evidence. What myriad past transgressions? May I tell you about some actual past transgressions? Hillary. And yet you wanted her in there over this guy! We are clearly living in a post factual age.
>
> Transgressions? Like having inappropriate conversations with the FBI
> director while he and his campaign were under investigations? Even if
> there was no provable obstruction of justice it was clearly unethical.
> What about making a false allegation that Obama "tapped his wires"?
> How about keeping Flynn on as NSA for nearly three weeks after being
> informed by the acting AG that he had lied about his Russian contacts.
> And then we have the firing of the FBI director because he wouldn't
> halt the Russia investigations. Those are just a few off the top of my
> head.

These are all delusions of the media and the intel community that despise him. You're just buying into the delusion. The firing of the FBI director cuz he wouldn't halt the Russian investigation is a delusion. Nobody has put forward any evidence. The other stuff is not high crimes and misdemeanors. To parallel Trump and Flynn to Nixon is nutty.

> >
> >>
> >> Another thing I never said is that Trump should be "overthrown", i.e.,
> >> removed by some sort of coup d'etat. I'm not a big fan of coups except
> >> under the most extreme conditions.
> >
> >Like Trump? That's essentially what has already begun. Are you for this? For what's going on?
>
> What's going on? You sound just like Trump now, who always wants to
> find out "what the hell is going on." If by "what's going on" you
> mean the investigation of Trump activities, yes, I'm totally in favor
> of it.

What's already been going on is a slow motion domestic/foreign intel coup. That's some dangerous shit and I'm honestly shocked that a self-respecting lib like yourself would favor this kind of hijacking of the state.

> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Plus, I don't get the "expert" dig. The ones who purport to know the real deal--the experts--are the ones you take at face value who quote memos they've never seen and predict sure impeachment, not me. I'm not playing expert. They are. And they have nothing to go on except their feelings and hunches and other unscientific things. I'm saying--with ample justification (certain people call it "doing the science") that based on the evidence out there, it's fantasy land (you know...science...evidence). Whether or not you think I have credibility is inconsequential. It's what the courts think of the evidence. You are making judgements based on nothing--what kind of credibility does that give, hmmm? Think about it. Trump could have easily said to Comey, "Hey, I know you guys have to go wherever the evidence takes you. I completely support that. But I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Absolutely nothing
> >> >wrong with that. The media have no idea what came before or after the sentence that was leaked--leaked with bad motives. And yet they've got you saying it may reach a point where resignation is inevitable. Physician, heal thyself.
> >>
> >> Again, I'm not making any judgments about anything. As I've said
> >> repeatedly, the evidence we've seen thus far almost certainly doesn't
> >> support impeachment and that may be the case even after we see all the
> >> evidence (if we ever do). But the evidence we do know about is
> >> certainly enough to raise suspicions about Trump and his associates
> >> and those suspicions raise enough questions to warrant further
> >> investigation.
> >>
> >
> >> As far as what went down between Comey and Trump, even if it happened
> >> as you suggest it might have, it was at the least improper for Trump
> >> to discuss the investigation with Comey at all. And even if he only
> >> asked Comey to let Flynn off the hook in the way you describe, that's
> >> dangerous territory. When you're a government official and the
> >> president asks or suggests that you do something, there's a fine line
> >> between that and a direct order.
> >
> >Again, it depends on how the whole talk went down. Unless you have Mr. Pussy Pants there in the Oval, any president is going to use his position to make things happen to his advantage. People who compare this to Watergate obviously have not studied Watergate even in a minor way. Of course Trump is going to see how far he can push the guy. And while we're on the topic of Comey, you can bet on one thing--if there had been something seriously bad going on, he wouldn't have held on to it until now when it was payback time. And if he did know it was bad, then guess who's really in hot water. Comey. FBI director knowingly withholds evidence? Lol. Oh my.
>
> I think I heard these same arguments on Fox...or was it Limbaugh?
> Don't tie yourself in knots trying to come up with justifications for
> Trump's actions. You might just strangle yourself.

I don't justify Trump's actions in anyway, which is pretty evident. And since I've unfortunately missed Rush recently, I can't vouch for him. I've never watched Fox because it's insane. But what I object to is the way you justify the post-factual, extra-constitutional fever that's gripped this country.

But hey--I think I already noted that the swamp would bite back. I just don't think they realized it would take this many swampmen, along with both domestic and foreign intelligence, to take on one individual. What a bunch of phonies.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Here ya go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3XPnnKyk58

[M. Rick]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 8:26:12 PM UTC-7, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
>And since I've unfortunately missed Rush recently, I can't vouch for him.

Limbaugh is a comedic Goebbels. Although I suppose Goebbels was funny in his own way. I’m talking about the Nazi, not (George) Gobel the Hollywood Square. The posters here tend to confuse names, spelling and history. Lately I too have been infected with Bunuel’s disease. I’m waiting for the fever to subside before I leave the group.

[luisb...@aol.com]

You do realize, don't you, that if you leave the group, it will collapse.

[Just Kidding]

Back at you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZGiMvpJipo

Or: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkKwtSr0miA

[DianeE]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c27102dc-78ff-4619...@googlegroups.com...

------------
You never watch Fox but you sound just like them. How does that work? Oh I
know--they're stealing your ideas....which you just get from opening your
eyes and looking around you.

DEM

[Grave Digger]

> ------------
> You never watch Fox but you sound just like them. How does that work? Oh I
> know--they're stealing your ideas....which you just get from opening your
> eyes and looking around you.
>
> DEM

===

Diane

You have to breathe in and breathe out.....Out with the bad energy and in with the good. Trust me...I know 'bout this shit.

evol
nor

[Just Kidding]

On Wed, 17 May 2017 20:26:09 -0700 (PDT), luisb...@aol.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 7:13:34 PM UTC-4, Just Kidding wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 14:02:16 -0700 (PDT), luisb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 3:31:53 PM UTC-4, Just Kidding wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 17 May 2017 08:52:32 -0700 (PDT), luisb...@aol.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh..so you don't think he should get overthrown? I'm reading you wrong? If so, I apologize.
>> >>
>> >> >But now I'm confused...you don't think the evidence is there and yet you speak of it reaching a point where it's inevitable. Huh? You've totally lost me.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, you're still reading me wrong and you don't seem to understand
>> >> what I said, which I think is pretty clear. I said that it MAY reach a
>> >> point (i.e., sometime in the future) where Trump is impeached or
>> >> resigns, and I never said he could or should be impeached based on the
>> >> evidence we know of at this time, nor did I say his removal from
>> >> office is inevitable.
>> >
>> >Oh, okay...you mean it in the sense of ANYthing's possible. That's definitely true. People used to talk about Obama being impeached too. That was also possible.
>>
>> It can be hard to take you seriously sometimes. You can't really
>> believe that Trump's impeachment at some point isn't a reasonable
>> possiblity. There may not be any fire yet, but they'll soon be wearing
>> smoke masks in the W.H. And to compare Trump to Obama is laughable.
>
>A reasonable possibility? Based on what? His style? His tweets? This is what happens when mass hysteria sweeps a nation compounded with instant communication and 24-hour-a-day news television/internet.
>

You are aware of the serious allegations that are being investigated,
aren't you....or do you live in a bubble? Yes, their just allegations
at this point, but if any are ultimately proven impeachment would
certainly be on the table. I'm not predicting it's going to happen,
but it's ridiculous to say there's no possibility.

>> >
>> >
>> >> What I am saying is that his impeachment or
>> >> resignation COULD happen if more incriminating evidence about any of
>> >> his myriad past transgressions comes to light. And Trump being Trump,
>> >> it's also entirely possible that he will commit new impeachable acts
>> >> in the future.
>> >
>> >Oh--then I was right. You HAVE already indicted him without evidence. What myriad past transgressions? May I tell you about some actual past transgressions? Hillary. And yet you wanted her in there over this guy! We are clearly living in a post factual age.
>>
>> Transgressions? Like having inappropriate conversations with the FBI
>> director while he and his campaign were under investigations? Even if
>> there was no provable obstruction of justice it was clearly unethical.
>> What about making a false allegation that Obama "tapped his wires"?
>> How about keeping Flynn on as NSA for nearly three weeks after being
>> informed by the acting AG that he had lied about his Russian contacts.
>> And then we have the firing of the FBI director because he wouldn't
>> halt the Russia investigations. Those are just a few off the top of my
>> head.
>
>These are all delusions of the media and the intel community that despise him. You're just buying into the delusion. The firing of the FBI director cuz he wouldn't halt the Russian investigation is a delusion. Nobody has put forward any evidence. The other stuff is not high crimes and misdemeanors. To parallel Trump and Flynn to Nixon is nutty.
>

No evidence?? Trump himself all but admitted that he fired Comey to
stop the Flynn investigation. There's also no dispute that the WH knew
that Flynn was under investigation at the time he was appointed NSA.
What exactly do you need for evidence, a signed confession??

[JD Chase]

Absolutly agree with Diane... never was remotely a fan of a Reagan or either Bush(particularly W-who I thought was the absolute worst President EVER-until now), for that matter-not a fan of any of the republican Presidential hopefuls... but Trump is not only the worst President EVER, he is CORRUPT, he is TOTALLY, ABSOLUTELY MENDACIOUS and IGNORANT and INCOMPETENT and INSANE!!! He is a serious DANGER and MENACE to US ALL!! He MUST GO ASAP!!! Give us Jeb Bush or Rubio or Kasich or Romney... ANYONE would be preferable to this monster!!!

[gj]

On Thu, 18 May 2017 06:57:18 -0700 (PDT), JD Chase
<jdcha...@gmail.com> wrote:

>ANYONE would be preferable to this monster!!!

Charles Manson?

-GJ 2.1

[Grave Digger]

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 9:57:21 AM UTC-4, JD Chase wrote:
> Absolutly agree with Diane... never was remotely a fan of a Reagan or either Bush(particularly W-who I thought was the absolute worst President EVER-until now), for that matter-not a fan of any of the republican Presidential hopefuls... but Trump is not only the worst President EVER, he is CORRUPT, he is TOTALLY, ABSOLUTELY MENDACIOUS and IGNORANT and INCOMPETENT and INSANE!!! He is a serious DANGER and MENACE to US ALL!! He MUST GO ASAP!!! Give us Jeb Bush or Rubio or Kasich or Romney... ANYONE would be preferable to this monster!!!

====

can you tell me how you really feel? Why so many capital letters? nobody here is hard of hearing.
--
May Roger Ailes rest in peace.....a true pioneer for fair and balanced in the corrupt media.

cheers

nor

[DianeE]

"Grave Digger" <geronim...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:21952e79-9b5f-4e49...@googlegroups.com...

>> ------------
>> You never watch Fox but you sound just like them. How does that work?
>> Oh I
>> know--they're stealing your ideas....which you just get from opening your
>> eyes and looking around you.
>>
>

> Diane
>
> You have to breathe in and breathe out.....Out with the bad energy and in
> with the good. Trust me...I know 'bout this shit.

-------------
Right, which is why you're always moaning about you need a smoke and a
drink.

DEM

[Grave Digger]

baby...i don't even moan in bed...I leave that to others.
We can't all live the gentle peaceful life that you lead....I guess you might be the chosen one.....If you just wouldn't yell so much

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNE7FZHjMt4
did you ever read "A Good Man Is Hard To Find" by the late great Flannery O'Connor?

ron