Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

Good to know I'm in your head so much. But, again, as mentioned a few times, I don't post any longer on here other than to tell you the same thing (one one recent compliment on the eclipse pictures).

-Sock Puppet

Teeheeman-

Do you regret promoting violence on this board? You still haven't given an answer.

Is making the statement that you are going to kick a posters azz a threat with violent intent?

Simple question...you keep dodging.

[Unregistered]

Teeheeman-

Do you regret promoting violence on this board? You still haven't given an answer.

Is making the statement that you are going to kick a posters azz a threat with violent intent?

Simple question...you keep dodging.

I believe he's taken the position that words don't count, only actions.

So, all the marches and rallies and rhetoric of hate from the Right, or Left, mean nothing. Trumps puzzy-grabbing comments mean nothing. Making a video of a *****ing mean nothing. Marching for free speech means nothing. Jamelle Hill calling Trump a Nazi means nothing. Spreading and teaching hate means nothing. Squelching free speech means nothing, as long as you don't actually touch anyone.

Only the physical act of following through with those acts deserve a mention...and, then, for him, only if it's from the Right.

Confused? Yeah, me too.

[Unregistered]

Just another example that liberalism is a mental disease - that Harvard offered a traitorous felon a fellowship.

Harvard Rescinds Invitation To Chelsea Manning To Be Visiting Fellow

https://www.yahoo.com/news/harvard-r...065309293.html

[Unregistered]

I believe he's taken the position that words don't count, only actions.

So, all the marches and rallies and rhetoric of hate from the Right, or Left, mean nothing. Trumps puzzy-grabbing comments mean nothing. Making a video of a *****ing mean nothing. Marching for free speech means nothing. Jamelle Hill calling Trump a Nazi means nothing. Spreading and teaching hate means nothing. Squelching free speech means nothing, as long as you don't actually touch anyone.

Only the physical act of following through with those acts deserve a mention...and, then, for him, only if it's from the Right.

Confused? Yeah, me too.

Excellent explanation.

I'm not confused...knew he was a hypocrite.

[Unregistered]

Trump just now on AF1

"I'm a Republican through and through."

Albatross now a permanent fixture of GOP.

Excellent!

I said this many times. Trump was never a Republican and is not a Republican now. Trump was never and conservative and he's not a conservative now. Trump is a New York liberal who financially supported more Democrats then he ever did Republicans. That fact is not lost on the Republican elite, better known as the anti-Trump coalition that have done little to help Trump succeed. That fact is not lost on those who voted for Trump. The same people who voted for Trump and will probably vote for him again in 2020 will probably not reelect many Republicans currently in office.

But don't assume that Democrats are any better off as a result.

"Democrats are committing themselves to years more of a treacherous health care debate, at a time when there are more pressing issues to confront. They are emulating Donald Trump’s penchant for quick-fix, bumper-sticker solutions that prove to be, in his own words, more “complicated” once in power. And instead of maintaining a candid relationship with its ideological base in order to temper expectations, the party establishment is indulging it, risking bitter disappointment in the future....health care debates are always vicious. The Hillarycare push contributed to the Democratic loss of Congress in 1994. The passage of the Affordable Care Act fueled the Tea Party backlash that helped Republicans take the House in 2010, and lingering resentment buoyed Trump in 2016. Then the failed attempt at ACA repeal burned Republicans this year....no party or ideological persuasion is safe from the health care buzz saw. Any proposal to alter, let alone completely transform, our complex health insurance system creates winners and losers, or at least, the perception thereof. And since health care affects us so personally, the perceived “losers” gain enormous leverage every time major reform is on the table."

[Unregistered]

Bwahahaha!

Dawn of the Berniecratic Party

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...-ahead-of-2020

"This week looks like a moment where it's crystallizing in a lot of people's minds that Bernie Sanders is the future of the Democratic Party," says Mark Longabaugh, a Democratic consultant and aide to Sanders' presidential bid.

"I want to say thank you to Bernie for all that you have done," Warren gushed.

Then came Gillibrand who said she'd be "fighting with Bernie", following her broad support for the concept during a Facebook Live event in June and Booker, who told a New Jersey television station on Monday "this is something that's got to happen," billing it as the next civil rights battle.

Sanders' diehard supporters are watching – and they are keenly aware of who isn't on board.

Winnie Wong, a co-founder of People For Bernie and an aggressive internet activist, targeted Democrats on Twitter who steered clear of the Sanders bill.

"If @ChrisMurphyCT is smart, he'll wake up in the AM, tell his staffer to draft a press release saying he'll be going with Bernie's bill," she wrote, targeting the Connecticut Democrat.

"Baby we got your number," she fired off to the account of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, including a link meant to pressure those not on board.

But in a sign of how far the debate had moved, even Sen. Joe Manchin, who faces a potentially competitive re-election challenge this year.

[Unregistered]

So if Trump is for single payer as he has been in the past does that mean TeeHeeMan will be against it?

[Unregistered]

Bwahahaha!

Dawn of the Berniecratic Party
[/i]

Yeeeesshhh...talk about Civil War....

[Unregistered]

Bwahahaha!


Democrats Follow Bernie Sanders Off a Cliff
Column: The bad math and foolish politics of single-payer health care

"How rudderless is the Democratic Party? Its membership is so bereft of leadership and policy direction that 16 of its senators have signed on to a health care bill sponsored by a self-avowed independent democratic socialist from Vermont.

The "Medicare for All Act of 2017" would repeal Obamacare, along with most other private and public insurance, and replace it with a government-run, one-size-fits-all, centrally directed system of reimbursement for medical expenses. Sanders, who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, holds the same opinion of health insurance as he does antiperspirants: "You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different sneakers when children are hungry in this country."

"Medicare for All" might strike Warren & co. today as legislation worthy of support for reasons both moral and self-interested. In time, however, palling around with Bernie Bros may become a liability....The experiences of Vermont, whose single-payer system collapsed several years ago, and of California and New Jersey, whose true-blue legislatures can't carry single payer across the finish line, and of Colorado, which voted overwhelmingly against a similar plan last year, suggest the tax increases necessary to sustain expanded coverage frighten even Democrats.

No wonder Sanders wants to avoid the details. He and his cosponsors are in a bind. There is no way to pay for the benefits they desire without a) economy-crushing tax hikes, b) rationing, or c) some combination thereof. That chases away support.

Nor is that support deep to begin with. Vox.com, citing research from the Kaiser Family Foundation, explains that "support for single-payer drops about 20 percent when people who initially said they supported the proposal are told it would give the government too much control or require Americans to pay higher taxes." Universal coverage with no copays sounds nice at first. But both voters and politicians recoil when they are confronted by the reality of exorbitant costs and diminished freedoms.

The inconvenient truth of the health debate is this: The vast majority of Americans are not only insured, they are satisfied with their insurance. They might grumble about premiums or deductibles or choice of doctors, but they are not about to embark on systemic change. Two-thirds of the some 150 million Americans who receive health coverage through their employer told the Gallup organization they were satisfied in 2016. About three-fourths of the plurality of Americans who receive coverage from Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA said the same. Why overthrow those arrangements cavalierly for Sanders' revolution?

[Unregistered]

I said this many times. Trump was never a Republican and is not a Republican now. Trump was never and conservative and he's not a conservative now. Trump is a New York liberal who financially supported more Democrats then he ever did Republicans. That fact is not lost on the Republican elite, better known as the anti-Trump coalition that have done little to help Trump succeed. That fact is not lost on those who voted for Trump. The same people who voted for Trump and will probably vote for him again in 2020 will probably not reelect many Republicans currently in office.

But don't assume that Democrats are any better off as a result.

"Democrats are committing themselves to years more of a treacherous health care debate, at a time when there are more pressing issues to confront. They are emulating Donald Trump’s penchant for quick-fix, bumper-sticker solutions that prove to be, in his own words, more “complicated” once in power. And instead of maintaining a candid relationship with its ideological base in order to temper expectations, the party establishment is indulging it, risking bitter disappointment in the future....health care debates are always vicious. The Hillarycare push contributed to the Democratic loss of Congress in 1994. The passage of the Affordable Care Act fueled the Tea Party backlash that helped Republicans take the House in 2010, and lingering resentment buoyed Trump in 2016. Then the failed attempt at ACA repeal burned Republicans this year....no party or ideological persuasion is safe from the health care buzz saw. Any proposal to alter, let alone completely transform, our complex health insurance system creates winners and losers, or at least, the perception thereof. And since health care affects us so personally, the perceived “losers” gain enormous leverage every time major reform is on the table."

"Republicans have issues, but Democrats have them too. Witness the two individuals (Clinton/Sanders) who dominated this week’s news—and who conveniently represent the left’s most crippling problems.

...Mr. Sanders was an unexpected force in the primary, though mostly because he wasn’t Hillary. Sanders supporters resent this argument, and claim the only reason his agenda didn’t triumph is because the DNC robbed him of the election. If so, why did Bernie’s people and ideas fail spectacularly everywhere else on the ballot?

In Wisconsin Mr. Sanders campaigned for Russ Feingold, who promised a $15 federal minimum wage, an end to trade deals and free college. Mr. Feingold lost to Republican Sen. Ron Johnson. In upstate New York, in a white, working-class district, Mr. Sanders endorsed Zephyr Teachout, who railed against bankers and lobbyists, fought fracking and Citizens United, and opposed trade. Republican John Faso beat her for the open seat by eight percentage points, on a promise to kill Dodd-Frank. Democrats wouldn’t even vote for Tim Canova, the man who primaried Mr. Sanders’s archenemy, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

An extraordinary 79% of Colorado voters said no to a ballot initiative for ColoradoCare, the state version of Mr. Sanders’s universal health-care proposal. This in a state that Hillary Clinton won. Liberal Vermont pulled its own single-payer plug in 2014. In California, Mr. Sanders endorsed and campaigned for Proposition 61, which was designed to impose prescription drug price controls. It went down to substantial defeat in a state Mrs. Clinton won by 30 points.

Progressives will argue that all they need to elect a Bernie or an Elizabeth is the right way of pitching their “populist” policies of free health care or price-controlled drugs to the white working class and independents. But so far they’ve been unable to sell them even to bright blue states. And this wishful thinking ignores that even if voters supported some of those provisions, they’d also have to swallow a progressive agenda that includes an energy crackdown, a retreat from the terror fight, and the culture of identity politics.

Republicans have failed to unite or govern or pass their biggest priorities. But the political analysts are setting themselves up for another surprise if they ignore the big reasons Democrats lost this election, and what comes next."

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/her...ary-1505431677

[Unregistered]

All of the old nutter ramblings are back.....

Was there a tear in the fabric

Supporters of President Donald Trump are still furious about his decision to work with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on helping to shield undocumented immigrants who were brought into the United States as children from being deported.

Now some Trump fans have taken their displeasure a step further and have started setting their “Make America Great Again” hats on fire to protest Trump seemingly going soft on his signature campaign issue.

Report Advertisement
Angry Trump fan Luis Withrow posted a video of himself on Twitter angrily telling Trump that he will “never make America great again” if he didn’t “drain the swamp” in Washington, DC. He then set his MAGA hat ablaze.

Check out all the MAGA hats burning!

[Unregistered]

I said this many times

Trump was never a Republican and is not a Republican now. Trump was never and conservative and he's not a conservative now.

I suspect the stink of that albatross has finally started to bother. There will be no easy out for you.

1) trump identifies as a RepublicAn. This was just the other day -

"I am a Republican through and through"

2) when you previously crowed about "we have the house, senate and WH" you clearly references a UNITED front.

3) trump ran as a republican and was nominated at that pArties convention

4) head of RNC was first chief of staff. Administartation staffed with republicans . Only h are of ONE dem and a holdover from obama

So sorry . You aren't shedding him like that. He's yours. He defines the modern Republican Party . Period.

It's dawning isn't it?

[Unregistered]

Sexism
Racism
Misogyny
Xenophobia
Suburban women
James Comey
FBI
Russians
Vladimir Putin
WikiLeaks
DNC
Barack Obama
Joe Biden
Bernie Sanders
Anthony Weiner
Electoral College
Polling Data
Cable News
New York Times
Fake News
Bots
Facebook
Twitter
Netflix
TV Executives
‘Anti-American forces’
Democrat documentaries
Low information voters
People wanting change
People who assumed she’d win
Republican Party
“Content farms in Macedonia’
Infowars
Goosefer
DC Leaks
Jill Stein
Steve Bannon
Voter ID laws
Chief Justice John Roberts
KS Sec. of State, Kris Kobach
Citizens United
Colluding Trump officials
Benghazi

Updated list:

44. Rep. Kevin McCarthy

45. Gen. Michael Flynn

46. Julian Assange

47. Roger Stone

48. Reddit

49. Drudge Report

50. Alex Jones

51. Russia Today (RT)

52. Sputnik Network

53. Robert Mercer

54. Koch brothers

55. NBC’S Matt Lauer

56. Fox News Channel


*Stay tuned for more*

[Unregistered]

Ruh roh.

Lawyer says extradition of oligarch tied to Trump campaign chief imminent

Kim Janssen
GEORGES SCHNEIDER/AFP/Getty Images

Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash could be extradited “within weeks,” his lawyer said Monday.

Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash could be extradited “within weeks,” his lawyer said Monday. (GEORGES SCHNEIDER/AFP/Getty Images)

Billionaire Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash is at "great risk" of being brought from Austria to face justice in a Chicago courtroom "within weeks," his lawyer told a federal judge Monday.

But prosecutors say they are concerned that Firtash — who is wanted on racketeering charges and has ties to President Donald Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort — will jump on a private jet to Russia if a Chicago judge rules against him before he is handed over to U.S. authorities.

They revealed in court for the first time that they wiretapped telephone conversations in which Firtash allegedly discussed a co-defendant's trip to Chicago to meet with Boeing executives.

Firtash, who has friends in Russian President Vladimir Putin's Kremlin, has been fighting extradition from Austria since his high profile 2014 arrest in Vienna. Accused of masterminding an international titanium-mining racket involving Boeing, he claims he was targeted by the Obama administration as punishment for Putin's annexation of Crimea.

His lawyer, former U.S. Attorney Dan Webb, on Monday told U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer that Firtash has never been to the U.S., and the crimes of which he is accused all happened in India and had no impact on the U.S.

Webb said he feared Firtash's extradition is imminent, and urged Pallmeyer to throw out the case before Firtash can be put on a Chicago-bound plane.

But prosecutor Amarjeet Bhachu told the judge that the wiretapped conversations linked Firtash to Chicago, and that a bribery scheme also used U.S. banks and cellphones.

He warned the judge that if she ruled against Firtash before he is in U.S. custody, he may "hop on a private plane and head over to Moscow, or to some other country where we can't extradite him."

In a joke about Firtash's enormous wealth (he posted a $174 million bond in Austria), Bhachu added, "We will pay for his travel here."

U.S. interest in the case in recent months has focused on Firtash's links to Manafort, with whom he discussed a New York real estate deal in 2008. Though Manafort is not named in the Chicago case, his home has been raided as part of special prosecutor Robert Mueller's probe of the Trump campaign's alleged ties to Russia.

Somethingburger

[Unregistered]

Ruh roh.




Somethingburger

I once hired a contractor to do some remodeling of my home. I got references and he had a well established great reputation, had the proper licenses and insurance and seemed like a perfect fit for the job.

Two months in, I discovered that he had let his insurance lapse and that he was way behind in paying his employees and accounts. He told me that he had run into some personal difficulties and we mutually agreed to part ways, rather than allow things to get worse.

Everything ended up working out okay and another contractor was able to finish the job. I never gave much concern about the first contractors problems, besides hoping he would get things straightened out. Later I found out that he had a gambling problem and that he was in dire straights financially. He was collecting deposits from customers to pay off his gambling debts, leaving him unable to pay his help and for materials.

This act had been going on for a couple of years before he worked for me. He provided believable excuses and made you feel bad for him, so nobody ever filed a complaint.

Am I now culpable for his behavior. He kept me in the dark about his double dealing and he seemed to be a credible person. When I found out that wasn't true, we parted ways.

I only ask the question because it seem that the President is being held responsible for the actions of a few people that he hired to do a job for him. They were qualified and had good references and even security clearings (Flynn). They didn't share their possibly illegal maneuverings, before being hired, with him. The President let them go when he learned they weren't being honest. How is this his problem?