[!@#$%!]

well, according to mueller, there was no “collission” after all, because he recommends “no further indictments” haaahaaahaaa

goddamn, i fear for skuj, he was really committed to the results

—

looks like the buck stops with roger stone

—

and im really grateful for my agnosticism and extensive psychotheraphy [paid by insurance, oh yeah]

[Skuj]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

well, according to mueller, there was no “collission” after all, because he recommends “no further indictments” haaahaaahaaa

goddamn, i fear for skuj, he was really committed to the results

—

looks like the buck stops with roger stone

—

and im really grateful for my agnosticism and extensive psychotheraphy [paid by insurance, oh yeah]

Um....you know this how? No more indictments = no collision? Please explain.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Skuj

Um....you know this how? No more indictments = no collision? Please explain.

well whatever roger stone did it ends with him no?

nobody is gonna charge el presidente, ivankatron, juniorjuniorjunior, purple kushner, etc.

meanwhile, read this for more headaches. was cleaning out my email and found it in a newsletter

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-it-will-fade/

[!@#$%!]

anyway we can all dry our tears with a little klobuchar

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...nt-have-guess/

it's old, but again-- was cleaning my mailbox

[Skuj]

I'll obviously have to go and refresh my memory on what Flynn was charged with, and where many of the breadcrumbs led. I dunno.....is it too early for conclusions, just because some charges have not been laid?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Skuj

I'll obviously have to go and refresh my memory on what Flynn was charged with, and where many of the breadcrumbs led. I dunno.....is it too early for conclusions, just because some charges have not been laid?

they're not going to impeach trumpetta

let's move on

[Skuj]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

they're not going to impeach trumpetta

let's move on

Well, given the make-up of the Senate, I never understood why anyone even mentioned impeachment.

But how can we move on when we haven't even seen the results of the fucking report?

(Symbols, I'm actually starting to wonder if some other person hijacked your account starting about 10-14 days ago. You had some kind of personality transplant. I'm baffled.)

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Skuj

Well, given the make-up of the Senate, I never understood why anyone even mentioned impeachment.

But how can we move on when we haven't even seen the results of the fucking report?

(Symbols, I'm actually starting to wonder if some other person hijacked your account starting about 10-14 days ago. You had some kind of personality transplant. I'm baffled.)

impeachment always remained a possibility if there was something so egregious and bipartisan that it had to be done.

nancy pelosi (the only adult in politics these days) has been saying that much.

while it's clear there was russian interference and there were contacts, it looks like whoever did the deed kept trumpet out of the loop (on purpose, plausible deniability, etc) and so here we are. even cohen who called his former rider all kinds of justified names (liar, cheat, racist, etc) could not say he knew much about the russia business.

no question that putin fucked with the cattle herds, but did trump know or coordinate with him? if there are no more indictments, then what's the conclusion?

im not making this shit up. wishful thinking is for fools. enough wishful thinking! this is why liberals always lose... goddamn.

okay man.

game over.

sack up and let's move the fuck on.

--

and yes yes we all deserve to know what happened but we're not gonna catch him with this. and his 40% will continue.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Skuj

(Symbols, I'm actually starting to wonder if some other person hijacked your account starting about 10-14 days ago. You had some kind of personality transplant. I'm baffled.)

read this and don’t be another dummy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...662_story.html

[Skuj]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

impeachment always remained a possibility if there was something so egregious and bipartisan that it had to be done.

nancy pelosi (the only adult in politics these days) has been saying that much.

while it's clear there was russian interference and there were contacts, it looks like whoever did the deed kept trumpet out of the loop (on purpose, plausible deniability, etc) and so here we are. even cohen who called his former rider all kinds of justified names (liar, cheat, racist, etc) could not say he knew much about the russia business.

no question that putin fucked with the cattle herds, but did trump know or coordinate with him? if there are no more indictments, then what's the conclusion?

im not making this shit up. wishful thinking is for fools. enough wishful thinking! this is why liberals always lose... goddamn.

okay man.

game over.

sack up and let's move the fuck on.

--

and yes yes we all deserve to know what happened but we're not gonna catch him with this. and his 40% will continue.

So, please help me out here: Is Obstruction Of Justice something that Mueller was looking at? (I thought you could level that charge at Trump daily, with his tweeting etc.)

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Skuj

So, please help me out here: Is Obstruction Of Justice something that Mueller was looking at? (I thought you could level that charge at Trump daily, with his tweeting etc.)

i dont give a shit anymore. it’s besides the point.

what im concerned with is defeating trump in 2020.

we’re never gonna do that with the loonie left, the wishful thinkers, the emotionally stunted, the plainly deranged, and other various specimens in charge.

i posted you that washington post article so you’d understand.

if you can’t understand that article i won’t further waste your time, or mine. we can always talk about other stuff.

[Skuj]

I stand by my previous comments about how you have changed. WTF happened?

[Skuj]

(And I have to pay for that Washington Post article.)

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Skuj

I stand by my previous comments about how you have changed. WTF happened?

i'm a liberal, and i'm tired of the lefty conspiracy to reelect trump by hijacking the democratic party. im pissed off. so i've started punching back.

you understand the difference between a liberal and a leftist, yes?

a liberal values inalienable individual rights. a leftist will chuck individual rights in the garbage in the name of "the will of the people".

a liberal believes in innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. a leftist is always ready to reenact the moscow trials.

a liberal values individual initiative and free enterprise (liberal, liberty). a leftist wants everything in the hands of the state. then wants to run the state, in the name of "the will of the people" (but their own personal will in reality).

a liberal does not believe in utopias, and deals with the problems at hand. a leftist is willing to sacrifice anything to bring about utopia today.

i'm not a fucking leftist. i have over the years held variously unconsciously leftists beliefs, like an unacknowledged labor theory of value, but as i learn more and examine more and work out my ideas (doesn't everyone? or do they just hold on to their credos?) i realized i had some mistakes and inconsistencies.

i'm a thinking person, not a believer. if reason shows me inaccuracies and inconsistencies in my thought i need to work them out.

like, pluto is not a planet. value is generated by demand not by labor. profit is not evil. i understand and accept those things i did not originally grow up with.

so, yeah, something changed. i've started arguing from the right of the left. i'm not a right winger. but i'm to the right of socialists. and i'm pissed off at the leftist takeover of the democratic party.

i'm not going to betray what i think works best just to defeat trump at all costs.

the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. sometimes one has enemies on both sides.

ok. article goes next.

[!@#$%!]

Opinions
Democrats are conspiring to reelect Trump

By Dana Milbank
Columnist
March 22 at 4:45 PM

Watch in slow motion as Democrats, goaded by the media, conspire to reelect President Trump:

Voters care about the economy and making education and health care affordable. And so Democrats are talking about . . . abolishing the electoral college?

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) started the latest distraction at a CNN town hall on Monday. “Get rid of the electoral college,” she said, neglecting to mention that this has zero chance of occurring in the foreseeable future.

The media took it from there.

On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Garrett Haake pressed former representative Beto O’Rourke (Tex.): “Getting rid of the electoral college: Is that an idea you’re exploring?”

O’Rourke saw “wisdom” in the idea.

On Fox News, Martha MacCallum said “everybody” is talking about “abandoning the electoral college” and asked former representative John Delaney (Md.) his view.

“It’s a total waste of time to talk about it,” Delaney replied.

Apparently not. Jimmy Kimmel on ABC on Tuesday night asked Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.) if she agreed with Warren. She hedged.

(cont.)

[!@#$%!]

(cont.)

Wednesday morning, Willie Geist of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” put the electoral college question to South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg. “It’s got to go,” Buttigieg affirmed.

Naturally, Trump seized the opportunity. “The Democrats are getting very ‘strange’,” he tweeted Wednesday. “Actually, you’ve got to win it at the Ballot Box!”

Just like that, another Democratic litmus test was born. Encouraged by left-wing activists and the media, Democrats are performing acid tests like lab technicians. While the rest of the country built March Madness brackets, Democrats, in their own madness, put themselves in boxes, supporting proposals that are impossible, extreme or oversimplified: Medicare-for-all. A Green New Deal. Guaranteed jobs for all. Impeachment. Reparations to African Americans. Packing the Supreme Court. Late-term abortion. Banning PAC contributions. Abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Legalizing marijuana. Eliminating the filibuster. Opposing all Trump judicial nominees. Boycotting the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference. Abolishing the electoral college.


Many of these have merit. The problem is that they have become a battery of binary tests of ideological purity — allowing Trump to caricature Democrats as extremist.

(cont.)

[!@#$%!]

(cont.)

Opportunistic activists (generally not the established environmental, labor or abortion-rights groups) see a chance to put an issue on the agenda with a simple yes-or-no question. Some candidates in the crowded field, afraid of being outflanked on the left, reflexively agree with the proposition (never mind that typical Democratic primary voters are not so doctrinaire). Reporters, who love conflict and favor the shorthand of pigeonholing, force others to take the litmus test. And Republicans, with an assist from Fox News, gleefully fan the flames.

Much of the blame lies with the media, which, after creating Trump in 2015 and 2016 with endless, uncritical coverage, now facilitates his reelection with litmus-test coverage of Democrats. Trump got away with platitudinous promises, but now Democrats must take positions on purely theoretical ideas. This is an easy way to advance a story for content-hungry cable news. But for Democrats, the tests are potentially ruinous.

(cont.)

[!@#$%!]

(cont.)

Consider the Green New Deal, now co-sponsored in the Senate by Warren, Harris, Cory Booker (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.). They’ve committed to “guaranteeing a job,” higher education and paid vacations “to all people of the United States.”

Or take Medicare-for-all, promoted by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and others. It gets 56 percent support in the Kaiser Family Foundation poll, but that drops to 37 percent when private health insurance is eliminated or people are required to pay more in taxes, and 26 percent if it means delayed tests and treatments.

The purity tests are promoted by groups such as Progressive Change Campaign Committee (Medicare-for-all), Indivisible (filibuster), Sunrise Movement (Green New Deal), National Popular Vote (electoral college), MoveOn (boycotting AIPAC) and Demand Justice (judicial picks) — and furthered by charismatic progressives such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.). The press takes it from there.

(cont.)

[!@#$%!]

(cont.)

Here’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday: “Would you support adding seats to the Supreme Court?” “Would you support getting rid of the electoral college?” “Medicare-for-all?” “Do you support reparations for slavery?” Obama said that he accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. Do you?

Here’s CNN’s Erica Hill, also Wednesday: “There are calls to expand the Supreme Court. Where do you stand on that?” “Getting rid of the electoral college, and really giving people their vote?” “What about reparations?”

Fox News: “The Green New Deal . . . How do you vote?”

PBS: “Paying reparations to descendants of African Americans . . . How do you think about that?”

Woe to those who don’t answer correctly. On NBC, Chuck Todd observed that O’Rourke “was once for Medicare-for-all. On Friday, he backtracked.”

Fear not: On Monday, he’ll be asked again.

This columnist’s wife, Anna Greenberg, works for former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper, a Democratic presidential candidate.

[!@#$%!]

and again my reply to your question is at the bottom of the previous page