Donald Trump

Rep. John Lewis Says Trump Is Not a "Legitimate President" Due To Russian Meddling

If a foreign nation's intervention into elections is a crime, America has a LOT of explaining to do.

|

John Lewis, Twitter

Few members of Congress have served longer and with more esteem that John Lewis, the Democrat from Georgia. Well-known and universally respected for his civil rights activism (for which he was physically beaten), Lewis is also not above slinging partisan mud hard and fast. In a new interview with NBC's Meet the Press, he goes so far to say, "I don't see this president-elect as a legitimate president….I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton."

Lewis doubtless speaks for many Clinton supporters and other members of Congress (who knows, maybe some Republicans agree with his assessment too?). Yet this is a line that rarely gets crossed in public discussions and, in the cases when it is crossed, the media and political players usually heap scorn on the speaker. Anytime someone says X or Y is not MY president, he gets a shit-ton of pushback. I'm guessing that that won't happen here, even though the evidence that Russians "hacked" the election is extremely weak and even risible at this point in time.

To remind us all: There's no publicly available evidence that Russian agents came anywhere close to election machines or had any impact on the way votes were tallied (that is, things could accurately be described as hacking). When the unclassified version of the Office of National Intelligence report on Russian activity came out, it provided more assertions but no real evidence tying the release of DNC and Podesta emails to Russian higher-ups and instead spent a lot of time talking about how state-owned propaganda entities RT and Sputnik covered American politics. As Scott Shackford wrote:

They point to the fact that RT hosted debates from third-party candidates and publicized the idea that the two-party system doesn't represent a third of voters. In addition, they call the United States a surveillance state full of civil liberties abuses, police brutality, and drone use…. Look at those examples and they could apply not just to Reason but to media outlets of varying ideological positions within America. Americans are abandoning the two political parties. People are genuinely upset about surveillance and police brutality. If this is an attempt to sway the public to be concerned about RT, it's not terribly persuasive. And it's several years after the reality of what RT is came to light anyway, so it just reads rather dated.

Even arch-critics of Trump and Putin conceded the public report and discussion doesn't actually prove what has been charged: That Russian government actors are behind the hacks of DNC and Podesta emails and then fed them to Wikileaks and (as important) that those things and other Russian activities tipped the election to Trump. And yet, we can safely assume, I think, that Russians (and political players in every other country that could do so) wanted to influence the election one way or another. Hell, the U.K.'s Nigel Farage, fresh off his Brexit win, campaigned for Trump. I assume that Putin preferred Trump, who has signaled more clearly than a whore in an Amsterdam window that he's ready to do business with Russia in a way that Clinton was not. You might disagree with that virulently, but it's a far cry from saying Trump won because of Putin's secret-agent activities.

In fact, the Tweeter in Chief himself, has a much-more plausible explanation for why Hillary Clinton, who once noted with exasperation that she should have been 50 points ahead against such a uniquely unqualified joke candidate, pulled up short:—

I write as a #NeverTrumper (I voted for Gary Johnson), but I find Lewis's comments and broader attempts not simply to disagree with political opponents but to delegitimate them troubling for several reasons.

First, they are simply a continuation of a tedious, decades-long unwillingness by losers to acknowledge the basic rules of the very game they have rigged. Remember when George W. Bush was not "elected" but "selected" in 2000? Listen closely any time someone from The Nation shows up on MSNBC and there's a good chance that'll still come up. I get it, that was the tightest possible race and it really did come down to a coin flip in the form of a Supreme Court vote that really could have gone either way. But them's the rules and you live and die by them. In 2004, a non-trivial number of Democrats and liberals went on an ideological bender talking about how Ohio's voting machines were tampered with, so again Bush, who handily kicked John Kerry's ass, was again the target of "not my president" bullshit. Barack Obama faced a virulent variant of the same sort of antagonism, first with the whole cooked-up birth certificate deal (Trump himself was obssessed with this after Hillary supporters first popularized the notion) and constant attempts to prove that he was a secret Muslim as well as a Kenyan and a socialist (Dinesh D'Souza and others media grotesques have managed to milk these fears into personal retirement funds). About the only attempt at de-legitimatization Obama didn't face was somebody proving that he was white and therefore unworthy of office. Increasingly over the past several decades, presidential races have been getting closer and closer—think of it, Bill Clinton couldn't reach 50 percent of the vote against Bob Dole, a terrible candidate who pledged to serve only one term because he was so used up!—because the Republican and Democratic Parties represent fewer and fewer of us. More people register as independents because there's no good goddamn reason to become a donkey or an elephant. Claiming a system is rigged simply because you're not succeeding is a great way to sow discord and nihilism in society, especially when such claims are untethered to reality.

RedAlertPolitics.com

Second, claims that Russians determined the election deflect blame and responsibility and project it outward. Hillary Clinton lost this election because she didn't bring out the Obama coalition or create an feasible alternative set of voters (and remember, she did win the popular vote, mostly because she ran up the score in states such as California and New York rather than campaigning in in-play states with much-need electoral votes). She went to Chipotle (once) more often she went to Wisconsin (zero) during the election! During the eight years of Obama's tenure, the Democratic Party has lost power everywhere, not just in the federal government. Did governor's mansions in Kansas, New Mexico, and Iowa flip to Team Red because of Russian "hacking" or meddling? If in fact the Democratic Party is on the verge of not being a national party anymore, that has very little to do with rigged Diebold electronic voting machines or confusing butterfly ballots or secretive Russian hackers and Soviet-era honeypot traps and more to do with that Democrats are selling at every level of retail politics. It's not as if the American people love or trust the Republicans more than they do the Dems. In fact, most polling shows that most of us dislike each party pretty equally. In the book I wrote with Matt Welch, The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America, we tracked just how volatile party politics have been the early years of this century. At first, the GOP was in control of Congress and the White House and everyone starting talking about how Republicans had achieved a "permanent governing majority." That lasted for a few years, when suddenly we were face to face with the "emerging Democratic majority" that was as unstoppable a Mack truck whose brake lines had been cut. As recently 2013, the Dems controlled the Senate! What we're seeing is an intensely closely divided government that is flipping back and forth because each party has fucked up each time it's in power. That leads to historically rapid and wild swings in congressional representation. The Russians didn't shove 50 percent increases in federal spending down Bush and the GOP's throats in the early 21st century, or TARP, or No Child Left Behind, or Sarbanes-Oxley, or two endless wars, all of which led to the Dems winning control for a while. And I'm pretty sure it wasn't Putin who coaxed Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid into making the still-unpopular The Affordable Care Act the number-one priority of Dems when they controlled the White House and Congress. Or Dodd-Frank or a B.S. stimulus, etc. Losing parties should spend more time doing personal inventories than immediately blaming failure on everyone but themselves.

Vocativ

There's at least one more reason why John Lewis' comments about Russian meddling or "hacking" is problematic, though this time in a good way. It should force all Americans to ask whether our nation (well, our government, which is not the same thing) similarly "participates" in foreign elections and whether that's legitimate or not. The plain fact of the matter is that the United States absolutely involves itself in elections all over the world, and on a regular basis. According to research done Carnegie-Mellon's Dov Levin, between 1946 and 2000, U.S. government actors tried to influence foreign elections at least 81 times in 45 countries. This doesn't include covert and overt military actions or even U.S.-supported coups (such as the one in Honduras abetted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009). Here's how Vocativ's Shane Dixon Kavanaugh summarizes Levin's work:

He defines an electoral intervention as "a costly act which is designed to determine the election results [in favor of] one of the two sides." According to Levin's research, that includes: peddling misinformation or propaganda; creating campaign material for preferred candidates or parties; providing or withdrawing foreign aid, and; making public announcements that threaten or favor certain candidates. Often, it also includes the U.S. covertly delivering large sums of cash, as was the case in elections in Japan, Lebanon, Italy, and other countries….

Much of this activity took place during the Cold War and Levin also documents that the Soviets did similar things, though because they had more direct control of satellite nations, they actually had less work to do. But even with the collapse of the Cold War and the start of a new century, the United States is still working to influence elections abroad (indeed, Clinton's actions in Ukraine are supposedly the cause of Putin's deep-seated hatred of her, despite the "reset" with Russia she attempted as secretary of state).

Even after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the U.S. continued its interventions abroad, including elections in Israel, former Czechoslovakia, and even Russia in 1996, Levin found. Since 2000, the U.S. has attempted to sway elections in Ukraine, Kenya, Lebanon, and Afghanistan, among others.

Read the Vocativ piece here.

Does this mean that the Russian and U.S. governments are morally equivalent? No, it does not. Vladimir Putin is a brutal thug who has ordered the deaths of journalists and others; he is ruler of a state that is always on the brink of failure. But there is a growing number of people who are painting Russia as a threat that is on par with the old Soviet Union and thus a country with which, what, we cannot negotitate or trade or cooperate in any meaningful way (never mind that we negotiated constantly with the Soviets). Right-wing neocons and left-wing anti-Trumpers are popping up more and more frequently to say that Russian interests are always and everywhere inimical to American interests and Russia should not be allowed to have any "sphere of influence" outside of its own borders. Increasingly, we are told that Russia plays by "different rules," such as…trying to influence elections in foreign countries.

If meddling or "participating" in foreign elections represents some Rubicon no legitimate government should ever cross, then the United States has more than a little explaining to do. And in trying to delegitimate Donald Trump, the John Lewises of the world may end up delegitimating the very country they represent.

NEXT: WOTUS goes to SCOTUS

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Isn’t he the guy who lied about being spit on and cursed by the Tea Party?

    1. that was sort of a collective-lie by the congressional black caucus.

      this suggests it was Emanuel Cleaver who was the saliva recipient. other “reports” (99% of the news media just repeated claims made by other media sans any actual reporting)

      he’s also the source of the quote who claimed they were having “nigger” shouted at them, tho no one seems able to find recordings of the incident despite 100s of youtube videos covering every split second.

      1. Back… and to the left

        1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,

          go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,, http://www.foxnews20.com

    2. Same guy.

      And, remember that, back then, the Tea Party was more of a libertarian, small-government movement before GOP political types exploited it.

      1. My recollection may be shoddy, but to me, it didn’t seem to take long before the Tea Party started talking about “Christian values” and the importance of including them in government. I remember being intrigued about them temporarily, but the honeymoon was very, very short.

        1. your recollection is shoddy.

          it was ~ 2-3 years before socons infected the Tea Party (around 2012). and it was mostly superficial.

          in the early days (2009-2011), it was largely a fiscal movement. the first main show-of-force was the ‘taxpayers rally‘. There was no emphasis on Jesus anywhere.

          1. Michelle Bachmann formed the Tea Party Caucus in 2010.

            1. and?

              Just because you can find some socons who latched onto the thing with glee ASAP doesn’t mean that’s “what it was”

              to wit =

              Congressional Tea Party Caucus receives mixed reviews from Tea Party activists

              Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s Tea Party Caucus in the House convened in Washington for the first time Wednesday, but it is receiving mixed reviews from Tea Party activists across the country.

              “I don’t appreciate the caucus,” said one well-known activist, Robin Stublen, of Punta Gorda, Fla. “They don’t deserve it.”

              Stublen, a former coordinator with the Tea Party Patriots, continued by saying that he finds it “hypocritical” that some of the 20-plus members who signed up for the caucus haven’t signed the Contract from America, a list of legislative desires trumpeted by many Tea Party leaders.

              but whatever, build your own narrative if it makes you happy.

              1. I remember it as happening gradually, issue by issue. First it was all about limited government. Fairly soon, immigration started to come up. Occasionally ‘Obama making us look weak.’ Eventually family values showed up.

                Kind of like the occupy movement. Started out being plain old anti-capitalism, ended up with intersectional feminism and queer theory.

        2. Ok, please explain something to me. I’m an agnostic (I think Atheists are excessively sure of themselves), but I note that societies with amstrong Protestant Christian basis tend to be head and shoulders (and a good deal of the waist) above cultures with other bases. Protestants formed the core of the Anti-Skavery movement. It was Protestant societies that moved towards modern representative governments, towards treating the poor with something approaching legal equality, towards reasonable treatment of racial and ethnic minorities.

          How is the BAD?

          Socialist/Communist societies had most of the 20th century to provide examples of their superiority, and showed a powerful tendency toward mass muder and misery. Buddhism SOUNDS swell, but historically Buddhist societies have treated the common people like farm animals. Protestants may question Gay marriage, but Islam’s debates on Gays center on whether they should be burned alive or throw from the towers of the Mosque.

          I’m sorry if this offends, but in my experience the people who make the most fuss about how bad Christians are are mostly swine.

          1. I’m more of a Pro-Skavery person myself

            1. Sorry bout that. My typing is bad enough as ut us, and doing it on a tablet makes things worse. And when my head is full of what I’m trying to say, my eyes tend to see what I think I’ve typed.

          2. Looks like you already explained it.

          3. I think you are right about Christian Protestant values being overall a good influence on society. People are too quick to equate Christian values with theocratic social conservatism. But let’s not forget that American Protestants were also big movers behind the prohibition movement and other progressive projects of the late 19th and early 20th century. And a lot of the old Mainline Protestant denominations have gone pretty hard left.

            1. I think this shows the consequences of the main critique I have of American Protestants (being one myself). Since the 2nd Great Awakening, Protestants have found every excuse to avoid and even shame theological book learning, resulting in weak or nonexistent principles undergirding their followers’ faith. Like a boat without an anchor, this has allowed most Protestant denominations, and especially their followers, to drift every which way when it comes to politics and society.

              The fact that Christianity, and especially Enlightenment era Protestantism, has had such a positive influence on society isn’t because of magic. It’s because Christianity puts forth the principle of innate human dignity, and theologians have had 2000 years to contemplate, debate, and test what exactly that means. Rejecting or ignoring 2 millennia of deep thought on the subject results in travesties like the Progressive era, which set the foundation for today. IOW, in the words of C.S. Lewis: “If you don’t listen to theology, that won’t mean you have no ideas about God, it will mean you have a lot of wrong ones.”

          4. I’m an atheist not because I’m sure of myself but because I don’t subscribe to the concept of faith. An agnostic believes that the nature of the divine is unknowable, whereas I as an atheist simply don’t believe in the divine at all. I also don’t “believe” in dogs, because I don’t have to. I can just see them. I don’t “believe” in unicorns, but if I saw one tomorrow I would accept that it exists and proceed accordingly.

            In other words, I’m not an atheist in the sense of saying that there cannot be a divine essence, I’m an atheist in the sense that until I see actual evidence of the divine I won’t assume that it exists.

          5. Never apologize mister, it’s a sign of weakness.

        3. You are remembering correctly. I was into the early Tea Party when it was libertarian in nature, and then the Religious Right swooped in and co-opted it. Then it became Republican.

  2. Lewis Schmewis. Successful SpaceX launch and satellite deployment!!

    1. That is very awesome. Elon Musk, human paladin, might redeem himself if this thing continues to make progress.

      1. It’s so fucking amazing. I laughed and cried at the same time (I work for one of the companies involved in the launch, otherwise I just would have cried)

      2. I want to see a $/lb cost analysis before I start cheering.

        1. The launch is great news. As private spaceflight gains traction then government space flight will shrink and whither.

        2. THey view reusability differently than NASA. They want minimal refurbishment on their first stages, whereas NASA didn’t really pay that much attention to that factor.

      3. Anyone remember Obama making that smug remark about a libertarian being able to check the weather on his phone because of government satellites to illustrate the productivity of government entrepreneurship?

        Pepperidge farm remembers.

  3. The desperate embrace by progs of the “Russian hack” fantasy may not be about influencing anyone’s opinion. They are just self-superior snowflakes, clinging to any excuse to avoid accepting that maybe their smug worldview is not the future after all. It’s a thumbsuck.

    1. You know what really amazes me is that most of these people are absolutely fucking stupid. I know it shouldn’t amaze me, but it does.

      Case in point, almost every progressive I know thinks socialism builds and increases the middle class. When I point out to them that socialism was designed to the destroy the middle class (the bourgeoisie) they lose their minds. It is like you just told an evangelical that Jesus’s mom actually got knocked up by the stable boy. They will use every intellectually meager weapon at their disposal to deligitimize you.

  4. universally respected

    meh. I doubt 99% of his colleagues in congress can even tell him apart from Elijah Cummings.

    1. Saw Hidden Fences with Laurence Fishburne. Good stuff.

    2. I’d never heard of him. Sad!

      1. What has he done for us lately?

        1. Staged a sit-in in Congress because of lack of gun control?

          1. I mean isn’t that like 90% of what Congress does?

    3. to my surprise =

      i am not the first person to make this joke. The New Republic ran a feature story about “Members of Congress Who Could be Potential Clones of One Another

      trigger warning = seriously fucking disturbing

      1. Don’t let their identical DNA fool you. They differ on some very serious policy issues.

  5. OT: Theme and hashtag for this year’s international women’s day is #povertyissexist.

    Pretty sure I agree that women in poverty are more likely to be stuck in a misogynistic culture — but what the hell does #povertyissexist even mean?

    And why do I think they will propose any solution, except the one shown to actually pull people out of poverty, namely capitalism?

    1. The fact that 80-90% of homeless are men? Stop being so racist and sexist much, poverty.

    2. what the hell does #povertyissexist even mean?

      you deny their lived experiences? ugh. attempts to codify meaning in rational constructs is the definition of patriarchy (raises fist)

      1. That’s the chump’s argument. The real prog’s counterargument is to say, “And who exactly do you think wrote those numbers?”

        All statistics (that they don’t find agreeable) are invented by the white patriarchy and therefore baseless.

        1. The Feminist Left depends on the culure and inventions of the Patriarchy for the freedom from the necessities of survival that makes their existance even possible. And they HATE that, because they know that at base they are a bunch of (mostly) white upper-middle class ingrate twunts.

    3. They should have just gone with #stuffsucks.

      1. #pimpmyride

    4. I would have gone with #BushLied.

    5. Why doe you expect a Leftist/Progressive slogan to mean anything? They mostly don’t.

    6. It will be as effective as ‘Bring our girls back’ and serves exactly the same purpose.

      1. I would have thought, from years of observation, that they ALREADY felt smug about themselves….

    7. #povertyissexist means “Sluts who are too stupid to use birth control and as a result have kids without getting married are disproportionately poor.”

    8. I’m guessing the hashtag doesn’t apply to Islamic theocracies.

    9. Women are more likely to be poor because we’re the ones who get pregnant, have the baby, and make automatic food for a baby. Biology and social continuation of simple facts.

      When a woman is pregnant, our balance is all off. When a woman has a child at suckle it’s hard to keep a baby quiet in order to hunt. Women are more dependant on others at various times for pure survival. Some of those traits have been genetically selected for in terms of species survival.

      None of that has anything to do with the abilities of any particular woman at any given time outside of dealing with babies, but the fact is, as a species, men and women are *not* the same. On average, we do have different strengths and weaknesses.

      A strong woman can be stronger than a lot of men, but the strongest man is always going to be stronger than the strongest woman. Men are better runners, especially sprints. But for long slow travel, pick a woman. We can keep going longer

      Acknowledging those facts isn’t misogynistic, in and of itself. Nor is it sexist. We are not blank slates at birth.

      The fact that women are assumed to be the ones who should, by default, keep and raise the children is rooted in biology, but biology hasn’t caught up with today’s technology that makes anything outside of those last few months of pregnancy almost irrelevant to actual child rearing.

      Social changes that broad and basic take a long time to work their way through.

      1. Men’s Marathon WR ~= 2:03 hrs:min

        Woman’s Marathon WR ~= 2:18 hrs:min

        1. Long, but not slow.

      2. The fact that women are assumed to be the ones who should, by default, keep and raise the children is rooted in biology, but biology hasn’t caught up with today’s technology that makes anything outside of those last few months of pregnancy almost irrelevant to actual child rearing.

        Social changes that broad and basic take a long time to work their way through.

        I’m gonna go down a rabbithole here, so please forgive me. It’s hard to put my thoughts in this area into words, so I apologize for clumsiness.

        It seems that women are told by some to ignore the biological, social, and moral consequences of their reproductive choices. Most children today are raised by daycare attendants until they’re old enough to be raised by schoolteachers until they’re old enough to be raised by campus diversity administrators, and women are said to be empowered by this mass delegation of parenting.

        Of course, the same could technically be said of men, but that gets to your point… women are biologically programmed to (on the whole) be more nurturing to children than men are.

        The one part that I disagree with you on is the idea that technology has only recently allowed child rearing to be limited to a few months of pregnancy. That “technology” has existed for millennia… it’s called a nanny. What has changed is the role of parents in child rearing, resulting in more and more parents opting to farm out the “hard” parts.

  6. I love how quickly the other side has started doing all the exact same bullshit they bitched at the Republicans for over the past 8 years.

    Isn’t politics fun?

    1. Is this more of the same, though? I found the whole “Birther” controversy distasteful and annoying, and the idea that Obama was a “secret Muslim” was idiotic since it wouldn’t preclude him from serving. But that always felt like more of a fringe, despite the fact that my family is largely conservative and more likely to subscribe to that nonsense.

      It could just be that Trump is more of a media magnet so this is more of the same, except it’s more highlighted. It still feels like all sense of proportion has been lost. Everything is being described as a threat to freedom and to the lives and well being of all members of society. And most of it sounds uninformed-repeating things have little basis in reality.

      1. The birther thing was annoying but it was started by Hillary Clinton and stoked by Obama. Obama could have released his birth certificate at any time but choose not to because not doing so allowed him to slander his opponents as kooks. So the Democratic whining about how unfair the birther charges were to Obama rings a bit hallow to say the least.

        1. Yeah, say what you will about Obama but he played that perfectly.

          1. In some ways. But that should prevent Democrats from acting like he was some kind of victim when another Democrat manufactured the issue and Obama let it fester because it benefited him.

            1. Republicans good, Democrats bhaaaaaad.

              1. Are you unable to respond to the conversation? Do normally have issues with social ques and saying the appropriate thing?

                If not, maybe you do and just don’t realize it.

                1. It was a joke aimed at your one track mind. Chillax, Johno.

                  1. Well, I guess I am the one unable to make an appropriate response or pick up social cues. Good thing to find that out.

              2. Republicans poor to middling, Democrats awful.

        2. Obama did release his birth certificate. It only emboldened the morons, our soon to be first orange President among them.

        3. Arguably,the birther thing was started by Obama, who claimed to be born in Kenya in his author’s bio from his literary agent back in 1991.

          1. Pretty sure he used being born in Kenya on his college application as well but don’t let facts get in the way of blaming other people for Obama’s actions.

      2. Sure. Booker with the unprecedented protesting over Sessions. Another Senator calling Trump “illegitimate” despite him winning fair and square. It’s the exact same “not my President” shit all over again.

        And of course all the media horseshit. I’ve lost count of how many “controversies” have gone on in the Trump administration before he’s even taken office.

    2. …except the Republicans never carried on like this. Their “obstructionism” consisted of not rolling over and voting the way Obama would have liked them to.

      This protest shit is just embarrassing.

      1. Pity that the Democrat establishment has lost the ability to be embarassed.

  7. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

    Helped? HELPED? They alone destroy it! What else could it have been? Hillary Clinton was the single most qualified candidate in history. But the contents of those emails were so explosive that I doubt any voter could have told you what was in them.

    1. Right, and with all this hacking going on, we promise Hillary’s private server was just a vast right wing / sexist conspiracy to hurt her image!

      1. And it NEVER got hacked, either. The kid from down the street is a real IT whiz, and he told us it was perfectly secure.

        1. He checks it constantly because he gets a ton of downtime at his vape store job. Remote access check-ups every hour on the hour, in between shelf re-stocking and puffs of Boulder Ganja Collective’s new Shishkaberry Dabble Shatter.

    2. It is perhapse the bitterest indictment of the Democrat establishment that Shrillary Clinton was the most qualified candidate they could come up with. Arrogant, unlikable, stupid (I mean, really, blatantly violating security proceedures and doing so poorly enough to get caught? That ain’t smart), and running on a platform of warmed-over Obama policies? Wasn’t Goofy Dawg available to run?

      1. “Wasn’t Goofy Dawg available to run?”

        No, for most of the 2016 campaign cycle former Congressman Weiner was busy sending random schoolchildren unsolicited photos of his genitals.

        1. That guy is Fredo Corleone of the democratic party (him being an idiot and that party being a criminal enterprise)…

        2. I said Goofy Dawg not Dirty Duck.

  8. So it is looking like inauguration is going to be on a nice day. God help us. The professional left has vowed to disrupt the inauguration. So it is going to be a cage match between pajama boy and this guy.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..459fd5d58d

    Yeah, that ought to work out well. I really don’t think these assholes understand how much a certain segment of the country has had it with their shit. Leave these people alone. Don’t fuck with them. Go to the million broad march the next day. Stay home and drink hot chocolate and tweet about the Russians who live under you bed. Something, anything but showing up and trying to disrupt the Inauguration.

    1. If I were Trump I would just say, fuck you, we’re doing the inauguration in private.

      But there is no way Trump passes up an event like this.

      1. I think the entire thing is a huge waste of taxpayer money. Be sworn in before a joint session of Congress and give a speech broadcast on TV like Reagan did in 1984. There is no reason to make it an Imperial Triumph.

        And Trump wants his inauguration like the rest of them. I will say in his defense that he is only having two balls and it will be a one day event, unlike Obama in 08 that was a four day event complete with rock concerts and about a dozen balls. Obama’s was so garish and egotistical that it makes Donald Freaking Trump look tasteful and understated by comparison. That is pretty amazing when you think about it.

      2. That is also what the protesters want. They want to be able to claim that they drove Mr. Trump inside, that he’s so illegitimate that he’s hiding from the people. (you know, leftist horse hooey like that)

        1. Yes. You are right. I wish Trump would cancel it but you make a good point explaining why he shouldn’t.

          1. He shouldn’t because the only way to deal with the left is with both middle fingers in the air. Hiding, apologizing, none of that works when you’re dealing with a mob. And a mob is all they are.

            1. The country has indulged the Left for decades by allowing them to protest and disrupt any event they didn’t like. They have no respect for anyone and no clue that there could ever be consequences to their actions. At some point, maybe not the inauguration but at some point, the rest of the country is finally going to have enough of them and show up at one of these protests and kick their ass.

          2. He should not cancel. He should give these pinko fucksticks every opportunity to show the world what they are.

      3. What I’d like to see is for Trump to make it an inaugural “feed the Washington DC homeless” event.

        The top 0.01% of the country (all Washington elites) will put on hair buns and disposable gloves and feed the bottom 1% of Washington DC (still in the top 1% of the global population).

        Good optics even for the crony corporatists (the big defense contractors and public sector unions can put their logos on the aprons of the politicians they own), and good for Trump.

    2. There is going to be violence at the inauguration, and something like nine tenths of it is going to be initiated by the Left. And they are going to be OUTRAGED at how poorly the country reacts to that.

    3. Meh, the bikers for Trump showed up en masse at the republican convention. Everyone was predicting riots and mass violence between them and the leftists. Instead it was more peaceful than the Orlando,convention four years earlier.

      My prediction is that the prog protesting douches are going to find them selves outnumbered two or three to one by scary looking bikers. The pajama bois will take one look and decide to move on.

      1. This, they love, love, love violence. Except when it might impact their own silky smooth flesh. Like all bullies, they run when faced with anything even approaching even odds. And depending on the type of bikers, there will be ALOT of hammers and axe handles in that crowd.

      2. “The pajama bois will take one look and decide to move on.”

        Where have you ever seen any indication that they are that smart?

        1. I would believe it more likely they get in someones face. A fight breaks out, and when they get beaten up they will claim to be a victim of Trump’s America.

          1. And then the (ubiquitous) video evidence will emerge and show that some moron with a Lefty protest sign swing first. And got a clock-cleaning that would keep Big Ben spotless ’til 2025.

    4. Just bring out the three Ranger Battalions for security. Issue only 2 magazines of Ball, but start the day with bayonets fixed.

  9. Republicans had achieved a “permanent governing majority.” That lasted for a few years, when suddenly we were face to face with the “emerging Democratic majority” that was as unstoppable a Mack truck whose brake lines had been cut.

    Ahem, if the brake lines on a “Mack truck” are cut, the wheels lock up due to a loss of air pressure. Which I guess is kind of what happened in 2016 to the Democrat truck piloted by the pantsuit. With the exception of the North East and West coast, where they don’t mind the smell of burnt rubber.

    /Pedantic Yokel

    PS no offense to reasonoid dwellers of the burnt rubber areas. We get a whiff of burnt rubber in CO at times as well, but mainly due to the odor of Californian immigrants.

    1. Truck trailer tires locked up exactly as you explain:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJItxM8y1OY

    2. Maybe if it was a Peterbilt they’d lock up as designed. But a Mack would just safely have a wheel or two fall off the axle and it would plow to a halt.

      1. Trucking jokes. Nice.

  10. The Russians didn’t shove 50 percent increases in federal spending down Bush and the GOP’s throats in the early 21st century, or TARP, or No Child Left Behind, or Sarbanes-Oxley, or two endless wars, all of which led to the Dems winning control for a while.

    Yeah, but Democrats had a hand in all of those things. Has any voter turned on a party because of federal spending? It’s the economy. It’s always the economy. If it’s doing poorly, or not growing, if people feel joblessness around them, it’s another pendulum swing.

    1. I had the same thought. Even if they were done by a “Republican” they weren’t Republican in nature. Those, in fact, were the last few activities that made sure I never have since or ever will vote Republican again.

      But it does point out that everyone chooses to place blame or gratitude on whom they choose as the bigger loser or winner. Was it or bill Clinton or newt Gingrich that balanced the budget? Dems and most others say Clinton. Hard core Republicans say it was Gingrich. I probably say it was the latter, but it was really both. The point being, it’s emotional. If it was something I don’t like I blame the group I don’t like. If I like it then it is totally because of my guys.

      We’re still just dumb animals, as a whole.

  11. but I find Lewis’s comments and broader attempts not simply to disagree with political opponents but to delegitimate them troubling for several reasons delegitimize?

    Also, there was an “in” missing in there somewhere, I can’t be bothered to find it.

  12. John Lewis is a piece of fucking garbage. He seems to forget that his “good friend” MLK was a card-carrying Republican whose house was likened to an arsenal by the people who knew him and was no friend of big government. Does Lewis wonder how any of those Jim Crow laws he protested against were put in place and enforced? Yet this asshole was one of the “No Fly, No Buy” supporters of a bill that would have abrogated anyone’s 2A rights if they were on a no fly list. Guess who ended up on a no-fly list? JOHN FUCKING LEWIS! Didn’t know how he got there, and he didn’t know how to get off. Guess who else used to be on a secret government list? MLK!!!

    This may be an unhinged rant, but this motherfucker brings the spittle flecks to my mouth… fuck him with a frozen swordfish…..

    1. A frozen swordfish. There’s imagery there I wouldn’t have expected.

      1. total waste of really delicious fish, though.

        1. No, not a total waste.

  13. I get it, that was the tightest possible race and it really did come down to a coin flip in the form of a Supreme Court vote that really could have gone either way.

    No, it didn’t. The SCOTUS decision just stopped the recount. There is no evidence that the recount would have resulted in a Gore victory.

    1. Right, the only way Gore would have won is in some scenarios where the overvote is counted.

      But generally, overvotes are automatically disqualified.

  14. Iowa flip to team red in 2016? Branstad a Republican, has been governor almost forever.

    1. Nope: Branstad 1983-1999; Vilsack (D) 1999-2007; Culver (D) 2007-2011; Branstad 2011-present

      1. The sentence about governor’s mansions flipping was for the whole of Obama’s presidency.

      2. Nothing like getting governed Braindead for another term.

  15. OT, but it looks like the war monger has already taken his place in the WH:

    “We waited for decades’: Polish govt welcomes US troops”
    […]
    “The American deployment includes an armored brigade of 3,500 American troops from Fort Carson, Colorado. It comes in reactions to Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and its backing of separatist insurgents in Ukraine’s east.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/wor…..857750.php

    I have great sympathy for the Poles who took it in the shorts from the Nazis and the Soviets. They and their neighbors should band together fro defense.
    We’re not their neighbors.

    1. Russian isn’t running over Poland unless the Poles want them to or don’t care enough about their country to stop it. For all of the bullshit about Putin “carving up the Ukraine”, it looks to me like Putin hasn’t done much of anything in Ukraine other than spend Russian lives and money. The US could barely control and occupy a shithole like Iraq. So don’t tell me Russia is going to invade and occupy a country like Poland unless the Poles let it happen, which won’t happen.

      1. True about Poland but I wonder about the three Baltic states possibly being knocked off one by one or Russia opening a corridor to Kalingrad. Not saying Putin wants to but I bet he could.

    2. Poland is one of the few NATO countries that abides by its NATO commitments in terms of how much it commits to its defense. Poland is also probably the most pro-American country in the world. Their level of commitment has historically been about backing the US first and asking questions later.

      The first precept of small-state libertarianism is that he legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights. The purpose of our military and foreign policy is to protect our rights from foreign threats. An alliance is historically among the most effective means of protecting our rights from foreign threats, and to the extent that having a military presence in Poland prepares us to defend ourselves from threats along their borders or within reach of our bases within their borders, our military alliance with Poland is a libertarian alliance.

      Same thing goes for Israel for all the same reasons.

      1. Sorry, get those troops out of there. Now.

      2. When I attended an Army school in PA we had a Polish officer among the class. He discussed how the Poles were very aware they were perfect tank country between very powerful neighbors and explained how the Polish goal for NATO and the USA was that they would get to the point that the USA considered Poland to be the most reliable NATO partner we had. He emphasized the remark by looking directly at the Russian officer as said “We don’t completely trust our neighbors to the east” and shifting his gaze to the German officer “or those to the West.”

        1. It’s been like that for countries on the border of expansive empires since antiquity.

          The closer you got to Athens, the more the city state in question moaned about the Delian League being a rouse for Athenian hegemony.

          The closer you got to Persia, the more enthusiastic they were in their support for the Delian Leagure.

          Get to Lesbos, off the coast of Persia, and they’d have loved for Athens to put a naval base there. You guys want more room? No problem, we’ll MAKE ROOM!

          Poland is like ancient Lesbos that way. Incidentally, Estonia is like Poland in their attitude towards the United States, as well. Like I said, I believe it is in the best interests of the United States to support Poland to whatever extent they want that support. They’ve been a loyal ally, they’ve lived according to the requirements of NATO where our other allies haven’t, and we should abide by our alliance with them–up to including defending their territorial integrity.

          It’s in our best interests to do so.

          1. “It’s in our best interests to do so.”

            Bull
            .
            .
            .
            .
            .
            Shit.
            It is in our best interests to move all combat troops back to the US, discharge those we can and protect our borders.
            I really do not give one shit how nice the Poles have been to us; they and their neighbors can arrange for their defense. On their dime.

            1. “It is in our best interests to move all combat troops back to the US, discharge those we can and protect our borders.”

              And we know this is true because you said so?

              “They and their neighbors can arrange for their defense. On their dime.”

              That’s the point–they spend the percentage of GDP on defense as NATO requires.

              They’re one of only a few NATO countries that do.

              P.S. And we should have our troops in Poland because having them there is in our best interests. If Putin could have bases that close to our mainland, he would. Why give up such bases–because the Poles are paying their fair share? That doesn’t even make sense. Mindless capitulation isn’t a foreign policy. It’s just stupid. The idea that if we pulled our troops out, there wouldn’t be any security threats in that region is stupid. It’s like the idea that there wouldn’t be any crime if only there weren’t any police. Anybody who believes any of that shit is stupid.

              1. Ken, you have taken it upon yourself to prove that you’re full of shit, much as you did ‘way back when with the claim that ‘Libya was good for Arab street cred.’

                Ken Shultz|1.14.17 @ 11:47PM|#

                “It is in our best interests to move all combat troops back to the US, discharge those we can and protect our borders.”
                And we know this is true because you said so?

                If you have some (believable) argument other than you said so to keep troops in Europe, I’d love to see it.
                What part of ‘protecting our borders’ is inconsistent with moving the troops home? Is this a difficult concept for you to grasp? Do you think “our borders” are somehow congruent with the Pripyat swamps in Poland?
                ————————————
                “They and their neighbors can arrange for their defense. On their dime.”
                That’s the point–they spend the percentage of GDP on defense as NATO requires.
                They’re one of only a few NATO countries that do.”

                Why should any US taxpayer care if the they somehow matched an amount the agreed to pay? NATO is every bit as valid as the UN; Russia is no longer a threat to us, and NATO is an employment agency for worn-out general staff.
                ——————————-
                “P.S. And we should have our troops in Poland because having them there is in our best interests”
                Anyone who believes that is stupid.

              2. “If Putin could have…”
                Putin is engaged in a puerile pissing contest with the rest of the world. I don’t see why we could take our queues from him and join in.

        2. Of course not, Those neighbors partitioned Poland between them twice before.

        3. Yep. Poor Poland gets run over every time there’s a war movement East or West. Just the the geography and location of the country (whose borders have been shifted so many times to penalize one side or the other I doubt anyone could come up with a historic record of what they “should” be).

      3. George Washington disagrees.

  16. “Rep. John Lewis Says Trump Is Not a “Legitimate President” Due To Russian Meddling”

    Great opportunity to talk about what legitimacy is and where it comes from, and also a great opportunity to make big mistakes when explaining these things to our friends and family. Even if Trump won legitimately, that doesn’t mean his authority to do whatever he wants is legitimate–same thing with Obama . . .

    Legitimacy is ultimately the acceptance of authority, and while having lost an election generally means people won’t accept your authority to rule, winning an election doesn’t mean people will accept your authority either.

    Barack Obama nationalized GM and gave control of the company to the UAW, forced legislation through Congress saying that I don’t have a right not to buy health insurance, waged war against Libya without Congress declaring war, violated the Fourth Amendment rights of 300 million Americans through mass surveillance, killed hundreds of innocent children with drone strikes, and used our future paychecks to bail out Wall Street.

    If Barack Obama “legitimately” won an election to be President, that doesn’t mean his authority to change our lives was legitimate. It’s important to understand that the primary purpose of elections is to attempt to legitimize the horrible shit our politicians plan to do to us–not feeding into that is what principled non-voting is all about.

  17. Whether Trump really won the election is beside the point. Obama’s authority to change our lives was illegitimate; if Trump manages to flush everything Obama did in office, from ObamaCare to Dodd-Frank, down the toilet forever, he’ll only succeed because Obama’s authority to change our lives in those ways was ultimately unacceptable to the American people. Meanwhile, if Trump gets rid of those things by the will of the people and in defense of their rights, he will enjoy a certain amount of legitimacy in office–regardless of whether he legitimately won the election.

    Castro, Putin, Qaddafi, and Hugo Chavez all enjoyed a certain amount of legitimacy, but they undermined their own legitimacy, too. Ultimately, legitimacy comes from protecting people’s rights. They all rode in on the backs of people whose rights were being disregarded. People will accept your authority to rule if they believe that you are working in their interests and protecting their rights. As you violate their rights, your legitimacy erodes–regardless of whether you win elections.

    If Hillary Clinton had won the election through bribery, criminality, and deceit, most progressives would support her anyway–just like people in Cuba supported Castro, just like some Russians support Putin. That doesn’t mean they’re being hypocrites. It means that legitimacy isn’t tied to election outcomes–it’s far more complicated than that.

    1. russia hacking a political party has no impact on our government and is none of our governments business.

      If our government protects political parties that is very dangerous and we run a large chance turning into Cuba……

      1. Then we can finally have 21st Centuey healthcare.

        -progtard

        1. You mean desperate fistfights, a la Venezuela, over bandaids and preoxide?

      2. Yep. There is no provision for parties in the Constitution. That may be grounds enough to strike down the Nixon anti-libertarian election bribery law.

        1. seriously…the amount of people not understanding the fact it was a polictical party and not our government is scary. It is a systematic issues of how media sucks, people don’t understand that parties are not the government, and that nothing was rigged.

          1. A political party that did a terrible job of keeping their communications secure.

  18. i didn’t know we could randomly choose who was legit and who wasn’t. this has so many delicious possibilities if we’re playing that game.

    1. You can’t make the decision unless you are in a protected class. The game is rigged against many, much like playing in Vegas.

      1. The Vegas games don’t HAVE to be rigged; the odds are publicly know and nobody is forced to play. Casinos make money because their customers either can’t do the math, or think that the gods of chance are going to make an exception for them.

        OTOH, the Progressive Left has been trying to ring the political game for decades. I think it’s an important indicator that even with how much they have managed to do so, they still lose a fair amount of the time.

        1. There are some games where skill really does matter and the house simply takes a cut of the pot for hosting it. But those aren’t the games most gamblers play for that exact reason – they don’t have the skill and would prefer to rely on luck since luck obviously favors those who believe in it the most. This time it will be different.

  19. “whore in an Amsterdam window”

    Easy there, Nick.

    1. I’m sure he wasn’t specifically trying to insult you.

  20. When a progressive tells you that Trump isn’t the legitimate President, ask them what they mean by that.

    Ask them, “Which one of Trump’s policies would you support if only the Russians hadn’t hacked the DNC’s servers?”

    Do they really mean their primary objection to Trump’s policies is that he didn’t really win the election?

    Would they have supported building a wall along the Mexican border–if only the Russians had never hacked the DNC?

    I swear, as long as I live, I will never support a bad policy just because it’s proposed by a president who won the election fair and square. Does that mean I can never be a progressive?

    1. I think what disqualifies you from being a Progressive is your ability to put together a cogent argument. There really isn’t a place for that on the Left.

      1. Well, the idea is to make the progressive in question engage his or her think-bone.

        1. Yeah, tell me when you get one to do that…

          1. The marginal ones, yeah.

            The ones who haven’t really thought things through.

            Hell yeah.

            I think it was Doherty who wrote the point of being a libertarian has always been to make more libertarians.

        2. WHAT think bone?

  21. “…assertions but no real evidence…”

    This accurately describes everything the left says.

  22. Few members of Congress have served longer and with more esteem that John Lewis, the Democrat from Georgia. Well-known and universally respected for his civil rights activism (for which he was physically beaten),

    You’re conflating his bravery during the civil rights era with esteem he doesn’t deserve while a congressman. He’s been nothing but a leech and a grifter since coming into office in 1987, more than 20 years after he bravely marched for equal rights for blacks.

    He lied several times about entire political movements that opposed him, labeling them as racists when he knew for a fact those accusations were untrue. He’s a liar and a piece of shit. And the sooner his constituents see that, the sooner racial divides can heal rather than be constantly and incorrectly dredged up so this otherwise talentless man can keep sucking a salary out of taxpayers pockets.

    1. Beautiful.

      Past good works do not excuse the shit one does today.

    2. So as soon as the other parasitical looters realize he’s not telling the whole truth… um… then what?

      1. It will probably be something like back in 1932 when God’s Own Prohibitionists were looting the treasury, right?

    3. His constituents will continue to vote for him as long as they are told to by the mid-level local black leaders who are in the money flow of government programs and grants.

      Just like Shelia Jackson Lee and all Dem Reps. ( Which island was one of them afraid was gonna tip over ? )

      Their districts are gerrymandered to put all their supporters into the same district. As long as that Rep brings home the bacon and keeps handing it out they will continue to get elected.

      1. In fairness, the map of Lewis’ district is roughly a square around the city of Atlanta. Doesn’t creep all over the map adding black precincts like many do. (Or GOP precincts in a state like Penna.)

    4. I have zero respect for the guy. He did some good deeds half a century ago. That isn’t a free pass to act like an asshole for the rest of his life. He’s a civil rights hero, proven liar, jackass, and political hack.

    5. Yeah. Doing something good in your youth doesn’t put you above criticism for the rest of your life or give you any extra credibility on unrelated issues.

  23. Well-known and universally respected for his civil rights activism

    What??? This guy is one of the largest shills/hacks/hypocrits i have ever seen along with mccain, johnson, Feinstein, Franken, sharpten, and so on

    Respected??? Jesus i must be man of the fucking year than!!!

    1. It’s Nick.

  24. You know who else was illegitimate?

    1. I was ;P proud bastard 😉

    2. William the First?

    3. Not Ulysses Everett McGill, I can assure you.

    4. Jon Snow?

  25. I suppose when the right finally turns up conclusive evidence that the left is using widespread voter fraud in certain precincts, then we can all enjoy claiming that any Democrat POTUS is illegitimate.

    Project Veritas needs to be planting hidden camera informants now for the next POTUS election.

    1. Why? The media will ignore the uncut footage and will accuse them of selectively editing for effect.

      1. Seriously. This is never going to happen.

        If nobody could get worked up about the Al Franken recounts, I really don’t see how anything could stir them up.

        Back in the 90’s there was footage of a busload of supporters of my representative going from precinct to precinct. They ended up locking the Republican poll watcher in one precinct in a closet and holding the poll open for a while so they could gin up a few extra votes.

        And nothing else happened. The TV station covered it at the moment, and then suddenly dropped it. The AJC covered it for a while… but then dropped it as well when nobody from the executive branch was interested in taking up the case. The only place you could hear about it was on local talk radio. Which probably explains all of the passion for eliminating these channels of communication.

        1. any source material. I never heard about this. I trust you but proof is always good.

  26. I will say that in John Lewis’ distinguished years he failed to help me and my company when we needed him. 500 employees, many living in his district, and we were embroiled in a battle with the insurance industry. They were using their financial clout and lobbying muscle with state legislatures to pass laws around the country designed to put our industry out of business. At maybe 1,500 total employees across a dozen or so companies, our industry wasn’t even a gnat compared to the insurance industry.

    But constituents visiting their representatives offices are powerful. And we had lots of phone lines and lots of employees who could call. So several of our representatives got it done and a national law was passed that saved all those jobs, plus the services provided.

    But John Lewis told us to pound sand. He was supporting the Insurance Industry bill. Their donations apparently held more sway than families in his district. I will give him this… his office was better than his protogee Cynthia McKinney. His office sat down with us and treated us respectfully, even if he was never going to change his mind.

    But not McKinney. Since she was my representative, it fell to me to go see them. They pretty much told me that they didn’t have time for me, what with me being white and all. So I sent some more ethnically appropriate managers down there…. and they were told that John Lewis had told her to oppose our bill, so that’s what she was going to do.

  27. Yes These States have meddled in foreign elections and policy. And yes the Chinese have nothing to lose but their spare change–for their ideology controls the Democratic party and once controlled Russia. Precisely for that reason I would meddle to defeat the communism that made Mother Russia a prison since 1918 if I were Russian. But considering the intelligence it takes to be suckered by communism, this smells like another electoral college hijack dreamt up by and for the GOP to make the Dems look even stupider.
    Let those who expect the truth from looters get worked up about this added tantrum while the LP plans some strategy more sensible than imitating mystical bigots.

    1. Hey – even I thought socialism sounded good for a time. Granted, I was only 13 and it only lasted about six weeks before I realized that it couldn’t work in the real world. But I did think it sounded good.

    2. Once again you astound me in your ability to string words along, have them reach the very cusp of appearing intelligible, and then turning back into nonsense.

  28. Enough about Trump. But I would like to stand up for Lewis here and say that Lewis is a 100% legitimate retard.

  29. It probably goes without saying that today, the publishing world could talk of no one else.

  30. Do you morons even realize when you’re practically shedding tears as you demand that people Leave Donald Alone!? Like, he’s a fascist bloated grapefruit, soon to be in charge of the government you hate. You don’t have to defend him. It’s bringing disrepute to your vaunted philosophy.

    1. I was going to play the world’s smallest violin for you, but turns out it’s booked solid for the next four years.

    2. You’re really bad at reading people.

    3. Do you morons even realize when you’re practically shedding tears as you demand that people Leave Donald Alone!?

      You mistake our love for the salty ham tears of the infantile progressive left as some sort of defense of Trump. The only thing that is getting us riled up is the complete 180 and the lack of tact, class, and maturity from a political movement that spent 8 years constantly bitching about the “bigots” who dare criticize the God-Emperor President. Now the same exact fools are all “not my President” and “Russian boogeyman” and “disrupt the inauguration” just because Hitler a Republican was elected.

    4. Tony, knowing that you will writhe in exquisite agony for the next four years is solace enough for the things Trump will do that I will not like.

    5. Tony|1.14.17 @ 9:00PM|#
      “Do you morons even realize when you’re practically shedding tears as you demand that people Leave Donald Alone!? ”

      Poor Tony. Still can’t read after lot these many years as editor of the Dog Walker’s Weekly.

    6. soon to be in charge of the government you hate.

      When Obama was there, you lamented the obstructionist Congress and judiciary. I guess that separation of powers expires in a week as well, right dipshit?

    7. No, protesting Trump, arguing against Trump are great. It just happens that a whole lot of people have decided to do that in the stupidest possible way, making themselves seem completely absurd.

    8. I love when supporters of fascism and the summary execution of their political rivals try to take the moral highground. I love it even more when they completely misrepresent what the article and comments are actually saying.

  31. John Lewis: Democrats beat him up half a century ago, and so today we must take seriously whatever he says about Republicans? Um, no.

    1. Sort of of on topic: Happy Stephen Foster Memorial Day to one and all.

  32. The best part of work is from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week. Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more info Check the following link

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  33. I get paid ?82 every hour from online joobs. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my friend AB is earning ?9k monthly by doing this job and she showed me how. Try it out on following website..

    ====>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JobMax6.Com

  34. Russian Donald deserves to have his presidency consumed by fake news and lies…

  35. Stay at home mom Kelly Richards from New York after resigning from her full time job managed to average from $6000-$8000 a month from freelancing at home? This is how she done

    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.Joinpay40.com

  36. Yeah, but American meddling is different and Honduras doesn’t count.

  37. Trump’s (idiot-savant?) Tweet is a splendid invoking of Occam’s Razor.

  38. The Left would burn this Republic to the ground just to keep Trump from office for 4 years. Their hate and fear is all-consuming at this point.

  39. I think I’m going to run out of quotes from the Obama years that have come back to haunt his supporters, but, my favorite three so far are:

    “The 80s called, they want their foreign policy back”
    “Elections have consequences”

    and, perhaps most timely of all,

    “Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election.

    That’s a direct threat to our democracy.”

    — from Hillary Clinton’s Twitter feed

    And that last one was from three months ago. Three months. That’s how long it takes the Progressive mind to alter the past to fit the present narrative.

  40. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  41. So like when this one guy said to some other guy “wait until after the election then I will have more flexibility.”
    No possible interference with the one guy getting his job reinstated.

  42. So like when this one guy said to some other guy “wait until after the election then I will have more flexibility.”
    No possible interference with the one guy getting his job reinstated.

  43. “In feud with John Lewis, Donald Trump attacked ‘one of the most respected people in America'”

    ROTFLOL!

    Most people in the U.S. had never even heard of this clown until he attacked President Trump!

    1. Most meth-addled fucktards, you mean?

  44. People like Lewis and John McCain?.they do something right and honorable fifty years ago, and then we’re expected to let them ride through life without criticism.

    Bullshit. Lewis is hardcore leftist trash that has a huge totalitarian streak running down his back. The freedom and liberty he rightly sought all those years ago are deep in his rear view mirror.

    1. Spot on.

      So what Lewis was one of the original MLK groupies? If he were caught raping children today, would something good he did fifty years ago exonerate him now?

      Then again, given the fawning support to Bill Clinton and attacks on his sexual assault victims, I would not be surprised if the left gave Lewis a pass if he actually were caught raping children…

  45. The oath used today has not changed since 1966 and is prescribed in Title 5, Section 3331 of the United States Code. It reads: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

    So “esteemed” Mr. Lewis has violated his oath of office by refusing to accept the results of a constitutionally held election.

    However, I cannot find that there is any stated punishment for violating the oath of office. Members of Congress cannot be impeached, they must be expelled by a super majority vote of the house or senate as appropriate. I suppose that leaves a recall as the only other option.

  46. As someone who has been represented by John Lewis in Congress for years…I’m just sitting here wondering where all of this lauding of his record as a Congressman is coming from.

  47. Any chance you submit this article to be posted on Daily Beast, or wherever it is you also get published? It was a really good read and I think some of the erstwhile liberal readers could do with a dose of reality.

  48. Isn’t great that in America a man can make a comment like this and be shielded by his race. Dr. King I firmly believe would be appalled.

  49. National Review just reported that John Lewis also boycotted George W. Bush’ inauguration. So, Democrat = automatically legitimate, Republican = automatically illegitimate.

    If true, then fuck John Lewis. His black rights (don’t call it “civil rights,” because they have no interest in advancing yellow or brown persons’ rights, only black rights) history means nothing since he has been toeing the line for Democrats for decades now, in spite of the fact that Democrat policies have kept inner-city blacks (and browns) down for decades.

  50. Fuck him. Guys like him do one notable thing and then use it for a career in politics where they play identity politics for life and no one dares to question the old grey beard.

    Real leaders solve problems rather than just getting elected to continue the finger pointing.

  51. My best friend’s wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    Read more on this site
    ================== http://www.homejobs7.com

  52. They point to the fact that RT hosted debates from third-party candidates and publicized the idea that the two-party system doesn’t represent a third of voters. In addition, they call the United States a surveillance state full of civil liberties abuses, police brutality, and drone use

    So… Russia says pretty much the same things as the European press and American progressives and academics then?

  53. Just bring out the three Ranger Battalions for security. Issue only 2 magazines of Ball, but start the day with bayonets fixed.

  54. Quoi de neuf, bon site Internet que vous avez ici.
    Viagra pour hommes

  55. I am very enjoyed for this blog. Its an informative topic. It help me very much to solve some problems. Its opportunity are so fantastic and working style so speedy. I think it may be help all of you. Thanks.

    car insurance quick quote

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.