Republicans Aren't the Only Ones Prone to Russia-Investigation Conspiracy Theories

Democrats and journalists routinely accuse the Trump administration of being "compromised" by a Russian government that's "attacking our Constitution"

JOSHUA ROBERTS/REUTERS/Newscom

It has been a bad couple of days for those Republicans and conservative commentators who had warned pre-#ReleaseTheMemo that not only would the FBI malfeasance against President Donald Trump be revealed as worse than Watergate, but in fact "100 times bigger" than the underlying beef colonists had against King George III. But as Nick Gillespie pointed out this morning, it's also been a pretty bad 12 months for Democrat/lefty connect-the-dots, government-aggrandizing hyperbole as well.

It's gotten so routine that people barely notice it anymore. "Is it possible that the Republican chairman of the House Intel Committee has been compromised by the Russians?" political analyst John Heilemann asked on Morning Joe this Tuesday. "Is it possible that we actually have a Russian agent running the House Intel Committee on the Republican side?" Flipping on cable news Thursday it took me all of five seconds to hear the nonsense-burger phrase, "The Russians are attacking our Constitution." (Even sillier, such sentiments are usually preceded by throat-clearing about how this is the crucial underlying issue being lost in the din of day-to-day political shouting.)

We catalogue the heavy breathing on both sides in the latest episode The Fifth Column, recorded pre-memo and posted after. Kmele Foster, Michael C. Moynihan, and I also go down some Sockless Joe Scarborough musical rabbit holes, and end up with a surprisingly long conversation about the relationship between foreign policy "realism" and the Trump administration. You can listen to the whole thing here:

Comments

[I am the 0.000000013%]

I don't think I would have paid much attention if the FBI and Democrats hadn't made a fuss about it. It sounded like more of the same posturing that both sides have been doing for a long time. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[ifsanra21]

Watch Here Full Movie Streaming Online in HD-1080p Video Quality

---> https://ifsanmovies.co

[GILMORE?]

It's gotten so routine that people barely notice it anymore.

the tone of reporting/journalism in the last year could be described as "perpetual screech"

it has the effect of drowning out any nuance. when everything is hitler, nothing is hitler. and it helps trump more than anything because it gives him something to point at (like Iran and the Great Satan, Trump has 'the media'), and also distracts people from the real world, where stuff actually does sometimes happen.

[GILMORE?]

speaking of which, i think this is hilarious:

evidence: text messages of people working on investigation saying things like "hey we totally need to figure out how to prevent this crazy person from becoming president. same FBI uses fake-dossier as excuse to surveill crazy person. same FBI literally pretends laws don't exist when investigating not-crazy woman who wants to be president.

reaction by republicans: WT holy F

media narrative: OMG lol look at these conspiracy theorists

[GILMORE?]

libertarians: "surveillance is bad"

republicans: "WTF people are surveilling us"

libertarians: "well whatever you voted for this stuff"

republicans: "but terrorists"

libertarians: "lol suck it"

[Deflator Mouse]

There is no contradiction between supporting FISA extension and opposing abuse of FISA. Any more than opposing Medicare claims fraud is hypocritical if you support the existence of Medicare.

It's a complete red herring, and shows Reason's recent MO that effectively supports the left. They downplay the left's attacks against liberty, while nitpicking the hell out of the opponents of the left so they can find something to call equivalent. Then when called on this, they retort that "we didn't say we supported the left's attacks on liberty!" but effectively they are helping the left.

[GILMORE?]

There is no contradiction between supporting FISA extension and opposing abuse of FISA

That's not even the funny part. the funny part is the "Well you deserve it" attitude from people who otherwise feign outrage at abuses of govt authority and pretend to eventually want something done about it.

[Deflator Mouse]

Yep. Though I suspect it's reversed: most of them really don't like abuses of power, but are willing to make an exception in this case because Trump.

[GILMORE?]

shows Reason's recent MO that effectively supports the left.

this is where you lose me.

i think its possible for people to be wrong, but always wrong in their own idiosyncratic way without everyone simply being "the left".

there are just as many 'trump republicans' (and trump-hating republicans) who are bloody awful and wrong about everything as there are partisan lefty media idiots. basically, there's more than one flavor of wrong. its just remarkable how often people who are right about so many things can still find a way to pull the wrong conclusion out of their hat. or, at best, garnish the right conclusion in stupid-sauce to make it palatable to the wrong people.

[Deflator Mouse]

If it had started with just this issue, I would agree that it might just be anti-Trump rather than leftist. But it's a pattern of behavior from previous issues. For example, even before Trump, they kicked freedom of association to the curb once it came into conflict with leftist positions on LGBT issues.

I can't think of any situation where they tossed libertarian principles overboard in favor of a conservative position. So it's certainly not an evenhandedness thing.

[GILMORE?]

they kicked freedom of association to the curb once it came into conflict with leftist positions on LGBT issues.

i'd actually date the distancing themselves from that specific-phrase around the time that Rand did that interview where he said, "sure, let's repeal the Civil Rights Act"

but regardless - i just don't see political arguments in "either/or" terms. You can be both libertarian and entirely wrong about any given subject. Being wrong doesn't make you "left" or "right" or anything else, necessarily.

i don't even like the Nolan chart, frankly. I don't think philosophical rationales fall on linear spectrums. people who claim to have exactly the same first-principles can come to wildly different conclusions about things, depending on the arguments they use to get from point A to point B. Some arguments are better than others, but 'better' doesn't mean they're the only correct answer.

more-libertarian-than-thou-ism used to be a weekly exercise in these comments section. most of that has gone away (gladly, i guess), but has instead been replaced with "Trumpkins vs. Progfag" name-calling. (sadly, i guess)

[Red Tony]

It's "Trumpfag" and "Progtard." You Trumprog poser.

[Deflator Mouse]

You can be both libertarian and entirely wrong about any given subject. Being wrong doesn't make you "left" or "right" or anything else, necessarily.

If your wrongness consistently aligns with one side of the political spectrum, then it's fair to say there's a preference toward that side. Especially when the "unlibertarian and leftist" positions pop up on issues that are in play, while the "libertarian" positions tend to be reserved for issues that aren't in play.

Example: Pre-Obergfell, the Reason/Cato take on gay marriage was basically that ideally, govt should get out of marriage, but since that was never going to happen, it shouldn't exercise discrimination in deciding who can marry. (They weren't actually consistent in that final bit, e.g. polygamy & incest, but leave that out FTSOA.) Right after Obergfell, Alabama proposed a bill to get the government out of marriage -- the exact setup that Reason/Cato had stated previously was ideal -- and Reason inveighed against the bill because it was obviously an end run around allowing gay marriage. Showing that what Reason really wanted all along was gay marriage, not getting govt out of marriage.

[GILMORE?]

""If your wrongness consistently aligns with one side of the political spectrum,""

this would be really interesting if i hadn't already more or less said, "The spectrum is contrived"

nobody owns ideas. you can critique arguments for their internal flaws or logical leaps, but saying, "hurr thats something lefties say" isn't that.

[Deflator Mouse]

The spectrum is contrived, but people identify with their spot on it. If someone tends to identify with leftist positions they're probably a leftist.

Just like if someone refuses to eat pork, wears a yarmolke, and lights a menorah in December, it's possible that they just independently decided to do these things that technically have nothing to do with each other.... but it's more likely that they're Jewish.

[GILMORE?]

"leftist positions"

i don't even think you understand my point above.

[Migrant Log Chipper]

He doesn't

[MoreFreedom]

I can't agree. Reason has reliably been against government surveillance against law abiding citizens without a warrant being obtained first. That's not supporting the left.

And yes, there's a contradiction between supporting FISA and opposing FISA abuse. The contradiction is that it violates the Constitution, especially in Trump's case, because it was used to wiretap an American. The F in FISA stands for Foreign, and Americans aren't foreigners. At most I'll allow the Defense Dept. to surveil foreigners who they see as the enemy. There's no need for US law enforcement to wiretap people outside the US.

[GILMORE?]

Reason has reliably been against government surveillance against law abiding citizens without a warrant being obtained first. That's not supporting the left.

[GILMORE?]

lol, sorry (keep forgetting Greasonable is broke)

Reason has reliably been against government surveillance against law abiding citizens without a warrant being obtained first

everything after the 'surveillance' should be unnecessary. all you seem to be doing is creating some wiggle-room for exception-making.

and no, your argument isn't very good.

[Deflator Mouse]

I can't agree. Reason has reliably been against government surveillance against law abiding citizens without a warrant being obtained first. That's not supporting the left.

1. A FISA warrant is a warrant.
2. That is not a position that most leftists disagree with in the abstract.

And yes, there's a contradiction between supporting FISA and opposing FISA abuse. The contradiction is that it violates the Constitution, especially in Trump's case, because it was used to wiretap an American.

Really not following this argument. You're arguing against FISA, which is fine, but haven't shown how one who supports FISA must also support FISA abuse.

[Deven]

Reason is more interested in virtue signaling than they are in advancing liberty.

They are no better than the left, and there are many "libertarians" here that I would say the same of.

Democrats are the enemy of liberty. They have no redeeming qualities. When libertarians agree with them on something, it is based on entirely different principles. At least the Republicans try to conserve classical liberalism. Democrats are intent on marching us into servitude.

[GILMORE?]

(sigh)

[Deven]

Sigh all you want!

Sure Reason is against Gov't surveillance. But when push comes to shove, when we have proof of abuse, we get a milquetoast response.

Its like railing against domestic violence, seeing your boss beat his wife, then being like "eh, its bad but she probably deserved it".

[Scarecrow Repair & Chippering]

You need some principles to hold your thoughts together when your principals are it risk.

[Migrant Log Chipper]

Republicans=classical liberalism......lolololol.

[JoeBlow123]

99.97% success rate. I find the success of FISA warrants hard to believe.

[silver.]

Sounds like some parallel construction is going on...

Plus the FISA warrants come from special courts.

[Cy]

"Special Courts" Thank god their special, because I thought there might be some abuse.

[BigT]

And Welch completely ignores the significance of the fruit of the poison tree with regards to the dossier, as it was the only piece of intelligence that was apparently used to justify FISA - the rest was media reports of the dossier. Matt also completely misses the significance of Reagan standing up resolutely to the Soviets when the progs were pleading with him to play nice, although at the prodding of Kmele he does acknowledge Reagan was relatively non-interventionist.

I can't understand that this is the same guy who wrote the Declaration of Independents. The Jacket has also gone artificial leather.

[GILMORE?]

""Welch completely ignores the significance of the fruit of the poison tree ""

pretty sure welch was once in a band called "fruit of the poison tree"

[El Oso]

or just 'Fruit'...

[JoeBlow123]

"the only piece of intelligence that was apparently used to justify FISA"

Unless you have seen the warrant you do not know that. It might be true, but you do not personally know that so pretending it is a fact is disingenuous.

[GILMORE?]

media narrative: OMG lol look at these conspiracy theorists

Trump: Obama is spying on me
NYT: This liar is a liar, who lies a lot of lies, and whose corded phones have never ever had their wires specifically tampered with by employees of the CIA
Trump: I didn't even say CIA or phones WTF
Media: Unwarranted attacks by Trump on the media are proof of fascism

[damikesc]

My whole issue with this is:

1) Trump is, according to the press, a fucking idiot.
2) He "obviously" colluded with Russia
3) Not a shred of actual evidence has been found to prove this.

How can a total fucking moron who "CLEARLY" did this hide his tracks completely? So completely that, 15 months after the fact, the FBI still has nothing? His White House leaks EVERYTHING...but they kept THIS quiet? They cannot keep calls involving other world leaders secret. How do they keep this so silent?

This falls under the 9/11 Truther conspiracy problem: How can a moron like Bush manage to have the Twin Towers planted with explosives, with nobody noticing, and then have them all blow up and leave no evidence behind and have nobody talk about it?

For these beliefs to be possible, it requires fabulous leaps of logic.

[Red Tony]

You know, I've figured out how 9/11 was done, all thanks to our friends on the left.

Every president inherits their predecessor's economy, right? Right.
That's why Obama's first couple of years had such a horrible economy, right? Because of Bush? Right.
And the economy going gangbusters under Trump is because of Obama, right? Right.
And every time the economy was doing poorly under Obama it was because of Bush, right? Right.
And the economy kept looking sickly for Obama's first six years, right? Right.
And every president inherits their predecessor's problems, right? Right.
So every president's problems and successes for six years are due to their predecessor, right? Right.
And 9/11 happened in the first few years of Bush's presidency, right? Right.

CLINTON DID 9/11

[silver.]

You're a genius. Call Michael Moore and make a documentary.

[GILMORE?]

i am disappointed that this podcast was previously described as "too sober". I still need to listen to the one with the weiss former-WSJ chick, which i was given to understand had just the right amount of drunk.

[Hugh Akston]

I liked Bari Weiss on last week's show.

[BigT]

BARF!!

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

But as Nick Gillespie pointed out this morning, it's also been a pretty bad 12 months for Democrat/lefty connect-the-dots, government-aggrandizing hyperbole as well.

You just need to be patient. By the time Mueller has finished his investigation into #TrumpRussia, he'll have delivered one or more earth-shattering bombshells that will make it all worthwhile. Then, hopefully the damage Drumpf has done to the country can be reversed once he's removed from office.

[Don't look at me.]

You want higher taxes?

[Greg F]

Then, hopefully the damage Drumpf has done to the country socialist wet dream can be reversed once he's removed from office.

FIFY

[MoreFreedom]

LOL Given they've been looking for over a year, have found nothing, and even anti-Trump Strzok in FBI's counter-intelligence unit says there's nothing there, your belief suggests you've got TDS and you believe everything Obama and Hillary (both proven big liars) say. Besides, even getting Putin's endorsement in the election (which didn't happen) isn't a crime. Trump would have had to engaged in a US crime with Putin to be guilty of collusion, and there has been no crime shown (hacking of the DNC and Podesta, was blocked by Democrats who didn't allow the FBI to look at their servers, Wikileaks told us the Russians didn't provide the emails, and besides, Clinton promised us transparency and got it thanks to Wikileaks showing she's a liar again).

If Mueller charges Trump for obstruction, it will be a farce simply because a) there's no underlying crime for which justice is being obstructed, b) the whole spying on him was based on fake material the FBI swore they believed to be true and c) it was a setup to get Trump via obstruction. The way it looks to me (and I voted for Johnson) is that Obama and Hillary setup the whole thing, and Mueller is part of the secret society to get Trump. Except he has nothing.

[El Oso]

as good an explanation as any...

[Cy]

They did find out a bunch of shit was intentionally deleted, by the FBI, that they were ordered to maintain. Also, HRC is still running around after she was given a "get out of jail free card" by the FBI after committing multiple felonies. Oh and by illegally destroying her Democratic competition. Meanwhile, Trump, in all of his turdiness , the guy I'm getting really sick of having to defend, clearly had the deck illegally stacked against him, while RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, by one of our most powerful federal intelligence/military agencies.

Reason's position:

'Meh?'

[hpearce]

"who had warned pre-#ReleaseTheMemo that not only would the FBI malfeasance against President Donald Trump be revealed as worse than Watergate,"

?

Am I the only one having a hard time interpreting that phrase ?

[BigT]

Worse than Watergate is really a pretty low bar. Nixon's dirty tricks are mild compared to Obama's actual use of the FBI and IRS to carry his water, not to mention the D O J (jackasses).

[Juice]

Right? If a Watergate type scandal happened nowadays, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. It certainly wouldn't lead to the resignation of the president. It would be seen as just another example of extreme partisanship in our starkly divided nation.

[damikesc]

It's also something to consider that the bureaucracy (who had to be removed from the spoils system because it's wrong to have them "play favorites") will refuse to violate laws for Republicans but have so few qualms doing so for Democrats.

Bring back the spoils system. Make SOMEBODY responsible for this insanity.

[Floyd T. Peters]

I found useful information on this essay service review topic as Now i'm working on a small business project. Thank-you posting relative information and it's currently becoming easier to comprehensive this project

[GILMORE?]

i recommend to comprehensive this service as well

[BigT]

Mattie really outdoes himself when he calls Kmele a Fostard like th Paultards wrt foreign policy, and then when Kmele explains his perspective Welch completely agrees.

[Brian]

I remember a year ago, when the Russians were collaborating with the FBI.

Those were the days.

[Deflator Mouse]

So you're equivalencing the possible GOP overselling of a memo (which does in fact point to serious abuses, however subtle they may be) with the Dem fabrication of "Russian interference" which has been used to justify initiation and support of an unaccountable fishing expedition against private citizens, restriction of the press (RT being declared a foreign agent), villification of non-MSM outlets as Russian propaganda, censorship on Facebook, Twitter, etc, and economic sanctions against the 2nd or 3rd most powerful military power on the planet which could obliterate us anytime they want.

[Ken Shultz]

"It has been a bad couple of days for those Republicans and conservative commentators who had warned pre-#ReleaseTheMemo that not only would the FBI malfeasance against President Donald Trump be revealed as worse than Watergate, but in fact "100 times bigger" than the underlying beef colonists had against King George III."

Am I supposed to understand that the FBI using opposition research to try to throw a presidential election isn't a big deal--because some commentator (I know nothing about) said it would be even worse?

What color is the sky in your bubble?

[Deven]

It is 100 times bigger than Watergate. These people were using the unlimited power of the state to spy on their political enemies.

I'm not sure when Matt Welch turned into such a moron.

[Ken Shultz]

They tried to throw an election.

. . . and they knew they were using opposition research from the Hillary campaign.

[Ken Shultz]

Just to recap, now that the fact that the FBI knowingly used the Clinton campaign's opposition research to run interference on the Trump campaign was established, the game was over.

The only question now is how the Democrats are going to explain this away, and it doesn't surprise me that doubling down on the Russia connection is their first go to option.

The Democrats will probably take the House in November, and their chances of accomplishing that are probably close to the same chances of them initiating an impeachment against Trump. They won't impeach him just because he's Trump--not in public anyway . . .

They'll cite whatever Mueller is digging up, and they'll drag every woman who's accused Trump of patting her on the behind in front of a House committee in the name of #MeToo. And they'll use that and whatever else they find laying around to impeach Trump. They'll do it for partisan reasons, too. The Republicans in the Senate will respond that the FBI used opposition research from the Hillary Clinton campaign in an attempt to throw the election for Hillary . . . and they'll say that for partisan reasons, too.

If there's any difference between those two partisan narratives, it's the fact that the FBI really did knowingly use opposition research obtained from the Hillary Clinton campaign in an attempt to throw the election for Hillary Clinton.

[Juice]

The Democrats will probably take the House in November

Why?

[GILMORE?]

the numbers-making on mid-terms tends to favor the opposition. a 20-seat swing in their favor is normal.

aggravating factors are "people don't like trump"
mitigating factors are "the economy is booming" and "people don't like democrats much either"

i think losing seats is guaranteed. flipping the house, meh. i don't think anyone will have any good insights on this until a month before the election. which makes it a stupid thing to opine about.

[Ken Shultz]

I'm working on the full analysis of that for the uninitiated to maybe be published on another site.

Suffice it to say, "statistics", and not the lying kind either.

The median loss for a president's party in the House during his first midterm is -24 seats since the beginning of the 20th century.

The only clear anomalies are when the country united in support of FDR in 1932 because of the depression and when the country united in support of George W. Bush in 2002 in the wake of 9/11 (but before we invaded Iraq in 2003). Notice, those anomalies didn't come because of any particular policy of the president. They happened to the nation. Came out of the blue.

Unless you think the country is about to unite behind Trump for some reason between now and November . . ?

The president's party lost more than enough seats during the president's first midterm for the Republicans to lose control of the House 58% of the time. That doesn't mean the Republicans have a 58% chance of losing the House. If Trump lands more on the "divider" continuum of presidents than "uniter", then the Republicans are likely to do even worse than that.

Ask yourself, do you think Trump is more divisive or less divisive than Obama, Clinton, Reagan, and Lyndon Johnson? Because they all lost more House seats in the midterms than the 20 House seats the Republicans need to lose right now in order to lose control of the House.

And that's all true regardless of whether I or anyone else wishes it to be so.

[GILMORE?]

The median loss for a president's party in the House during his first midterm is -24 seats since the beginning of the 20th century.

the mistake here is acting as tho politics is some normally distributed natural event like tides or rainfall

thats not how shit works. the 100 year median isn't particularly meaningful for an analysis of specific circumstances. and the samples are too small anyway to provide data for any meaningful contextual comparison.

you can say with some measure of certainty "the incumbent party loses seats". More than that, not so much. the variability is easily higher than the needed margin, and polling is basically meaningless until a few weeks before elections happen.

[Ken Shultz]

I'm accounting for that.

The suggestion that past performance is no guarantee of future results is valid. But it also seems to ignore some things.

Statistics can't tell us what the next role of the dice will be. But they can tell us that all the numbers that come in will be between two and twelve. They can tell us that the number seven is more likely to come up than eight or six because there are more combinations that make seven than the others, and statistics can tell us that that the further we get away from seven, the less likely the sum of the two dice is likely to be. In fact, seven is the center of gravity there.

That's what I'm talking about here. Where's the center of gravity and how do we know that?

No doubt, the upcoming midterm could come up snake eyes or double sixes.

Anyway, I'll look forward to getting your full critique.

ETA to send in for consideration is on Monday.

[Deflator Mouse]

But that's the point -- behind every statistic is a set of information that it is based on.

You're assuming absolutely no knowledge other than that there were two six-sided dice rolled. But if you know that one of the dice came up as a 1, then that changes the probabilities completely. It makes the probability of the total being a 2 the same as the probability of it being a 7.

The probability of getting a royal flush in a Texas Holdem hand is miniscule, but if you look at the cards in the turn and there's a king, queen, jack, and ace all of hearts, the probability of a royal flush is almost as high as the probability of a pair. If you're holding a pair of 9's that really changes the landscape of how to bet.

[Deflator Mouse]

Suffice it to say, "statistics", and not the lying kind either.

The median loss for a president's party in the House during his first midterm is -24 seats since the beginning of the 20th century.

Statistics would say that, if you live in the US, a snake in your backyard can be picked up and played without risk of serious harm to you. But if you know the snake in your backyard has red, black, and yellow bands on it, you're a fucking moron if you base your decision on the statistics about snakes in general.

We have more information about the 2018 election than that it's a midterm. So using the stats about midterms in general is fucking stupid.

[Ken Shultz]

The difference between me and Dalmia, Soave, and ENB isn't where we land on any particular issue.

It's that I acknowledge and deal with facts regardless of whether they seem to support my position at first glance.

If honest statistics came out tomorrow that showed gun ownership leads to more innocent people being killed in violent crimes, I'd still support the Second Amendment anyway.

I wouldn't just sit there and deny that the statistics say what they say.

I have a qualitative and moral case to make for freedom that doesn't necessarily depend on statistics.

And statistics are what they are regardless of my morals or qualitative preferences.

I guess I'm just not much of a utilitarian, but that doesn't mean I can't make honest use of statistics to understand what's happening, what's likely to happen, and why.

You're not one of these people who goes around denying the validity of some statistic just because you don't like its implications, are you?

[Deflator Mouse]

You're predicting something about a situation for which you have a ton of information, using a statistic which is based on very limited information. That's the stupid part.

Yes, if you were asked to bet on whether the president's party loses seats in a midterm election where you know nothing else but that it is a midterm, it would be a good bet that the president's party would lose seats. But you don't go by that limited information statistic when you have more information.

[Ken Shultz]

I think you're just probably intellectually dishonest--and a name caller!

I think you're probably one of these people who is skeptical of anything that conflicts with your preexisting preferences.

Because you don't want something to happen, you a) think it unlikely and b) attack anybody who says otherwise?

That's the essence of intellectual dishonesty.

You and Shikha Dalmia should go play miniature golf, dinner and a movie, see what happens, you'd get along great together. Same values!

[Deflator Mouse]

And you're a purveyor of ad hominems.

You haven't even rebutted my criticism of your argument, just accused me of wishful thinking. Sad.

[Ken Shultz]

You call people "fool" for doing things that aren't foolish.

You call analyses "stupid" because you don't like their implications (or don't understand them).
'
And you say I'm a purveyor of Ad hominems?

My argument about your intellectual dishonesty was exactly that.

Here's the behavior of intellectual dishonesty.

Here's your behavior.

If that's your behavior, then you're being intellectually dishonest.

That's not an ad hominem.

It's a syllogism.

[Deflator Mouse]

The "fool" was just an observation of your continued statement that 1932 was a midterm, while the "stupid" was a reference to your stubborn claim that statistics based on almost no information are more predictive than analysis based on the loads of information we have specific to the 2018 election. I have not based my counter-argument on anything other than your argument.

Meanwhile, you have responded to my counter-argument with nothing but claims about me. That makes you the adhominizer.

[Deflator Mouse]

Ask yourself, do you think Trump is more divisive or less divisive than Obama, Clinton, Reagan, and Lyndon Johnson? Because they all lost more House seats in the midterms than the 20 House seats the Republicans need to lose right now in order to lose control of the House.

You haven't substantiated "divisiveness" as the cause of the midterm tendencies, so this is an irrelevant question.

The phenomenon is actually for ALL midterms, not just those during a president's first term. And if you add up the change in House seats in each midterm and the previous presidential election, they tend to be small changes in either direction. Showing that what's usually happening is that, in a presidential election year, the winning presidential candidate's party usually gains seats (which makes sense); then in the midterm, those new House members are vulnerable due to being new and in districts where the other party is strong.

BTW the GOP lost seats in 2016. So if we go by that stat, they are likely to gain seats in 2018.

[Deflator Mouse]

Indeed, if divisiveness causes presidents to lose house seats for their parties, how did Bush win seats in 2002 (runup to the Iraq war) and 2004 (when the Iraq war was going south)? Or Obama in 2012? Or Clinton in 1998 during the Lewinsky scandal? Are you claiming these presidents weren't divisive at those times?

[BigT]

-24 is the mean but what is the SD? And don't leave out any elections or you are biasing the data.

[GILMORE?]

"what is the SD?"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu.....ctions.php

a quick look at all mid-terms since 1934... my quick 'plugged into excel' std deviation is "24"

iow, so large as to make the median # meaningless.

below is an article from 2010 trying to do the same 'analysis' ken's trying, moaning that Obama might lose a lot of seats in his first term. The average loss was 36!

http://news.gallup.com/poll/14.....roval.aspx

""The clear implication is that the Democrats are vulnerable to losing a significant number of House seats this fall with Barack Obama's approval rating averaging 45% during the last two full weeks of Gallup Daily tracking. The Republicans would need to gain 40 House seats to retake majority control.""

they lost 6 seats.

this whole "five-thirty eight" style 'let me look at a few simple numbers and pretend to be doing a statistical analysis' is stupid, and is the sort of thing idiot millenial 'data journalists' do. its not real analysis and its not significant of anything. its mostly waving headline numbers around as a replacement for reasoned argument or gathering more-robust data.

economics is not an effective predictive science, and political economics (which is sort of what this pretends to be) isn't even half as useful or interesting as the regular, 'money' kind, which at least has richer data sets to back up its models.

[MoreFreedom]

Yea As Carville would say "It's the economy stupid" and Trump is doing a good job so far via executive branch deregulation (thanks to Congress allowing the executive branch to write the rules). It's also noteworthy that of the 34 seats in the Senate up for election, only 8 are held by the GOP. Dick Morris sees 1 GOP seat and 7 Democrat seats as competitive. In the House the GOP has a 238 to 193 advantage, meaning the Democrats need to win 23 seats from the GOP. And what are the Democrats running on other than animosity and amnesty? That's not a positive message.

[Ken Shultz]

3 seats are vacant.

They only need 20 from the GOP.

Again, these things are true regardless of whether I like them.

And one of the points I was trying to make above is that it doesn't really matter what the issue is. All those other presidents had issues, too. All sorts of issues over the course of a century. The issues don't really mater. The outcome comes in at a median of -24 (mean of -31!) despite whatever the issues were.

As I was saying, the anomalies of FDR in 1932 and Bush Jr. in 2002 have one thing in common--the American people didn't blame them on the policies of the president (even if they should have blamed FDR for making things worse in 1932, they didn't). People united behind those presidents because of forces that were seen as coming out of the blue. They blamed the depression on Hoover. They blamed 9/11 on Al Qaeda.

I love Trump for his deregulation. Don't like him much for his ideas on free trade. Some people love him for his immigration policies, and some people hate him for that. If he's going to buck the trend (a linear regression confirmed my median of -24 by predicting a -23 seats in the House), then something's going to have to happen beyond the scope of Trump's policies.

[Ken Shultz]

Maybe if there were a devastating earthquake that killed hundreds of thousands in California, and Trump rallied the American people together. That kind of thing. Something beyond his control.

There doesn't seem to be any kind of policy that's been able to rally sufficient support in the face of the backlash against new, controversial presidents during their first midterm election--and over the course of a hundred years, presidents and politicians of both parties have tried pretty much everything.

[damikesc]

The numbers look bad for the GOP. Losing the House is real.

But the "intensity" thing the press seems to harp on seems shallow. If there was intensity, the Democrats would be rolling in money right now...not destitute.

The money thing MIGHT be a problem. But, fundamentally, it'll be tough for Ryan to be Speaker at this time next year.

[Deflator Mouse]

The numbers don't look bad for the GOP.

The Dems have to win every one of the blue districts, the swing districts, and pick up some "lean GOP" districts on that map to take the House.

[Ken Shultz]

And that might bode well for Trump in 2020.

I'm not sure Pelosi could resist the pressure from the Democrat's core to impeach Trump. I think she'll do it if she gets to be speaker.

Of course, then it goes to the Senate, and you can't convict the president without two-thirds of the senate voting to convict.

If Trump had picked a weaker vice, there might be a lot of pressure for some Republicans in the senate to convict. A lot of the people he made enemies of (Cruz, Rubio, McCain, et. al.) are the same people he'll need to vote not to convict him. Cruz and Rubio, especially, might think about running themselves against a weaker candidate--if it were someone other than Pence. If Trump were convicted, I suspect the GOP grass roots would rally around Pence--and that probably takes the Ides of March scenario off the table.

Bill Clinton made his remarkable comeback after the GOP impeached him, and he came out the other end smelling like a rose. If Trump is impeached and survives, I suspect much of America will see the Democrats as a bunch of wolves, and Trump will probably be hard to beat in 2020 if that happens. Pelosi probably knows the senate won't vote to convict Trump. The question she'll be asking herself is if the Democrats in the House will keep her as Speaker if she refuses to impeach Trump.

She may not have a choice.

[Deflator Mouse]

Bill Clinton made his remarkable comeback after the GOP impeached him, and he came out the other end smelling like a rose.

You realize the Dems lost the presidency in 2000?

[Deflator Mouse]

1932 wasn't a midterm, fool.

[Ken Shultz]

Typing 1932 when I meant 1934 doesn't make me a fool.

[Deflator Mouse]

The statistics say otherwise. You did it several times in multiple posts.

[Ken Shultz]

So what?

[Deflator Mouse]

That means it wasn't a typo, you really thought it was 1932.

[Ken Shultz]

Yeah, I thought it was 1932, but it was 1934--so what?

Do you imagine that changes something?

Did FDR actually win seats in 1934 rather than lose them?

Was 1934 not FDR's first midterm?

If I mistakenly thought it was 1932 rather than 1934, what difference does that make?

"Argumentum ad logicam can be used as an ad hominem appeal: by impugning the opponent's credibility or good faith, it can be used to sway the audience by undermining the speaker rather than by addressing the speaker's argument.[3]"

https://tinyurl.com/yae9v8rk

What I did wasn't even having a bad premise. The premise was good, the conclusions are good, the argument is good, . . .

I just misremembered it being 1932 rather than 1934, the consequences of which were absolutely nothing.

[Cy]

They did find out a bunch of shit was intentionally deleted, by the FBI, that they were ordered to maintain. Also, HRC is still running around after she was given a "get out of jail free card" by the FBI after committing multiple felonies. Oh and by illegally destroying her Democratic competition. Meanwhile, Trump, in all of his turdiness , the guy I'm getting really sick of having to defend, clearly had the deck illegally stacked against him, while RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, by one of our most powerful federal intelligence/military agencies.

Reason's position:

'Meh?'

[Juice]

So before the memo was released, Republicans were pretty much telling people what was in it. Democrats said it would be terrible to release it. It gets released and it pretty much says what Republicans said it does. Democrats say, oh that's all? Big whup. What a nothingburger.

But, it had exactly the type of worrying abuse of power and the FISA court that Republicans said it did and that Democrats said would be terrible to release to the public. It also appears by reading this post that Matt Welch, at least, thinks that it's not as bad as Republicans were making it out to be because he seems to be more concerned with the political dynamic going on than the legal and constitutional ramifications. I haven't listened to the episode. I'm just going off this post.

So, what am I missing here? Is it really bad, sorta bad, a nothingburger? What?

[MoreFreedom]

Seems really bad to me, in that Obama/Clinton ginned up a reason to get the FBI (and the NSA I'd bet) to spy on Trump during an election, to use those in government to help her win the election, and now to try and setup Trump for an obstruction of justice charge for a crime that never happened.

Here's a better "conspiracy" that's more supported by the facts. Putin's hackers got all the emails off of Hillary's server some time between 2008-2012, including the 20 emails from Obama suspiciously using an alias (and about which he lied claiming he learned of her server in news reports) and then blackmailed them into appeasement and flexibility. Such as the favors for Russian allies Syria and Iran (help fight ISIS, and the great deal for Iran while leaving US prisoners in their jails), doing nothing significant about Russia invading Crimea, and sale of US uranium to Russia while keeping the Russian extortion/bribery investigation from CIFUS to get the deal thru. Obama did promise Russian President Medvedev "more flexibility after the [2012] elections". What flexibility did he provide and why? And it explains why Obama publicly wanted to be friends with Russia (until Hillary lost). And it explains the coverup, and why they want Trump out (to keep it covered up). And it explains their desperation in getting rid of Trump.

[Rebel Scum]

Trump's America: A Russian in every closet and a nazi under every bed.

[Rebel Scum]

Even Tucker Carlson is a Russian agent. A dem. Congresscritter said so. So it must be legit.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02.....for-putin/

[Scarecrow Repair & Chippering]

but in fact "100 times bigger" than the underlying beef colonists had against King George III.

I agree with whoever made that statement, but not as they would like. The current government oppression IS 100 times worse than our beefs with George III, and for everybody, not just the GOP or Trump.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Amen!

[Tony]

Well the whole point of Mueller is to, to quote our poet-president, figure out what the hell has been going on.

That his flunkies and partisan allies are behaving so desperately and rashly surely means there's no there there. That's logical.

[Rebel Scum]

"partisan allies are behaving so desperately and rashly surely means there's no there there. "

Projection: the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects

[Tony]

Being a junkie: unable to stop using.

FOX News rots the brain.

[Rebel Scum]

"FOX News rots the brain."

I wouldn't know bc I don't follow any MSM, and the bits that I get I do not treat as gospel. But I do know that progressivism certainly rots the brain.

[Deflator Mouse]

Why are you replying to an obvious troll? Him and OBL above.

[Ecoli]

I kinda like OBL. It takes talent to satirize the position of the left so well.

[Fist of Etiquette]

I have to say, with all the shady shit the Bureau and the DoJ has pulled and regularly pulls, I'm a little surprised that the benefit of the doubt we give them on this. There is zero reason to believe that appointees and bureaucrats can't easily be motivated by political concerns and to act on those motivations.

[chemjeff]

I don't think anyone is saying (with the exception of the Team Blue partisans of course) that the FBI/DOJ aren't capable of corrupt behavior. What I would prefer, anyway, is that we first wait for hard verifiable evidence before going half-cocked on some theory of how the FBI/DOJ are corrupt partisans.

[Deflator Mouse]

Only some of them are Dem partisans. Others are just authoritarians and elitists who feel threatened by Trump's populism.

[Tony]

Presume you're speaking for Fist as well when you admit that your acceptance of a totally unsupported conspiracy theory about partisan witch hunts in the FBI is motivated entirely by your Trump love.

Libertarianism: it's all about loving the right dear leader. The oranger and stupider, the better.

[Rebel Scum]

Actually libertarianism is voluntarism. Voluntary is morally superior to coerced. You have been on this board long enough to make an honest attempt to understand your philosophical opponents. But you are unwilling.

[JoeBlow123]

Evidence is for goobers. We go by our gut and our gut says Trump is the flaxen haired Jesus of our age and the Dems are the party of Satan. Also, deep state yadda yadda globalists yadda yadda Black Lives Matter blah blah socialists taking our guns blah blah.

[Sevo]

JoeBlow123|2.3.18 @ 11:02PM|#
"Evidence is for goobers."

Oh, goody! One more fucking lefty ignoramus proving his idiocy.
Fuck off, asshole

[JoeBlow123]

Did you honestly think I was serious? Calling Trump the flaxen haired Jesus was not a big enough of a give away?

[Sevo]

JoeBlow123|2.4.18 @ 12:00AM|#
"Did you honestly think I was serious? Calling Trump the flaxen haired Jesus was not a big enough of a give away?"

Yes, Joe, because you have had your foot firmly planted in your mouth often enough. Your rep is your problem, not mine.
You want to change that? Start posting as if you have some interest in honesty.

[Sevo]

chemjeff|2.3.18 @ 10:10PM|#
"I don't think anyone is saying (with the exception of the Team Blue partisans of course) that the FBI/DOJ aren't capable of corrupt behavior. What I would prefer, anyway, is that we first wait for hard verifiable evidence before going half-cocked on some theory of how the FBI/DOJ are corrupt partisans."

You don't find the FBI conducting surveillance of an opposition presidential campaign based on some half-baked rumor to be corrupt?
So, 'eating ain't cheating', is that the standard?

[chemjeff]

You don't find the FBI conducting surveillance of an opposition presidential campaign based on some half-baked rumor to be corrupt?

It is more complicated than that. I am not saying your claim is false, because no one really knows at this point. But we should also consider that Carter Page was not just some random guy working on the Trump campaign. Page was calling *himself* an "advisor to the Kremlin" as far back as 2013.

http://time.com/5132126/carter.....13-letter/

So it is not inconceivable to consider that the FBI regarded Page as a legitimate spying target even before he started working for Trump, with or without Steele's dossier.

My opinion is that the FBI probably had a lot of stuff on Page already, and when the Steele dossier fell into their laps, it was the "tipping point" that finally caused them to go get the FISA warrant.

[Cy]

"My opinion is that the FBI probably had a lot of stuff on Page already, and when the Steele dossier fell into their laps, it was the "tipping point" that finally caused them to go get the FISA warrant."

"Oh gee, what a coincidence!"

You're better than this.

[Sammi]

"What I would prefer"

God shut the fuck up with this again.

[Fist of Etiquette]

It seems some here think you either have to love Trump or have to give the FBI all your love. It's possible to consider the Justice Department completely swayable by partisan concerns and also think the Trump administration is generally full of shit.

[LynchPin1477]

Good stuff as usual. Glad the gang is back together. Thanks guys.

[Rebel Scum]

Yea, and as we see, Hihn is the one true libertarian. One libertarian to rule them all. One libertarian to find them. One libertarian to, in the darkness, bind them. //sarc

[GILMORE?]

For anyone still pretending that the FBI are anything but utter scum

http://www.oregonlive.com/oreg.....ice_n.html

[Cy]

Thank you! I can't believe people on here are still supporting this agency! They fucked with our elections, multiple times, in a very big way! They're a cudgel to be wielded and feared, apparently by the democratic party. That's not ok!

[JoeBlow123]

There sure are a lot of Trumpers here inventing some alternative facts. I thought this was an issue with the media and Democrats in particular at this time. I was dumb because this is clearly a societal issue.

* shrug *

It is interesting to see the reinvention of history on both sides, left and right, at this time. Not even old history, stuff that happened like 6 months ago. The propaganda war is going at full strength now it appears.

[Sevo]

JoeBlow123|2.3.18 @ 10:59PM|#
"There sure are a lot of Trumpers here inventing some alternative facts. I thought this was an issue with the media and Democrats in particular at this time. I was dumb because this is clearly a societal issue.
* shrug *"

Assertions are not arguments. If you think you have a point (and I doubt you do) state it and back it with evidence.
So far we have a document which shows, without doubt, that the FBI engaged in surveillance of a private party, who was also a member of the opposition presidential campaign, based on what was pretty much a press release by the DNC.
Those are not "alternative facts" and they are pretty clear indications that the FBI was far less than neutral in deciding what was to be investigated.
Go ahead and defend that as a 'societal issue'; I'll be here to see what you claim.

[Sevo]

Sorry I didn't notice your idiocy just up thread before posting this.
Go ahead, asshole, prove you're even more ignorant than you have.

[JoeBlow123]

Is it even possible Carter Page is a questionable piece of trash that might have lit of some red flags regardless of the Steele memo? That other information might exist about him? Perhaps Trump should have refrained from hiring such a fucking clown like Carter Page to begin with? A dude who lived in Russia for 3 years and worked with Gazprom? Should have refrained from hiring a sleazy piece of garbage like Manafort or Flynn? These people are all highly suspect and have engaged in activities of a highly questionable nature, accepting cash from foreign governments and having contacts with foreign governments they lied about.

Does this make Trump guilty? No. It makes him dumb for hiring clowns. It is not the governments fault Page, Manafort, or Flynn are scumbags.

[Sevo]

"Does this make Trump guilty? No. It makes him dumb for hiring clowns. It is not the governments fault Page, Manafort, or Flynn are scumbags."

So you are the one to vet who may and may not be hired? I'm thrilled my betters are willing to giver me guidance. Or not. Especially since 'the betters' have proven themselves to be such partisan scum.
Nor is it 'the governments fault' that the hag treated classified documents as if they were her grocery lists, but somehow the FBI wasn't real interested in what was clearly a crime.
Nor was the FBI interested in her hiring an idiot like Podesta who handed his password off to someone as stupid as you.
Now, did you have a point other than proving you're a fucking idiot? If so, you've done nothing to show it

[JoeBlow123]

"Nor is it 'the governments fault' that the hag treated classified documents as if they were her grocery lists, but somehow the FBI wasn't real interested in what was clearly a crime."

- Flynn lied about contacts with foreign government agents and taking money from them. He lied straight on his SF-86, the guy who used to be in charge of the DIA. More than any of these other guys I wish they would throw this clown in prison, he 100% knew what he was doing and 100% knew the rules he was breaking, he just gave zero fucks. The former head of the DIA!
- By any reasonable measure Manafort engaged in money laundering and took money for lobbying efforts from foreign governments.
- Page lived in Russia and ran in similar circles as Russian spies.

These are questionable individuals by any measure. Again, does this make Trump guilty of anything other than stupidity? No. Is investigating questionable individuals evidence of a conspiracy? No. It is evidence of people doing their jobs.

You want to say Hillary got off easy? Sure, no argument. That does not make investigating questionable individuals wrong especially if you want to try and pretend to care about impartial accountability under the law. I think the saying is two wrongs do not make a right?

[chemjeff]

"Is it even possible Carter Page is a questionable piece of trash that might have lit of some red flags regardless of the Steele memo?"

It is not just possible, but likely. The guy was meeting with Russian agents all the way back in 2013.

http://www.nytimes.com/2018/02.....-memo.html

"Mr. Page was an unknown in the political world. But he was on the radar of federal law enforcement officials, who questioned him about his contacts with a Russian intelligence operative years before he came into contact with the Trump campaign.

In 2013, Mr. Page struck up a professional friendship with the operative, Victor Podobny, who was working undercover in New York City. Mr. Page ? who at the time did not have any role in American government ? gave documents to Mr. Podobny about the energy sector.

Mr. Podobny was picked up by the authorities on a wiretap calling Mr. Page an "idiot" to his Russian intelligence colleagues. He was charged by the Justice Department and spirited back to Moscow before he could be arrested. Mr. Page was questioned by law enforcement officials about his contacts but never charged in the case.

Mr. Page has openly acknowledged he is the unnamed male referred to in federal court documents about Mr. Podobny."

[GILMORE?]

These people are all highly suspect and have engaged in activities of a highly questionable nature, accepting cash from foreign governments and having contacts with foreign governments they lied about.

i do think its funny you keep citing 'they lived abroad and did business with foreigners' as tho 'foreign governments' were by default all evil enemies seeking to destroy america. what a bizarre argument.

if doing consulting work for high-fees for foreign governments is a sign of suspicious evildoing, I have some bad news for you

the Clinton Global Initiative / Clinton Foundation took over a hundred million $ over the past decade from a far wider range of foreign sources, many of them slimy totalitarian regimes which stood to benefit if HRC was elected. and much of that money was diverted directly into the clinton's own pockets. and they only changed their policy to look more respectible... within a few months of her starting her campaign.

in one year alone she pocketed $13 million. for speeches. and her hubby pocketed similar funds over the years, doing things like... helping people do uranium deals w/ kazakstan.

you can't make this shit up

[JoeBlow123]

Let me put it this way, if you were in charge of vetting people for security clearances (necessary for government work especially at the highest levels) and you had someone who:

1) Lived in Russia
2) Was friends with Russian spies
3) Worked with Russian state owned enterprises, took their money

Would you give them a clearance?

Or lets talk about Flynn / Manafort. Again, you are in charge of vetting clearances, would you give them a clearance if they:

1) Took money from foreign governments for lobbying efforts
2) Had undisclosed foreign travel
3) Had undisclosed foreign contacts
4) Failed to disclose they took money from foreign governments / foreign entities

Would you give them a clearance?

And yes my answer for Hillary is she should not have a clearance either, she clearly had too many conflicts of interest. But everyone knows there is one rule for the peons and one rule for the leadership. This whole farce with Clinton and Trump over the past year has only reinforced this maxim.

[Michael Cook]

I have traveled in Russia extensively, have many Russian friends, and a few Russian speakers (actually Ukrainians) have married into my family. I may even have invested in or bought something from some Russian entity.

I guess I don't donate to Democrats enough so I probably have been investigated. I sure hope they don't conclude that I have violated an obscure rule about money transfers or forgot to fill out correctly one of the thousands of forms that can be required and checked if you don't have Democrat protection. Now did Hillary ever cut corners, make "honest mistakes" in serious matters, employ people why try to make a buck overseas?

When Hillary is "investigated" to include an FBI interview, she isn't put under oath, no electronic recordings are made, no one takes notes, and the required FBI form 302 standard interview report either was not filed or it isn't available for public review, Oh, and she was exonerated before the interview anyhow.

[GILMORE?]

""There sure are a lot of Trumpers here inventing some alternative facts.""

What specifically are you referring to?

[JoeBlow123]

There are a lot of people flat out making facts up. Like (BigT|2.3.18 @ 3:03PM|#) claiming

"the only piece of intelligence that was apparently used to justify FISA"

Is this true? Possibly. But no one knows this unless they saw the warrant. Have we seen something possibly troubling? Yes. But we must also remember this is a four page memo of cherry picked information from an entity, Nunes, who is if nothing else a partisan.

I am not sure we should be jumping to rash conclusions at this point.

[Sevo]

JoeBlow123|2.4.18 @ 12:10AM|#
There are a lot of people flat out making facts up. Like (BigT|2.3.18 @ 3:03PM|#) claiming
"the only piece of intelligence that was apparently used to justify FISA"
Is this true? Possibly."
So it is not "made up" as far as you know, but that's enough to show that, what? You are an ignoramus?

[GILMORE?]

Is this the only example you have?

[Eidde]

That sounds like something one of the Illuminati's pawns would say.

[Eidde]

Of course, I don't actually know what an Illuminati pawn would say, do I?

[Michael Cook]

Being as it's so fashionable to love and praise ordinary FBI agents lately (25,000 of them, after all) I am reminded of the FBI agent in the San Francisco zone who specialized in white collar crime. A few years ago this agent was charged with abusing top secret financial disclosure information regarding IPO's by using such insider knowledge to make his own highly lucrative stock trades.

The instructive thing about the ruin of this man's career and prison sentence was that Nancy Pelosi did exactly the same thing in much greater volume. Members of Congress at the time, it turns out, were exempt from that particular law!

Illigitami non carborundum

[Michael Cook]

The next-to-last fatal Amtrak accident was close enough to my bedroom window that the sirens and the helicopters kept me awake. The major problem is that Amtrak is trying to run a European-clone high speed passenger system on rails clogged or degraded by freight traffic in this booming economy. Management style and labor rules that discourage the identification (much less the firing) of the incompetent and the underperforming do not help.

[Cy]

You're not wrong in your conclusions of Amtrak in North America (especially the west) but using the last accident as any kind of example is a really bad idea.

[Cy]

You're not wrong in your conclusions of Amtrak in North America (especially the west) but using the last accident as any kind of example is a really bad idea.

[Michael Cook]

I was shooting from the hip again. Time to get back to Topic A. Heard Nunes sez (love the s and z sounds confusing each other) that more memos are to come! Maybe soon!

Meanwhile, back at the mainstream media ranch, the faux journalists couldn't find their own butts with both hands and a crotch-homing service dog!

[Michael Cook]

Update on Minority Report II--The Wrath of the TDS Zombies! Casting is now complete:
In starring roles will be

Adam Schiff as himself, the courageous defender of 25,000 FBI agents and four bedwetting Russian gals

Peewee Herman as Devin Nunes, the arch-villain and despicable committee chair

Michael Moore as Papadapolous, notorious for having an unspellable name

Wolf Blitzer as Carter Page, notorious for caving and wearing a wire into Trump territory

Chelsea Manning as Lisa Page (no relation to Carter)

Nicolas Cage as Peter Strzok, Nick needs the work and has no objection to the kissing scenes with Chelsea

Stormy Daniels as Loretta Lynch, explaining why she really met Bill Clinton on the tarmac

James Comey will be played by Charles Barkly, although Comey is actually four inches taller than the former NBA star forward.

Meryl Streep as Hillary, the tragic dramatic heroine (or is that gender-free hero and anyhow too easily confused with heroin, an addictive substance that makes her screw up everything she touches as Colin Powell noted.

Robert Redford in a cameo appearance from the dead, as Bill Clinton. He beat out Tom Hanks and Leonardo DiCaprio who aggressively sought the role. The producer decided to mostly type cast this one as aging frail lecher. Redford, however, will have to act his pants off at portraying the lecher part.

Jabba the Hut animatron as orange haired President Donald J. Trump

[damikesc]

Is it odd that Hihn keeps pasting the same defective link to NR over and over?

[Rebel Scum]

"right-wing echo chamber"

By my observation he routinely brings people with whom he disagrees on to his show. Also, way to deliberately miss the point I was making.

[Sevo]

"Left - Right = Zero"

Anyone else remember that other demented old fart Dr, Bronner? "All one! All one!"
At least he sold some decent soap instead of peddling his lunacy on web sites.

[Rebel Scum]

Overwhelming majorities of Republicans (of course...) and independents approved of DTs sotu speech. Even almost half of Democrats did (surprisingly...). And his general approval rating has climbed despite nearly 90% negative coverage in the msm. I'd hardly say he's bringing down the party. Reshaping? Widening the tent? Probably.

"playing only to its base, a minority."

Bc only his base got tax cuts? Bc only his base are getting jobs, bonuses and raises?

[Red Tony]

I'd hardly say he's bringing down the party. Reshaping? Widening the tent? Probably.

LIAR!

(giggle)

Rebel Scum LIES about Trump's popularity because he is an aggressor! Failures like hihn are HARD to FIND in the real WORLD!

Watch the cyberbully yell FAKE NEWS!

((snort))

Left ? Right = 0.886231486515

[GILMORE?]

"Left ? Right = 0.886231486515"

i laughed

[Rebel Scum]

Nice.

[Fist of Etiquette]

I do like cookies.

[Rebel Scum]

"It was smart-ass partisan hacking"

I don't think you know what words mean. The point I was making is that the "muh-russia" bs has gotten epically absurd because a sitting Congresscritter accused a longtime tv host and public figure of being a Russian agent...

"To insult them."

No, usually to pin them down on an assertion they've made to get them to justify it, usually demonstrating that their assertion is bs.

[Rebel Scum]

At least Trump's police state has cookies. Barry's police state just had smug condescension.

[Rebel Scum]

"This is where you blame one of several conspiracies"

This does not really flow from anything in my comment (not does anything else in your post), but out of sheer morbid curiosity, what conspiracy?

And what excuses? I mentioned tax cuts, bonuses and jobs with the implication that the average person approves of these things. At the same time, Team Blue is tripling down on identity politics and insulting the average Joe (see: Nancy pelosi's crumbs comment) and has no platform except to be "anti-trump" for the sake of being anti-trump. They are not going to win shit in the midterms if they keep this up.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Some people need to rely on our institutions so badly that they'll overlook that said institutions are human.

[Sevo]

Michael Hihn|2.3.18 @ 7:45PM|#
"Why do so many low-information comments include "Projection?""

Why does MIke post such imbecilic nonsense?

[Rebel Scum]

You don't understand sarcasm.

[Rebel Scum]

I just wish he/she would respond to the actual words used (and ideas implied) rather than whatever nonsense is fabricated in his head.

[Migrant Log Chipper]

Because Hihn IS an imbecile? Just a guess.....

[Red Tony]

AGGRESSION!

Expecting someone to respond to actual statements is the work of a cyberbully!

Your authoritarian mentality presumes to tell me to respond to your words rather than what I want to respond to.

Verbal hostility is whatever I say it is and it is what you engage in on a regular basis because you are a bully.

You deny your cyberbullying heritage while bullying someone through electronic means which is the very DEFINITION! Of cyberbullying.

(snort)

psychopath
1: A person suffering from a mental disorder. That is me. Stop cyberbullying a psychopath with your desire to make me respond to your actual statements.

((sneer))

Now watch the Trumptard scream "FAKE NEWS" and cite a conspiracy.

| Left ? Right | ? Zero

(The actual reason, of course, is because Hihn is fucking deranged. ? R. Tony)

[Sevo]

Mike, Eric Hoffer you ain't.

[Juice]

Thank GOD they're both dying off!

If only...

[Red Tony]

Oh, did you finally purchase a mirror?

[Sevo]

(sneer) I know STUPID when I see it.

[Sevo]

Directed toward Mike. Dammit, if you're going to thread the comments, make the thread apply to the specific comment.
No more money Reason. None.

[Red Tony]

Oh, did you finally purchase a mirror?

(I used the same joke again.)

[Sevo]

R T,
That's GOOD!

[Mock-star]

Needs moar links to the very thread that the comment is on

[Rebel Scum]

It really is. It captures Hihns mendacious arrogance and stupidity. Props, RT.

[Sevo]

Fuck off, Mike. You make an ass of yourself when you're here.
Tell your wife to take away the keyboard; you'll have a better rep.

[Mock-star]

"moving on"

Please do

[Sevo]

Michael Hihn|2.3.18 @ 11:47PM|#
"Those aren't libertarians Tony."
This isn't a human of anywhere close to normal intelligence, Tony. It's the idiot known as Hihn.

[Sevo]

"Needs moar links to the very thread that the comment is on"
Mike has made claims about being involved in the tech bizz, and yet every one of his links leads you into a regressive rabbit hole.
It's almost like Mike is a fucking retard!
Well, not "almost".

[Red Tony]

Who apparently doesn't know that negative zero is still zero.

[Red Tony]

...this is MORE off-topic than the typical Hihn bullshit. How is that even possible?

[Sevo]

Oh, fuck off Mike.
Quit making an ass of yourself; your wife will be pleased.
Keep it up and you might get sued, which will really piss off your kids when they lose the $3.75 inheritance.

[damikesc]

Your NR link is a dud, Hihn. Repeatedly.

Vox is a joke. Try and do better.

[Migrant Log Chipper]

We need some antibiotics for this Hihnfection......STAT.

[Migrant Log Chipper]

This really is a life threatening Hihnfection. We need to ready the OR so we can amputate.

[Sammi]

Ya, what the hell is going on there. It legitimately looks like he's descending into dementia.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Was precious snowflake triggered?

Says the Dumbfuck Hihnsano who screeches when challenged.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Michael Hihnflake whining like a crybaby bitch again.

[Cy]

Yeah... 5 months of Trump going from "ha ha look at that idiot running for president" to "Oh shit... he might win the presidency, we'd better hurry up and rig this thing."

[Cy]

Why are you here? Isn't there an FBI agent somewhere who needs their dick sucked?

[damikesc]

That 404 link was impressive, Hihn. Truly.

[Juice]

Oh, the memo is bullshit? That's what you're going with?

[damikesc]

The Nunes memo INCLUDES classified information. It can only be released if the President declassifies it, as he has.

...by definition, that makes the info non-classified.

[damikesc]

I corrected your bullshit misquote ,, to reaffirm that his refusal to declassify the source data is .... a police state ... to which you are now a proven co-conspirator (and puppet)

I corrected your bullshit misquote ,, to reaffirm that his refusal to declassify the source data is .... a police state ... to which you are now a proven co-conspirator (and puppet)

"The Nunes memo INCLUDES classified information. It can only be released if the President declassifies it, as he has."

So, again, by definition, the memo has no classified information. I'm just going with simple logic. If it's classified until the President declassifies it, and the President declassified it, then it is not classified. It's not really a difficult concept for most people.

Taking merchandise from a store is theft until you pay for it. Then it's a purchase. Not buying everything in the store doesn't undo the purchase I just made.

[damikesc]

Thanks, troll. Now I can jam this one down your throat! (sneer)

Ouch. Truly wounding.

You're aware that an investigation beginning in July is immaterial to a FISA request? The FISA court is not required to care about how long you investigated anything, right?

And, in case you missed it, NR is a rather anti-Trump publication with David French being one of the more anti-Trump writers. Still a good read, though.

[damikesc]

Out of curiosity, with all of the cutting and pasting you do, how many mice do you go through a year?

In many ways, your writing is like Hitler's. There is no point that can be made once that you do not make, identically, numerous times.