Recent Comments

1. 29 minutes ago on Chip Bok

   Correct me if I’m wrong, but couldn’t Trump just clear much of this up by releasing what’s on the warrant? (I know all questions won’t be answered, but it would give some sense of the DoJ’s rational.) Or, is there more to be gained by his continual playing the grievance card?

   By the way, did I miss your comment regarding Comey’s insertion of the Weiner investigation into the 2016 presidential race? Do you realize that some Democrats consider that as proof of FBI interference favoring Trump?

2. about 3 hours ago on ViewsAmerica

   Nah, he’s got plenty more.

3. about 3 hours ago on Jack Ohman

   Here’s something I’ve noted about the difference between (most) Democrats and (most) Republicans: an inability to self-deprecate by the former. For example, this new meme:

   https://hyperallergic.com/753543/behold-the-rise-of-dark-brandon/

   Taking the childish taunt and flipping it. What’s the GOP equivalent of poking fun at themself?

4. about 10 hours ago on Chip Bok

   Seems like there was an investigation, and she was criticized but found to be innocent of potential lawbreaking. Remember when James Comey suggested that her e-mails were being looked at again because they might be used in the Weiner case? Then said never mind? And how HClinton’s lead in the polls and her ability to win undecided voters disappeared? I’m sorry you look at the world exclusively through a political/ideological lens… sometimes facts are just facts.

   By the way, Throwing around terms like “leftard” really doesn’t do much for your argument.

5. about 15 hours ago on Chip Bok

   What is being suppressed? Aren’t you literally posting?As for the weaknesses of arguments, I often ask a question or series of questions to see if posters can defend their position. I look for inconsistencies; if you say you’re for law and order then want to defund the FBI, that’s inconsistent. It suggests a “rules for thee, but not for me” philosophy. Almost always, the response is a deflection or being called a name Or just plain ignored.

   See, I like IDEAS. I like if people can defend those IDEAS. I don’t look at it as let’s “own” the other side.

6. about 15 hours ago on Chip Bok

   Yes, if there’s evidence of crime, I would.

   Are you saying some are above the law?

7. about 20 hours ago on Chip Bok

   So many Trump allies above not even recognizing the POSSIBILITY that their guy could be wrong/have committed a crime. How about thinking critically rather than parroting talking points about banana republics and poor besmirched Big Lying presidents?

   Trump could clear this all up by releasing what was there. Will he? Or, will he “plead the 5th”, like he just did in the NY case?

   Don’t you think Garland, a rather smart guy who has been criticized by the left for going too slowly, considered all these possible responses when he asked for the search warrant?

   If there’s no there there I will recognize it as so; will the righties above, huffing and puffing with such profound expertise on all things legal/political, do the same if there’s there there? Or will they move on to the next talking point?

8. about 21 hours ago on Mike Luckovich

   Flagged. Try making an argument w/o your vile thoughts, huh?

9. 1 day ago on Mike Luckovich

   Banana Republic vs. rule of law.

10. 1 day ago on Bob Gorrell

    https://www.salon.com/2022/08/08/paul-manafort-admits-he-shared-campaign-info-with-russian-agent-purely-to-make-money_partner/

    Manafort was working for Hillary?