Guard Dog

Dunno... it's funny, don't overthink it.

Great news on climate change! According to the latest issue of Discover Magazine, it's already too late: With Sea Level Rise, We've Already Hurtled Past a Point of No Return The US SecGen seems to agree: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/01/climate-change-point-no-return-074610 So you can finally all stop worrying and just live your lives. The planet is screwed and it's too late to do anything about it. Whew... kind of liberating when you think about it isn't it? I mean, one less thing to worry about right? Not like we're all not going to die sometime anyway. But don't cash in that 401k just yet. Don't forget Discover published these two tidbits in 1980 & 1981:

No subsidies are meant to keep prices even. This is a very broad example; You live in the US and sell apples domestically at $1 a bushel. I live in Canada and export them to the US them for $0.75 a bushel because of various reasons like supply, labor cost, strength of currencies, etc. To compete with me you have to sell your apples at $0.75 but to keep you from going out of business the US government will help you by paying you $0,25 for every bushel you sell.

Fine... point taken. Forget Hillary. Pretend it's a fictional run of the mill democrat no one hates

No not at all. I'm saying the Dem party will look past anything so long as they can hold onto power. They have demonstrated that on numerous occasions. Whatever ethics they have are situational at best. And no we can say the Republicans are exactly the same. House member after house member has defended actions they know were wrong. And, very shortly, the Senate will do likewise and acquit. If Trump were a democrat the democrat controlled house would not hazard losing the Executive Branch no matter what the President did. Same as the Republicans in the Senate next month.

An excerpt from the book mentioned above. As free agency began to take off in the MLB the big stars like Reggie Jackson began chafing at the long contracts signed before that had them seriously underpaid. The tensions between Jackson and Oakland A's owner Charlie Finley finally came to a head in 1976 and the A's traded Jackson to Baltimore. The following year while the Orioles were playing the White Sox at Comiskey Jackson received a call in his hotel room from Finley himself asking if they could meet. Curious, Jackson agreed to meet with Finley in Portage Park. Jackson found him sitting on a park bench. Finley began by apologizing for and promising to pay a small amount of money still owed on Jackson's contract. Then the conversation became more personal:

In neither case was the balance of power changed. Looking at Franken since he is the far more recent example. A Democrat resigning, replaced by a Democrat in a state Democrats never lose. Had Franken's resignation caused the Senate to flip you had better believe it would not have happened. That story would have been buried by any means up to and including "suiciding" Leann Tweeden.

@Gromnir interesting question. Going back to Nov 2 2016 with full foreknowledge of everything that was going to happen but not who was going to do it, I could not say which candidate won. Both were more than capable. I'd probably go with Trump as the winner because Clinton, who has no moral compass or sense of ethics either, would have been smart enough to use intermediaries for this kind of thing. The US State Dept was doing favors for Clinton Foundation donations for years and no one could prove the connection. Some eels are slipperier than others. As for Trump, he just doesn't know any better. That is what got him in trouble here. He did not know he COULDN'T do this and he won't listen to the people who do know. You do not need to sell me on the necessity of impeaching Trump. I'm there. I am just saying if he were a Democrat it would not have happened. Maybe Clinton was a poor choice or too specific an example. The Republicans turned on Nixon. They might turn on Trump. Doubt it but you never know. But the Democrats NEVER eat their own. No matter what they did. If Trump were a Democrat it would be a scandal but it would blow over.

Mostly go along with your assessment but not on this one point. The folks who favor the Dems would just convince themselves it isn't true and it's all just a Republican witchhunt. Just like the GOP leaning folks have done. And to make matters worse the Republicans will likely have made as much of a mess of it as Schiff has done. Maybe overreached a little. Maybe mixed truth with conjecture. So much so that the fact something very wrong was done would get lost just like it has here. Like I said there is an objectively correct answer here but with a few exceptions even those who came to the correct answer did not come to it correctly. Four legs good, two legs bad.

You are correct. We should be better and we are not. There is an objectively correct answer to the question "Did the President do something illegal/unethical that justifies impeachment". But right now 99% of the people who answer "yes" would answer "no" if the political party of the President were reversed. And the house Republicans. whose defense of the President has strained logic, would be leading the charge against the Democrat if their roles were reversed.

A lot of crosstalk on whether or not the impeachment fracas was entirely political. I can prove to everyone it is. ENTIRELY political. Ready? Watch this: Consider for a moment an alternate timeline. For this timeline: Assume for a moment everything is true. Well, because it is. The President did everything they got caught doing. Assume the Congress was made up exactly the same way in the alternate 2019. Same leaders, committee chairs, power splits, etc. Now assume the President is Hillary Clinton. Are we talking about impeachment right now? Of course we are not. In fact I'd be mildly surprised if the Zelensky call even made the news. So... you see? At the end of the day it has nothing to do with what the President did and everything to do with who controls what in Congress. That the President abused his office does not matter that much. Sometimes I think we are not worth the sacrifices that people have made to this country.

Whichever way you go it's more than a little cool there is such a demand for your services. Kudos to you sir!

Today I ordered some new toys, new beds, dental chews, and pig ears for the dogs for Christmas. I ordered a wine, cheese, and other stuff gift basket for my brother and his wife. I bought a $120 gift card from the Microsoft/X-Box store for my Nephew. A $120 gift card to Macy's for my niece. I ordered a cookie platter for my Vet's office, mailed cards to my colleagues from work and their families plus a few other folks I feel compelled to keep in touch with for one reason or another. Sent checks to the four charities I support and ordered some toys on Amazon for Toys for Tots. I can check all things Christmas off my to-do list! I am Ho Ho Hoed out. The chickens will get a present too: cottage cheese. They go freaking nuts for that. Now they freak out when they see me carrying anything that looks like it might be a cottage cheese tub. Including a coffee cup.

Now this is funny as hell! https://politics.theonion.com/one-eyed-man-who-kamala-harris-locked-up-25-years-ago-q-1840182471

Now reading and thoroughly enjoying: @Leferd @Hurlshot I recommend this one for you guys. Not just because of area and era familiarity but because this one is just so well written.

You are not wrong on that one. The Trump presidency has been the strangest one in my lifetime. Possibly the strangest ever. At least since William Henry Harrison. And he had to croak a month into his term to achieve that. I do not think he has done any lasting damage to the country as of right now. As bad as he is everything can be undone and forgotten with a change. But he HAS damaged the Republican Party. Not with Democrats or other non-Republicans. They will never think any more or less of people with differing opinions. But the Republicans have been forced to turn their backs on a number of principles usually considered a major part of their makeup. And have estranged quite a few people who are usually supportive of Republicans. Those fences will probably be mended but not for a long time. Even if he is re-elected and not removed he will leave them much worse off than he found them.

There is that. But by voting for not evil you are also voting for not Trump. Actually you and I can vote any way with a clear conscience. The outcome of the election in our states is a foregone conclusion. Hell the actual names of the candidates does not even matter.

Right Trump is bad, Democrats are bad, they are ALL bad. Let's not forget what the FEC one Republican and two Democrats, has been doing to free speech online and in non-traditional media these last 14 years. Obama fought a seven year feud with Fox News in the public. Sometimes justifiably, sometimes not. And don't forget the IRS being weaponized to harass conservative PAC groups during the Obama admin. And I do not believe for a second he was unaware. I'll buy that he didn't order it but he sure as hell knew it was happening and didn't stop it. There are no champions of the 1st Amendment inside the 495. The only one that comes close is Ruth Bader Ginsburg but even her support turns tepid when the prerogatives of the State are at issue. Villains to the right, villains to the left. Choose one and the other backstabs you. Sure you could call one or the other the "lesser evil". Which one that is will be a judgement call. But the lesser evil is still evil. Say no to evil.

That should have cost her everyone's vote. Forget for a moment that she was just talking out of her rear when she said that and knew full well she couldn't. Or, maybe she didn't know. Whatever. Forget that for a moment. What if she promised to executive order the 1st Amendment into oblivion? Of the 13th? Or the 10th? Oh.... wait I forgot that one is already in oblivion. There is no article, section, clause or amendment in the Constitution the President can just executive order away. It's a problem that "they" say (she was hardly the first) they will do that. It's even worse when "they"get applauded for saying it. Worst of all is the expectation that it will happen if they get elected. I am always amazed how willing people are for the leaders they support to take out a pen and order away their freedom. How many would just hand it over without a fight. Because if the 2nd Amendment can be marginalized in that way any or all of them can the moment someone finds them inconvenient.

Kamala Harris is dropping out. Good riddance

If and only if a "safe" candidate like Biden gets an electoral drubbing next Fall. If that happens the Dems are going to have the political equivalent of a full body spasm and that will likely kill off any of the "old guard" still around. I suspect if that happens the Democrat Party that takes it's place will be even less appealing to people like me. You too I'd think. Of course July 16 is an eternity from now. Anything can happen. Remember in '92 going into Super Tuesday it looked like Paul Tsongas was cruising? Then Clinton came out of nowhere. Well, anyway, Gabbard's future prospects, whatever they are, depend largely on Trump being re-elected. If that does not happen she will have a real hard time staying relevant.

@Gromnir you are mistaking what I mean about the "Clinton influence". I am not referring to actions or desires of either individual in that term. Rather the organization that has built up around and because of them over the years. Quite a few people in positions of power in the DNC are there only because of their affiliation with either or both Clintons. When someone refers to the "Clinton wing" of the party it's not necessarily a reference to the Clintons. themselves. I would love to hear anti-intervention from one of the others but at this point it would be such a reversal they would not be credible.

Actually Gabbard has announced she will not seek reelection to Congress in 2020. As for where she can go, there is nowhere else TO go. She is not a Republican. She is not a libertarian. One issue does not a marriage make. The Green Party is a straight waste of time. Might as well stay put. The Democrats are on the crux of a generational change. The Clinton's influence is waning. If Biden gets nominated and goes out there an loses the lefties will take over for 2024. She is a lefty on all but 2-3 positions. With that crowd her criticisms of the DNC might even look virtuous to the new party bosses 4 years down the road. Of course that crowd is all about ideological purity so she might well find no forgiveness for those 2-3 issues where she does not conform to their orthodoxy. If Biden goes out there and wins, she's done. The Clinton influence is extended a little while longer, no party shake up. She will be screwed. If the nominee is one of the crazy lefties and they win she will have to bide her time, seek a Senate seat , etc. If the crazy lefty loses she is the one candidate for 2024 that can appeal to the left and peel off a few Republicans. Like you, the more I hear from her the less I like her. But she is the only candidate even talking about non-intervention so she would get my vote on that issue alone. That is saying something for me. I don't want to see Trump get re-elected but seeing him replaced by any of the Democrats is not a desirable alternative for me. Trump is not "ethically challenged". He has no ethics. But the Democrats are the anti-liberty party. Should I trade a dishonest authoritarian for a honest one? Not an upgrade in my estimation when I'm still stuck with an authoritarian. So I'll vote for some LP nobody. You might call that a wasted vote. I call it a principled one. To quote John Quincy Adams "Always vote on principle though you may vote alone".

"New york state rifle & pistol association inc. v. city of new york, new York" is being argued before the Supreme Court. The gist of the case is New York City, which seems to take delight in tormenting it's citizens with nanny laws when it isn't stopping and frisking them or having cops beat the holy hell out of them for no reason, passed a law that said legal gun owners in the city could not remove their firearms from their homes and take them out of new York city. In the city they could only take them to designated ranges. The second part is one thing, the first was needlessly heavy handed. So the new york state rifle & pistol association has sued and it is now in front of the SCOTUS. Here is the thing though, the City changed the law. So the complaint is now moot. But the Court is hearing it anyway. All indications are they are gearing up to hand down a landmark ruling on gun rights. Heller affirmed ownership as a individual right. MacDonald affirmed the incorporation of the right. But both specifically dealt with ownership in the home. This case could expand into carrying in public. I am conflicted here. I am a staunch supporter of liberty of every stripe. Gun rights most of all because that is the one "they" are trying to hard to strip away. But I am also 1000% opposed to Judicial Activism. And taking up a case where the legal complaint is already moot is a text book example of it. As much as I would applaud an expansion or gun rights, or more accurately a curtailment of the government's ability to take them, I don't want it done like this. The ends do not justify the means.