WV GOP Senate primary continues to amaze and befuddle...

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/05/blankenship-polls-west-virginia-senate-primary-570752

His (Blankenship’s) scorching attacks have veered into deeply personal, even racially charged territory.

This week, Blankenship began airing a TV commercial labeling McConnell “Cocaine Mitch,” an apparent reference to a 2014 report that drugs were once found aboard a shipping vessel owned by the family of McConnell’s wife, Taiwan-born Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. Then, a few days later, Blankenship began airing another spot declaring that McConnell’s “China family has given him tens of millions of dollars.”

...

But after lining up behind losing candidates in Alabama and Pennsylvania races — electoral defeats that ultimately proved embarrassing to Trump — many Republicans are skeptical that he will forcefully repudiate Blankenship ahead of the primary.

Particularly concerning to Republicans is Blankenship’s TV spending. Over the final six days of the race, the self-funding coal baron is set to spend over $640,000 on commercials, according to media buying totals — more than Jenkins and Morrisey combined. Blankenship has spent over $2.5 million on TV ads in total, far more than his rivals.

Senior Republicans say they are also distressed that Jenkins and Morrisey spent nearly all of the campaign savaging each other. Further complicating matters is that a Democratic super PAC, Duty and Country, convinced that Jenkins would pose a formidable challenge to Manchin, has invested $1.8 million targeting him in an effort to keep him from winning the GOP primary.

Hmmm ... I always enjoy the SNL openings when they are about Trump. Alec Baldwin is a genius playing Trump. It's impossible to be that good of an actor.

And I love Kate McKinnon doing all sorts of characters. But this week Stormy Daniels, the real one, was actually on the show. WOW! I wonder if this was appropriate. She is a bonafide porn star on TV. WTF? I don't think SNL should have put Stormy on TV. Couldn't somebody have played the part? They brought in several celebs for the skit like Martin Short, the guy from the Fockers series, Jimmy Fallon. Why the real Stormy??

Eric Schneiderman has resigned.

15 hours ago, greg775 said:

Hmmm ... I always enjoy the SNL openings when they are about Trump. Alec Baldwin is a genius playing Trump. It's impossible to be that good of an actor.

And I love Kate McKinnon doing all sorts of characters. But this week Stormy Daniels, the real one, was actually on the show. WOW! I wonder if this was appropriate. She is a bonafide porn star on TV. WTF? I don't think SNL should have put Stormy on TV. Couldn't somebody have played the part? They brought in several celebs for the skit like Martin Short, the guy from the Fockers series, Jimmy Fallon. Why the real Stormy??

She wasn't having sex on SNL. Holy mackerel, you're uptight.

15 hours ago, greg775 said:

Hmmm ... I always enjoy the SNL openings when they are about Trump. Alec Baldwin is a genius playing Trump. It's impossible to be that good of an actor.

And I love Kate McKinnon doing all sorts of characters. But this week Stormy Daniels, the real one, was actually on the show. WOW! I wonder if this was appropriate. She is a bonafide porn star on TV. WTF? I don't think SNL should have put Stormy on TV. Couldn't somebody have played the part? They brought in several celebs for the skit like Martin Short, the guy from the Fockers series, Jimmy Fallon. Why the real Stormy??

Let's be honest here, our President would quite literally fuck anyone for money himself...

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Let's be honest here, our President would quite literally fuck anyone for money himself...

Undeniably true.

To no ones surprise the early Democrats lead has almost disappeared. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/politics/cnn-poll-generic-ballot-narrows/index.html?sr=twCNN050918cnn-poll-generic-ballot-narrows0308PMVODtop

To nobody's surprise, Trump is STILL dominating the world conversation and MOST of his foreign policy decisions...at least for the moment, seem to be breaking his way.

Would probably hold back on that Nobel Peace Prize for now though.

The Democrats still haven't rearticulated exactly what they are for...except the opposite of everything Trump represents, fighting for workers' rights benefits, health care, protecting Social Security, etc.

I don't think the Dems have a clear idea or consensus on any of these foreign policy issues, either.

 

What goes around comes around ... didn't Trump's administration have some classless line about Mr. McCain dying? Now Melania is hospitalized. What goes around comes around. Be classy as much as you can, people. You say something mean and don't back down, it's strange how often something bad in return happens to u.

If you have ever walked State Street in Chicago, this is officially the greatest meme ever.

 

Since when is the “intelligence community” on the side of Democrats?    Ummm...that would be never.But that’s almost as rich as a Seth Rich conspiracy.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/wapo_targets_intelligence_cont.html

It used to be the complete opposite.  But that evil Bezos is doing the bidding of his overlords in the military/industrial complex despite the Trump administration allocating more funding than any agency or military branch even requested.

Edited May 19, 20187 yr by caulfield12

6 hours ago, raBBit said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/18/if-the-fbi-used-an-informant-it-wasnt-to-go-after-trump-it-was-to-protect-him/?utm_term=.ac6987b29814&noredirect=on

When does the public acknowledge and accept that WaPo is shilling for the intelligence community? The money trail is there, the ridiculous articles are there. 

So far the witch hunt has 17 indictments and 5 guilty pleas. The intelligence community is far more conservative than liberal. 

Or, James Clapper and Rogers have succeeded in turning the entire IC against the GOP/Trump...which is actually not the case because the majority of those in the IC hate having former CIA directors get so directly involved in partisan politics as Clapper has done, basically accusing the president of treason, or intimating it, at least.   He certainly hasn’t ruled that possibility out.

There’s no way to PROVE anything he says...that’s the beauty of a conspiracy theory.

It’s all about perception.  If someone is led to believe something they’re already “suggestible” on...it’s not much of a stretch to push them over the edge into a full-fledged zealot.

Edited May 20, 20187 yr by caulfield12

I am surprised to see this bounce on a 7-2 vote.

 

When I saw the headline, I assumed it meant a 5-4 ruling and not a legally narrow ruling. It'll be interesting to see how they end up resolving the deeper issues at play in some of the other cases.

Business as usual in Illinois.

 

On 6/4/2018 at 11:22 AM, southsider2k5 said:

I am surprised to see this bounce on a 7-2 vote.

 

Couldn't they just have bought the cake somewhere else? If this baker has religious beliefs that forbid him writing "congratulations happy couple' on the cake is that such a big deal? Couldn't they buy the cake somewhere else? Forgive me for taking a lighthearted attitude toward this. But in this case I always think about food and how you need to be careful offending servers. That movie where they put weird stuff in the food after customers complain? If this baker is religious he probably wouldn't damage the food, but he could have agreed to bake the cake and put gross stuff in it if he wanted. Or he coulda mis-spelled some words on the cake and just claimed he's a bad speller. If somebody doesn't want to sell you a product, why not just go elsewhere? Maybe I'm way off base here. I haven't read enough about the case I guess. I just always think, "Don't mess with people who are cooking your food; baking your cakes. You don't know what's gonna be in the final product." I even told the guy I was dining with the other day to NOT complain about the appetizers that sucked until after we get our main course.

2 minutes ago, greg775 said:

Couldn't they just have bought the cake somewhere else? If this baker has religious beliefs that forbid him writing "congratulations happy couple' on the cake is that such a big deal? Couldn't they buy the cake somewhere else? Forgive me for taking a lighthearted attitude toward this. But in this case I always think about food and how you need to be careful offending servers. That movie where they put weird stuff in the food after customers complain? If this baker is religious he probably wouldn't damage the food, but he could have agreed to bake the cake and put gross stuff in it if he wanted. Or he coulda mis-spelled some words on the cake and just claimed he's a bad speller. If somebody doesn't want to sell you a product, why not just go elsewhere? Maybe I'm way off base here. I haven't read enough about the case I guess. I just always think, "Don't mess with people who are cooking your food; baking your cakes. You don't know what's gonna be in the final product." I even told the guy I was dining with the other day to NOT complain about the appetizers that sucked until after we get our main course.

Can't you just post somewhere else?  Is that such a big deal?

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Can't you just post somewhere else?  Is that such a big deal?

What's wrong with differing opinions? It would have to be boring with you guys agreeing with each other all the time. Tell me your opinion of that case. Why is it right to make the bakers do something they don't want to do if it's against their religious beliefs? What's more the commission mocked the guy for his religious beliefs. "Just bake the cake bud!" ... If the couple couldn't get the cake anywhere else and it wrecked the wedding, I might be more sympathetic. But again ... if you mess with the chefs, food servers will tell you you may not like what you get as the final product.

Edited June 6, 20187 yr by greg775

1 minute ago, greg775 said:

What's wrong with differing opinions? It would have to be boring with you guys agreeing with each other all the time.

See, you don't like it either.

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

See, you don't like it either.

I don't mind reading differing opinions about matters.

16 minutes ago, greg775 said:

Couldn't they just have bought the cake somewhere else? If this baker has religious beliefs that forbid him writing "congratulations happy couple' on the cake is that such a big deal? Couldn't they buy the cake somewhere else? Forgive me for taking a lighthearted attitude toward this. But in this case I always think about food and how you need to be careful offending servers. That movie where they put weird stuff in the food after customers complain? If this baker is religious he probably wouldn't damage the food, but he could have agreed to bake the cake and put gross stuff in it if he wanted. Or he coulda mis-spelled some words on the cake and just claimed he's a bad speller. If somebody doesn't want to sell you a product, why not just go elsewhere? Maybe I'm way off base here. I haven't read enough about the case I guess. I just always think, "Don't mess with people who are cooking your food; baking your cakes. You don't know what's gonna be in the final product." I even told the guy I was dining with the other day to NOT complain about the appetizers that sucked until after we get our main course.

In Colorado, it is illegal to discriminate based on someone's sexuality. You may as well be asking "couldn't that black couple just have gone to a different bakery?" as far as public accommodations civil rights law goes.

Per the court, the commission was wrong for mocking the baker's beliefs and that's why the court ruled the way it did. The Court made no ruling on the underlying issue.

21 minutes ago, greg775 said:

I don't mind reading differing opinions about matters.

Then go somewhere else.

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Then go somewhere else.

Thanks for hating on me and being so unwelcoming.