Liberal Forum

Huey » 02 Nov 2017 11:58 am » wrote:Your state laws say you have to be to vote in the primary.

Misty » 02 Nov 2017 12:11 pm » wrote: I have even posted my voter registration card, more than once, to show Clem that I am NOT a registered Democrat, but he still insists on lying about it.
Because that's what he does best......lie.

Misty » 02 Nov 2017 12:11 pm » wrote: No, really?
I didn't know that.

You can change your registration any time you want, you know.
Which is what I did during the 2008 primaries when I temporarily registered as a Democrat so I could vote in the NY State primary election, and in 2016 when I temporarily registered as a Republican, so I could vote in the PA primary.

Other than those few months when I was registered in a political party, I have been an unaffiliated voter since I became of voting age.

I have even posted my voter registration card, more than once, to show Clem that I am NOT a registered Democrat, but he still insists on lying about it.
Because that's what he does best......lie.

Misty » 02 Nov 2017 12:02 pm » wrote: He was not the Democratic leader in the Senate when that bill was passed.
He was a member of the House.

Misty » 02 Nov 2017 12:11 pm » wrote: I have even posted my voter registration card, more than once, to show Clem that I am NOT a registered Democrat, but he still insists on lying about it.
Because that's what he does best......lie.

Billionaire GOP donor Robert Mercer to sell stake in Breitbart, will resign as co-CEO of hedge fund.

Renaissance Technologies' Robert Mercer plans to step down as co-chief executive officer effective Jan. 1, as he tries to distance himself from controversy over his political ties to associates of President Donald Trump.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... story.html

Termin8tor » 02 Nov 2017 12:44 pm » wrote:When did I EVER claim you were a registered Democrat, psycho?

Termin8tor » 02 Nov 2017 12:15 pm » wrote:"Lie?" Hilarious coming from a psychopath.
When I use the term "your party" I'm referring to the party whose felons you defend.

Whose Talking Point Lies you endlessly spread.
Not the party whose members you smear.
Does that give you a hint?

Misty » 02 Nov 2017 1:04 pm » wrote: No.
If that's what you mean then that's what you should say.....the party I defend.
Calling it MY party means the party to which I belong.
Does that give you a hint?

Misty » 02 Nov 2017 12:59 pm » wrote: You must be **** kidding me.
How many times have you called the Democratic Party my party?
How many times have you said, "YOUR party is ****?"

Bigsky » 02 Nov 2017 1:16 pm » wrote:
https://youtu.be/SbyAZQ45uww

Misty » 02 Nov 2017 1:42 pm » wrote:
Okay true story.
When I was a kid, my Mother used to take us to see the taping of TV shows.
I actually saw her perform that live on a show called Hullabaloo.

My Mother brought an autographed photo she had of Frank Sinatra from when he was just starting out, and Nancy signed it.
I have a scan of it on a flash drive somewhere.
Too lazy to look for it.

I was there in the audience.

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

Misty » 02 Nov 2017 1:04 pm » wrote: No.
If that's what you mean then that's what you should say.....the party I defend.
Calling it MY party means the party to which I belong.
Does that give you a hint?

Misty » 02 Nov 2017 12:11 pm » wrote:Other than those few months when I was registered in a political party, I have been an unaffiliated voter since I became of voting age.

I have even posted my voter registration card, more than once, to show Clem that I am NOT a registered Democrat, but he still insists on lying about it.
Because that's what he does best......lie.

Donna Brazile: I Found Proof the DNC Rigged the Primaries for Hillary Clinton

...Right around the time of the convention, the leaked emails revealed Hillary's campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild "the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That's what will happen."

Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary's campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as "essentially … money laundering" for the Clinton campaign, Hillary's people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary....

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement--signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias--specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
I had been wondering why it was that I couldn't write a press release
http://ace.mu.nu/

SESSIONS SUDDENLY REMEMBERS RUSSIA CONVERSATION HE SAID DIDN‘T HAPPEN

The attorney general’s memory has been miraculously restored.


Back in June, there was some cause for concern that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was having memory problems.

When questioned from multiple angles during multiple appearances before Congressional investigators about the Trump campaign‘s relationship to Russia, Sessions‘s consistent refrain was: “I don’t recall.”
He gave an equally evasive response when Minnesota Senator Al Franken specifically asked whether surrogates from the Trump campaign had communicated with Russians during the 2016 election in October.

“I did not, and I’m not aware of anyone else that did, and I don’t believe it happened,” Sessions told the Senate Intelligence Committee under oath.
(He made similar statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee.)

Now, however, Sessions has reportedly changed his tune.

Citing a source familiar with Sessions’s thinking, NBC News reported on Thursday that the attorney general—who served as a top Trump surrogate and headed the then-presidential hopeful’s national security team—does in fact recall rejecting George Papadopoulos’s offer to arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin, after the Republican candidate stopped short of ruling out the idea.

“The March 31 comments by this Papadopoulos person did not leave a lasting impression,” the source told NBC News.

“As far as Sessions seemed to be concerned, when he shut down this idea of Papadopoulos engaging with Russia, that was the end of it and he moved the meeting along to other issues.”

The source added that Papadopoulos was viewed by those in attendance “as someone who didn't have a lot of credibility.”

Sessions, who recused himself from the ongoing Justice Department probe amid questions of his impartiality earlier this year, faced a fresh wave of scrutiny after it was revealed on Monday that Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about his contacts with the Russians during an interview in January.

According to court documents, Papadopoulos told special counsel Robert Mueller and his investigators that at a national-security meeting on March 31, 2016, he “stated, in sum and substance, that he had connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President [Vladimir] Putin.”

Both Trump and Sessions were unmistakably present at the meeting.

“YOU CAN’T GO ANY LOWER”: INSIDE THE WEST WING, TRUMP IS APOPLECTIC AS ALLIES FEAR IMPEACHMENT

After Monday’s indictments, the president blamed Jared Kushner in a call to Steve Bannon, while others are urging him to take off the gloves with Robert Mueller.

Until now, Robert Mueller has haunted Donald Trump’s White House as a hovering, mostly unseen menace.

But by securing indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and a surprise guilty plea from foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, Mueller announced loudly that the Russia investigation poses an existential threat to the president.

“Here’s what Manafort’s indictment tells me: Mueller is going to go over every financial dealing of Jared Kushner and the Trump Organization,” said former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg.

“Trump is at 33 percent in Gallup. You can’t go any lower. He’s ****.”

The first charges in the Mueller probe have kindled talk of what the endgame for Trump looks like, according to conversations with a half-dozen advisers and friends of the president.

For the first time since the investigation began, the prospect of impeachment is being considered as a realistic outcome and not just a liberal fever dream.

According to a source, advisers in the West Wing are on edge and doing whatever they can not to be ensnared.

One person close to Dina Powell and Gary Cohn said they’re making sure to leave rooms if the subject of Russia comes up.

The consensus among the advisers I spoke to is that Trump faces few good options to thwart Mueller.

For one, firing Mueller would cross a red line, analogous to Nixon’s firing of Archibald Cox during Watergate, pushing establishment Republicans to entertain the possibility of impeachment.

“His options are limited, and his instinct is to come out swinging, which won’t help things,” said a prominent Republican close to the White House.

Trump, meanwhile, has reacted to the deteriorating situation by lashing out on Twitter and venting in private to friends.

He’s frustrated that the investigation seems to have no end in sight.

“Trump wants to be critical of Mueller,” one person who’s been briefed on Trump’s thinking says.

“He thinks it’s unfair criticism.

Clinton hasn’t gotten anything like this. And what about Tony Podesta?

Trump is like, When is that going to end?”

According to two sources, Trump has complained to advisers about his legal team for letting the Mueller probe progress this far.

Speaking to Steve Bannon on Tuesday, Trump blamed Jared Kushner for his role in decisions, specifically the firings of Mike Flynn and James Comey, that led to Mueller’s appointment, according to a source briefed on the call.

When Roger Stone recently told Trump that Kushner was giving him bad political advice, Trump agreed, according to someone familiar with the conversation.

“Jared is the worst political adviser in the White House in modern history,” Nunberg said.

“I’m only saying publicly what everyone says behind the scenes at Fox News, in conservative media, and the Senate and Congress.”
(The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment by deadline.)

President Trump backed down from his threat to send New York City terrorism suspect Sayfullo Saipov to the military detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an enemy combatant and instead called for a quick death sentence.

In a tweet early Thursday, Trump said that he “would love to send the NYC terrorist to Guantanamo but statistically the process takes much longer than going through the Federal system.”

Trump also called for the “DEATH PENALTY!,” using all capital letters and an exclamation point as a signal that he was not softening his position.

He was repeating the call he'd made hours earlier on Twitter, just before midnight Wednesday and also in capital letters -- a presidential intervention against the defendant that could complicate prosecutors' efforts, by allowing his defense team to argue he cannot receive a fair trial.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washing ... story.html