[talaniman]

More dems have joined the impeachment movement, bringing a majority of the caucus favoring an official action, as well as a state court subpoena for the dufus biz, and family. The drum beats slowly but steadily for those who think the dufus was in the clear after the Mueller hearing. As usual the dufus antics have changed the headlines and conversation, but not the minds of many determined to expose his phony administration. Congress goes home to it's constituents soon, and we will see what the public thinks.

The list of repubs retiring grows also, in advance of the upcoming election.

[jlisenbe]

Time will tell. If the dems bring baseless impeachment charges, it will backfire.

[tomder55]

The list of repubs retiring grows also, in advance of the upcoming election.

That is disturbing ;although not uncommon .

An uptick in retirements is common for the minority party after a shift in power. More than a dozen House Democrats left Congress after the 2010 tea party wave. Some of this is self imposed because the GOP set term limits on committee chairs ;(three consecutive terms),
unlike the Dems who have the same old stale leadership year after year ;now being challenged by the so called "Core " . Members who won't be able to retain their chairmanship would rather move on than become back benchers .

Will Hurd's announcement is more troubling because his district is a toss up(

Hurd won by less than 1000 votes )

;and because he was the sole African American Republican rep.

[talaniman]

I remember the shellacking the dems took in 2010 and 2012, though Obama survived, and odds are the dufus will too, but ending the reign of Moscow Mitch would be great in my book. You're a capitalist, the flow of money from Russia through the dufus sycophants doesn't raise red flags?

Hurd would have been a good choice to replace Coates, and qualified, but he wasn't loyal enough to the dufus. That would have been a nice touch after all those racist remarks.

[Athos]

I saw nothing in the article that would alert me to neo-nazism. However you are using nazi tactics with guilt by association

Sometimes guilt by association is true.

Here's a sampling of the articles on the website (Infostormer) you recommended - all in BOLD headlines:

"Ronald Reagan Exposed as a N*****-Hating Racist"
"Woman Unapologetic for saying, 'You're A Stupid N*****'"
"Jewish C*** Laura Loomer Runs For Congress"
"WaPo Jew Accuses Mitch McConnell"
"Fat Kike Nadler To Seek Grand Jury"
"WaPo Jewess Exposes Trump-Russian Hamburger Conspiracy"
"Stormer Book Club Warns Public That Jew Holocaust Is Fake News"
"Zionist Kikes Bulldoze Palestinian Homes in the West Bank"
"Burger King Promotes Gay A** Sex in Commercial"
"Negro CNN Anchor Cries On Air"

You saw NOTHING that would alert you to Neo-Nazism? NOTHING?

Your slip is showing, paraclete.

[paraclete]

Just because I read and d linked one article you think I examined all the other articles on the site as I said you draw a long bow and house a stack of strawmen, take it up with Google.. Thing is your nose is still out of join

[Athos]

Just because I read and d linked one article you think I examined all the other articles on the site

No, I don't think you "examined" all the other articles. After seeing the topics listed in bold (see above) you had no need to.

There was no possible reason to cite that website other than it fits in, more or less, with your beliefs. You guys always reveal yourselves, sooner or later.

[talaniman]

Like Clete said the article fit the narrative so why review the source? Is it to much to ask to vet the site? Just click home or about us, or google them yourselves. A simple scroll through would have revealed a lot as you and I did Athos.

I took it as yet another provocation by our ever provocative Aussie friend. Over the years I've gotten use to it.

8D

[jlisenbe]

Like Clete said the article fit the narrative so why review the source? Is it to much to ask to vet the site? Just click home or about us, or google them yourselves. A simple scroll through would have revealed a lot as you and I did Athos.

So you are saying you go through that process with every website you link? If, for instance, you have linked to CNN, do you notice that they corruptly tried to benefit the Clinton campaign in the last pres election???

[talaniman]

Obviously CNN could not back a corrupt businesman who has been hollering racists memes from his mouth for decades and started his presidential campaign spouting off about the brown rapists invading our country. In light of the terrorists shootings you should be condemning white nationalists and their president who enables them with the help of Moscow Mitch. You holler about the dems trashy inner cities but balk at real racists killers resorting to these mass shootings and holler your 2nd amendment rights while loonies murder our kids at school.

Everybody but YOU is corrupt and that's just sick!

[tomder55]

I try to only use sources libs approve here because they immediatly attack the source instead of the content . The fact is that before their reconciliation AOC accused Pelosi of

“singling out " "newly elected women of color” for criticism.I'll leave it to you if she was accusing Pelosi of being racist https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/11/polit...out/index.html

[talaniman]

I'm guilty! I do tend to jump on some of the far right wing loony sources. Especially when I can't find any other corroboration but other far right wing loony sources. Everybody and his brother has a website and a cause with opinions and calls themselves news or whatever, so caution is checking beyond the source. The internet gives everyone a voice but doesn't mean it's widespread or widely shared.

LOL, progressives and moderates have the same problem that repubs have with the freedom caucus not big enough to run things, but noisy with numbers to stop things they don't like, though as yet the squad as Pelosi said is only 4 votes. Twitter doesn't count and they should learn to get fellow caucus members on board. With Pelosi it ain't personal, and she is famous for counting VOTES. Her time is short though and whomever follows her will have a lot on their hands.

I actually felt sorry for Bonehead many times.

[Athos]

I'll leave it to you if she was accusing Pelosi of being racist https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/11/polit...out/index.html

The article clearly states that AOC denies that she thought Pelosi was racist. "Absolutely not," she said. It couldn't be any clearer.

[jlisenbe]

Obviously CNN could not back a corrupt businesman who has been hollering racists memes from his mouth for decades and started his presidential campaign spouting off about the brown rapists invading our country. In light of the terrorists shootings you should be condemning white nationalists and their president who enables them with the help of Moscow Mitch. You holler about the dems trashy inner cities but balk at real racists killers resorting to these mass shootings and holler your 2nd amendment rights while loonies murder our kids at school.

1. Congratulations for completely avoiding the question. Hide and evade.
2. Your contention about Trump being a white nationalist is nonsense.
3. I have said nothing about the 2nd amendment and we have not discussed school shootings. You are in your fantasy land again.

[jlisenbe]

The entire exchange.

"the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color," Ocasio-Cortez added.
Ocasio-Cortez stood by her claim Thursday that Pelosi has been unfairly zeroing in on freshman women of color.

"It's really just pointing out the pattern, right? We're not talking about just progressives, it's signaling out four individuals," Ocasio-Cortez told CNN on Capitol Hill. "And knowing the media environment that we're operating in, knowing the amount of death threats that we get, knowing the amount of concentration detention, I think it's just worth asking why."

Asked if she thinks Pelosi has racial animus or is racist, Ocasio-Cortez said unequivocally, "No, no, absolutely not, absolutely not."

The essential question was, "I think it's just worth asking why." So why would a person single out "newly elected women of color"? Not progressives mind you, but four "women of color".

Well, I'm sure she was not trying to suggest that race had anything to do with it. It must surely be because of.......?

[talaniman]

I won't be dismissed today my friend just because you don't like or agree with my response.

1 Your question was answered I just didn't agree with your corruption nonsense.

2 He said publically several times he is a nationalist and he is white so figure that out.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...al/1748521002/

3 I know YOU said nothing about the 2nd Amendment or the MAS shootings but I did now deal with it!

[jlisenbe]

3 I know YOU said nothing about the 2nd Amendment or the MAS shootings but I did now deal with it!

So you were wrong when you said this. "You holler about the dems trashy inner cities but balk at real racists killers resorting to these mass shootings and holler your 2nd amendment rights while loonies murder our kids at school." At least you admit you were wrong, so that's a step in the right direction.

2 He said publically several times he is a nationalist and he is white so figure that out.

Yeah, he's white so evidently in your view he must be a white nationalist. Unbelievable.

You kind of forgot to add that he said this. "I love our country, and our country has taken second fiddle," the president said, arguing that "we're giving all of our money, all of our wealth to other countries and then they don't treat us properly."

[Wondergirl]

2. Your contention about Trump being a white nationalist is nonsense.

Then what is he?

[jlisenbe]

Then what is he?

Do you understand the difference between a black nationalist, a white nationalist, and a nationalist?

[Wondergirl]

Do you understand the difference between a black nationalist, a white nationalist, and a nationalist?

Please answer my question.