Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Eeyores and concern trolls out in force after Omnibus crap sandwich

Eeyores and concern trolls out in force after Omnibus crap sandwich

Get over it. If the totalitarian Resistance takes control of government, the Obama years will seem like the good old days.

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

In the early days of Legal Insurrection, particularly after Obama’s 2008 victory at least through the 2010 midterms, I often saw the word “eeyore” used to describe those in the conservative blogosphere whose main role in life was to spread gloom.

I also learned about a few types of common blog trolls:

  • Regular Troll — This guy is openly 180-degrees opposed to the purpose and/or ideological orientation of the blog. Whatever you’re for, he’s against, and vice-versa….
  • False-Flag Troll — This guy pretends to be on your side, but he’s really not. Claiming to be a conservative, he inevitably advances messages that are anti-conservative. His purpose is to sow confusion, discord and demoralization.
  • Concern Troll — A subspecies of false-flag troll. The Obama campaign deployed a swarm of concern trolls in fall 2008. They were recognizable by the 3-point argument that went something like this: (1) I’m a committed conservative/lifelong Republican, but (2) I’m concernedabout [something the Republicans had said or done], and therefore (3) I’m thinking I might vote for Obama on Election Day….
  • Agent Provocateur Troll — Another false-flag subspecies, who aims to elicit unsavory or disreputable comments from other commenters, which can then be quoted to discredit the blog.

Although it’s a little off point, it’s worth noting that according to a study, “trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism”.

The eeyores and concern trolls are out in full force after Trump signed the Omnibus crap sandwich. While there was a possible logic to Trump signing the Omnibus bill, on the merits alone it’s hard to defend.

My anger is most intense against the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, whose job it was to draft the legislation. They surrendered, and worse, colluded.

Watching Schumer and Pelosi gloat and take victory dances is most unbearable of all. I’m reminded of Psalm 30: “I will extol thee, O Lord; for thou hast lifted me up, and hast not made my foes to rejoice over me.” House and Senate Republican leadership allowed our foes to rejoice over us, and Trump didn’t stop them. And all for no reason since Republicans *control* the House and Senate — it’s absolutely maddening and almost incomprehensible.

Omnibus has a lot of people spreading gloom for the 2018 elections and the rest of the Trump presidency. Most of the anger and frustration is genuine. But not all of it.

There’s a lot of concern trolling going on. It’s particularly intense from the sub-species of Republicans who have created a cottage cable TV and Twitter industry of being the Republicans who hates Trump more than even the most-hardened Democrat. These concern trolls claim to want to save the Republican Party and conservatism by making sure Trump’s presidency ends in Democrat victory.

There’s also plenty of concern trolling from the mainstream media, which is all too happy to exploit the divisions among Republicans the Omnibus bill created.

This all becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy — the more the mistake of the Omnibus brings Trump voters down, the more likely to bring Republicans down in November. Eeyore-ism has a cost.

I’m happy to be part of an accounting with the Republicans who sold us out. But I’m not going to be a part of throwing the elections over it. I may not be over the Omnibus mistake yet, but I will be soon because the stakes are so high. As frustrating as Republican rule has become, I remember what it’s like to have Democrats in control. And the next time Democrats gain control, it will be far worse.

In the past two years we’ve seen how unhinged and totalitarian #TheResistance has become, weaponizing large corporations against us to silence our ability to communicate and trying to take away 2nd Amendment rights. There is no part of life that is not political.  That loss of institutions is why, despite Republican wins in 2016, I wrote last October that Legal Insurrection is 9 years old, and filled with dread:

If the assault on the Electoral College was the game changer for me, a runner up was waking up to implications of the concentration of power in a small number of social media and internet companies who have been weaponized to shut down speech and expression. Google, Facebook, Twitter and two handfuls of other companies now completely control our ability to communicate with each other, while internet backbone companies are poised to block internet access altogether.

Imagine living in a repressive country in which the government blocked access to and suppressed internet content. You don’t need to move. It’s coming here but from private industry. This is, in many ways, more dangerous than government suppression of free speech because at least in the U.S. the government is subject to the First Amendment, and can be voted out of office.

I don’t know if there are any uncorrupted institutions left that matter. The education system, from public grade school through public and private higher ed, is gone….

There is a rising tide of absolutism in ideas and enforcement of ideological uniformity that is palpable….

#TheResistance is not your grandfather’s or even father’s Democrat Party. If 2018 and 2020 Resistance Democrats take control of government combined with weaponized corporations, the Obama years of *mere* IRS harassment and politicized DOJ will seem like the good old days.

If you let the eeyores and concern trolls drive the agenda, then prepare for much worse to come.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Close The Fed | March 24, 2018 at 8:41 pm

As Steven Bannon said at CPAC 2017, if you think they’re going to give you your country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken.

Starts at 3:06.
https://youtu.be/Oy2qOQBih9w?t=3m6s

    Matt_SE in reply to Close The Fed. | March 25, 2018 at 5:37 pm

    Steve Bannon was icky. There were lots of people here who said so. Aren’t you all glad you got rid of him now?

    Fools.

      rdmdawg in reply to Matt_SE. | March 25, 2018 at 10:36 pm

      I mistakenly downvoted you, I didn’t recognize the sarcasm at first.

      Trump should’ve backed Bannon in his fight vs. McMaster. Keeping that swamp critter in there has been a disaster.

While I agree with you that the Resistance has gone off the rails, what is happening is exactly what happened under Bush.

Republicans got elected by mouthing conservative principles, then as soon as they were in power they started acting like Democrat lites.

And the result was the massive throwout of Republicans in 2006 and 2008.

Trump has done some things that I support but the Republicans in Congress are, as a group, pissing off everybody vaguely conservative. Look no further than their bullshit with Obamacare. ‘We can’t do anything Democrats have control!’. Republicans get the House. ‘We can’t do anything Democrats have control of the Senate!’. Republicans get the Senate. ‘We can’t do anything Obama is still in the White House!’. Trump wins. ‘Oh. Forget it, we weren’t really that interested in repealing it anyway.’

    Milhouse in reply to Olinser. | March 24, 2018 at 9:16 pm

    Um, no. The fact is that all the Senate Republicans did want to stop 0bamacare, and almost all still want to repeal it, but

    (a) the Ds still have enough senators to filibuster a repeal. Remember that the only way the Ds passed it in the first place was because they had 60 senators, and the moment they lost that 60th seat the 41 Rs stood firm to filibuster any amendments, which is why it ended up the mess that it did.

    (b) Out of the current 51 Rs, there are a handful who resisted passing it in the first place, but now that it’s in place and people are adjusted to it they don’t want to disturb it too much, fearing the disruption. They’re only a few, but with such a thin margin they make all the difference.

    Bottom line: if we’d come out of the last election with 60 senators 0bamacare would have been repealed immediately. Even if we’d only come out with 55 or so, there would have been a majority for repealing as much of it as possible in the face of D resistance. But with 52 including some whose opposition is less firm than the rest it proved impossible. Don’t blame McConnell for that.

      tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | March 24, 2018 at 10:01 pm

      They’re only a few, but with such a thin margin they make all the difference.

      Which is exactly what he said. Despite having the numbers, the Republicans won’t repeal it. Whatever their excuse for this failure, as a party they’ve let their electorate down.

        Milhouse in reply to tom_swift. | March 25, 2018 at 1:51 am

        No, it’s the exact opposite. The Rs do not have the numbers on this, because a few of their number are against it. Senators are not their parties’ property; they are entitled to their own opinions, and on this issue there are a tiny handful of R senators who differ from the vast majority, and there is nothing the GOP can do about it. If there were 54 or 55 R senators then the few opponents wouldn’t matter. But with a razor-thin majority every senator counts, and you often don’t have the numbers to do something unless you can get some defectors from the Ds.

      rdmdawg in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2018 at 10:41 pm

      I’m really sick of this, and I’m really sick of you. People like you tell me ‘We need 60 people in the senate!’ before we get anything. Tell me, how are the Democrats getting EVERYTHING they want with 49 in the Senate, and without the presidency?

The sad truth is the numbers got us here. Let us take a theoretical budget where 5 would be fiscal conservative, 8 would be a moderate Republican, 10 would be average Democrat, and 12 would be the frothing leftists who want to dominate the party.

If a 5 budget is pushed in the Senate, five moderate (R) senators will bail immediately. Result: fail to pass.

If an 8 budget is pushed, the five moderates would wander back, maybe three of them, while five fiscal conservatives would drop: Result: even worse failure to pass.

If a 10 budget is pushed, large numbers of conservatives bail, all of the moderates stick in there, and a *few* (D) votes trickle in, just barely enough to make up for the conservatives, and enough (D) left over to weep and wail at the terrible Republicans and the way they want to starve children and kill the elderly in their hospital beds. If the dems can tease the budget process enough, they can get it maybe up to 11, which is where we are now.

On the flip side, if the Dems take over the Senate, 12 will be a *starting* point, and 15 is their goal.

Make more sense now?

(Looking forward to getting enough (R) senators that when the usual suspects bail, we can still get a 6-7 budget through and signed.)

    Milhouse in reply to georgfelis. | March 24, 2018 at 9:17 pm

    Exactly.

    tarheelkate in reply to georgfelis. | March 24, 2018 at 9:24 pm

    I’d like to see the Senate get rid of the cloture rule and return to the filibuster. If you want to shut down the Senate, do it on your feet until you can’t any more. This would be done occasionally, not routinely. As it is, it takes sixty votes to get anything done at all.

      Milhouse in reply to tarheelkate. | March 25, 2018 at 2:26 am

      That is the cloture rule. The cloture rule is that you can end a filibuster with 60 votes. Before that rule a filibuster could go on forever, even if it was 99-1.

      What you’re talking about is the Arthur Dent filibusters we have nowadays, which are not the result of any rule but just a common sense way of allowing the rest of the senate business to go ahead. The only alternative is to completely freeze the senate’s business and get nothing at all done until the filibusterers are done with their tantrum.

      * * *

      FORD: Excuse me.

      PROSSER. Hello, yes? Has Mr Dent come to his senses yet?

      FORD: Can we for the moment assume that he hasn’t?

      PROSSER: Well?

      FORD: Can we also assume that he’ll be staying there all day?

      PROSSER: So?

      FORD: So. All your men are going to be standing around here doing nothing.

      PROSSER: Could be. Could be.

      FORD: Well if you’re resigned to doing that anyway, you don’t actually need him to lie there all the time, do you?

      PROSSER: Not as such, no. Not exactly “need”.

      FORD: Well if you decide to take it as read that he’s actually there then he and I could slip off down the pub for half an hour. How does that sound?

      PROSSER: Sounds perfectly reasonable. I suppose.

      FORD: And if you’d like to pop off for a quick one yourself later on, we could always cover for you in return.

      PROSSER: Thanks. Thank you very much. That’s very kind.

        Edward in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2018 at 8:19 am

        But the point of the historic filibuster WAS to shut down the Senate, but also require the one Senator who decided on a filibuster to remain speaking until he won and the Senate decided to abandon whatever bill he was filibustering and get on with Regular Order, 60 other Senators decided enough was enough or he reached the end of his ability to maintain his filibuster and the bill proceeded.

        What we have now is only common sense if we wanted bills to be stopped without any effort required to continue the “filibuster”. Come to think of it, that comports nicely with much of our culture today, obtain results with little to no effort. One Senator could “filibuster” 30 bills at the same time (I know, hyperbole) without any personal discomfort, or discomforting any Senators (other than perhaps the bill originating Senator[s]). John and Jane Q. Public might get involved with demanding their Senators vote for cloture – if they know what is going on. Otherwise it takes 60 Senators dedicated to moving the bill to end this “filibuster” for there is no discomfort in allowing a “filibuster” which requires nothing from anyone in order to continue.

          Milhouse in reply to Edward. | March 25, 2018 at 9:08 am

          But in the meantime the senate can’t get anything done. If you insist on making filibusterers filibuster, then you have to let them filibuster, and everything else the senate is supposed to be doing stops. The minority may be happy doing that, but the majority has things it urgently needs to pass, and can’t afford to put on hold just because someone’s having a filibuster.

          4th armored div in reply to Edward. | March 25, 2018 at 9:47 am

          exactly right,
          BUT with the advent of C-SPAN and 24 hr cable/internet, we need to demand the return to real filibuster and let the Public see and hear the ridiculous or sincere reasons for opposition to a piece of legislation.

          DJT wants to end filibusters, which is a 2 edge sword.
          at first blush he is right. But (R) are rarely in control
          and do not want to give it up.
          I agree to allowing the filibuster but only with a real one
          where it requires effort (and at least a 10 person quorum of senators present and awake.

          Prof thanks for bringing some sanity to the conversation.
          I was so excited that we have a Mr Smith in the white house and I give him leeway as a non politician to learn the ropes,
          his recent changes of pompeo and bolton was a real boost for me.

          I wish That he had also brought on Prof Dershowitz to help deal with Muller the deep state scoundrel.

          to sum up my meander.
          we need to hang tough
          ————–

          “we must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately”

      Disco Stu_ in reply to tarheelkate. | March 25, 2018 at 8:16 am

      I’m certain the Democrats will dump the present gum-up-the-works filibuster rule when they regain control of the Senate. The feckless GOPe should have done it immediately. (You know, that “elections have consequences” stuff should be US saying, NOW; not the Dems in 3 years.)

      Just assert some reasonably-accommodating time limit on debate. Allow every Senator, say, 2 hours each control of the floor. Plenty of time to make any persuasive points they may (or may not) have.

      Debate time must run uninterrupted, though. Want/need to jabber on over a few overnights? Fine, go for it. A minority, then, can delay a vote for 100 hours or so. However, when the time’s up, we’re VOTING – and a proper simple majority takes it.

        Milhouse in reply to Disco Stu_. | March 25, 2018 at 9:04 am

        I’m certain the Democrats will dump the present gum-up-the-works filibuster rule when they regain control of the Senate.

        Then how do you explain the fact that when they had control of the senate, and the Rs were making full use of the filibuster, they didn’t dump it? Surely that is very strong evidence against your “certainty”.

          4th armored div in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2018 at 9:59 am

          that was then, the (D)’s have gotten more crazy with the ‘resistance’.

          the (D)’s still had to ‘pander’ to the economic liberals but social status quo states.

          when DJT won Penn, Wisc and Mich they became unhinged Russian truthers.
          DJT is also making a bid for DACA supporters and that can change the voting equilibrium.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2018 at 10:14 am

          I’ve seen no evidence that Schumer and his senators have gone crazy. They say crazy things to whip up their crazy supporters, but they know what they’re doing. And since they already regret Reid’s folly in blowing up the filibuster on confirmations, it makes no sense to predict that they’ll further the damage if they get the chance.

    Arminius in reply to georgfelis. | March 25, 2018 at 7:00 pm

    Conservatives. I lost faith in Republicans years ago.

    rdmdawg in reply to georgfelis. | March 25, 2018 at 10:42 pm

    Like I posted up there ^^, you’re telling me that we need 60 in the Senate now. How is it that Democrats are getting everything they want with 49 senators?

Again, people have to see and understand the big picture. They are not going to like it. But they need to understand it.

As I said previously, there is a war on in this country. It is largely between the Elitist Establishment, and those who are dependent upon them for their livelihood [financial employees and those dependent upon the government for basic necessities], and those who produce goods, and those who provide services for those who produce goods. These are the two camps. There are a smattering of anarchists out there as well, but they are not really of any importance, except for nuisance value.

It has to be understood that no Republican politician can be counted upon to be an ally of the producers. And the same goes for any “conservative”. All Democratic politicians are, by their nature, allied with the Elitist Financial Establishment. And, it must be remembered that the longer a politician is in office, the more he is controlled by the Establishment.

The Establishment tries to con the voters into believing that they are in control of the country by providing two political parties which appear to be in opposition to one another. With the Omnibus Spending Bill of 2018, they have finally publicly discarded the masks. This is an act of desperation.

Trump’s agenda has already cost the Financial Establishment billions. If he continues, he will end up costing them trillions, at least in the short-term.

The media demonization of Trump has proven ineffective. The inundation has been so continuous, intense and fraught with inaccuracies that people are just tuning it out. The media is now reduced to attacking Trump with decades old affairs with porn actresses and Playboy models. Not only will this only serve to increase positive male perception of Trump, but it loses some punch when one remembers the illicit affairs engaged in by Bill Clinton, JFK and FDR, while they were PRESIDENT. The Russia Collusion meme has not only totally collapsed, but is in danger of vacuuming up high ranking Establishment lackeys from the Obama Administrations. The Clinton investigations are reopening. There is evidence that a grand jury may be looking into FISA court violations. The time bought by the Establishment judiciary re: immigration law enforcement, is running out. The recent attempt to make it look as though Trump and the Republican wing of the Uniparty shut down the government over DACA failed abysmally. And, what the Establishment has learned is that voters don’t care about a bunch of illegal immigrant line-jumpers. And, now, the Trumpster goes and hits the Establishment right where they live, their pocketbooks, by taking action to protect the US from the economic predations of China, by imposing tariffs on Chinese goods. If China goes bankrupt, Wall Street will see people jumping out of windows again. So, the Establishment called in its markers and the Uniparty mousetrapped Trump with the Omnibus spending bill. It is designed to put Trump in the position of vetoing the bill, which would lead to a two week government shutdown and strip him of some of his support among voters while depressing the deplorable vote in November. Or he has to sign it, which will keep him from being accused of shutting down the government but will antagonize some of his supporters. It will also depress Republican voting, as it now becomes clear that Republican politicians are enemies of the deplorable Trump voters, aka the Middle Class. It is a good strategy, but it is one borne of desperation. People have to use their heads and vote intelligently in November. A vote for a Democrat is, without question, a vote for the Establishment and against the interests of the Middle Class. A vote for a Republican may be a vote for the Establishment, but Republican politicians can be brought to heel, as they tend to live closer to the Middle Class. And, not voting is simply another vote for the Democrats.

This war is not limited to Congress or the ballot box. It is being waged in the economy of this nation. It is being fought outside our borders against those who would harm us and our interests. It is being fought in the cities and towns and countryside of this nation against an invasion of people who do not care enough about this country, and its people, to follow the rules to get here and remain here. It is being fought in the courts. And, it is being fought on the internet. We may not seem to be winning. But we are not losing. If the Establishment did not believe that it was losing, it would not be trying to strip people of their basic rights or exposing their decades old fifth columnists in the government in order to take down the deplorable movement and its figurehead, Donald Trump.

Play it smart, people. Think. Analyze, do not merely accept what you are told. Fight back against the usurpation of your basic rights. Without the United States to serve as the bulwark of civilization, the world will burn.

Concern Troll — A subspecies of false-flag troll. The Obama campaign deployed a swarm of concern trolls in fall 2008. They were recognizable by the 3-point argument that went something like this: (1) I’m a committed conservative/lifelong Republican, but (2) I’m concernedabout [something the Republicans had said or done], and therefore (3) I’m thinking I might vote for Obama on Election Day….

Please note that at the very beginning of 2008 there were genuine Conservatives who felt this way — including me. 0bama had come onto the national stage as a moderate, and cultivated a reputation as someone who understood Conservative concerns and was someone we could deal with (as Thatcher said about Gorbachev). Few knew about his past in Illinois, let alone earlier than that.

So I started 2008 thinking that if pseudo-R McCain ended up with the R nomination, and 0bama managed to prevail against the Wicked Witch of Westchester, I’d have to seriously consider supporting him. By mid-February the truth about him had started coming out, and by the time he gave that ridiculous speech comparing Jeremiah Wright to his grandmother, I was off that bus.

    Paul in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2018 at 12:03 am

    Were you just ignorant of the ‘Chicago way’ in politics? Of how Obama won his state Senate seat? Of his background with Ayers and Wright?

      Milhouse in reply to Paul. | March 25, 2018 at 2:32 am

      Nothing of his history was known nationally until he became a serious presidential candidate. I was following national politics pretty closely, and all I knew about him was that he seemed like a nice fellow, leftist but reasonable, sort of like Corey Booker. He seemed like he might be a better choice than McCain. I knew who Bill Ayers was, but had no idea of 0bama’s involvement with him. I’d never heard of Jeremiah Wright, and only vaguely of Michael Pfelger. I’d heard of the New Party but didn’t know 0bama had been a member. All this came out during the campaign.

        gospace in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2018 at 11:00 am

        You obviously weren’t paying attention to anything but the mainstream media then. Because I knew all those things and who his associates were long before election day.

          Milhouse in reply to gospace. | March 25, 2018 at 9:18 pm

          Excuse me? What an utterly dishonest reply. How is it in any way relevant what you knew by election day? The only relevant question is what you knew about him in January, and you carefully avoided answering it. I’d bet you knew a lot less about him than I did.

    C. Lashown in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2018 at 7:23 pm

    Don’t feed the Trolls

So, professor, you seem to be saying there is no hope. Either we take it up the *rear* from Republicans, or the Democrats will stick it to us even worse.

It’s not a very persuasive argument.

Have you all heard this? It’s everywhere around the internet, that this was not a budget, the omnibus and like obama Trump can use the money anyway he wants, it’s how Obama somehow has 8 trillion dollars missing. How can that even happen? 8 Trilion dollars? So he took the money in all the omnibuses he had, because he NEVER had a real budget and put money where he wanted and somehow 8 trillion is missing?

https://twitter.com/PlaysTrumpCard/status/977557754104729606

Yesterday, Trump sent a letter to Ryan and McConnell saying that he designated as “emergency requirement all funding so designated by the Congress in the Act pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, for the accounts referenced in section 7058(d).”

Trump had previously declared that the opioid crisis was a health emergency but had not requested funding for. Guess, what, it has previously been determined that the majority of illegal opioids are pouring through the southern border.

Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is about discretionary spending, specifically emergency appropriations to combat terrorism. Because of poor security at the southern border, it is also considered a terrorism threat. As far as the steel bollard prototypes, remember that the Border Patrol wanted something where they could see through, and as previously mentioned, three of the prototypes that Trump looked at in San Diego fit the bill and met the requirements of being very difficult for anyone to get through without being detected.

“In summary, besides the money for the wall that is already in the Omnibus bill, Trump can draw upon additional emergency discretionary funding from section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Trump may have just outflanked the Democrats again.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to gonzotx. | March 25, 2018 at 12:15 am

    I will believe it when we see it. No one has earned any trust in government. If he does not do something like you said, then it proves that no matter how the people vote, or which candidate or party “wins”; the people have no influence on the actual policies of the government or who is in charge. Which is a good working definition of tyranny.

    Milhouse in reply to gonzotx. | March 25, 2018 at 2:57 am

    Have you all heard this? It’s everywhere around the internet, that this was not a budget, the omnibus and like obama Trump can use the money anyway he wants, it’s how Obama somehow has 8 trillion dollars missing. How can that even happen? 8 Trilion dollars? So he took the money in all

    Sorry, this is just nonsense. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how it works.

    A budget has nothing to do with the president, and certainly doesn’t control how anything is spent Sure, the president always proposes a budget, but Congress always ignores it, so it’s just an indication of the president’s wishes and priorities. A budget is something Congress passes, which says in principle how much it would like to spend on each area of government. But it doesn’t actually do anything. Congress then has to appropriate the money for all the things it said it would like, and it’s the appropriation bills that tell the president how much he must spend on what.

    The president cannot spend money that has not been appropriated. Hence the shutdowns when the old appropriation expires and the new one hasn’t passed. In the regular order of things there should be 13 separate appropriation bills, one for each department. But when Congress hasn’t been able to pass them, and the deadline is approaching, it passes one big omnibus appropriation for all the departments at once, and because it’s been assembled at the last minute it usually has far too much of everything. Still, that is what binds the president; he must spend what Congress has appropriated, no more and no less.

    Oh, and there is no missing 8 trillion dollars.

    Edward in reply to gonzotx. | March 25, 2018 at 8:47 am

    It wasn’t a budget bill, it was an appropriation bill. The Budget process starts with the President sending his “Budget Request” to the Congress. The House and Senate then pass a Concurrent Budget Resolution which sets the total amount the Congress will allow for discretionary spending for the year. But the Budget resolution means nothing without Congress passing appropriation bills to fund the budget. The House and Senate can pass all the budget bills they want, but until the appropriation of money occurs there is no money to fund whatever items are in the budget. So after the Budget Resolution (which can’t be filibustered in the Senate) the House starts the process of Appropriations.

    This year the House passed all 12 required Appropriation bills to fund the various departments of the Federal government (multiple departments are sometimes combined in one bill e.g. the Labor, HHS and Education appropriation). The Senate did nothing with any of these bills passed by the House as required by the Constitution.

    And here we are, engaged in funding where the Senate drives the process instead of the House. Well, our government ignores the Constitution in so many ways, what’s one more. /s/

      Milhouse in reply to Edward. | March 25, 2018 at 9:44 am

      The Senate did nothing with any of these bills passed by the House as required by the Constitution.

      The constitution does not require the senate to do anything with bills the house sends it.

        ss396 in reply to Milhouse. | March 26, 2018 at 8:10 am

        Up above in your discussion of the filibuster, the tone of your reply read as though compelling the standing filibuster, and forcing the whole Senate to shut down any other business, was not an optimal procedure. Yet, concerning the appropriations bills, that is exactly what the Senate did.

          Milhouse in reply to ss396. | March 26, 2018 at 10:23 am

          It’s not desirable if you have other business that needs to get done. If you have nothing more urgent than getting this bill through then you devote as much time to it as it takes.

As my friends here will know, I’ve never been a Trump fan. I’m still not one. But there’s never been any question in my mind that “at least he’s better than Hillary” (or any other given Democrat).

That’s what I don’t get about the “#RESIST!” republicans/conservatives/libertarians. Being less-than-enthusiastic about Trump is one thing. But believing (or saying, anyway) that Hillary would have been a better President than Trump is just crazy. IF you’re actually a republican/conservative/libertarian, that is.

    alaskabob in reply to Amy in FL. | March 25, 2018 at 12:56 am

    We live in very crazy times. For anyone living the good life in DC, the chains of tyranny lie softly on their shoulders. The amount of hubris and willful blindness is stunning. “The good times will be forever” seems to be the motto. There is a huge disconnect to reality.

    It is one thing to talk of conservatism and making America great again but another with waffling at the first major blowback… actually more than one this week. Trump has energized the Left and deflated the Right without even giving a hint of why he chose his course of action.

    We have gotten a real soaking in “realpolitik” this week. It’s cold and wet with an ill wind blowing. Churchill words ring… …

    “if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

    I think we have missed out BIG TIME with that first option (thank you GOPe)..

      snopercod in reply to alaskabob. | March 25, 2018 at 8:47 am

      My Congressman fought for the right, along with the rest of the Freedom Caucus. Those guys deserve our support. I’ll be sending some money to thank him.

    Milhouse in reply to Amy in FL. | March 25, 2018 at 2:45 am

    Based on his performance to date, yes, he’s been far better than the Wicked Witch would have been. But at election time we had no assurance that he would perform as he has done. There was every chance that he would revert to type as a NY liberal Democrat. And even now we have no solid grounds for trusting that he won’t turn around on a dime and disappoint us all. But if he completes his term with as many pluses and as few minuses as he’s done so far, I’ll concede that those who voted for him in swing states did the right thing. I still wouldn’t vote for him myself, since I’m not in a swing state so my vote has influence on the outcome; but I would say those in swing states should support him.

      Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2018 at 2:46 am

      “no influence”.

      VaGentleman in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2018 at 5:03 am

      Milhouse rote:

      I still wouldn’t vote for him myself, since I’m not in a swing state so my vote has influence on the outcome; but I would say those in swing states should support him.

      Explain please. Why should they do what you won’t and / or why won’t you do what they should?

        Milhouse in reply to VaGentleman. | March 25, 2018 at 6:29 am

        Isn’t it obvious? Do you seriously not understand the very different moral positions voters in swing vs non-swing states are in?

          Tom Servo in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2018 at 8:55 am

          I actually agree with you there, we all hate to admit it, but in most of the large states the votes are known well in advance. In 2020 California and NY are going to vote for the Dem, no matter who it is, and Texas is going to vote for Trump for reelection no matter what happens. So as a pure numbers game, there’s no contest in those states or several others in the same position. it’s just a bit of a sad artifact of how our system operates.

        VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | March 25, 2018 at 7:52 am

        Milhouse,

        The obvious difference to me was that you claim circumstances give you the luxury of doing what you WANT to do while others should do what they NEED to do. That seems harsh, so I asked for clarification.

          Milhouse in reply to VaGentleman. | March 25, 2018 at 9:15 am

          Yes, that’s exactly it. My vote has absolutely no chance of having any effect on the result. If NY comes even close to being in question, the election’s already over anyway. So I have the luxury of voting my conscience. I never have to choose the lesser evil merely to prevent the greater. But voters in states like Ohio and Florida have to consider that by failing to vote for the lesser evil they might cause the greater. In 2000 we very nearly got Algore, who was definitely worse than W; if I were a Florida voter and had chosen to vote for Harry Browne, and Florida had ended up being decided for Gore by one vote, it would have been my fault. It’s really as simple as that.

          Milhouse: In 2000 we very nearly got Algore, who was definitely worse than W

          Bush’s policies imploded the Middle East, and he oversaw the collapse of the world economy. On the other hand, Trump is giving Bush a run for the money.

          Bush is often heard to remark, unable to stifle his trademark smirk: “Sorta makes me look pretty good, doesn’t it?”

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | March 25, 2018 at 5:33 pm

          Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is NOT voting for evil. It is voting for good, and is morally correct. You’re voting for the greater good, not the lesser evil. If you wanted to vote for evil, you would vote for the GREATER of 2 evils, not the lesser. Your vote is a choice to do the greatest good possible under the circumstances, and as such is morally sound. Sitting on the sidelines or a protest vote is the morally correct choice ONLY if it produces more good than voting for the ‘lesser’ candidate.

          The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

          Unless it produces more good, sitting on the sidelines feeling smug is not only doing nothing, it actively aids evil by making it easier for evil to triumph.

          Milhouse in reply to VaGentleman. | March 25, 2018 at 9:28 pm

          How exactly can voting for an objectively bad candidate, in a state where doing so has no chance at all of affecting the outcome, “do the greatest good possible”, or any good at all? Sitting on the sidelines or casting a protest vote can’t possibly produce less good than voting for the ‘lesser’ candidate.

          In swing states the situation is completely different. There your calculus is correct; when refraining from choosing the lesser evil one must take into account the small but real possibility that this will result in the greater evil, and one must determine that the difference between the two is small enough not to make a real difference.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | March 26, 2018 at 10:15 am

          Milhouse,

          You made the argument: Do you seriously not understand the very different moral positions voters in swing vs non-swing states are in?
          to justify your position that your principles required you to protest vote in NY while requiring those in FL to vote for Trump.

          Your application of your principles resulted in inconsistent outcomes. You attempt to explain them by using situational morality. (It makes no difference, therefore it’s not wrong (see below) vs it makes a difference, therefore you must…) I explained the correct analysis – a vote for Trump is a vote for good, NOT a vote for evil. That resolves the inconsistency. Now voters in FL and NY follow the same moral imperative and do good by voting for Trump. You (and they) are still free to protest vote but if, as YOU claim, there is a moral component to voting, you have to be able to justify the protest vote as doing more good than voting for Trump. If you can’t justify the vote as doing good, then you are the one doing evil.

          Situational Morality

          Consider this case. You and I work for a company that makes widgets. They are made by punching blanks from large sheets of steel which are further formed into a widget. The scrap produced by the punch process is recycled back to the supplier for $. I steal $50 of scrap and sell it. No one notices because the amount stolen is within the normal variance. You steal $50 from petty cash and get caught. Applying your argument (not noticable = no foul), I am blameless and you are not. That’s one of the many problems with SM. You don’t get to turn off morality just because no one is looking.

          Milhouse in reply to VaGentleman. | March 26, 2018 at 11:55 am

          That’s a crazy analogy. Stealing is wrong in itself, not because of any consequences. It’s wrong even if it has no consequences. And in your analogy it does have the same consequences in both cases, the difference is merely that in one instance you get caught and in the other you get away.

          Morality is always situational, though. Shooting a gun down a crowded street is wrong. Shooting the same gun down a street that has been carefully evacuated, surrounded by guards, and is absolutely guaranteed not to have anyone on it, is not wrong.

          But sometimes one is faced with a situation where one must do something inherently wrong, e.g. steal that $50, because not doing so will have terrible consequences. Suppose a child has fallen down a well and if you don’t steal a ladder rescue will not come in time. Or the classic case of stealing to eat, or to feed ones children.

          If the only way to stop Hitler is to ally yourself with Stalin, you do that too, and you attend the Yalta conference and sacrifice Eastern Europe if that’s what it takes. But you don’t feel good about yourself afterward.

          Voting for Trump is wrong. He is a bad person and a bad president, and voting for him means giving him your sanction. And this is so even if you are sure Clinton would be worse. However, if not doing so may result in Clinton becoming president, and you are sure this would be significantly worse than a Trump presidency, then you have no choice but to hold your nose and vote for Trump. Similarly if not voting for Clinton may result in someone even worse, then you must hold you nose even tighter and vote for Clinton.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | March 27, 2018 at 12:20 am

          Milhouse,
          Your moral code requires that you commit an immoral action which you rationalize using an ‘end justifies the means’ argument. While you ponder the inherent inconsistencies and fallacy of your position, please also consider that you may not fully understand the problem.

      Exiliado in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2018 at 9:27 am

      You don’t have to answer, of course, but I’ll ask:

      Did you vote for Hillary?

        Milhouse in reply to Exiliado. | March 25, 2018 at 9:41 am

        Sheesh. I just got through explaining that, being in a state where my vote can’t possibly affect the outcome, I don’t have to vote for an evil merely to prevent a greater one. Had I been in Ohio, I might have; at any rate I’d have seriously considered it. I really thought Trump might be the greater evil, and I’m still not sure he won’t turn out to be. But being in NY I didn’t have to make that choice.

Everyone got what they wanted out of the Omnibus crap sandwich. Including Trump. Funding for military but not the wall which is obviously secondary.

That tells me that Trump considers having the world know he takes the military seriously is intended to put existential fear in the hearts of his/our enemies.

The ones he’s immediately engaged. Chief among them China.

He learned by interpreting Theodore Roosevelt, to speak with tremendous braggadocio and be backed by armed forces most fierce in all history.

His selection of Bolton over McMaster signals the same thing. North Korea specifically, Iran and Russia and lesser hazardous nations are reading those two things superficially as Democrats do. Ridiculously huge armed forces. War hawk advisor.

Seeing how Trump operates we can predict Bolton will last so long as he’s useful to events at hand.

He has six months to find his way to discredit all who brought this omnibus. In his unique way. I imagine he’ll start hammering away at least a month in advance. We observe that Trump does not make perfection the enemy of good. He makes the optimal choice as he reads it. He did say this is the last of such nonsense he’ll sign. We’ll hold him to that.

Turning out Republicans for conservatives is a full time engagement. One-by-one they go where Whigs went.

Wow. Excellent post Professor, thanks for clarifying your position. I apologize for assuming you were one of those conservatives who had “gone wobbly” (Thatcher).

As for trolls, Rags here continues to accuse me of lying about my service as a United States Marine. I’ve challenged him to put up $500 over at ThisAintHell in exchange for my military records.

But if you are interested, I trust you as an impartial arbiter. We can do the bet here – as soon as you’ve confirmed receipt of $500 from Rags, I’ll mail you my DD214 and other information for you to confirm, and you can use his “donation” this website’s expenses or donate it to a charity of your choice.

    Tom Servo in reply to Fen. | March 25, 2018 at 8:58 am

    Rags lies about everything, and projects/accuses everyone of lying constantly. I’m almost amazed that he’s hiding from a thread that might as well be dedicated to him, as puffed up as he is. He still won’t own up to how I humiliated him when he predicted Trump was going to sign an amnesty bill immediately.

      Ragspierre in reply to Tom Servo. | March 25, 2018 at 9:50 am

      That wasn’t what you said or what I said.

      I still have the links, you lying sack of shit.

        Tom Servo in reply to Ragspierre. | March 25, 2018 at 7:12 pm

        you sad pathetic disgrace to your so-called profession!!!!

        what I object to most about you, I think, is that you are such a boring and deep down lousy writer. Someone as talentless as you should never have even thought about going into law, food service would be much more your line of work.

          Arminius in reply to Tom Servo. | March 25, 2018 at 7:47 pm

          Hey, wait a second. Before I spent 20 years in the Navy as a professional killer I worked in the food service industry. Now, some uncharitable types may say I was always in the professional killing line of business. But most everyone survive my food.

          And the best officer I ever served with was the food services officer on the Carl Vinson. When any other Div O had a problem child, he (my roomie) would say, “Give him to me.”

          And he’d turn him around.

          I think the statute of limitations has run out. I dated a mess specialist a few decades ago. Yes, she was a she. When I was stationed in Sandy Eggo I had the opportunity to dine on food prepared by Navy mess specialists who were preparing to serve in embassies or on admirals’ staffs.

          It was wonderful. Show a little respect for the food service workers. The difference between a hero and a coward can come down to whether breakfast was good or not.

          Arminius in reply to Tom Servo. | March 25, 2018 at 7:57 pm

          On the flip side, the corpsmen hate it when we feed the Marines or aircrew a good hearty breakfast.

          If you’re going to get shot you’re most likely to get shot in the belly as that’s the largest, most obvious target. And when the contents of your stomach spill out into your abdomen you catch peritonitis.

          So, Tom, how do feel about me cooking for you?

          http://www.seabeecook.com/books/milfs_biblio/us_navy_books.htm

          I haven’t killed anyone with my cooking yet.

        C. Lashown in reply to Ragspierre. | March 25, 2018 at 7:34 pm

        @DaRag Damned trolls, just when you thought they were all dead.

        Did you have a good night driving cab Rags? Good tips? If you were in the NE with all the snow, you could have really jacked those fares up through the roof – just spin the tires.

The comments here defending the Republicans as having their hands tied appear reasonable until you take into consideration something that Ace over at Ace of Spades termed “failure theater”.

Short version: Republicans pretend to be representing us while tying their own hands with creative ways to fail. Then they are all “gosh darn it we just couldn’t whip up the votes, but if you send me more money and put me back in power for another four years, I promise we’ll get it done. Pinky swear this time”

Good example of this was the Iranian deal. The Senate changed its rules so that instead of requiring 2/3 to approve they now needed 2/3 to override Obama. And when they couldn’t it was the usual gosh darn we didn’t have the votes nonsense.

you saw the Extraordinary Measures the Republican party went to get Trump to sign a loyalty pledge. I promise you if they want something they are fully capable of using Extraordinary measures in the Senate. truth is they simply are not motivated to do it.

    Edward in reply to Fen. | March 25, 2018 at 9:00 am

    You can thank the UJunior Senator from Tennessee and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for that abomination greasing the skids for His Imperial Executiveness’ Iran deal. But you only have until next January to do so.

    Corker’s the name you are trying to remember and he’s “retiring”.

    Milhouse in reply to Fen. | March 25, 2018 at 9:33 am

    Fen:

    Good example of this was the Iranian deal. The Senate changed its rules so that instead of requiring 2/3 to approve they now needed 2/3 to override Obama. And when they couldn’t it was the usual gosh darn we didn’t have the votes nonsense.

    Edward:

    You can thank the UJunior Senator from Tennessee and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for that abomination greasing the skids for His Imperial Executiveness’ Iran deal. But you only have until next January to do so.

    Bullsh*t. You are both f*cking liars and slanderers, and should be ashamed of yourselves if you were capable of such an emotion. You know very well that you are defaming the one person who did everything possible to stop the deal. I can only conclude that your evil souls are so filled with irrational hatred for him that you beclown yourselves by telling obvious lies.

    There was no change of any rule. There was never any way 34 senators, or even 66, could have stopped the deal, because there was never any prospect that it would be submitted as a treaty. 0bama had no need to do so, and knew such an attempt must fail, so he had no intention of trying. His intention was always to strike a deal with Iran that only required him to do things he already had the authority to do on his own. If they asked for something he couldn’t do without senate approval he’d simply tell them the truth, that he couldn’t promise them that because he wouldn’t be able to do it.

    So the only way such a deal could ever have been stopped was by passing a new law forbidding it, and passing a law over the president’s veto takes 2/3 of each house. Corker tried his best to get that 2/3, but 0bama pressured enough Ds to stop it. He did make one concession: that when he made a deal he wouldn’t implement it immediately (as he could have done), but would give Corker another chance to put together the numbers to stop him. He was confident the numbers wouldn’t be there, and he was right, they weren’t. To blame this on Corker, the one hero of the story, rather than on the Ds like Booker who backed 0bama, is perverse, evil, the depths of depravity.

    rdmdawg in reply to Fen. | March 25, 2018 at 10:54 pm

    Brilliant post Fen, underrated comment of the week. Ace knows his stuff.

So which kind of troll is Rags? Where is he, anyway, I thought for sure he would stop by to gloat.

    Ragspierre in reply to snopercod. | March 25, 2018 at 9:59 am

    See, this is funny.

    You are trolling.

    You don’t “think”.

    And why would I gloat? The claim suggests that you know I’d have something about which to gloat. Being right about Duh Donald is what you had in mind. I don’t have any need to reinforce that.

“make more sense now?”

Not really. It’s more like a spouse holding the mortgage for the house hostage unless you agree to include payments for a new Corvette in the family budget.

Agree to pay for a Corvette you can’t afford or no budget, which means the mortgage won’t get paid and you lose the house. It’s a game of chicken.

Consider, all these moderate Republicans who refuse to support any budget that’s too conservative, even if they handicap National Defense. As opposed to Trump signing a budget he hates because it’s vital to fund National Defense.

When does the reverse ever happen?

Three times in my life the GOP has promised to build a border wall LATER if we compromise by passing amnesty NOW. We agreed each time, passed multiple amnesties and still don’t have that wall.

It’s partly our fault because every time we let the Hustlers take advantage of us, it reveals us as being weak and only encourages them to con us again.

We said NO with the Tea Party in the most polite and civil way possible and they ignored us. So we elected Trump to communicate in more direct and stark terms. And still they don’t hear us.

What is it going to take to get their attention? My solution is to pick the top Establishment Goon and hang him off a highway overpasses. Repeat as necessary. But you guys at LI seem to think we can still turn this train around with polite civil legal measures, so I’m willing to wait and see.

Because honestly, I think you will get played and finally come around to my point of view.

    Milhouse in reply to Fen. | March 25, 2018 at 9:37 am

    Three times in my life the GOP has promised to build a border wall LATER if we compromise by passing amnesty NOW. We agreed each time, passed multiple amnesties and still don’t have that wall.

    Another lie. The first time anyone promised or even proposed a wall was well after the last of those amnesties. There was never an amnesty that passed in return for the promise of a wall.

“Where is Rags?”

He’s currently arguing with the staff at Aberdeen Proving Grounds over his definition of “automatic”.

Later today, he’ll meet with the ArmaLite Rifle company to RagsSplain that AR15 stands for Assault Rifle.

Want some popcorn? We have extra 🙂

Milhouse: “Bullsh*t. You are both f*cking liars and slanderers”

Lol. What is it with people like you and Rags? Someone can’t be wrong or have a different opinion oh no they must be liars and slanderers and pedophiles or something.

Are you taking prescription medication?

    Milhouse in reply to Fen. | March 25, 2018 at 10:06 am

    People can make innocent mistakes, but you’re not. You know the truth and are deliberately telling falsehoods instead, about a good and decent person who did everything possible to prevent precisely the outcome for which you blame him.

Rags: “There is no question – ”

“An automatic firearm continuously fires rounds as long as the trigger is pressed or held and there is ammunition in the magazine/chamber. In contrast, a semi-automatic firearm fires one round with each individual trigger-pull.[1

Carter, Gregg Lee (2012). Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. ABC-CLIO. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1.

Have you even ever fired the M242? It was my primary weapon system for 12 years.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | March 25, 2018 at 10:18 am

    “An automatic firearm continuously fires rounds as long as the trigger is pressed or held and there is ammunition in the magazine/chamber. In contrast…”

    How does it do that? As you’ll note, you lying idiot, it does NOT do that via any external power source. Your stupidity and perfidity is “automatic”.

    Fen, when you argue with a sophomore, you then have two sophomores arguing.

There is also one other blog troll; the opposite of an eeyore this one counters every claim of doom and disaster. And mainly provides long and rambling posts on how and why the latest disaster isn’t the fault of the GOPe or the Deep State or any of the other known or suspected actors that are doing the best they can to keep the Globablist One Worlders in power and promoting and providing the means to do so.

Their answer is always: more Republicans in all Houses or increased margins so that the true conservatives can do what needs to be done.

I’ve been watching and listening to this drivel since 1994 when it seemed the GOP might actually have to put their actions where their mouths had been for all these years. And somehow it was never enough. there were always excuses. And they seem so logical and calmly lay out the reasons and then tell us that we have to vote for the GOP just one more time and everything will come to pass and we’ll have a glorious conservative Republica again.

That’s 30 years of that crap. And I’m about done. I’m lucky the two I have available to vote for are known conservatives (but that doesn’t mean they’ll get past the primary) because the Senate seat is held by a Dem so that’s a no brainer and the other is in a district that’s been illegally destroyed by our Democrat Supreme Court in connivance with a Democrat Governor with little the legislature can do about it.

If the conservative gets the nomination for the house then I’m all set. I pity those who either have no choice between a GOPe or a Dem once again. I don’t know what I’d do in that situation.

And if enough of those choices are all that’s available the GOP might just lose the House and if that happens Trump can kiss his Presidency goodby as I think that unless an unlikely miracle occurs, the Senate will remain pretty much what it is and there’s enough who despise Trump to be willing to let Pence get into office and will go along with the Dems.

And all this after 30 years of seeing them lie during the election process then reverse course for their term. This is the one factor that the opposite eeyores can’t explain away; Why they lie then switch. That’s because there isn’t but one reason for it.

    rdmdawg in reply to jakee308. | March 25, 2018 at 11:09 pm

    “he Senate seat is held by a Dem so that’s a no brainer and the other is in a district that’s been illegally destroyed by our Democrat Supreme Court in connivance with a Democrat Governor with little the legislature can do about it.”

    I hope you’ve seen that movement to impeach those democrat justices. It probably won’t succeed, but we need more action like this, more fire, more something.

But if you’re interested in tripling down on stupid, you can Google up all the relevant military PMCS and training manuals on the M242 and argue with the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Department of Defense.

Here is just one example:

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/38498537/2001-us-army-m-242-901p/24

Milhouse: “People can make innocent mistakes, but you’re not. You know the truth and are deliberately telling falsehoods instead, about a good and decent person ”

While you are reading my mind you please let me know who I’m slandering? Because I don’t recall mentioning any names in particular thanks.

William A. Jacobson: Although it’s a little off point, it’s worth noting that according to a study, “trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism”.

Although it’s a little off point, you are conflating different definitions of trolling. The study cited uses a specific definition which is then intermingled with the different definitions provided above.

Buckels et al: We also included four items relevant to trolling that were interspersed in the other measures: “I have sent people to shock websites for the lulz”, “I like to troll people in forums or the comments section of websites”, “I enjoy griefing other players in multiplayer games”, and “The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt”.

DieJustAsHappy | March 25, 2018 at 11:04 am

I would suggest that there is a bit of a “troll” in most, if not all, of us. Whether we yield to the temptation or not is another matter.

    We use the patented {not really} DeSnark® desnarkification field suppressor (remark desnider), which limits the amount of trolling emissions before sending or viewing. Here’s an example:

    Commenter (no filter): Of course! How trollish of me to help the “Darwinists” demonstrate to one and all that they do not reason.

    Commenter (filtered at 70%): Sorry. We’re not following your argument.

    The DeSnark® desnarkification field suppressor is fully adjustable from basic spam removal all the way up to *plonking*.

      DieJustAsHappy in reply to Zachriel. | March 25, 2018 at 1:14 pm

      There a couple of sites I’d like to see the de-snarker do its thing. On the other hand, what life without a bit of snarkiness, if by snarky we mean “sharply critical.”

Some of those false flag and concern trolls have bylines at conservative websites.

buckeyeminuteman | March 25, 2018 at 12:58 pm

The “real conservatives” were happy to let Hillary win to save the Republican Party. And now they’re happy to lose the Senate and House and have Trump lose in 2020 to again save the Party. Save it for what? What’s the big vision after the Republic is gone and destroyed? After everything we recognize and claim to hold dear is gone, what do they think they’ll be able to then accomplish? I was a very vocal opponent of Trump throughout 2016. But he was what we wound up with. And before the Omnibus turd sandwich, he did pretty well and will hopefully do so after this. Still not ready to instate Kamala Harris as Senate Majority Leader.

We’re forgetting the biggest troll of all:

McConnell And Chao: As Corrupt As The Clintons:
https://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2018/03/19/mcconnell-chao-corrupt-clintons/

Levin: Mitch McConnell should be removed after ‘shocking’ and ‘disgusting’ corruption allegations:
https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/levin-mitch-mcconnell-removed-shocking-disgusting-corruption-allegations/

Destroy the GOPe, and we destroy left.

This thinking represents the status quo, which hasn’t worked.
The GOPe has a million tricks to skew their elections; if they don’t fool voters with one trick, they’ll use another.

The only thing that is absolute is that we must stop electing squishes. If that means electing a Democrat instead, so be it.

I’m done playing the fool for the GOPe. They can all go to hell.

Fen quoting standard definition for Automatic firearms:An automatic firearm continuously fires rounds as long as the trigger is pressed or held and there is ammunition in the magazine/chamber.”

Rags: “how does it do that? As you’ll note, you lying idiot, it does NOT do that via any external power source.”

Priceless. You are confusing the terms “automated” with “automatic” while calling me an idiot.

Do you even understand the difference between semi and auto? Show us…

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | March 25, 2018 at 9:28 pm

    You just keep up the perfidious, stupid bullshit, huh?

    When did you ever find the term “automated” firearm anywhere, moron? That’ll keep you busy with Wiki for hours…HA!

    An automatic weapon…and its rational sub-set, a SEMI-automatic weapon share a common trait. They use either the gas produced by the fired cartridge OR the recoil of firing the projectile to cycle the mechanism.

    There is no motor on an automatic weapon or its mechanical brother, the semi-automatic.

    There is in a chain-gun. There is in a Gatling gun of modern design.

    And you’re just a stupid liar.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend