Havin' a normal one.

Kindly inform the genius not to worry, JE was merely responding to the fan mail that had piled up while he was gone.

What Jason means is that I kept pointing out how his sources were full of ####, factually and legally. How's that Huber investigation going? How about the Durham one? (Wasn't there yet a third retaliatory investigation that Trump's people came up with?)

What's that, Senator McCarthy? Every accusation about Trump-Russia!!! collusion turned out to be manufactured by actors tied to HRC, Obama, and Adam Schiff types*, and then disseminated by clowns within federal law enforcement and intel agencies, and of course media mediocrities.

And talk about gulping down the Kool-Aid: When you adamantly refused to give even a peppercorn of credit to Trump for his superior judicial nominations, supposedly an issue you care deeply about, you lost standing to opine on pretty much anything, including bathroom tissue and Orioles pitching.

Someone still doesn't know what the word "never" means.

"Never" always meant the 2016 election.

That you and some others, like Coke-hat and the LP grifters, also claimed NeverTrump meant NeverDeSantis, NeverCruz, NeverHaley, NeverPompeo, NeverPence, NeverCotton, NeverMcConnell, NeverTimScott, NeverZeldin, etc says plenty about the moral mud in which you now reside.

You are claiming the whole thing is a farce, an inquisition and that they have witnessed perjury that dishonors a former administration, and your claim is they should sit and do nothing unless the inquisition happens to subpoena them? Really?

Indeed, Secret Service agents shouldn't do anything that would put their continued employment at risk, particularly since Hutchison's second-hand and third-hand claims, supposedly buttressed by an anonymous source (LOL) inside the DC police, doesn't even amount to anything.

Again, since the inquisitors believe Hutchison's claims are actually a BFD, there's nothiing stopping them from bringing the agents forward.

How many Trump detractors---meaning those who have said openly that they'd support a hypothetical primary opponent**---who've also come out in support of ABC in the Wyoming primary? Names, please.

Go to Twitter and you'll find popular accounts like RedSteeze, Comfortably Smug, BonchieRedState, and Varad M, folks who don't want to see Trump run in 2024 but also look forward to seeing Cheney go down in flames later this month.

Indeed, and to show that it's not personal, would you care to have a rematch of that wager in the event that Trump becomes the nominee? (very big grin)

Oh, I know it's not personal, which helps explain why the mean girls here gnash their teeth whenever we engage pleasantries.

Let's discuss a potential wager via email.

And allow me to depart with this reminder that, judging by where they put their $, Democrat officials clearly don't believe MAGA-ism is an existential threat to the Republic. So why do you?

- 30 -

Indeed, Secret Service agents shouldn't do anything that would put their continued employment at risk, particularly since Hutchison's second-hand and third-hand claims, supposedly buttressed by an anonymous source (LOL) inside the DC police, doesn't even amount to anything.

Look either this is not important or it is important. Previously you were talking as if this were a huge deal. I mean, I typically think inquisitions and perjury are big deals, but if you don't then I am at a loss to explain your previous outraged posts on the subject.

The bottom line is if there is some gross miscarriage of justice happening, combining an unfair and unjust inquisition and perjury from witnesses, then it strikes me odd that your preferred strategy for dealing with it is to do nothing. To ineffectually whine about the inquisition and the perjury, but to be happy that those who could challenge what is happening do nothing. Sit on their hands while this travesty goes down.

When I see injustice, Federal crimes committed, and such I think something should be done about it. I want those who know the truth to stand up for the truth. You think it should be fought with anonymous quotes. Fair enough.

"Never" always meant the 2016 election

That's not what never means. Definitionally, or in this specific instance. Although you've articulated the difference between those R's who considered Trump unacceptable (must be opposed, no conditions) vs merely inconvenient (to be opposed because he might lose a winnable election; once he wins, kiss the ring, it's all good).

Let's discuss a potential wager via email.

Sure. Will do. And thanks to Ray's ill-advised wager in 2020, I've got plenty of green to invest.

And allow me to depart with this reminder that, judging by where they put their $, Democrat officials clearly don't believe MAGA-ism is an existential threat to the Republic. So why do you?

Come on. You know that's a tactical play, not a philosophical statement. I explained my reasons for disagreeing with it on Discord:

As a lifelong situational ethicist, IMO what the Democrats are doing in the Meijer district is kissing cousin to immoral. I understand the reasoning behind it, but it still stinks. They should just nominate their best candidate, and run against whichever GOP candidate Republican voters choose.

If Meijer should win the primary, "Democrats need to control the House" is a perfectly good reason to vote against him then. And if Meijer loses the primary, then the wingnut's victory wouldn't be tainted by crossover votes.

We go on and on
Over and over
Really never changes
Definition of "enemies"?
Someone who asks the wrong questions

Always be repeating
Repitition makes it true
Everybody else is wrong

Helluva a way to live
Assorted evil doers
Rampant conspiracies
Deep state delusions

Forces aligned against the enemy
Obsequity is the price
Ramparts must be manned!

Very sad
It leads to bad places
Consequences be damned
Heed the Dear Leader
Your face won't get eaten

Someone still doesn't know what the word "never" means.

"Never" always meant the 2016 election.

Someone still still doesn't know what the word "never" means.

Here, I'll help:



You'll note the lack of the word "for a limited period of time" or "temporarily" or "unless I decide it's beneficial to my career" in that definition.

That you and some others, like Coke-hat and the LP grifters, also claimed NeverTrump meant NeverDeSantis, NeverCruz, NeverHaley, NeverPompeo, NeverPence, NeverCotton, NeverMcConnell, NeverTimScott, NeverZeldin, etc says plenty about the moral mud in which you now reside.

I never in fact claimed any such thing. However, I now claim that it includes anyone who had the opportunity to, but refused to, impeach/remove Trump, as well as everyone who supported Trump's coup attempt on 1/6.

Every accusation about Trump-Russia!!! collusion turned out to be manufactured by actors tied to HRC, Obama, and Adam Schiff types*,

Someone still hasn't read the Mueller report after all this time. Nor has he read the bipartisan SSCI report. Still.

And talk about gulping down the Kool-Aid: When you adamantly refused to give even a peppercorn of credit to Trump for his superior judicial nominations, supposedly an issue you care deeply about, you lost standing to opine on pretty much anything, including bathroom tissue and Orioles pitching.

Jason's trying to pull a fast one here; I in fact did approve of many of the nominees. And I did oppose the smear job on Kavanaugh, as people might remember since OTP was still around back then. What Jason means is that I didn't pat Trump on the head and say "Good boy" and give him a treat for doing the bare minimum of saying someone's name.

Go to Twitter and you'll find popular accounts like RedSteeze, Comfortably Smug, BonchieRedState, and Varad M, folks who don't want to see Trump run in 2024 but also look forward to seeing Cheney go down in flames later this month.

"Don't want to see Trump run in 2024" is a really really low bar. Indeed, it's a dodge more than that. Would they vote for him in the GOP primaries if he ran? Would they vote for him in the general election if he won the nomination? Yes, and yes.

They (/you) "don't want to see Trump run" not because they see anything wrong with Trump or Trumpism, but for the same reason most Vichy Republicans didn't support Trump in 2016: they're afraid he'll cost the GOP the election. (Both the presidential election and down ballot elections.) They're the same people who will sneer "mean tweets" and "orange man bad" to avoid engaging with the fact that Trump is a sociopathic treasonweasel.

They look forward to seeing Cheney go down in flames for the same reason that so many supposed conservatives hate David French: it makes them look bad that some people actually do have principles. (N.B.: "Pwn the libs" is not a principle.) They demonstrate that it's possible to support GOP positions without whatabouting. They demonstrate that one can say "Trump bad" without a "but" after it. Easier to demonize Cheney/French than to admit what they themselves are.

Weaponized cults of personality
Hordes of cowards and opportunists
All in service of a game show host
Twilight of the republic indeed

How bad can it get?
Even worse, just wait.

Saddens me to see it
And principle becomes a luxury?
If you cannot trust your fellow citizens?
Doom for us all, eventually.