mspart

Are you saying that of the thousands of legit detainments, there have been 3 that were not legit? And that scares the American citizen? No false detainment is good, but if ICE came to my workplace today or tomorrow or the next day, I would not be concerned at all one bit. mspart

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ice-crackdowns-changing-workplaces-37-194504544.html Why would citizens feel less safe? This makes no sense at all to me. Now if you are an illegal, then I can understand you not feeling safe. But I don't understand citizens not feeling safe. That's just weird and unreasonable. It's like saying there are police in the store to prevent shop lifting, I feel unsafe. Just weird to me. mspart

Comrade ginger!! mspart

I can see where your son gets his looks!! mspart

In WA, the state raises taxes and then approves legislation that allows counties and cities to do the same. Which they do. mspart

And that is rhetorical violence that must be fought against. Shooting and killing is the only answer to this "war on liberals". RV you have to be honest and say both sides are inflammatory towards each other at the very least. If I remember correctly, there was an effort by Ds to impeach Trump on something, anything before he even took office in 2017. As it was, the Ds impeached him twice. It's not like the Ds are playing nice or anything or are the victims here. mspart

I thnk Burroughs deserves to be mentioned due to his dominance. I don't know most of those names but have watched Saitiev and that guy was unreal. If Medved was better, he was unrealer. mspart

Saitiev did not medal in 2000 Olys. So what? mspart

I disagree. Biden started this effort by allowing unfettered access to the US by illegal aliens coming from everywhere no matter from where. Trump's effort to get them out, and so far that is concentrating on those with US criminal history, is a natural consequence of the lack of lawful enforcement by the previous admin. The fact that states are harboring illegal aliens that have felony convictions is atrocious. Their self serving comments about keeping safe all state residents is hogwash. They are allowing these people to be on the streets to continue breaking the law and putting innocent law abiding citizens health and life at risk. And there are states actively opposing getting them out of the country. Trump didn't start this war, but he is trying to finish it. Is the current situation with states harboring illegal alien felons the correct thing to do? Ask those that voted for Trump, it is actually them you should blame. mspart

Are you saying Klarman is less partisan than Turley? I don't think so based on his performance in this debate calling Trump a fascist etc etc. Turley is/was a Democrat. But I think he is quite moderate and is disquieted by the extreme leftists policies now coming out in the name of the Democratic Party. Read the article and see if you agree or disagree with his position. Read his article and see who spoke more by fact than not. The fact Klarman said he was speaking from facts that anyone could fact check and then said that violent insurrectionists on Jan 6 resulted in the deaths of officers was as much a fabrication as anything. He lost his position of fact and truth teller with that first position. I find Turely as well reasoned when he is discussing legal or constitutional matters. You can disagree but only after you read what he writes. I gave the link. He has various articles there everyday. Each day brings a new one or two. You can read and decide. mspart

How are presidents elected? They are not elected by the popular vote, although that can be an indication. They are elected by state electors. So it was not the closest election in the 21st century. If she wanted to make that statement, she could have said it was the closest popular vote in the 21st century. But it certainly wasn't in terms of electoral voting. I don't say she lied. But she is weaving a narrative that has nothing to do with presidential politics. So who is being disingenous? mspart

They are just starting preschool in the elementary schools in our school district and my wife's preschool is suffering as a result. She was able to hire a helper but no longer. Putting entrepreneurs out of a job. mspart

mspart

Hi all, I find this instructive. Jonathan Turley had a debate at Colgate with Michael Klarman, the Charles Warren Professor of Legal History at Harvard Law School. The topic was on “Is There a Constitutional Crisis? How Would We Know?” Klarman took the affirmative view and Turley the opposing view. Turley gave a report on the debate here: https://jonathanturley.org/2025/09/23/the-turley-klarman-debate-a-video-and-a-response/ The first statement is really interesting. It goes like this: Professor Klarman stated at the outset that he would present a condensed version of a talk he had given at Harvard. As a result, he did not focus on the specific question presented beyond saying that what constitutes a “constitutional crisis” means different things to different people. Instead, he presented a list of grievances against Trump, the MAGA movement, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the media as evidence of the rise of fascism and authoritarianism in America. So Klarman did not even address the actual topic of the debate but went to other places. Not much of a debate if you can't stay on topic from the very get go. Klarman also said, “I am going to be extremely factual. Everything I say I can cite check chapter and verse for. You are right to beware of misinformation today but you are not going to get any of it from me.” Not only is this a quote from the article linked above, it is a direct quote of Klarmans. Interestingly, one of the first things he said was factually wrong. Turley, because of the topic of debate, did not get into all of the issues Klarman brought up because they were not on topic. But the below is one thing he did address at the time and he has a list of others he did not address at the time but addressed in this article. However Turley says that: I did address a couple of factual assertions during the debate. For example, Professor Klarman later claimed "that he had spoken completely factually and challenged the audience with “what did I say that is not true?”" And made the following statement: “[Trump pardoned] violent insurrectionists including several who were directly responsible for the death of police officers.” As we all know, no police officers died as a result of Jan 6. Only one person died as a result of Jan 6 and that was Ashli Babbit who was shot by Capitol Police. Officers did die of natural causes after Jan 6 and of suicide later on. So did protesters. Turley discussed this fairly thoroughly, saying: As I pointed out, only one person died during the January 6 riot, a protester named Ashli Babbitt. The claims that police officers died that day are false, though often repeated by politicians and pundits. The New York Times helped spread the false claim that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died as a result of being hit with a fire extinguisher. Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes the day after the riot. As a past correction states, “The medical examiner found Sicknick died of natural causes which means ‘a disease alone causes death. If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.’ Four other officers committed suicide days to months later.” Other officers died months later from such causes as suicide, but there is no direct causal link to the riot. So Klarman decided to air his quarrels rather than debate the topic. Which I find is a tactic used by the left mostly and some on the right. They make a statement off topic and pound on it and then change the topic to something else which is what Klarman did as you can see if you read the article. A video of the debate is included in the article so you can see it and not trust what Turely is saying. I think this experience is very emblematic of people having a debate not knowing the rules of a debate which is to stay on topic. This guy is a chair in the Harvard law school and can't even stay on topic. How did he ever get his law degree is a wonder and how he is at Harvard, the premier law school in the country is another wonder. Or maybe not. mspart

2000 (not technically 21st century) Bush 271 Gore 266 and this after SCOTUS involvement 2004 Bush 286 Kerry 251 Closer than 2024 election 2008 Obama 365 McCain 173 2012 Obama 332 Romney 206 2016 Trump 304 clinton 227 Closer than 2024 election 2020 Biden 306 Trump 232 Closer than 2024 election 2024 Trump 312 Harris 226 4th closest election in the 21st century And there you have it. Kamala still can't tell the truth when the facts are staring her in the face. In fact she got the least electoral votes of 2 of the other losers. So not even close to being the closest race in the 21st century. Even when Trump lost he got more electoral votes than Kamala. mspart

it must have been so transformative that you didn't need to watch it anymore. Late night tv is too late for me. I used to like Letterman's silliness when I was in college. mspart

I might be able to do the pushups, pretty sure I can do that quickly. But the pullups, my shoulders won't hear of it. mspart

KOMO in Seattle is the ABC affiliate. I don't think they are owned by either Nextstar or Sinclair. I understand that they are not showing Kimmel tonight, which is surprising given the neighborhood here. mspart

My guess is no, there would have been no pardon. That would tip the hand too much. Even the Ds are not that stupid, I would like to think. mspart

That is really a good question. Perhaps the best question in this long train. mspart

Yeah, prison is not much fun. mspart

Who was shot? Not Tyler. It was Charlie that was shot. Now he has been permanently suspended. Unless I'm missing something here. mspart

There were mostly peaceful riots, remember that. mspart

Permanently suspended. mspart

I think overall our prospects are pretty good for the future. mspart