dmacleod comments

Posted in: Trump says he is not upset by N Korean launch of short-range missiles See in context

How many NK missiles flying over Japan since Nov 2017 again? Zero?

So, the fact that no missiles have flown over Japan since November 2017 means that everything is OK and that all is safe? Really?

Tell this to the people living in Akita Prefecture where parts from missile tests after November 17, 2017 have fallen into the sea near them. How many of them would agree with you?

Tell this to the people in Hokkaido and others who live on the Japan Sea side of Honshu that because no missiles have flown over them (just near them), that there is nothing to worry about.

Lastly, try making your argument to some South Koreans. I'd love to hear their response.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Posted in: N Korea fires 2 missiles into sea See in context

"There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea." - Donald Trump, June 13, 2018.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Mueller's testimony poses risk for Trump, but also Democrats See in context

Mueller is gong to be repeatedly asked to explain when he first knew that the Hillary/Steele dossier was fake,

And you know that because . . .

and why he, and his Democrats, continued to use false documentation to persecute the man who beat Hillary.

False documentation? Really? Have you seen it? Can you show how it was false? Can you be specific? I'm guessing that you cannot.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: Mueller's testimony poses risk for Trump, but also Democrats See in context

That’s your opinion, I respect it, but we wanted to see them both locked up, but it never happened and the same won’t happen here.

You will never see Holder or Clinton locked up because they were never indicted or convicted of a crime (despite numerous Republican attempts). Contrast that to actual criminals in the Trump administration like Manafort, Cohen, George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, and Michael Flynn just to name a few. There are also many others who could be indicted if Congress is actually allowed to do their investigations. You have zero legal and ethical legs to stand on here.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Mueller's testimony poses risk for Trump, but also Democrats See in context

Great! Now Barr can decide bury this thing once Mueller is done and he will be done, fork and all after he’s grilled by the Republicans, can’t wait.

As I pointed out before, no, Barr cannot decide to "bury this," but keep on hoping.

2 year history and Democrat hysteria that has failed so far....

Only in your mind. The two-year history of the Mueller investigation has already resulted in guilty pleas by several members of Trump's team plus 14 separate investigations from prosecutors from several other federal districts are still ongoing. We won't learn the results of those investigations until they have run their course.

Socialism is very much so.

Irrelevant to the issue of Mueller testifying this week. He won't be asked about socialism no matter how much you want it to be part of this issue.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: Bolton heading to Japan, South Korea amid trade dispute See in context

Is John Bolton the right guy to send to mediate any dispute let alone a trade dispute.

That's a rhetorical question, right?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: Mueller's testimony poses risk for Trump, but also Democrats See in context

Mueller works and answers to Barr. 

False. Mueller is no longer an employee at the DOJ, so no, he does not answer to Barr.

He said to Mueller if he felt that the President is guilty of obstruction, then why didn’t he put that in the report for recommendation? Either he is or he isn’t.

Nope. It was never Mueller's job to determine guilt or innocence. He was simply looking into possible wrongdoing according to his mandate. Guilt or innocence should be determined by Congress--not William Barr or the DOJ.

But at this point, it’s not going to go anywhere. 

How do you know this? Have you spoken to any of the investigators or prosecutors involved in any of the 14 investigations? I'm guessing no.

We have been hearing that...yaaaawn....excuse me, been hearing that for two years, now all of a sudden it’s going to be different? Sure...uh-huh.....

Yes, keep telling yourself that, and then I'm sure that there will be a convenient conspiracy theory to back up your claims after things don't go your way.

64% of Americans think it’s enough now, at this point it won’t make a difference, if you hate Trump, you’ll still hate him and never voted for him, if you love Trump, then it won’t matter a bean or difference on whatever they find, you will still vote for him. People are dug in and already made up their minds.

Then you have nothing to worry about, right?

I understand, we felt the same a out Holder and Hillary, but alas...

Irrelevant to this issue since Holder and Hillary have nothing to do with Mueller's testimony next week. Pathetic attempt at deflection.

Collins is running for re-election and she’s going to be challenged next year, so of course she wants it on public record.

No, she does not. She's already feeling the heat for her pro-Kavanaugh vote, so no, a vote to ignore Trumps' voluminous crimes in the Senate is not going to help her re-election campaign.

Yes and look at California and New York how they’re policies have been absolutely atrocious, so I know if any of these fools gets in with the mandate they want, this country will never recover. Raise the hammer and sickle flag already.

Ridiculous attempt at a counter-argument with absolutely no evidence to support your assertions. You're on a sinking ship--it's time to get off.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: Mueller's testimony poses risk for Trump, but also Democrats See in context

Ok waiting for the words “Barr misrepresented what I said” to come from Mueller’s mouth this week.

Mueller has already said it (and in writing). No waiting needed.

Although it’s kinda hard because mueller wrote down what he “said”, I’m not sure how someone else can misrepresent something I can read myself. That’s why you write it down.

It's actually pretty easy to misrepresent what someone else said, and Barr did it right after Mueller's report came out. Evidently, you weren't aware of it. No matter. Mueller will be asked about it later this week. I'm looking forward to reading your spin on it since it will most likely not be anything close to reality, and you and others will continue to make fools of yourselves in your hyper-partisan and extremist defense. Have fun.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: Mueller's testimony poses risk for Trump, but also Democrats See in context

Barr didn’t prevent Mueller from putting anything he wanted in the actual report that we all got to read.

No, Barr just misrepresented what Mueller said, and the right-wingers and other supplicants decided to parrot what Barr said as somehow the actual truth (which Mueller has disputed). However, the actual truth will most likely come out later this week, and it won't be anything like what Barr initially said (which would then make Barr a liar and obstructionist--and this would probably open him up to obstruction of justice charges like another AG who tried to pull the same nonsense almost 35 years ago--look up John Dean if you need a reminder).

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Posted in: Mueller's testimony poses risk for Trump, but also Democrats See in context

*Where Mueller will tell us all about how Barr obstructed his "actual" findings that he didnt (sic) bother to write in the report, correct?*

Kindly explain to us how Mueller could have written about Barr's obstructionism in his report before Barr actually did the obstruction.

But not enough to re-open the case or even to bring charges, at best, they’re all a shot in the dark at this point.

You cannot re-open a case that is still open. As I said before, there are now 14 separate investigations which are ongoing that were handed off to various federal prosecutors in several districts after Mueller submitted his report. Mueller did this because those cases were not in his original mandate but still were found to be worthy of further investigation due to their criminal liability.

A bit weak.

Not at all. Given the mountain of evidence of criminal wrongdoing in both chapters of the report, Mueller will most likely tell Congress that it is up to them to do their Constitutional oversight jobs if they think that what he uncovered justifies impeachment or criminal proceedings (especially if Trump should lose re-election).

The Democrats will never, ever be able to remove this President it won’t happen, but for amusement purposes, it’s still interesting to watch.

This is not about removing this President. It is about shining a hot spotlight on all of the criminal acts that he and his corrupt cabinet have done (many of which have resulted in resignations or are currently under criminal investigation). This is about putting on record those in the Senate who will willfully ignore evidence of wrongdoing in favor of putting their party over country--which is despicable. I'm pretty sure that Susan Collins and Cory Gardner do not want their vote to be put on public record on this, especially if there is a trial in the Senate.

I hope so and with the Dems wanting to implement more socialism makes it much easier for Trump to slide into his second term.

This is the same weak-sauce argument that you made prior to the 2018 midterms. It is amazing the amnesia that most Republican and hardcore Trump supporters have after they get reminded of this but still cling to their illogical views. What is worse is that they then pivot to the "socialism" boogie-man argument that they hope will be a distraction to the blatant failures of this corrupt and criminal administration.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: Mueller's testimony poses risk for Trump, but also Democrats See in context

Cleared of collusion.

False.

Can’t prove that Trump obstructed a crime that Mueller found did not occur.

False. Current investigations by Congress as well as 14 current investigations say otherwise.

DOJ cleared Trump campaign.

False. The DOJ has never cleared the Trump campaign. However, William Barr has tried by putting out a series of false and misleading public statements about it. His blatant obstructionism is one of the reasons that Mueller has to testify before Congress this week.

In America no one is above OR beneath the law. Innocent until proven guilty.

That goes for those who publicly proclaim innocence before investigations have come to and end, and their conclusions have been made public.

Case closed.

Far from it. Until Congress gets to complete its Constitutional oversight role, this will continue to be an ongoing issue.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Posted in: Black lawmaker says white man told her 'Go back where you came from' See in context

Trump's America is one that has seen African-Americans' lowest-ever unemployment rate.

Please identify the specific policies or legislation that Trump has enacted which has made this possible. Be specific. Also, some collaborating evidence from a reliable source would go a long way in supporting your statement.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump slams congresswomen; crowd roars, 'Send her back!' See in context

But for 8 years they said nothing about it, they don’t care.

"They" have not been in Congress for the past eight years. Try to keep up.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump slams congresswomen; crowd roars, 'Send her back!' See in context

He does, he just hates how liberals have been dragging it through the sewer.

And his opponents hate how Trump has been dragging the entire country through the sewer.

Like I said, the argument works both ways.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump slams congresswomen; crowd roars, 'Send her back!' See in context

So the love-it-or-leave-it message apparently applies to everyone but Trump himself? I recall Trump campaigned on everything that was supposedly wrong with America in 2016, did he not? Therefore, this argument should work both ways: if Trump didn't love America, he should have just left instead of complaining about what was wrong with it.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Posted in: Favorite 'Game of Thrones' death scene? Its stars weigh in See in context

Season 1 - Viserys Targeryen getting his "golden crown" from Khal Drogo. Ouch!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Disney unveils global family-friendly streaming service See in context

I just want to know is Punisher coming back?

Sadly, no. Here is a link:

https://heroichollywood.com/jon-bernthal-netflix-marvel-punisher-cancellation/

All of the Marvel/Netflix series have been cancelled.

I'm really not happy about the cancellation of Daredevil.

I think the whole Marvel/Disney relationship is going to be a disaster.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Former Obama lawyer Craig charged in Mueller spin-off probe See in context

Oh, let me clarify, Russian collusion, left wing conspiracy debunked

No, not debunked. Let's be very clear here: nothing has been debunked about Russian collusion or other crimes that were investigated by Mueller until the full, un-redacted Mueller Report gets released to Congress. Claims otherwise are nothing but speculation and will most likely get disproven when the truth finally comes out--and that truth will not come out of William Barr or other supplicants whom Trump supporters are blindly following. Ditto for the ridiculous "witch hunt" claims since quite a few "witches" were caught, and there are most likely more.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Former Obama lawyer Craig charged in Mueller spin-off probe See in context

A deep dive back into debunked, right wing conspiracies.

Yup, welcome to Trump’s world.

Wow. You just admitted that "Trump's World" is full of debunked right wing conspiracies.

Oh, my God...where to begin. The list is quite lengthy.

And to illustrate my observation from above, you just provided one.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Posted in: 2020 Democrats' new litmus test: Abolish Electoral College See in context

Which won’t happen, so even the smaller States would never go for it, it will never happen.

And you are sure of this because of what actual statistical data, or are you just speculating against the current trend?

Worked so far for the nation since the beginning and  Dems never complained about it when benefited from . . .

Nope, not true. Give us an example of how or when the "Dems benefited from it' since no Democratic president has ever won the EC while losing the popular vote.

How about winning on real issues instead of being radical to the core,

You mean like the most recent election where Democrats beat Republicans by a national total of 9 million votes? Where they won the House and took 40 seats? Where they held 7 governorships and won 7 more? Where they flipped 337 state legislative seats? Where they won 7 statehouses? Where they flipped three more states to control the governorship, the House, and the state Senate? "Too funny" indeed! As for the rest of your argument, it falls flat when compared to the actual facts.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: 2020 Democrats' new litmus test: Abolish Electoral College See in context

I understand it, but you won’t get that many, you’ll never get the Southern States or any of the flyovers to go with it, will never happen.

Clearly you do not since this measure is NOT dependent on Southern states or flyovers. As of right now,  this measure has already been adopted by twelve states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 181 electoral votes, which is 33.6% of the Electoral College and 67.0% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force. They only need a few more states to get this in place--and there are plenty of others outside of your "Southern States and flyovers" to get this to happen.

What are you talking about here? In 1992, Bill Clinton won 370 EC votes to Bush's paltry 168. In 1996, he won 379 votes to Dole's anemic 159.

And thanks to the EC Bush won.

Please explain to us how Bill Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996 are somehow related to Bush 2's EC victory in 2000. Also, please explain why because of his EC "victory" (decided by the Supreme Court) in 2000, we got one of the worst Presidents in history (only surpassed by the current EC victory President).

The current EC system is broken and should be replaced.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: 2020 Democrats' new litmus test: Abolish Electoral College See in context

But they do and it has worked so far in our history, without the EC Bill Clinton would have never made it to the Presidency.

Oh, and I forgot to add that Bill Clinton won the popular vote BOTH times, so I have no idea why you would stated that he needed the EC to win.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: 2020 Democrats' new litmus test: Abolish Electoral College See in context

It’s not irrelevant because most of the flyover and Southern States would never go for it, so right there off the starting gate it would be defeated.

Again, you are either not understanding the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or you are somehow confusing it with a Constitutional change. The Compact is a work around the Constitution since it allows individual States to determine how their Electoral College votes get tallied, so "flyover and Southern States" don't matter if the number of other States that adopt this measure outnumber them--and right now, the current measure only needs a few more States (64 more Electoral College votes) to surpass the current 270 needed to win. Go back and read the Compact this time before you comment.

Exactly! Therefore, the EC wouldn’t have a chance of being eliminated for that exact reason you and I both said.

Wrong. The Compact clearly defines why it would render the EC irrelevant with this work around.

But they do and it has worked so far in our history, without the EC Bill Clinton would have never made it to the Presidency.

What are you talking about here? In 1992, Bill Clinton won 370 EC votes to Bush's paltry 168. In 1996, he won 379 votes to Dole's anemic 159.

Yes and that includes all States, even Wyoming, this is why each State regardless of size has 2 Senators.

This comment has nothing to do with the proposed EC work around. There are only a few more states which need to adopt this proposal, and the EC will be rendered moot.

Try again.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: 2020 Democrats' new litmus test: Abolish Electoral College See in context

two-thirds majority in the House and Senate 2) three-quarters of the states to ratify the change within a seven-year window.

Irrelevant since the laws in this case are made at the State level--the House and Senate are not in play here.

Doesnt matter, California doesn’t dictate to the rest of the 49 States who gets to be President.

Actually, it does matter since a minority of the States don't get to decide who should be President either.

Votes shouldn't matter on geography. The voice of the people should be heard--no matter where they live. Democracy should not be determined by demographics.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: 2020 Democrats' new litmus test: Abolish Electoral College See in context

3: Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

False: She won by a little over 3 million votes.

And this children, is WHY you have a Electoral College. It's a safety net so that EVERYONES (sic) vote counts.

Not even close to being true.

Here is a measure that is already in the works to render the Electoral College obsolete and would be an actual "safety net so that everyone's vote counts." Look this up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Lawyer apologizes for embarrassing Ghosn with disguise during release See in context

I know what my Halloween costume is going to be this year!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Bannon confident of Trump win in 2020 despite investigations See in context

No wonder they lost in 2016 and will probably do so again unless they reverse course and return to being the party of the working class.

Forgot about the 2018 midterm election results?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump says Cohen hearing may have contributed to North Korea summit failure See in context

Cohen will return to Congress for another round of testimony on March 6. I hope that Trump is ready for another "Cohenoscopy" because I don't think that this one is going to be any better or less painful.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Posted in: MUFG Bank to end over-the-counter int'l cash transfers to combat crime See in context

@Zichi:

Welcome back! It's good to see you again.

My condolences for your loss. I went through something similar a few years back where I was the executor for my mother's estate and had to take care of everything--which was a challenge since I had to do it while I was here in Japan.

I don't know if this is possible for you, but here is how I got around all of this banking mess:

I opened an account with Chase in the U.S. (not sure if this is an option for you, but if it is, you might want to do it the next time you visit the U.S.). Then, any checks that I receive here in Japan from an American insurance company or bank, I simply take a photo of them with my smartphone and then directly deposit them into my Chase account in the U.S. (Chase has a great online app that lets you do this). After the check clears my Chase account (it takes a few minutes), I then transfer the money from my Chase account to my bank here in Japan (SMBC--and the wire fees are only about 4000 yen). The whole thing takes less than a day, and I can do it from the comfort of my home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Seeking support for a wall, Trump plans prime-time speech, border visit See in context

I wasn’t talking about that,

Oh, it was pretty clear that you were, and you got caught making another false claim. Don't try and move the goalposts.

the WH made sure that and tax returns will delivered promptly,

What? The WH made sure of what exactly?

I was talking about the bigger legislation the Dems have won’t pass McConnell’s desk-DOA or until the Dems give Trump the money for the wall.

So, you are admitting that Senate obstructionism will prevent any legislation passed by the House from getting signed into law, therefore making it the Republican-led Senate that cannot pass anything instead of the Democrats. As far as Trump getting his demands for a wall, it ain't going to happen. The Democrats can keep passing smaller bills offering to fund some of the very agencies that the Senate will refuse to vote on, putting those Senators in a very difficult spot since they would be refusing to pay those federal workers and others affected by the shutdown, so it's on the Republican senators and not the Democrats. There are Republican senators already wavering on this obstructionism, but I hope that McConnell keeps it up which will ensure that the Republicans will also lose the Senate during the next election, so please, keep cheering him on.

And the Democrats can’t even get anything through the Senate, ultimate fai-lee-ur.

Yes, a failure on the Republicans' part since it is not up to the Democrats in the House to get enough votes in the Senate to pass their bills. It's up to the Senate to take a vote on the bills--that is if their so-called leader will let them.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Recent Comments

Popular

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.