May 15, 2018

"It’s a funny song for a play-out song ― a drowsy ballad about drugs in Chelsea! It’s kind of weird. He couldn’t be persuaded to use something else."

Said Mick Jagger about Trump's use of the old Stones song "You Can't Always Get What You Want."

That's quoted in a HuffPo article that forefronts something Keith Richards said, telling a tale that dates back to 1989, when Trump as the promoter of the Stones' Atlantic City concerts had put his own name in larger letters than band's name:
“I got out my trusty blade, stuck it in the table and said: ‘You have to get rid of this man!’ Now America has to get rid of him. Don’t say I didn’t warn you!”
How did it ever happen that Keith Richards became the attention-getter over Mick Jagger? But here we see it again. Let's talk about Keith and put Mick as the afterthought. And of course it's not surprising to see the violent ideation with the flashy knife gesture getting preference over the musing about the song.

But I'm more interested in the song and Mick's puzzlement about Trump's persistent use of it to end his raucous rallies. It's such an odd mood switch — to talk the way Trump does about bigness and greatness and to bring out such cheering and enthusiasm and then to play "You Can't Always Get What You Want," like it was all for nothing. He was just winding you up.

I keep expecting that one day, when Trump's accomplishments are listed and he's asked where all those great things you promised the people, he's going to say I always put it out there in plain sight for you.

A religion-flaunting speaker might have said — after all those visions of future greatness — "God willing." The pop-culture man had Mick Jagger singing it: You Can't Always Get What You Want.

In this new interview, Mick points out that the song is about drugs, but you have to wait until verse 3 to get your drugs:
I went down to the Chelsea drugstore
To get your prescription filled
I was standing in line with Mr. Jimmy
And man, did he look pretty ill
We decided that we would have a soda
My favorite flavor, cherry red
I sung my song to Mr. Jimmy
Yeah, and he said one word to me, and that was "dead"
Drugs and soda. Red soda, presaging blood.

But the song begins with wine:
I saw her today at the reception
A glass of wine in her hand
I knew she would meet her connection
At her feet was a footloose man
We know Trump doesn't drink or use drugs and never has, so it's striking that he favors this song that begins with the woman with the glass of wine in her hand (and a plan, it seems, to mix drugs with that alcohol). But not wanting to consume substances doesn't mean you disapprove of the woman's impairing herself.

My favorite verse is verse 2, which begins with a line that I've used a few times as a post title:
And I went down to the demonstration
To get my fair share of abuse
Singing, "We're going to vent our frustration
If we don't, we're going to blow a 50-amp fuse"
Here's this song at the rally, which is more or less a demonstration. Maybe Trump identifies with that "I." Here's this crowd, frustrated, about to blow a fuse, and I arrive, but I'm not like those people. I'm not the frustrated, about-to-blow people, but I am here, and I experience the scene as abuse. "Fair share" is a comical thing to say about abuse. Why do you think you haven't been abused enough yet? Maybe you've lived too comfortable a life. You're above it all. But the people are roiling and angry. So you go there. You expose yourself to it. It's your fair share of abuse.

Verse 4 cycles us back to the reception, and now it's not wine in the woman's glass — it's "a bleeding man."
I saw her today at the reception
In her glass was a bleeding man
She was practiced at the art of deception
Well I could tell by her blood-stained hands
Is it Trump, punctured by Keith's trusty blade? Is it Jimmy with the cherry soda and the one word, "dead"? Is it the man abused at the demonstration? Is it the men the woman has ruined? Or all men, ruined by Woman (those deceptive creatures)?

It's so weird that Trump associates himself with this material — blood, drugs, alcohol, the blind anger of crowds, murderously deceptive women. It cannot be that he doesn't know those lyrics. They're so far from anything that feels traditionally presidential.

It's possible that the chorus is simply so important, it's all worth it. But why?
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes, you just might find
You just might find you get what you need 
To me, this message, played at the end of a political rally, feels like a critique of all politics. Yes, I've stood here and promised the sky, but you must realize you might not get it, and what you do get may even be preferable. You're feeling your wants, and I'm stoking your wants, but I might have something else in mind, something that I think is good enough for you or actually better than what you want. And you really shouldn't be taking those drugs and drinking that wine or even drinking that soda. What kind of a thinking adult are you anyway, preferring "cherry red" soda? Grow up. You've had your fun at my rousing rally. Now, straighten up and try to see that what you're getting as all that you really need.

153 comments:

Michael K said...

Roosevelt played "Happy Days Are Here Again" at his 1932 rallies. They were a long time coming.

Carol said...

Loved the Stones but that song was a downer. I don't know why every good rocking band has to put out some slow soul-sucking ballad to prove their worth.

The lyrics had a little too much influence on me, ran through my head all the time. Made me willing to settle for too little too soon I think.

Anyway, why would Trump use that dreary downer. Maybe some old GF like it. Or maybe it was his paean to Ivana. Haha.

mccullough said...



Trump is the Drugs and the Religion in the Song. Obama is Mr Jimmy. Hillary is the Woman. Bill is the Footloose Man.

We are the narrator.

Char Char Binks said...

Maybe the story about brandishing a knife will finally get get Keef some street cred.

Nonapod said...

It's an interesting song choice. I've always felt that Trump should be very trollish and meta about it and choose Sympathy for the Devil as his playout song.

Earnest Prole said...

You've got it exactly backwards. Trump is promising that if we try with him, we'll get what we need, which is more important than what we want.

Birches said...

I sing the chorus to my kids all the time.

Caldwell Titcomb IV said...

Carol said...
Loved the Stones


#MeToo

but that song was a downer.

I just now put it on for a couple of seconds to verify that I still hate it.

Drago said...

Michael K: "Roosevelt played "Happy Days Are Here Again" at his 1932 rallies. They were a long time coming."

All it took was a world war killing tens of millions and resulting in the destruction of the industrial base of nearly every modern nation to reach a point where "happy days" could be had.

I'll wait for Robert Cook to explain how the entire world was a paradise prior to the US forcing World War on an innocent world.

Stoutcat said...

Earnest Prole said... You've got it exactly backwards. Trump is promising that if we try with him, we'll get what we need, which is more important than what we want.

Spot on!

Curious George said...

"Earnest Prole said...
You've got it exactly backwards. Trump is promising that if we try with him, we'll get what we need, which is more important than what we want."

Exactly. I don't Trump knows any of the other lyrics. Althouse, think horses. Not zebras.

Earnest Prole said...

Spot on!

I now realize I was the too-eager student, commenting before clicking through to read the rest of the post. Sure enough, Althouse got there before me.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

You can't always have your Bernie free stuff and freedom too.

Meade said...

Careful not to overthink it. Consider Trump’s peculiar sense of humor. I believe mccullough nailed it.

Kevin said...

Trump is loud, brash, sends Tweets you won't always agree with, fires his staff, ignores the advice of experts, makes fun of dictators, drops out of international agreements, builds walls between countries, and imposes trade sanctions, and makes it difficult for people to discuss him in public.

But he may be exactly what America needs.

That's Trump's message.

madAsHell said...

An incident from 1989?? Reported in the HuffPo?

I'm also surprised this knife-in-the-table bit didn't make it into Keith's book. Maybe it never happened?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

I think Prole nailed it at 9:50.

Ann Althouse said...

"You've got it exactly backwards. Trump is promising that if we try with him, we'll get what we need, which is more important than what we want."

I didn't fail to say that.

hombre said...

“How did it ever happen that Keith Richards became the attention-getter over Mick Jagger?“

The key to getting attention from the leftmedia is to make an anti-Trump comment, the more outrageous the more attention. There is nothing deep or complicated about lefty behavior. They are completely predictable.

Ann Althouse said...

"I now realize I was the too-eager student, commenting before clicking through to read the rest of the post. Sure enough, Althouse got there before me."

LOL.

Thanks.

Me too, since I commented on your comment before I read all the comments.

Birches said...

And I disagree with those of you who think the song is a downer. It starts as a ballad and gets better. Nothing like a truly terrible song like Angie.

John Henry said...

I remember you well
From the Chelsea Hotel

Oops. Wrong Chelsea

Woke up it was a Chelsea morning
And the first thing that I heard

Oops, wrong Chelsea again

John Henry

chuck said...

Keith is a knife criminal!?! Thank G*d he has found asylum in the US, although I suggest he find someplace besides Connecticut for the long term.

Earnest Prole said...

In "Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues," Dylan has needs and wants the other way around:

when Ruthie says come see her
In her honky-tonk lagoon
Where I can watch her waltz for free
’neath her Panamanian moon
And I say, “Aw come on now
You know you knew about my debutante,” and she says,
“Your debutante just knows what you need
But I know what you want”

Bob Boyd said...

Speaking of downers, I just saw that Tom Wolfe has died.

LordSomber said...

If only Keith was a street fighting man.

Teller said...

Keith got famouser than Mick because a) he's still functioning after all the drugs and booze, the ultimate hippie model of 'maintaining' and b) Depp doing him in that Pirate series.

rehajm said...

It not for being pickled Keith was supposed to die a couple decades ago. Now he couldn’t handle one of the twinks, even with the knife.

Matt said...

It's a big song that everyone knows, building to an amazing crescendo. You end events with big songs. Almost every group has them and many times they save them for the encore: the Who's Baba O'Riley, Paul Simon's Late in the Evening, Guns and Roses Paradise City, Katy Perry Roar, Arcade Fire Wake Up, Garth Brooks Standing Outside the Fire. I bet if Tupac were still here he'd be closing out every concert with California Love.

I think musically You Can't Always Get What You Want matches the feeling Donald Trump wants from his rallies: big, euphoric, overwhelming, somewhat baffling. In that sense, it's perfect.

cubanbob said...

Its just a song. And its just Trump. Lets not over analyze.

John Lynch said...

But you get what you need.

The Cracker Emcee Rampant said...

I'd never overthink it. Songs can have strong, iconic meanings to individuals that have nothing to do with the lyrics and that they couldn't begin to articulate to someone else. EP mentions Stuck Inside of Mobile. That's one of mine. Maybe the Stones song evokes for Trump some lost, wild night in Mother Russia, snorting cocaine and peeing on hookers.

Ann Althouse said...

"Its just a song. And its just Trump. Lets not over analyze."

I could write a blog called: You're Overthinking This. So obviously, I disagree. You can underanalyze if you want, but that's not my game.

Yancey Ward said...

Here is the lyric that matters: You can't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.

Yancey Ward said...

It is odd to hear Jagger describe it as a "drowsy ballad". It isn't either of those words, in my opinion.

Yancey Ward said...

And I see I should have clicked through to read the entire post.

Yes, it is the chorus that matters for Trump's use.

Bob Boyd said...

It's the perfect song for Trump.
Don't most Trump voters say something like, "Trump wasn't my first choice, but..."
or "Trump isn't my ideal candidate, but..."
and the but is generally that outsider Trump is what we need.

Ann Althouse said...

"In "Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues," Dylan has needs and wants the other way around."

Well, actually it's not. In both cases, need is the smaller thing that's settled for in place of want. It's the other way around only in that Dylan is quoting a woman who's talking to him and we don't know what he thinks about it. Mick is speaking to the woman (or to all of us) and suggesting that getting what you want isn't attainable or perhaps even desirable.

By the way, Ruthie, the non-debutante in the Dylan song doesn't say she's going to give him what he wants, only that she knows what it is. She's more knowing. You could know what someone wants and not give it, even actively deprive him of it. And you could happen to give someone what they want without knowing in advance what he wants. Also, why doesn't he just ask?! The debutante might aim to please.

But what a great song. So many words! I think "Stuck Inside of Mobile" is the most Dylan-y Dylan song.

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

Remember "My Way" for the Inaugural? It was pointed out to Trump that the song is about resigning oneself to the end of a career, if not a life. Yes there is the defiance, everything has been done "my way," but nature and perhaps popularity are not under one's control. Trump liked the one phrase, and kept the song. Maybe a master of the art of the deal likes to say "you can't always get what you want"--at least, he might want to say that to the people on the other side of the table.

traditionalguy said...

The Master of the Deal is setting the stage for tomorrow's negotiation. You may want it all, but that's all you are gonna get.

Henry said...

I associate that song with The Big Chill, which is even more of a downer. In that context, sometimes what you need is the overdose.

Earnest Prole said...

In both cases, need is the smaller thing that's settled for in place of want.

I hear Jagger saying need is the larger, more profound thing, but you just don't realize it yet. I also hear Jagger saying you already have much of what you want ("You can't always get what you want"), like a parent encouraging a child to see the big picture.

Rae said...

He should really troll people and play "Brown Sugar". Lord, the hysterics about that would be...well, hysterical!

John Henry said...

Blogger Earnest Prole said...

You've got it exactly backwards. Trump is promising that if we try with him, we'll get what we need, which is more important than what we want.

I get what you are saying and there may be something to it. President Trump is trying to get us what we need.

But, he has spent his life in sales and it really good at it. The first thing a good salesperson learns is that people NEVER, EVER, buy based on need. We ONLY buy when we want something. The good salesperson learns how to convert needs to wants. Otherwise, their kids will go hungry.

The cancer patient may "need" chemotherapy. It is a nasty, painful process and need alone won't get them in the door.

They "want" to feel better. Sell them the chemotherapy as a way to achieve that end and you won't be able to keep them out.

John Henry

MartyB said...

Huh, I never looked at the lyrics before, but always assumed it was Mr "Jimi" he was singing about and the song was a musing on life and death of celebrity living that lifestyle.

Luke Lea said...

But you get what you need -- that is the important part. Don't leave it out. Of course we will all make up our own minds when this is all over, whether we got what we needed. Remains to be seen.

Michael K said...

They "want" to feel better. Sell them the chemotherapy as a way to achieve that end and you won't be able to keep them out.

That's why ophthalmologists and orthopedists can sell their services. A friend of mine, an ophthalmologist who was finding his practice very slow, hired a guy who did nothing but market ophthalmology. Cataract surgery was the beginning but LASIK really made things take off. He is now a multimillionaire. And none of it is covered by insurance.

General surgery doesn't do that because nobody wants cancer.

William said...

The chorus is the only part of the song that most people connect with. The other verses seem to refer to a particular person with particular problems and don't mean much of anything.,,,,,,Wants are the stuff of poetry. Needs are the means of sustenance.........Apparently back in '89, Keith had other, more positive things to say about Trump, but now he's woke.......Even more than Schneiderman, I look to The Rolling Stones to condemn our President for his past history of sexual misconduct.

John Henry said...

Something else a good sales person does is not overpromise or promise more than they can deliver.

It is much better to tell a customer that you can give them X then do X + Y than to promise that you can give them X + Y and then it turns out they can only deliver X, leaving the customer disappointed that they did not get Y.

Most politicians promise the sun and the moon to get elected then welsh. In some cases, Bill Clinton and his 100 days promise, they will openly laugh at us rubes after the election for believing them.

Candidate Trump made some grandiose promises but so far has delivered, or is delivering (the wall, Obamacare repeal) them.

See what he says about NoKo, for example. He hopes to get a good deal with them. Things look promising. But, as he said the other night, "If it isn't, it isn't" and he'll walk away rather than do a bad deal.

He is refusing to overpromise on NoKo. That's what a salesman does.

John Henry

Caldwell Titcomb IV said...

Birches said...
And I disagree with those of you who think the song is a downer.


The "Circus" version is a lot better than the studio/Bleed version since it doesn't have that gawdawful choir.

John Henry said...

Also, I know a lot of folks think that what President Trump is selling is smoke and bullshit.

That is a matter of opinion on which I disagree. What I don't think any rational person will disagree with is that President Trump is doing a masterful selling job whatever it is he is selling.

Perhaps, if you believe that he is selling smoke and bullshit, that makes him an even better salesman.

Any fool can sell a new Mercedes Benz if the price is $20,000. It takes a master salesman/woman to get people to buy a Chevy Volt for $40,000.

Michael K said...

The David Brooks on the decline of "Anti-Trumpism" is predicting (It was written in January) what we are seeing and I expect to see more of this fall.

The anti-Trump movement suffers from insularity. Most of the people who detest Trump don’t know anybody who works with him or supports him. And if they do have friends and family members who admire Trump, they’ve learned not to talk about this subject. So they get most of their information about Trumpism from others who also detest Trumpism, which is always a recipe for epistemic closure.

Much of the rest of it is BS but he does get a few things right.

Dave in Tucson said...

Honestly, if the biggest thing you can find to criticize about Trump is his playlist choices, he's doing pretty good, right?

This is just another thin-soup attempt by the left to get Trump's base offended at him. No thanks.

Laslo Spatula said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
langford peel said...

The God Emperor is just trolling you weenies.

Works every time.

the 4chan Guy who reads Althouse said...

I always thought the song was, like, Mick’s way of letting Keith know gently that, no, Mick was not going to fuck him and shit. Because if you can’t tell that Keith Richards is gay then you just don’t know how to look. I mean, straight men in their seventies don’t dress like a pirate unless they are actually a pirate, okay?

So when Mick sings

“I saw her today at the reception
A glass of wine in her hand
I knew she was gonna meet her connection”

The ‘her’ is Keith, and Keith and Mick are at, like, some party or shit, and Keith’s looking for his drug dealer, because he’s not going to get to fuck Mick and now he needs some more drugs. Pretty obvious.

Then Mick sings

“But I went down to the demonstration
To get your fair share of abuse
Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration
If we don't we're gonna blow a fifty-amp fuse"

And the ‘demonstration’ is a metaphor for the recording studio, where Keith is abusive of Mick because Mick isn’t rock-and-roll enough, and won’t fuck him and shit. And Mick’s saying, like, ‘I get your frustration, dude, but maybe just play your guitar and get over it, okay?’

Then Mick sings

“I went down to the Chelsea drugstore
To get your prescription filled”

And that’s pretty obvious: Keith can’t do shit in the studio without his drugs, so Mick is saying, I’ll get your drugs, okay? Because we gotta write songs and shit.

And then Mick sings

“I was standing in line with Mr. Jimmy
And man, did he look pretty ill
We decided that we would have a soda
My favorite flavor, cherry red
I sung my song to Mr. Jimmy
Yeah, and he said one word to me, and that was "dead"

Which is all about Mick waiting at the dealer to get Keith’s drugs, but Jimmy Page is ahead of him, and Jimmy looks all thin and wasted and shit, which people thought was cool back then, but Mick wasn’t buying it. So, even though Jimmy looks ill and wasted and shit, even Jimmy knows that Keith is gonna die soon with all the drugs he’s taking, because Mick not wanting to fuck him hurts him that much.

And then Mick sings

“In her glass was a bleeding man”

Which is just poetry shit, it doesn’t, like, really mean anything or nothing. Then Mick sings

“She was practiced at the art of deception
Well I could tell by her blood-stained hands”

Which means Keith keeps trying to hide how fucked up he is on drugs from everyone, but he’s not fooling Mick, Mick knows his shit. So Mick tells him

“You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need”

Which basically just means — hey — just because I’m not going to fuck you doesn’t mean that there aren’t other dudes with big lips who would fuck you, because you’re Keith Richards of the fucking Rolling Stones, dude, even Bill Wyman gets chicks.

Paul McCartney had this problem in the Beatles, too: like, Lennon would get all pissy at him because he wanted McCartney to fuck him, and McCartney was like, no dude, and then wrote “Let It Be.”

Chuck said...


Candidate Trump made some grandiose promises but so far has delivered, or is delivering (the wall, Obamacare repeal) them.


Trump has not really repealed Obamcare. He has of course vandalized it to a great extent. But by absolutely no measure, has Trump “repealed” it. “Repeal” requires an act of Congress. Trump never got that. Trump never got to “repeal and replace” as he promised. As he promised repeatedly and explicitly. Another broken promise. Broken, in the Trumpiest of ways; by Trump just getting too bored with the policy details, and by not really engaging with the disparate interests in healthcare and in the Congress.

All of which broke another of Trump’s pablums (“promise” is too dignifying), which is that on healthcare, Trump would get everybody in a room and make a deal because he’s the great deal maker. And he isn’t. It isn’t just a policy failure for Trump; it isn’t just a Congressional let down; it is hard evidence that Trump isn’t any sort of deal maker at all. Deals HAVE been made in this Congress. Complicated deals on taxes and budgets. All deals made by Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and senior — mostly Republican — leadership.

The blandly blatant lies from Trump on healthcare line up like schoolyard taunts. Trump was going to lower costs, lower premiums, lower deductibles and copays, and he was going to improve care. He was also going to “cover everybody... because we have to.” And when the House came up with a plan that had lots of cuts to Obamacare, and Trump endorsed it in the hope that he could personally claim credit for an Obamacare replacement; and when a responsible press began to publicize the real meaning of the cuts; Trump did the Trump thing of reversing himself and claiming that the bill was “mean.” And then later making himself even more of a laughingstock by wondering aloud, “Who knew healthcare could be so hard?”

Michael K said...

"“Repeal” requires an act of Congress."

Yes and this is Trump's fault how ?

If the Dims do win Congress this fall, it will be the fault of McConnell and Ryan who were not prepared to govern.

They were quite comfortable lying to the Tea Party. They had NO plan when Trump unexpectedly won the election.

The furious opposition he has encountered includes people like you and Ryan and McConnell. They don't deserve to win the election but worse will happen if they get what they deserve.

Not to them, who will get lush lobbying jobs, but to us.

He is a pretty quick study and s getting a lot done in the areas where he can do things without the GOPe traitors.

Michael said...

Well read. The chorus is all.

BTW I believe Mr. Jimmy was a street person in Excelsior MN whom Jagger met when the Stones were appearing at what was then an amusement park there. More than that I can't remember.

Maybe Trump should go out to Jumping Jack Flash - it's a gas, gas, gas!

langford peel said...

Chuck your tediousness is only surpassed by your pomposity.

The God Emperor is constrained by the pusillanimity of the cuck Congress lead by Cocaine Mitch and Morphine Paul.

Still and all he is not an authoritarian demagogue as he is portrayed by the deranged Never Trumpers like.

Witness the fact that unlike Obama he will submit the upcoming Korean treaty to the Senate for approval. He has abided by all of the ridiculous rulings by ultra liberal activist judges even changing the travel ban to conform to their lunatic rulings. He has not fired Mueller, Rothenstien, Sessions or any of the various Deep State traitors who are trying every lie and ruse in the book to reverse the last election.

We know who are traitors trying to undermine the Constitution. It is not the God Emperor. It is the likes of fleas like you .....you deeply silly man.



Chuck said...

Michael K said...
"“Repeal” requires an act of Congress."

Yes and this is Trump's fault how ?


It was Trump's promise. Trump's personal promise, that he was the unique deal-maker. The One and Only. What he promised in terms of outcomes was a hopeless lie. A pile of lies; all that shit he was shoveling about great care and much lower costs.

Trump can easily say, "It is up to Congress to fix it." IN that case, bug out and let Congress do it. Quit making promises that won't be kept. If Trump wanted to lead on health care, he would just resign and tell Pence that he must make John Kasich the Vice President, and turn over health care policy to Kasich. Kasich, a lifelong conservative and budget hawk, has dealt with more hard decisions on Medicare payments and expansion, than Trump will ever understand.

You see, Michael K; I prefer smart people to assholes. And I prefer real experts, to used car salesmen. And I prefer people who have spent a lifetime dealing with hard issues that have honed their ideology, to somebody like Trump who has never held the same point of view on any issue for more than about six or seven years at a time.

langford peel said...

John Kasich? The duly and fairly elected President of the United States should resign and betray the millions who voted for him for John Kasich? So he can carry water for the Democrats?

You really are a fool.

langford peel said...

John Kasich and Flaky Jeff Flake are going to run against the God Emperor in the primary campaign in 2020. They will be lucky to beat Evan McMuffin's vote totals.

Chuck said...

langford peel said...
...
... He has abided by all of the ridiculous rulings by ultra liberal activist judges even changing the travel ban to conform to their lunatic rulings.

LOL. That idiotic pledge to ban "all Muslims entering the United States..." was never written in a way that was even close to that, because serious lawyers began to work on it and told Trump that no such thing would ever survive any scrutiny by any federal court. That was before any judge ruled on it. After that, the main problem was not so much that the Executive Order was so bad; the main problem was that Donald Trump -- a lawyer's 'client from hell' -- had so many shit-stupid things ab out immigration, it became harder to litigate.


He has not fired Mueller, Rothenstien, Sessions or any of the various Deep State traitors who are trying every lie and ruse in the book to reverse the last election.


It's "Rosenstein." Mr. Rosenstein, to you.

langford peel said...

Iceberg, Goldberg who gives a shit. He is a traitor and an usurper by any name and his turn in the dock is coming.

Congress must indict him for contempt and unlike Holder insist that he be prosecuted for trying to reverse the election.

Known Unknown said...

"“In her glass was a bleeding man”

She found Jesus!

langford peel said...

You prove my point. Activist judges invalidated a core Executive function because of tweets or speeches. Not because of the law. That is what the Never Trump resistance is all about. Form over substance. Feelings over the plain law.

They even intimate that another President could do it. Just not President Trump. They are not judges. They are political advocates pushing progressive ideology.

Like Chuck. Unexpectedly.

Michael K said...

Trump's personal promise, that he was the unique deal-maker.

So, you fault Trump for thinking that Congress had that repeal all ready to go, like they had been saying for four years ?

What kind of lawyer did you say you were ?

John Henry said...

Chuck,

You really are a prime fopdoodle, aren't you?

I did not say that he has repealed Obamacare. I said that he was "repealing" it. Bit by bit, it is a work in progress. Some of the most onerous provisions are gone. Or "vandalized" to use your foolishness. He still has 2-1/2 years left to finish the job.

I wish it was going faster but he is chewing away at it. Sounds like he might be going to do something good with drug pricing. What he should really do is ban prescription drug advertising to consumers. That would kill two giant birds with one stone.

If Obamacare is not gone by Jan 2021, then you can take him to task for a broken promise. Or, if progress comes to a halt, then you can take him to task. Otherwise, I see him keeping his promise. I think "Repeal and replace" could be complied with by repealing and replacing with a freemarket system. In other words, nothing. That is my preferred replacement.

Ditto the wall. I wish it were moving ahead faster but it is moving ahead so I count that as a promise that is in the works. Will Mexico pay for it? I hope so. I don't think anyone other than a few like you think the USA will send Mexico an invoice and they will send a check. There are lots of ways for Mexico to pay for the wall, voluntarily or involuntarily.

So, those are two promises that he has not "kept" but they are 2 that he is keeping.

Sure even you can see that, can't you?

John Henry

Drago said...

LLR & #StrongDemDefender Chuck: "He has of course vandalized it to a great extent."

Language that is, once again and always, in absolute perfect synch with leftist talking points.

Unexpectedly.

Hey Chuck, you'd better get with it. Looks like Manchin needs your help.

Drago said...

John Henry: "Sure even you can see that, can't you?"

"Bowe Bergdahl republican" Chuck sees whatever it is that Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters sees...with the caveat that Pelosi and Waters are often more coherent.

tim in vermont said...

Positively Fourth Street is so on the nose for Trump it might be too much, but the Stones song is Art of the Deal.

Drago said...

I think it is nice that LLR Chuck and PPPT have split up the daytime and nighttime posting duties. That way everyone stays well rested.

tim in vermont said...

I like the song better after reading 4Chan.

Sigivald said...

Did anyone but Mick Jagger have any idea what that song was "about"?

The lyrics are basically nonsense.

(Why do people like the Stones? Their only work I can stand is their short-lived psychedelic era.)

Original Mike said...

”Why do people like the Stones?”

I given up trying to understand it.

langford peel said...

The Stones are the contrarian band. If everybody else loved the Beatles you had to love the Stones.

They are the Ritmo of bands.

Loud, prolific, derivative and basically boring.

readering said...

Apparently Kim now playing the song over the DMZ.

readering said...

Who's Ritmo?

Chuck said...

John Henry said...
Chuck,

You really are a prime fopdoodle, aren't you?

I did not say that he has repealed Obamacare. I said that he was "repealing" it. Bit by bit, it is a work in progress. Some of the most onerous provisions are gone. Or "vandalized" to use your foolishness. He still has 2-1/2 years left to finish the job.

I wish it was going faster but he is chewing away at it. Sounds like he might be going to do something good with drug pricing...


God damn it, the Democrats' fucking dream: to turn the U.S. pharmaceutical market into something like Canada.

That is where Trump begins to go full Democrat. Never go full Democrat.

walter said...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/john-kasich-defends-ohios-failed-medicaid-expansion/

Ohio’s Medicaid program exploded because Kasich chose to take Obamacare money to add able-bodied, working-age, childless adults to the rolls. That money is the driving force behind Kasich’s opposition to every Obamacare-repeal bill considered in Congress this session.

Kasich initially projected that 447,000 Ohioans would sign up for the Medicaid expansion by 2020. The $13 billion this would cost, he said, would be “Ohio money” he was “bringing back” to the state, warning that other states would get Ohio’s share of Medicaid-expansion money if Ohio refused it. The Congressional Research Service and Congressional Budget Office have both debunked this claim; Obamacare provided an open-ended promise of new spending for states that expanded Medicaid, not a predefined pool of expansion funding. Kasich also promised to end the expansion if costs got out of hand.

Ohio’s Medicaid-expansion enrollment was 720,000 in fiscal year 2017, at an average cost of $437 million per month. Since January 2014, the expansion has cost state and federal taxpayers a total of $14.9 billion. Because Kasich so dramatically underestimated enrollment, state costs have already doubled his projections. Federal spending on Ohio’s Medicaid program (including traditional and expansion enrollees) increased by 48 percent from 2013 to this year, while state spending increased by 14 percent.
(FYI: His dad worked for he post office)

Drago said...

LLR & #StrongDemDefender Chuck: "God damn it, the Democrats' fucking dream.."

No.

The democrats dream is to get Trump impeached by any means necessary because they know without Trump the coalition that elected him would be destroyed and would lead immediately back to complete democrat control.

And that just happens to be your precise "dream" as well.

Unexpectedly.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "That is where Trump begins to go full Democrat. Never go full Democrat"

LOL

Wink wink...

Drago said...

Trump just delivered the most conservative 18 months in governance in 60 years.

Trump just moved our embassy to Jerusalem and is standing firm against Chuck's democrat/lefty operational allies.

So what does #Strong5thColumnRepublican Chuck write? "This is where Trump begins to go full Democrat."!!!

LOL

Says the guy who has not yet failed to fully internalize and promote every single democrat talking point for 2 years!

Yeah Chuck, we should listen to you! Next up from Chuck: Why Durbin and Blumenthal require a strong and passionate defense.....

Hilarious.

Drago said...

I would recommend Chuck focus his efforts on his inevitable strong defense and deflection for "liar under oath" and commie John Brennan.

Good luck Chuck. I know you are up to that task...

Birches said...

Thanks titcomb. I liked that version too. Mick says at one point that you can't always get the man you want. That supports my feelings that the song was about some gold digger woman a la Intolerable Cruelty.

pacwest said...

"Kasich, a lifelong conservative and budget hawk, has dealt with more hard decisions on Medicare payments and expansion, than Trump will ever understand."

You mean John 'I'm going to accept the feds bribe to my state so I will look good short term even though I am royally screwing my constituents in the long term' Kasich? Sorry, although Kasich has some good qualities and a track record, any Governor that accepted the Dem bribe to the states is ruled out for President in my book. It negates any other conservative principles they may have. They knew what they were doing. They sold out for short term appearances sake. Screw them.

You know, the fact that Trump wasn't a lifelong pol, and doesn't know the minutiae of every rule of order, or not knowing who all the players are, being pointed out constantly by you is getting a bit long in the tooth. We already knew that factoid. In fact, it was a part of why he was elected. Best to stick with the 'he's a loudmouth braggert, that whores around' line of attack. Inga likes it.

Inga said...

“Old Man Word 97: Fopdoodle

Here’s the 1828 – yes, you heard it – definition of “fopdoodle,” a word pert’near so perfectly old-manish it must have been invented by God himself (the oldest of old men):

Fopdoodle. n.

1. An insignificant fellow. [Vulgar and not used.]

1828 Definition of a Fopdoodle

I have to be honest with this one. Even amongst the large-diapers set, “fopdoodle” is pretty quaint. It hasn’t been removed from the dictionary – so some old mother must use the term – but chaps who say “fopdoodle” are dandies. Swells. Persnickety snoots too big for their urine-soaked britches. Uppity fops.”

walter said...

Naturally, the poster who reflexively uses such mod lingo as "dearie" goes sexist and ageist a la 1828.

Drago said...

walter: "Naturally, the poster who reflexively uses such mod lingo as "dearie" goes sexist and ageist a la 1828."

1828, in Ezra Klein terms, is, like, super old or something. Like the Constitution.

And no, I don't care if my making fun of super lefty Ezra Klein upsets LLR Chuck.

Inga said...

The Judge ruled against Manafort and says Mueller is still within his mandate. Mueller’s case goes forward. He is not a fopdoodle.

Inga said...

“A federal district court judge on Tuesday rejected former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's request to toss out five criminal charges against him in special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that Mueller had the right to bring the charges against Manafort, shutting down the argument by Manafort's lawyer that they had nothing to do with the Russia investigation.

Jackson wrote that "the Special Counsel was authorized from the start to investigate the defendant not only for coordinating with the Russian government, but also for violations of law arising out of payments received from the former President of Ukraine."

Manafort's attorneys had argued the special counsel was taking too broad a view of its powers.”

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/387837-judge-rejects-manafort-motion-to-dismiss-russia-probe-charges

I sure hope y’all aren’t too disappointed.

Drago said...

Yes Inga. We already knew that obama appointee, Judge Jackson, in the District of Columbia would rule that way.

There's a reason why Mueller set up a parallel shop in DC to go after Manafort in addition to the Virginia Grand Jury/Court that was already in place for Mueller to use.

Mueller wanted a dem judge he could trust, naturally.

And wouldn't you know it, Judge Jackson, who was not initially assigned the case, for some unspecified reason suddenly had the case transferred to her.

What a surprise.

Of course, it is in Judge Ellis' courtroom in Virginia where Mueller and his team of 100% dem hacks and Clinton helpers will be tested.

Inga said...

Judge Ellis will take into consideration the way Judge Jackson ruled. It’s highly unlikely he will rule in favor of Manafort. But keep hoping. The mandate is clearly spelled out, read Judge Jackson’s ruling.

Ken B said...

Is it really such an odd message? You get what you need. Some pols promise you can indeed get what you want. You want the oceans to recede? That starts today! You want to keep your doctor? Okay, you can keep your doctor. Yes we can! Yesyesyesyesyesyes we CAN!

Not such a bad contrast.

Drago said...

We would be remiss if we did not also mention the hilariously inept Mueller team indicting an organization that did not even exist during the time frame of Mueller/Rosensteins indictment for the Russian entities.

In that case, of course, United States Magistrate Judge Michael Harvey slam-dunked Mueller and his team of dem henchmen regarding the unbelievable attempt by the dem partisan prosecutors to claim the defendant had not been served properly!

The Judge wasn't having any of that, needless to say.

So, yes, Muellers team of henchmen have maneuvered to get one obama hack judge overseeing one of their 3 court cases and they can count on that judge, just like Kimba Wood in NY, to rule in the dems favor on every issue all the way thru.

Not unlike the shenanigans pulled by the lefties to get Contrereas assigned as the FISA Judge AND the Judge hearing Michael Flynn's plea bargain before Contrereas was found out and was forcibly recused.

And it is becoming quite clear that Mueller and his team of hacks never provided required information to Michael Flynn which is why that "slam dunk" guilty plea is now looking very much "non-slam-dunky" is likely to be tossed to the curb.

Drago said...

Inga: "Judge Ellis will take into consideration the way Judge Jackson ruled."

LOL

Mindreading again!

Too funny.

Michael K said...

Inga shows up.

Judge Ellis will take into consideration the way Judge Jackson ruled. It’s highly unlikely he will rule in favor of Manafort.

First, Manafort is a crook. within a week of being hired by the Trump kids in the worst decision of the campaign, he tried to get Trump's exchequer, who has been with him since he worked for his father, to give him $5 million for "outreach." The exchequer said no.

When Trump found out he was a crook, he was immediately fired. Lewandowski's book is a good source.

Ellis saw why Mueller was pursuing this 5 year old matter. He was trying to get something on Trump. Anything.

The Obama judge will probably try to hang Manafort around Trump's neck because that's what lefties do.

What Manafort did has NOTHING to do with Trump.

Now, Brennan is siding with our enemies about the embassy in Jerusalem.

Standard Obama maneuver. If Obama were on the other side, what would he have done differently ?

Drago said...

Inga: "The mandate is clearly spelled out"

LOL!!eleventy!11!!11!

Mueller himself has stated, under oath in Judge Ellis' courtroom, that his full mandate is NOT "spelled out" but instead was communicated verbally (yes, "verbally") to him by Rosenstein AFTER Mueller and his team had already raided and physically manhandled Manaforts wife.

In fact, Mueller is fighting even having to share the full extent of his mandate with Judge Ellis.

This "full mandate" has also not been shared with Judge Jackson, but being a dem hack she will never ask for clarification.

Ellis is already clearly not following dem hack Jackson's lead!

Too funny again.

Inga said...

“We would be remiss if we did not also mention the hilariously inept Mueller team indicting an organization that did not even exist during the time frame of Mueller/Rosensteins indictment for the Russian entities.
—————————————————-

“Jackson said the case against Manafort should proceed even if scrutiny of his past activity came about not from the investigation of “links” to Russian but rather as a “matter that arose” from that probe. It appeared from the record, the judge said, that the conduct at issue in the indictment was already part of an ongoing U.S. Department of Justice inquiry that was transferred to the special counsel.

Jackson’s ruling also offered support to the Justice Department regulations that gave rise to Mueller’s appointment to lead the Russia investigation.

“When it promulgated the regulations, the department anticipated that a special counsel, like any other prosecutor, could become aware of, and could have legitimate reasons to explore, paths that branch out naturally from the original investigation, as well as entirely new and disconnected allegations,” Jackson wrote.

Those regulations, Jackson said, “place no boundaries on who can be investigated or what charges can be brought—what they address is who decides who the prosecutor will be.”“

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/05/15/mueller-is-not-out-of-bounds-judge-says-in-upholding-manafort-charges/

Inga said...

“Manafort’s defense lawyer, former MIller & Chevalier partner Kevin Downing, has stressed that the alleged misconduct predated the 2016 presidential campaign and therefore was outside Mueller’s authority. In his bid to dismiss the indictment, Downing took aim at a portion of an order establishing Mueller’s office that gave the special counsel the power to probe “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

Jackson said the charges fell within even a separate portion of Mueller’s authority that Manafort has found “unobjectionable: the order to investigate ‘any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign.’”

Drago said...

"Those regulations, Jackson said, “place no boundaries on who can be investigated or what charges can be brought—what they address is who decides who the prosecutor will be.”

Which is precisely what Judge Ellis clearly disagreed with and then told Mueller to cough up his entire supposed mandate to be reviewed.

Hack Mueller argued he could not do that due to national security.

Ellis' response? "I'll be the judge of that."

Mueller was given 2 weeks to cough it up as Ellis also told Muellers team that they do NOT have the right to leverage the mandate seen thus far ti go far afield.

So, once again, one can believe the ramblings of some lunatic left nurse from nowhere OR one can read the transcripts of Ellis' actual remarks.

Hmmmm, what to do, what to do...

LOL

tim in vermont said...

Keep hope alive!

tim in vermont said...

Inga is a victim of rigid ideological thinking. It blinds her to new information. I used to think it was kind of fascinating, in a bizarre way, the sheer blindness of it, now I am bored by it. She has given up on her own soul, and sold it out for hatred of Trump.

#SAD.

Jim at said...

If you're hanging your Trump/Russian collusion hopes on Manafort? You got nuthin'. And you know it.

I sure hope you're not too disappointed.

Inga said...

Judge: "It was logical and appropriate for investigators tasked with the investigation of 'any links' between the Russian government and individuals associated with the" Trump campaign to focus on Manafort.

langford peel said...

She doesn't understand that it is not like it used to be when her family ran the camps.

She should stick to knitting kites with swatickas on them for Hamas.

tim in vermont said...

I can't imagine anybody being that upset that Hillary isn't president. I went to deepest darkest blue territory this past weekend, the house where my two school teacher sisters and my mother live. They actually LIKED Hillary, and even they are starting to get over it. They were constantly frightened by the evening news. I told them and election was coming up, get over the last one. The news people are just trying to keep you in a state of terror and anxiety for their own reasons, and it is keeping you from getting proper sleep. To my surprise, they mostly agreed.

tim in vermont said...

Not everybody has Inga's ability to stay terrorized by tweets forever.

Inga said...

“I can't imagine anybody being that upset that Hillary isn't president.”

Precious few care that Hillary is not President. The idea that any of this arose out of the fact that she lost the election is old and worn out and is a very poor argument. It is much more likely that Trump brought this upon himself with his campaign’s outreach to Russians who were working to disrupt our democratic process.

You folks are going to have to face some unpleasant truths, soon. I sure hope you have the stability to handle it.

Drago said...

Jim at: "If you're hanging your Trump/Russian collusion hopes on Manafort? You got nuthin'. And you know it."

Mueller certainly knows it, which is why none of his Scooter Libby-ish charges relate in any way to any "collusion", which isnt even a crime.

And now we know that in Sep of 2016 Comeys little cabal of FBI/Hillary henchmen actually went to Muellers old pal Deripaska to try and convince him to manufacture a lie about Manafort/Russian "collusion" and Deripaska laughed them out of the room at the absurdity of the lefties ploy.

That was in NYC by the way, after the obama admin let Deripaska into the US on a waiver.

Even better, Deripaska had previously hired a law firm in the US which retained the services of.....wait for it....FusionGPS.

Well well well. Just like the Veselnitskya gal.

What. A. Lot. Of. Interesting. Coincidences.

Inga said...

“Not everybody has Inga's ability to stay terrorized by tweets forever.”

Hardly terrorized, more like amused. Trump should never stop tweeting.

Original Mike said...

We’ve all had a front row seat to this show for months:

”At first glance, one might think that resistance membership might be at least somewhat exciting and purposeful, not depressing. After all, every few days, some fevered news agency announces some variation of the following: “This is it! We have the smoking gun that will crack the Trump presidency, and it is completely different from the 1,326 purported smoking guns that we thought we had before!”

If you found that headline intriguing, I fear you’ve missed what generally happens next: The story drifts, the supposed smoking gun sputters, and everything slowly morphs into a cable-news cartoon soap opera, narrated by a voice not unlike that of Charlie Brown’s disembodied and unintelligible murmuring teacher.

Depending on the day, the tale in question will likely involve layers of campaign-finance law, the name-dropping of a Russian oligarch, 13 unintelligible memos (probably), Stormy Daniels and her lawyer (definitely), several acts of mind-boggling incompetence from both sides of the aisle, countless insufferable bureaucrats who are wildly overpaid with your hard-earned tax dollars and at least one narrative element that you can’t appropriately discuss with children under the age of 23.“


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-wilhelm-tough-times-for-the-resistance-california-solar-panels-0514-story.html

langford peel said...

Inga just refuses to take Margot Kidder fall as a cautionary tale.

I fear for her poor bicuspids.

Drago said...

Inga: "Hardly terrorized, more like amused. Trump should never stop tweeting"

Then why is the entire left and establishment screaming for him to stop tweeting?

LOL

Nice try.

You should link up with Chuck and see if you can come up with something more convincing than a version of -who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?- tactic!

Inga said...

Drago whines...
“Then why is the entire left and establishment screaming for him to stop tweeting?”


Drago, slow down and take a breath. I know you’re upset, but Tim didn’t mention the “entire left”, he mentioned me.

Tim: “Not everybody has Inga's ability to stay terrorized by tweets forever.”

Inga: "Hardly terrorized, more like amused. Trump should never stop tweeting"

tim in vermont said...

You folks are going to have to face some unpleasant truths, soon

Keep hope alive!

Meanwhile, your denial, which I keep hearing from a lot of Democrats, that Hillary Fucking Rodham Clinton was the standard bearer chosen by your party for the office of President of the United States, Hilary Fucking Clinton, is amazing to behold. Stalin wasn't better with an airbrush! Maybe the election was so painful that you guys just blocked it out and have an empty place there.

Drago said...

Field Marshall Inga; "Drago, slow down and take a breath. I know you’re upset, but Tim didn’t mention the “entire left”, he mentioned me"

Duh.

I'm mentioning the entire left.

You can tell I'm mentioning the entire left because I mentioned the entire left.

I hope that helps.

LOL

Inga said...

Drago tries to explain, but makes his argument even more muddled: “I'm mentioning the entire left.”

Yes, I know you are, but Tim’s comment was directed to me by my name, not the entire left’s name. I answered Tim for myself, not for the “entire left”.

Drago said...

Inga: "Yes, I know you are, but Tim’s comment was directed to me by my name, not the entire left’s name."

I think its swell that you and Tim are having a discussion.

Others, like myself, choose to speak about what we want to speak about.

I hope that helps.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

Trump does Positively Fourth Street

To Paul Ryan:
You got a lotta nerve
To say you are my friend
When I was down
You just stood there grinning

You got a lotta nerve
To say you got a helping hand to lend
You just want to be on
The side that's winning

You say I let you down
You know it's not like that
If you're so hurt
Why then don't you show it?

You say you lost your faith
But that's not where it's at
You had no faith to lose
And you know it


To Hillary:

I know the reason
That you talk behind my back
I used to be among the crowd
You're in with

Do you take me for such a fool
To think I'd make contact
With the one who tries to hide
What he don't know to begin with?


To Sessions:

You see me on the street
You always act surprised
You say, "How are you?", "Good luck"
But you don't mean it

When you know as well as me
You'd rather see me paralyzed
Why don't you just come out once
And scream it?


To John McCain:
No, I do not feel that good
When I see the heartbreaks you embrace
If I was a master thief
Perhaps I'd rob them

And now I know you're dissatisfied
With your position and your place
Don't you understand
It's not my problem?


To Mueller:

I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment
I could be you

Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is
To see you


Spoken word of course, like William Shatner did Rocket Man

Michael said...

Inga, bless your heart, you are of the left. Jeez.

Inga said...

“Others, like myself, choose to speak about what we want to speak about.”

Drago, you quoted the comment that I (not the entire left) made to Tim regarding Trumps tweets. I express how I feel, not how the “entire left” feels. I don’t represent the “entire left”, just as you don’t represent the entire right. Get it? If I express myself in a way in which you think doesn’t comport with what you THINK the entire left thinks, that doesn’t give you a logical reason to doubt what I say. I get to correct you when you tell me that I don’t really believe what I just said. You aren’t a mind reader.

Inga said...

“Inga, bless your heart, you are of the left. Jeez.”

The “left” isn’t the borg. We actually hold a multitude of opinions. Do every single one of you on the right think in lock step? No? Then why would you think the left does? Robert Cook, a leftist holds a few opinions I don’t agree with at all.

Drago said...

Inga: "I express how I feel, not how the “entire left” feels."

And I express my impressions and observations.

I hope that helps.

Drago said...

Inga: "I get to correct you when you tell me that I don’t really believe what I just said."

I did no such thing.

In addition to being a mindreader, you are also being quite creative in manufacturing others comments.

Have you applied for an internship with the dems on Mueller's hack team? You would fit right in.

I hope that helps.

Inga said...

“And I express my impressions and observations.”

And when you quote me and then tell me that I don’t mean what I just said because what I just said doesn’t comport to what you THINK “the entire left” says, I get to correct you. Too bad if you don’t like it.

Dago said...
Inga: "Hardly terrorized, more like amused. Trump should never stop tweeting"

Then why is the entire left and establishment screaming for him to stop tweeting?

LOL

Nice try.

You should link up with Chuck and see if you can come up with something more convincing than a version of -who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?- tactic!

5/15/18, 6:16 PM

I hope that helps.

Inga said...

Anyway, I hope you can enjoy your evening Drago. Sorry that today’s ruling didn’t go the way you were hoping for.

Hugs.

wildswan said...

Here's a "you can't always get what you want but under Trump you get what you need example.

So I'm picturing the 2020 election and I'm picturing Trump getting a grand slam - wins all the electoral college votes.

Because: the most lefty states have legislated that they will give their votes to the person who wins the most votes nationwide. They think that won't be Trump. But in the most lefty states are millions of discouraged voters. For instance I was precinct captain in a liberal Milwaukee suburb and found out that about 40% of the voters were Republican but in elections the Dems won 75% to 25%. So 15% weren't voting there. So imagine if those 15% voted and that this was true nationwide. Imagine all the voters in California who are discouraged because they can't win state-wide. But - now they don't have to win state-wide. They can be encouraged voters because they only have to vote in such numbers that - added to encouraged voters in New York and Illinois - Trump wins the popular vote nationwide. Then even if the Dems carry California numerically its electoral votes will go to Trump - same with Illinois, New York and other deep blues.

And so Trump can carry California and all of the states in 2020. And as the news people run screaming into the night, Team Trump plays the song:
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes
Well, you might find
You get what you need

Michael K said...

Inga, what are we to do with you ?

Jackson’s ruling also offered support to the Justice Department regulations that gave rise to Mueller’s appointment to lead the Russia investigation.

Are you even aware of the reason for Mueller's witch hunt ? Counterespionage. Read a few Andy McCarthy columns .

You could start here.


As my weekend column detailed, the House Intelligence Committee is spearheading a congressional effort to pry disclosure from the Justice Department regarding how and why the so-called Russia investigation was opened. With Justice and anonymous intelligence-community leakers having provided conflicting explanations, the latest controversy involves the role played by a CIA and FBI informant, based in Britain, who appears to have been deployed against marginal Trump-campaign figures (such as George Papadopoulos). Several bloggers began reporting the likely identity of this source over the weekend; I am going to follow the lead of the Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel and resist mentioning the name — I am not in the news-breaker business, and it is likely to be confirmed soon enough.

You might learn something.

Drago said...

Inga: "Anyway, I hope you can enjoy your evening Drago. Sorry that today’s ruling didn’t go the way you were hoping for."

Todays ruling by Jackson went precisely as expected.

As will all future rulings by Jackson and Kimba Woids.

Michael K said...

Earth to Chuck, some conservatives like Trump's drug plan.

Bush could have done something when he pushed Part D but didn't.

The President also spoke about a topic that has been widely misrepresented by the Democrats and their media mouthpieces — foreign free riding off American innovation. Bloomberg, for example, published a typical distortion of Trump’s plan in a “news” story under the following headline: “Why Higher Drug Payments in Other Countries Won’t Help the U.S.” Neither Trump nor anyone in his administration has suggested such a policy. The problem Trump wants to eliminate is unfair trade practices. The left has long claimed that drug companies charge more in the U.S. due to naked greed. Jerry Rogers, a former deputy VP at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, subjects that claim to a reality test at RealClearHealth:

Do some reading, chuck.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

In Chucks defense, he does do a tremendous amount of reading.

In fact, over the last several years LLR Chuck has made use of every talking point, narrative, tactic and even precise language of the left, which requires massive research into all typical leftist information sources.

Oso Negro said...

Keith became the attention-getter over Mick because after all these years, he's not fronting, so to speak. He looks like he lived through everything we heard that he did and he is reflective and thoughtful about it, in an accessible and confessional way.

John Henry said...

Blogger Chuck said...

LOL. That idiotic pledge to ban "all Muslims entering the United States..."

When did he promise that, Chuck?

When did he try to ban people from:

Indonesia 204,847,000 Muslims
Pakistan 178,097,000
India 177,286,000
Bangladesh 148,607,000
Egypt 80,024,000
Nigeria 75,728,000

Or other large Muslim countries?

All he ever wanted to ban, AFAIK were people, not even necessarily Muslims, from 7 small shithole countries Iraq. Syria Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen

BTW: Just for good measure, as of this afternoon, President Trump has appointed abut 10% of all US appellate judges.

I'm not tired of winning yet. You seem to have problems dealing with it.

John Henry



John Henry said...

One of the reasons that drugs cost so much in the US is that they must be proven "safe and effective" before the FDA lets them be sold.

In the rest of the world the emphasis is on safety with effectiveness demonstrated in use. (More or less)

It currently costs $2,000,000,000 to develop a new drug and bring it to market. A lot of them fail to make back the cost and lose money.

Want to cut drug costs in the US? Cut back on the proof of effectiveness.

There are pros and cons to doing that and I have mixed feelings. But, like it or not, as long as the laws are the way they are, that $2bn has to be spent. It also has to be recovered. That means high prices.

John Henry

walter said...

Drago said
We would be remiss if we did not also mention the hilariously inept Mueller team indicting an organization that did not even exist during the time frame of Mueller/Rosensteins indictment for the Russian entities.
--
That does not rule out "intent"..or the uncanny resemblance to a ham sandwich.

walter said...

John Henry,
It's refreshing to see a higher profile being given to (international) cost shifting.
Someday a pol will illuminate the same issue (domestically) regarding Medicare..and moreso Medicaid.
The "Medicare for all" folks I encounter have no recognition of the balance involved in managing what's already in place.

Chuck said...

John Henry said...
Blogger Chuck said...

LOL. That idiotic pledge to ban "all Muslims entering the United States..."

When did he promise that, Chuck?

When did he try to ban people from:

Indonesia 204,847,000 Muslims
Pakistan 178,097,000
India 177,286,000
Bangladesh 148,607,000
Egypt 80,024,000
Nigeria 75,728,000

Or other large Muslim countries?

All he ever wanted to ban, AFAIK were people, not even necessarily Muslims, from 7 small shithole countries Iraq. Syria Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen

BTW: Just for good measure, as of this afternoon, President Trump has appointed abut 10% of all US appellate judges.

I'm not tired of winning yet. You seem to have problems dealing with it.

John Henry

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States..." VIDEO.

You fuckhead. You are talking about the executive orders that were slightly more carefully drafted by competent lawyers and yes, as I already pointed out it looked nothing (and thereafter less and less) like what Trump originally stated. Competent Republican lawyers can sometimes bail Trump out; sometimes not. It was that original statement by Trump that caused people like me to exclaim that it was a stupid statement, and no such order could ever be maintained in a federal court challenge. We were right. Trump couldn't even attempt such an order. It was finally watered down, to an order that was nothing like a "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

Chuck said...

Hey, Michael K,

Thanks for that American Spectator link. I've mostly stopped reading the Spectator. It has gotten too Trumpy. But I liked that column that you linked and I learned something.

The new plan coming out of the Administration as newly described is so much better than the bland idiocies he was saying about prescription drug prices on the campaign. I adore the new FDA Director Dr. Scott Gottlieb and I'm glad he is in the administration. I probably should have known that Dr. Gottlieb wouldn't screw up prescription drugs.

I'm indebted to you, for the link.

Inga said...

Looks like Trump won’t be getting that Nobel Prize afterall. Kim Jong Un played him.

Inga said...

China played him too. Make China Great Again!

langford peel said...

Nothing's happened yet. The Norks have made a ploy. Let's see what the God Emperor will do. I bet it is something that they don't expect.

If China wants to keep their new deal they are going to have to presure Rocket Man.

Don't jump to conclusions. Let it play out.

langford peel said...

We know that the President was never going to get that award. Or any other award controlled by the globalist liberals like the Nobel committee.

It will never happen even if solved every problem in the world and cured cancer.

Michael K said...

I'm indebted to you, for the link.

Here's another. Conrad Black's new bio of Trump.

Black is superb as an historian. I've read all his books.

Inga said...

Looks like North Korea didn’t like what John Bolton had to say over the weekend. So why did Trump pick Bolton again? The God Emperor seems exceedingly fallible.

Original Mike said...

Blogger Inga said...”Looks like Trump won’t be getting that Nobel Prize afterall. Kim Jong Un played him.”

Do you recgnize any rime scale except ‘right now’?

Original Mike said...

time scale

langford peel said...

Inga is like most liberals. A five year old where history begins today.

Amos510 said...

Perhaps Trump sees himself as the "what you need" in the lyric.

Modern Whig said...

Perhaps Trump sees himself is the "get what you need" part of the lyric?