LA Grant

Boyst is not worthy of respect. He knows why.

They didn't take his bathrobe or his slippers. They took documents that would have evidence that he has been breaking the law. The law is being enforced in a just & equitable way. That is a good thing.

It was both acceptable & wise. The warrant allowed for a raid of all of Cohen's relevant materials because they didn't trust him to turn them over or destroy the evidence. Considering Cohen's long history, it's not at all shocking the judge agreed & signed the warrant. The rules were followed. Attorney-client privilege remains sacrosanct. Only the diehard Trumpers are crying foul, as they do with everything they don't like. It's old.

Well you're lying right now, for one thing, since I did respond to your request for "collusion evidence." Twice, in fact. Receipts, b*tch. Of course, like you've also done here, you are somehow able to reconcile ignoring 90% of my post or questions to you, then turn around and accuse me of dishonesty. It is incredible to watch you work.

By that logic, would fewer representatives = better representation? A dictator would be 1 representative for the entire population. Would that be preferable? Obviously not, right? When you're evaluating "representation," quality & quantity go hand-in-hand. To your question, districts should be drawn based on population numbers, not demographics. The districts should be equitable and fair. To make it such, the districts should be smaller so you have more of a voice with your Representative. Drawing the districts based on the demographics is how the lines tend to be created now, in present day; hence, gerrymandering. Here is an example. I don't know why you think the version on the right is the better way... other than it keeps "Red" in power. It's not justifiable for any other reason, really. Re: the 17th Amendment. I find it absolutely amazing that the same people who believe clarifying or limiting 2A would be a slippery slope to losing the public's check on government overreach.... ALSO BELIEVE in giving up their own voting power!! It is a breathtaking contradiction. So it was a problem before, but now it isn't? Gerrymandering can only be discussed when the GOP isn't in charge? The GOP holds all the cards right now. If you think Gerrymandering is a problem -- what's preventing Republicans from fixing it? They have the numbers to pass this through, and it would likely receive bi-partisan support. It'd even help Trump rehabilitate his image to some degree, if he were able to leverage his outsider status to enact some legislation that doesn't benefit the two parties.

I've quite patiently answered virtually every question thrown my way. Even your dumb ones. Even on this page! No acknowledgment, though, of course. You also had me on ignore, I thought? You said that multiple times. Honestly? Who knows what you actually do or don't believe. The only consistent thing about you is your inconsistency. Real question — are you on medication, Rhino? If not, you should look into an SSRI or something because you come across as someone who is depressed & a threat to harm themselves. I have some genuine concern that you're going to really lose your marbles when Mueller's investigation is done and... you don't need to? It's not necessary. Lastly. I don't want to piss in your cheerios anymore than I already have but I guess you should know that "LA Asshat" is a pretty weak slam. I thought "LA Rant" was at least a fairly clever play on words. Why not just stick with that? Here are some better options, free of charge. —"LA Grating" (when you want to accuse me of being long-winded) —"LA Can't" (when you want to accuse me of being dumb) —"LA Groan" (general use) —"LA Garbage" (general use) —"Lying Ass Grant" (when you want to accuse me of lying) There. 5 freebies to help your smear campaign be at least a little more clever. Don't say I never did anything for ya, buddy boy.

I've lost track of how many conversations Tasker has exited after being asked a direct question, or a prompt to explain himself. Same goes for Tom. Maybe I should go & bump all of those? Or maybe we should just start a thread where it's all about treating these primadonnas with the reverence they clearly desire. "THE TOM & TASKER SHOW" That way, they can finally lay out their full beliefs for us all. We'd have the opportunity to learn at the feet of the modern Socrates and Plato. Throw in Boyst, obviously this generation's Aristotle, and just imagine how much we stand to learn! We can ask them why they hold so many contradictions & fallacies & wacky assumptions about society, government, and human nature. It'd be a quick thread because they won't respond after that.

He ought to change his avatar, too. Jim Henson's hard work doesn't deserve to be sullied by this lonely, hateful man. My favorite Tom posts are the ones where he rages against society. Like elementary school crossing guards infringing on his right to jaywalk. I'm waiting for him to eventually provide a goofy rant about how someone asked him for the time, and how this is evidence that no one takes personal responsibility anymore!!

The Committee did find evidence. Your boy Nunes chose not to pursue. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/14/trump-russia-investigation-evidence-collusion-obstruction-adam-schiff The Mueller investigation is ongoing. We don't know everything they know. We do know about the indictments to Manafort, Gates, etc. Try again.

? Well, I know I can't wait to see it. I suspect it will go down exactly as every prior conversation with you has — you, searching for ways to dismiss the points; me, attempting to get you to engage on the facts and issues at hand; you, scampering away to avoid making any statements of your own. Tom may as well be the mascot for modern American conservative. His tactics are the same: Distract. Attack the messenger. Avoid the issues. Claim the other side is either lying or stupid (depending on which trait serves your argument in the moment). Tom has no ideas of his own, and based on his posting history, appears to only be interested in his own vanity and power. In this case, that vanity & power are related to... a message board. In his mind, he's convinced he's making some really great points. He also thinks he's something of a humorist, or at least that's the form his smugness has taken. "Sniping retards from the balcony."

Oh, Tasker. Here we go again. Bolded is both a personal attack & you attacking a strawman. The evidence isn't with you here. You said yourself that we shouldn't restrict the Bill of Rights, including the Supreme Court clarifying that 1A does not protect child pornography, though 1A does protect adult porn. Hence, you support pedophiles. Entirely fair, and is a valid argument. You just don't like your own logic being used against you. If you'd like to make a case for conservatives/Republicans not being abject evil, I'm all ears. The evidence isn't with you here either. Here, Tasker is passionately telling you to take his word for it that I'm advocating for ignorance. Disingenuous at best. Once again, the evidence isn't with you (this will be a recurring theme). Tasker supports repealing the 17th Amendment, and does not want the public to directly elect Senators. He went as far as to say he wants less "democracy" in "democratic republic." Tasker uses "Western nation" to make you think he's referring to Europe, but actually his genocide example was for a South African country which holds very little similarities to the US. That is Tasker's example for why America must never limit 2A... despite no examples of stronger gun laws leading to genocide in Europe, Asia, or Australia. The evidence is with him here. Just kidding. It isn't at all. Tasker would like you to believe that criminal investigations can not be trusted in America unless he personally oversees it. Evidence be damned, as is the Tasker way. Let's not forget that Tasker has (repeatedly) predicted Trump will be regarded as a hero equal to George Washington. Every day that possibility becomes even more remote. But Tasker really likes feeling right — so he's willing to bend reality to make it fit. Somehow Tasker is assuming I don't believe in the right to defense, which is (a) a strawman, (b) a personal attack, (c) entirely unconnected to anything I've previously said. IIRC, Tasker also has no issue with the Immigration Court system that does not provide the right to an attorney, forcing children to represent themselves before a judge. He'll tell you that is okay; those damn illegal kids knew what they were getting themselves into. But pointing out that Dershowitz has a track record of making strained arguments for the famous and the guilty? Why, that's just beyond the pale. These all describe Tasker, as demonstrated. Taken that way, I fully agree. Don't indulge him. Make up your own mind. Your voice & your vote matters, even if Tasker doesn't want you to have either.

Oh sweetie. You're like a figure of Greek myth. The Rhino who loves to connect dots is tragically unable to see connections that most affect him. There's so much circumstantial evidence available to the public for obstruction, fraud, money laundering, and various other crimes, I'd hardly know where to begin. For collusion, you don't want to believe the Steele dossier, you don't want to believe your man Nunes' HIC investigation was a partisan charade despite claims they have evidence (not yet publicly available) worthy of looking further. It's true we don't have a "smoking gun" for collusion (yet) but we also know there are things we don't yet know. If you can't see the billowing smoke at this point, there's no need for me to waste my time on you again. The OJ case had more reasonable doubt. I'm sure you'll take this as "proof" that there "is no evidence" because your mind is closed and you're going to conclude that, no matter what. I still have sympathy for you but I don't care to try to persuade you, as you've made it abundantly clear how willingly you want to be a sucker, and how hard you're willing to work at it. Those are some impressive mental gymnastics. Judges award you 7, 8, 8 and... 7. Looks like they docked some points for not sticking the landing.

?

I'm sure you think it does. ? But then again, I'm not the one who's spent the last year or so insisting 2 plus 2 equals 9. ? "Oh yeah, you're just gonna believe what the liberal mainstream education system tells you about arithmetic? <pulls out folder with 2,000 scribbled napkins spilling out> WELL LOOK AT THIS!!!"

?? Fun Fact: This is actually what Rhino says to himself in the mirror every morning. Then he slaps himself repeatedly, NO!! Trump is innocent!! It must be true!! It IS true!!! ...<deep breath> It IS true. <deep breath> It is true.

Shout out to Alan Dershowitz for providing conservatives with their talking points on this. How many times have you seen "this is a very dangerous day for lawyer-client relationships" today? From defending OJ to defending Trump, Dershy is the morally upright citizen we should all look to emulate. ? That defense only works if you (a) assume we already know everything about this case when we obviously only have a limited amount of information; (b) assume Cohen himself is not guilty of crimes as an individual bad actor, and he's only being targeted for his documents on Trump, despite Mueller decidedly not investigating Cohen as part of his case; (c) really really really really reaaaaaaally want the alternate reality you've already decided to be true ... to actually be true. Here's some broader context on why shouting "ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE" at the moon does not apply. Thanks for trying though. Of course... now the TakeYouToTrumper/DelusionalRINO types will need to find some other way to disguise their true message: "This is either an investigation into Hillary Pizzagate Deep State, or it's a witch hunt with no merit -- either way Trump good, Hillary bad! Trump good! Hillary bad! <tears swell> T-T-Trump g-g-g-good!!! <tears are just streaming down their bulbous cheeks at this point> H-H-H-Hill-Hillary.... b-bad! <full nervous breakdown>" LET'S BE REAL — There is not a "both sides are equally guilty" to everything. Republicans/Conservatives are frauds, liars, hypocrites -- they only want to see "their team" win, and would happily sacrifice the rest of us to get that. Now you're seeing them (Tasker included) threaten violence because they don't personally like this criminal investigation. Did Tasker threaten "civil war" when the FBI was investigating Hillary's emails? Did he threaten civil war when Congress demanded public release for virtually every email Hillary sent during her time as Secretary of State? These people are FULL OF IT, and they haven't been consistent on anything since AT LEAST the 1980s. There are no Republican intellectuals anymore. That's why they have no identity, no soul, no ideas. They are in it for vanity. Trump might as well be a tackier Kardashian (which is saying something). John Bolton is a goofy idiot from TV, and he's only one of SEVEN people Trump has put into power simply because they were pundits on Fox News.

Az.... gimme a break. I've given you a lot to work with, I've asked you questions directly. Feel free to engage on the topic. Or don't. If you do, I'll meet you there. But I'm not a mind-reader.

? Yes, people are aware who the Vice President is, but thanks for the heads up, Doc. I know this doesn't compute for most Republicans but.... there are people in the world who actually have consistent morals & want to see justice served, as opposed to simply supporting whatever they need to when their "team" is winning. Where are any of the so-called "principled" conservatives that endlessly attacked Obama & Clinton over the years? You'd think we'd be hearing from them now more than ever. The small government guys? Nothing but a murmur as the national debt skyrockets. The law and order types? Quiet about Trump's endless attacks on the FBI. The tough military dudes? Nothing about Trump mocking gold star families and demanding Soviet-style military parades. The tough on Russia guys? Suddenly, Trump sucking up to Putin is actually good. The fiscal hawks? Nada about tax cut debt. The "Obama doesn't have experience" crowd? No complaints from them this time. The "family values" types? Not a peep about Trump being a serial adulterer and overall creep. The "Hillary's emails" screamers? They'll cut their own hand off before discussing all the corners Trump cut, because he's their guy. Does anyone else remember when conservatives were all parroting that dude who was always on Fox News, the guy who wrote "Clinton Cash"? Will we hear from him on Trump getting $150,000 for a 20-minute Skype chat to a Ukranian steel magnate? https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/us/politics/trump-mueller-ukraine-victor-pinchuk.html#click=https://t.co/yydBI0xMq4 Or is Fox News too busy with the horny pandas? Trump's election revealed many things about our country. One lesson was that conservatism in America isn't an ideology. Not truthfully. It is an ideology with exactly as much depth as their "Liberal Tears" coffee mugs. In practice, conservatism is whatever it needs to be, to serve the purpose of criticizing anyone who isn't "them." And it works. Republicans radicalize the rubes, scare 'em out to the polls so they vote on guns, abortions, Mexicans, whatever... all for no better reason than so the Kochs can get richer. If we can only have two parties in America, it'd be swell to have better options than "abject evil" and "Democrats."

Smaller! Right now, one (1) Representative covers all of Montana. One person is supposedly representing the interests of 1 million people. The average House rep speaks for about 700,000 people. It was not always this way. When the House limit was set (over 100 years ago), the ratio was 1 Rep = 200,000. Look at the numbers for other legislative bodies. Look at them for a few minutes, and just think about it. Organize the list by the "population/seats" — it's crazy. We're more comparable to India than the UK in terms of proportional representation. That isn't good, if you ask me. So I ask you: Why can't Americans have better representation in our government? Why would that be worse?

You're still missing the forest for the trees here. No one is arguing against ideas of "work hard, be grateful, make no excuses, do your best." Why are we discussing the ideas of "Mike Rowe" in the first place? Because he has a TV show, because he is a charismatic media personality with a blue-collar schtick. The same could be said for Larry the Cable Guy. The context of why Rowe has his platform in the first place is absolutely germane to the larger context — leaving out the societal forces (the "context") that helped him along the way is myopic. Rowe posts 12 pledges, each of them completely self-centered. It's ironic that he chose not to include something like "I believe it is my responsibility to help others when it is within my power to do so." Especially considering Rowe himself received tons of help to earn his platform, and certainly receives help from others in his profession. Which is not to say that Rowe didn't work hard. The whole point is these are not mutually exclusive concepts. To pretend they are is disingenuous. Also. "Bad jobs" exist, whether Rowe "believes" it or not. Maybe he'd think differently if he were born before Fair Labor Standards was codified into law — y'know, that horrible government overreach that provides some protection for workers, like the right to minimum wage & an 8-hour workday? Good thing the progressives that fought for such basic rights were willing to get into a situation that required both "hard work" and "complaining" against "bad jobs." Or would Mike Rowe tell those 10-year-old factory workers, "Stop whining about 'dinner,' ya soot-faced loser! This is your opportunity!!" I imagine he either doesn't "believe" labor exploitation still exists (it went away with racism!), or he chooses to ignore it, so as not to contradict the idealistic fairy tale version of "work" he presents.

I agree with all of this... I think we all do. Nobody is happy with Congress, and you're right about how they spend the majority of their time. Career politicians & lobbyists desperately need to be checked. The question is how will that happen? And who will put that check on them? So it's for the exact reasons you cited that I believe we need to limit the individual person's power in Congress, and return the legislative body more to what it was intended to be — the forum for debating legislation that shapes how The People live in society. I think it's utterly preposterous that citizens in the UK have more of a voice in legislation than US citizens. It's totally backwards.

Definition Confused Tom snipes agaaaain! Actually it's known as "context." Whitewalker In Philly has merely been saying that Rowe's post is fine & dandy as an inspirational speech — but it shouldn't be taken any more seriously than that, as it does ignore the contextual elements that shape one's life. As in, yes, we are all self-determining individuals who possess free will... but we are also the products of the society we're born into, as much as we are the products of our families. A few years ago we might've said "Who cares what some TV host thinks?" but who knows -- with social media posts like this, Rowe could be President in 2020.

I go back & forth on the electoral college, but the more troubling issue with it is how the math is calculated. You're right that it's hard to make the case, because the idea of "big government" is a specter, and the idea of "adding more" to Congress sounds like all it would do is make Congress even more of a bloated mess. But the proposal to increase the House would be working on the quality of the representation -- it makes it easier for citizen-legislators to plausibly be elected; more likely for elected officials to be held accountable; etc etc, as I've laid out. When we're talking about "representation" — for a population as diverse in so many factors like Americans are — quality & quantity are inextricably linked. IMO. This, in addition to shorter term limits, would vastly improve the quality of representation. The struggle is — how do you make this into a snappy, digestible soundbite? That's the only way people seem to understand things, it seems — only in catchphrases on Cable News.

As I said — the best way for you to piss off people is to take a sh*t on your dinner table, and eat it. Liberals would be omg sooooo mad! You should totally do it! Lolz! I have a hard time believing you could outsmart the back of a cereal box. They will. But their numbers will be fewer & fewer as the picture comes into sharper focus, especially after Mueller finishes and lays it all out. Then again... I'm afraid even that might even too charitable and optimistic for the die-hard MAGA hats. We'll see.

Good for you, but share your fashion choices with your friends because I don't care. Curious: why don't we ever see DC Tom, et al, calling you out for your non-stop "Look At Me" posts? Supposedly, this board is for political debate, yet you only seem to post diary entries. Maybe everyone's ignored you at this point, except me? I don't know. I've been trying to maintain my rule to not put anyone on ignore, but the diagnosis is in, Boyst, and it's looking bad — you're terminally dull. You're probably right.