After two years of investigation by the special council that cleared the president and everyone in his administration of conspiring with the Russians, The Daily News still wants to keep this debacle alive by calling for the release of hundreds of documents (“Releasing the Mueller report in the best interest of the public,” The Daily News, March 27).

Why isn’t The Daily News asking how the Robert Mueller investigation was started in the first place with a dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton? Where’s the call for an investigation of the Clinton Foundation or the crimes of the President Obama-led justice department and FBI?

Two years ago, Publisher Leonard Woolsey stated “I am concerned for democracy, furthermore, I’ve never felt so strongly with the role of the press as I do now,” a reference to Trump’s war with the press (“Journalists are under fire,” The Daily News, March 5, 2017).

Woolsey wrote, “Thomas Jefferson strongly believed in a free press.” Woolsey is correct; Thomas Jefferson did believe in a free press, but Jefferson also warned about the press saying, “newspapers too often take advantage of their freedom and publish lies and scurrilous gossip that could only deceive and mislead the people.”

Woolsey also wrote, “The press is there to uncover and tell those stories for the people and those who cannot speak for themselves.” This left me scratching my head. I don’t trust or need the press to speak for me, readers just expect their news printed accurately and fairly. Readers are capable of making their own judgments based on the facts.

I wrote a response to Woolsey’s editorial (“Publisher should stop trying to undermine Trump,” The Daily News, March 8, 2017). I too was concerned about our democracy, but unlike Woolsey, I believed then and now the press was dishonest and a part of the problem printing fake news stories to drive a political narrative.

CNN and MSNBC had to keep the fake news story going day after day to feed the appetite of their audience who believed, and still do, the hate, dishonesty and the abandonment of all journalistic standards. It was all about ratings, money and hate of Trump.

If they had to falsely attack 16-year old Catholic school children, so be it, as long as it fit their agenda of presenting Trump supporters as a bunch of racists.

President Obama’s U.N. ambassador, Sally Yates, 300 times used the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to unmask and spy on American citizens in the Trump administration. This happened during and after the campaign.

Real crimes were committed, lying to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, leaks and false stories to destabilize the office of the president and frame Trump. Concern that this could undermine the founding principle of democracy was disregarded as long as it served a political agenda. Where’s the apology of the press for their part in spreading this false narrative?

The Mueller investigation is over, we don’t need hundreds of documents to be used to pick and choose in keeping a political fiasco alive. We need to move on, deal with the real problems in the country, and let justice be blind and equal.

Jack Cross lives in Texas City.

Locations

(158) comments

Emile Pope

Just remember, misinformed people like this vote every election...

Carlos Ponce

The man is entitled to his opinion, just like you, Emile. Only his has some facts to back it. Yours.....[whistling]

Katrina Evenhouse

[smile]

Gary Scoggin

So Carlos, when the President started his father was born in Germany, wa it a mistake, a lie, or just an alternative fact? The importance gets down to what you can and cannot believe from this President. If he gets small, personal details wrong, how can I have confidence in the important stuff?

Carlos Ponce

Under the legal concept of jus sanguinis Fred Trump is considered German.

Gary Scoggin

“My father is German, right? Was German, and born in a very wonderful place in Germany." It looks like he claimed his father was of Germán birth, not heritage. With regards to jus sanguinas, given the era during which he grew up, do you really think Fred Trump would have claimed to be Germán, not American?

Carlos, you continue to impress me as to the lengths you will go to rationalize or justify any mis-statement by our President. Your credibility would actually be enhanced if you were to admit he got this wrong. Or would such an admission be the first step on a slippery slope to the bigger truth?

Carlos Ponce

Gary Scoggin, is this really important to you? Did it bother you when Obama claimed there were 57 states - something every school child KNOWS isn't true? Trump was trying to form a common bond with Angela Merkel while discussing relations between the U.S. and European countries. That's important.

Gary Scoggin

When you're pinned down, you have to deflect away, don't you? No, this doesn't bother me much because our President has such a problem with the truth that these things are unremarkable. As far as Obama's 57 state thing, I found it amusing, just as i find this amusing.

But you just can't acknowledge that the President said something incorrect, can you? Come on, Carlos, admit it -- the President messed up. Confession is good for the soul, or so I'm told. You'll feel better.

Carlos Ponce

"Ich bin ein Berliner." ( I am a Berliner.) Does Gary Scoggin consider this a LIE or just JFK showing unity with the German people?

Gary Scoggin

He was showing unity. If he had said, “Ich bin in Berlin geboren,” that would have been a lie.

Still afraid to acknowledge the truth, huh?

Carlos Ponce

Truth is Gary Scoggins reeks of hypocrisy.

Gary Scoggin

LOL. When the truth hurts, the best tactic is to deflect through personal attacks. Why are you fearful of acknowledging a clear fact? Fred Trump was born in New York, not Germany. The President was wrong when he said otherwise. Why can’t you just say, “Yes, the President was mistaken.”?

Carlos Ponce

Like President Kennedy, President Trump was trying to show unity - apparently that concept is above your pay grade (or IQ).

Gary Scoggin

You personal attacks continue to show the weakness of your position. You do amuse me, Carlos.

Carlos Ponce

Gary, you can dish it out but sure CAN'T take it. Notice YOU, GARY SCOGGINS, dragged my name into your diatribe. I'm just responding.
"Jack: I’ve re-read your column several times and both you and Carlos boldly claim facts"

Gary Scoggin

Still refusing to admit the obvious, huh. You’re the kind of supporter any politician would love to have.

Carlos Ponce

You're a Trump hater, Gary Scoggins. Nothing will convince you that Trump was trying to establish a sense of unity with Angela Merkel and the German people just like John F. Kennedy. Petty mindedness seems to define your actions here.

Gary Scoggin

Another attack, but no admission of the obvious. Do you think our President is infallible and without sin?

Gary Scoggin

Carlos, by your standards, I can claim to be a BOI, although I was born in Lubbock. But I’ve been to Galveston lots of times and I want to show unity with those who were born there. It’s all so clear now. Thanks for introducing me to the world of alternative facts.

[shouts to the crowd] Hey everyone, I’m now a BOI!

Carlos Ponce

Not my standards but by the standards set by JFK when he said "Ich bin ein Berliner". Hypocrisy when you say it's okay for JFK but not for DJT.
When claiming to be be BOI you must be trying to establish unity and better relations with native Galveston Islanders. You must need it.

Gary Scoggin

Just for the record, Carlos called me a hater yet none of the usual crowd who jump on people for using the “h-word” has called him totask for it. Guess it depends on who’s getting skewered after all.

Carlos Ponce

You don't hate Donald Trump, Gary Scoggin???
Sure sounds like you do.

Gary Scoggin

As a wise man said here on Apr 3, 2019 at 9:18am
"Why is 'hate' the go to excuse tossed around for why Person A disagrees with Person B?? It's become as meaningless as 'racist', as both are just used to deflect now......"

Carlos Ponce

So you claim you just disagree with Trump......[rolleyes]

Bill Broussard

Jack: I’ve re-read your column several times and both you and Carlos boldly claim facts. “Emile, you are entitled to your opinion, but you can't change facts. Every single one of my statement are factual true. I gave the date and titles”

Nope: You didn’t give reference s and nope, most of your column is opinion far as I can tell. It reads like you’re a little close to your subject matter and lost site of the difference between fact and opinion. That does happen to the best of us though.

“Why isn’t The Daily News asking how the Robert Mueller investigation was started in the first place with a dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton?

Jack: This is a question pointing to a conclusion you have already made; it is not a “fact” by any means


“Thomas Jefferson did believe in a free press, but Jefferson also warned about the press saying, “newspapers too often take advantage of their freedom and publish lies and scurrilous gossip that could only deceive and mislead the people.” Jack: Was this before or after he hired a Boston newspaper to viciously slander John Adams and George Washington too over Adam’s “Alien and Sedition” law to reign in the French preaching Revolution in the 13 states??

“I wrote a response to Woolsey’s editorial (“Publisher should stop trying to undermine Trump,” Jack: Pure opinion from head to toe or you would never have published it in the Editorial Page.


“I believed then and now the press was dishonest and a part of the problem printing fake news stories to drive a political narrative.” Jack:” I believed” should be a tip-off: Your belief is certainly valid it’s just not a fact

“CNN and MSNBC had to keep the fake news story going day after day to feed the appetite of their audience who believed, and still do, the hate, dishonesty and the abandonment of all journalistic standards. Jack: That’s an opinion, mot a fact

“If they had to falsely attack 16-year old Catholic school children, so be it, as long as it fit their agenda of presenting Trump supporters as a bunch of racists”. Jack: It might have seemed that way, but it is certainly not a fact. It is an opinion.

President Obama’s U.N. ambassador, Sally Yates, 300 times used the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to unmask and spy on American citizens in the Trump administration. Jack: This sounds like a fact, but I haven’t seen the data in print anywhere. Can I have a reference?

Real crimes were committed, lying to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, leaks and false stories to destabilize the office of the president and frame Trump. Jack: Pure opinion and conclusions. It might even be a correct conclusion, but it is certainly not a fact.


Concern that this could undermine the founding principle of democracy was disregarded as long as it served a political agenda. Jack: Clearly an opinion and not a fact.

The Mueller investigation is over, we don’t need hundreds of documents to be used to pick and choose in keeping a political fiasco alive. Jack: Well over 60% of the American people disagree with you on this and-- that’s a fact.

Here’s a bit of help. Facts are pretty cold and dry stuff. Not much fluff and certainly not the language of I believe, I think, I conclude, I suspect. Opinions are always pejorative even when they are opinions that sound good or enabling. Almost everything you said is so passionate very little if anything qualifies as a fact.

It’s for this reason and this reason alone that Fox separates the news from the editorial content in their evening program. While all news and media fail at pure separation of fact and editorial, all of them try.

Here’s a test: Was Trumps father. really born in Germany? Do Windmills actually cause Cancer? I vote for "opinion" on these two, how about you?

Carlos Ponce

Bill Broussard, the president's father, Frederick Christ Trump was born in the Bronx on October 11, 1905. The president's grandfather, Friedrich Trump was born in Kallstadt, in the Kingdom of Bavaria (now in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany), on March 14, 1869. Now why is any of this important?

Jack Cross

Emile, you are entitled to your opinion, but you can't change facts. Every single one of my statement are factual true. I gave the date and titles. Anything else in the column you can copy the statement and google it. I am 100 percent correct.

Emile Pope

The Mueller investigation is over to be sure, but where is the report? Trump's hand picked AG took over the job of Congress to decide whether crimes were committed. And now he wants to submit a "report" that has been picked over by everyone including the White House. And exactly where does the AG get to decide that evidence and information can be redacted if it proves embarrassing to someone? Or when does the subject of an investigation get to proofread and delete any information that they desire about themselves before sending it to the people who would be prosecuting them? And one more thing...why was the AG deciding whether the president obstructed justice when he wrote a letter before getting the job that said that the president can't obstruct justice because he was the president? If donald has nothing to hide let's see the report...but he does...

George Croix

Pope, can you name an attorney general that has not been hand picked by a president?

Ever hear of the Federal Rules for Criminal Procedure, Pope?
Evidently not.....

Carlos Ponce

"And now he wants to submit a 'report' that has been picked over by everyone including the White House."
No Emile, the White House has as much access to it as you - in other words, they have no access.
And the report is being redacted by Barr and Mueller.
"he wrote a letter before getting the job that said that the president can't obstruct justice because he was the president" - No, Emile, he did not. I presented the "letter" link in response to a previous Emile Pope post It doesn't say that at all. You're making things up.
Here's what's in the letter which contradicts your statement:
"Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function."
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/549-june-2018-barr-memo-to-doj-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

Emile Pope

I love the hypocrisy...if Ken Starr had submitted his report to Janet Reno instead of Congress and she made the decision that Clinton had committed no crime without consulting Congress and then refused to allow Ken Starr's report to be seen until she and Bill Clinton had been given the chance to redact testimony and evidence that might prove embarrassing there would be torches and pitchforks at the White House gates. But it seems that it's okay now that donald is in office. Interesting how none of the reports about the Clintons or Nixon were hidden or redacted. In fact, this is the first time it's been done...

Carlos Ponce

No hypocrisy, Emile. Two separate venues.
Mueller was appointed by Rosenstein through the DOJ so his report goes through the DOJ, specifically Attorney General William Barr.
Starr was not appointed by the AG nor the DOJ.

Jack Cross

Emile, don't get in such a hurry, the report is guarantee to come out, the democrats are the best for leaking or have you noticed.

Emile Pope

The AG doesn't get to decide if the president may have committed wrongdoing. The AG is a political appointee of the executive branch and it is an extreme conflict of interest for them to decide if their boss may have committed a crime. That's why it has never been done. Congress gets to decide if a crime has been committed. Only congress.

Carlos Ponce

"The AG doesn't get to decide if the president may have committed wrongdoing."
He didn't. Mueller's report states “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
The investigation was to look at possible collusion between Trump and the Russians. Mueller concluded there was none.

Emile Pope

Garbage. Who decided no obstruction?

Carlos Ponce

"Garbage. Who decided no obstruction?"
Robert Mueller decided "no obstruction". William Barr copied the quote directly from Robert Mueller's report onto his summary.
Didn't you read the link to it?

Gary Scoggin

Actually Barr said something to the effect that any obstruction that occurred wasn’t prosecutable. Nothing about collusion which isn’t prosecutable, but is still noteworthy. But I haven’t seen the Mueller report and neither has anyone else on this forum.

Carlos Ponce

Here's the exact quote Barr wrote in his summary taken directly from Mueller's report:
“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
I haven't seen the Mueller report, you haven't seen the Mueller report but Barr HAS.

Carlos Ponce

This is what Barr wrote about "obstruction" based on Mueller's report:
"NO ACTIONS CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTIVE CONDUCT"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/24/mueller-report-read-william-barr-summary-of-russia-investigation/3255076002/
This is not the same as "Barr said something to the effect that any obstruction that occurred wasn’t prosecutable,"Gary Scoggin.
"NO ACTIONS CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTIVE CONDUCT"
"NO ACTIONS CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTIVE CONDUCT"
"NO ACTIONS CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTIVE CONDUCT"
"NO ACTIONS CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTIVE CONDUCT"
"NO ACTIONS CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTIVE CONDUCT"
Got it ?

Emile Pope

"Robert Mueller decided "no obstruction" Totally made up...

Carlos Ponce

Whatever, Emile. Looks like once more you failed to look up the provided links.

Emile Pope

The attorney general cannot decide whether the president who selected him is guilty of misconduct. Never...

Steve Fouga

Jack, your response to Emile is pure hooey. Much of your article is opinion, neither better nor worse than anyone else's.

Dan Freeman

Mr. Cross you do not know much about Sally Page. Sally Yates was never U.N. ambassador. She was Deputy Attorney General and Acting Attorney General appointed by both Presidents Obama and then Trump. She was never a U.N. Ambassador.

We only know of one FISA warrant she had time to sign off on, namely for Carter Page. A redacted version of the warrant is available. Page may or may not have been a Russian pawn. However, “On November 2, 2017, Page testified to the House Intelligence Committee that he had he kept senior officials in the Trump campaign such as Corey Lewandowski, Hope Hicks, and J. D. Gordon informed about his contacts with the Russians and had informed Jeff Sessions, Lewandowski, Hicks and other Trump campaign officials that he was traveling to Russia to give a speech in July 2016.
]
Page testified that he had met with Russian government officials during this trip and had sent a post-meeting report via email to members of the Trump campaign.[53] He also indicated that campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis had asked him to sign a non-disclosure agreement about his trip. Elements of Page's testimony contradicted prior claims by Trump, Sessions, and others in the Trump administration. Lewandowski, who had previously denied knowing Page or meeting him during the campaign, said after Page's testimony that his memory was refreshed and acknowledged that he had been aware of Page's trip to Russia." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Page

I am glad they tapped his phones.

Carol Dean

Emile, take a look in the mirror...you appear to be the "misinformed" voter! Opinionated, yes. Informed, no!

Gary Scoggin

Jack. I didn’t realize that you’ve read the Mueller report. How else would you know what it says?

Carlos Ponce

Gary Scoggin, the Mueller report has been summarized by AG Barr. If the summary was incorrect we would have heard from either Mueller or one of his Anti-Trump team. Now the redacted version is being worked on by both Barr and Mueller. It will be submitted by mid-April if not sooner.

Emile Pope

Like the redacted versions of the Clinton investigations? The Nixon investigation? More repub hogwash...

Carlos Ponce

The rules were re-written since those investigations in the last century, Emile.
More Emile ignorance...

Carlos Ponce

" It's not time, yet, for anyone to blurt out ANYTHING from a confidential report..."
Who's asking for that?
Just asked if the RELEASED report is factual. Nothing CONFIDENTIAL about asking about a 4 page released report picked up by EVERY news agency in the United States. DUH, Steve, even a 12 year old can figure that out.

Emile Pope

how can anyone say that Barr's report is factual if no one is allowed to see the report he based it on?

Carlos Ponce

Emile, we know your feelings about the president. Even if you could see the entire report you would not be satisfied. Here's a line from the actual Mueller report:
“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Stop crying and live with it.

Steve Fouga

"If the summary was incorrect we would have heard from either Mueller or one of his Anti-Trump team."

I keep seeing this hogwash parroted here and in other Republican-dominated blogs all over the internet. Why in the world would anyone believe this? Mueller has been the most circumspect individual in the U.S. during this whole investigation, and his team has followed his example. It's not time, yet, for anyone to blurt out ANYTHING from a confidential report involving our highest levels of government.

Carlos Ponce

"hogwash"???? Why in the world would anyone believe this?
Not "hogwash" Steve. TRUTH!

Steve Fouga

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and conclude you must not have read what I said. Otherwise I'd have to conclude you're an idiot.

Carlos Ponce

"idiot", Steve??? Really? You lose an argument so that makes me an "idiot"?
Are you feeling well? Seems like you're losing it.

Steve Fouga

Well, Carlos, I owe you a huge apology. You predicted that if Barr had misrepresented Mueller's findings, the Mueller team would have said something about it. And tonight that's exactly what happened.

Members of Mueller's team are frustrated because Barr's summary did not represent their findings as being as damaging to Trump as they actually are.

So Barr misrepresented the findings to congress and the American people, and FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 22 MONTHS, members of the Mueller team have gone public.

Sorry, Carlos, you were right.

Carlos Ponce

Steve, more "undisclosed sources" from the New York Times and repeated by The Hill and Business Insider.
"The officials and others did not fully explain to the Times why the investigators believe their findings are worse for the president than Barr indicated."
No explanation, huh?
Knowing who is on the team (mostly anti-Trumps) this was inevitable.The fact that no one could explain what was wrong with the summarized RELEASED report should tell you something.
The conclusions still stand: no collusion, no obstruction.
"Barr, in consultation with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, concluded that there was not enough evidence to accuse Trump of obstruction."
"The Times' report is the first public indication of tension between the attorney general and the special counsel's office over the conclusions about the Russia investigation."
And this statement copied verbatim from Mueller's report still stands:
“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
New York Times - of course.[rolleyes]

Steve Fouga

So now you're discrediting the very sources you said would come forward to tell the truth if Barr were lying in his summary? [whistling]

George Croix

It certainly makes sense to me.
An AG who KNOWS he's got to release more than his own summary (well, not HIS summary - actually, the 4 page summary was, well, summarized by the AG, Asst. AG, Mueller Team, and the Office of Legal Counsel...), and KNOWS he's going to be called to testify before Congress, would ABSOLUTELY just make up out of the bluwe whatever he wanted to.
Yep.
Must be what happened.....

George Croix

ps:
I suspect the 'revelations' suddenly discovered after the circumspect leaking to the NYT will disclose that various people acted with extreme carelessness.....

We've already seen the standard for that.................

Carlos Ponce

Seve asks, " So now you're discrediting the very sources you said would come forward to tell the truth if Barr were lying in his summary?"
Did you read the New York Times article, Steve? Their source is NOT anyone on Mueller's team but what is said to be "an un-named acquaintance" . NYT does not have a good track record with un-named sources.

Jack Cross

Gary, I said that after 2 years Mueller cleared Trump and everyone in his administration of collusion with the Russian, True. Gary I am saddened that a smart person like you don't support equal justice. if the Muller investigation was to get to the bottom of Russian interference in the election, why then did he not go after the other side where the evidence shows that they actually conspired with the Russians. We don't have a country, if we can't trust these government agencies that have power over our lives. What is going on now is harassment to drive Trumps poll numbers down and his supporters away from him. Bad for the country

Paula Flinn

Just because Mueller couldn’t prove collusion does not mean it didn’t happen. No other presidential election has had people meeting with a foreign adversary power over 100 times. Because of the Mueller investigation we have had 34 personal indictments, 3 company indictments, 7 Trump supporters plead guilty, one (Manafort) conviction, and one (Flynn) waiting to be sentenced.
The fact we know is that the Russians hacked into the DNC computers with the intention of helping Trump win the election. Trump’s supporters met with Russians over 100 times. You want us to believe Trump didn’t know anything about that.
Republicans still haven’t explained why they aren’t upset that a foreign adversary was able to do that.

George Croix

"No other presidential election has had people meeting with a foreign adversary power over 100 times.'
And you know that how, PF?
A careful study of all the previous Presidents?
The DNC and the Clinton campaign would not give the FBI access to their records.
Why? The GOP gave that access.
Even above that, how many times did they meet with the 'foreigners' who provided the contents of the phony dossier they paid for?
No Special Counsel on that one.....yet....

Nothing like a little False Equivalency and dash of Assumptions stirred in with the Post Toasties for breakfast....[beam][beam]

Gary Scoggin

Jack, of course I support equal justice. I also support full disclosure of the facts. And fair and impartial analysis of them.

Emile Pope

The report didn't clear donald. the summary written by barr cleared him. the AG isn't allowed to clear the president because of a direct conflict of interest...

Carlos Ponce

" the AG isn't allowed to clear the president " Says who? Emile?
As usual, Emile is wrong. William Barr and Rod Rosenstein both "cleared" Trump.

Emile Pope

The law. The AG is a part of the executive branch and serves at the discretion of the president. Therefore he is no no position to judge his boss. In fact, a finding of misconduct causes him to lose his job. Notice how the investigators are saying that they made a summation about the report but barr ignored it? Tick, tick, tick...

Carlos Ponce

"Therefore he is no no position to judge his boss.'
Your opinion is noted and logged and properly disposed .
"Tick, tick, tick..." ???? Have you tried a flea collar, Emile?

Jack Cross

Gary, re read my article, there is nothing in my article about the muller report except it is over. I am concerned for my country, I am saddened that you and others are not outraged that the Obama administration used the justice Dept, the FBI and the CIA to spy on the Trump Campaign and then after Hillary lost, these agencies conspired to frame a duly elected president, truly shameful. We do not have a country if these government agencies that have control over our lives are corrupt. Think about it.
Yes, this is an opinion but based on facts for you to pick apart like a good democrat.

Gary Scoggin

Since I rarely vote for Democrats, I doubt they would consider me a very good one. That said, I am sorry that you are saddened that I am not outraged over some something that never happened.

Ray Taft

Robert Mueller was a God-like figure to the Democrats, until he ruled No Collusion in the long awaited Mueller Report. Now the Dems don’t even acknowledge his name, and have become totally unhinged.

No matter what information is given to the crazies from the No Collusion Mueller Report, it will never be good enough.

This Hoax should never be allowed to happen to another President or Administration again!

Gary Scoggin

I remain amused at the notion that a decorated war hero and dedicated public servant like Mueller is a political hack. There is not a straighter shooter anywhere.

David Smith

Now its time to investigate who started this two year charade.. Poor Racheal... the bad news he had to swallow got caught in his Adams Apple

Paul Hyatt

The editorial staff of the GDN is of the same breed as CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC. They know not what it is to be an actual reporter who actually goes out to get "Real" facts and then report on the facts. No, today's so called journalists sit behind their desk and look for rumors and innuendos that can not be verified and report them as actual facts. While I would love to see a free press, most of what we read from these so called journalists is nothing but their indoctrination that they have received over the years from the colleges that they came from. The press no longer cares about facts as they do have an agenda and only the blind can not see what they are doing to this nation.

Bailey Jones

womp womp.

Gary Scoggin

If you guys hate this paper so much, why do you still subscribe? You can always stick with our state-run main stream media, i.e., Fox News

Carlos Ponce

Gary Scoggins, FOX News doesn't cover the Ball Tors, Texas City Stingarees, Hitchcock Bulldogs, Santa Fe Indians, Dickinson Gators,High Island Cardinals or the O'Connell Buccaneers to name a few reasons why we subscribe to GCDN. And I do like Laura Elder's columns and magazine.

Jack Cross

Gary, again, you are putting words in people's mouth. People don't hate the GCDN, they are just holding them accountable with facts, jut like the GCDN plays an important part in holding other local government agencies and elected officials accountable. We need local newspapers, unfortunately the competition from the web is driving them out of business, sad.

George Croix

Why is 'hate' the go to excuse tossed around for why Person A disagrees with Person B?? It's become as meaningless as 'racist', as both are just used to deflect now......
Do you 'hate' Fox News, Gary....[beam]
Personally, I kinda like the fact that at least ONE news source was right all along about 'collusion' and wonder why anyone wouldn't be upset with the nearly 700 days of foaming at the mouth guesses and lies put out about that subject by about 95% of the 'news' sources in this country.
If someone LIKES being suckered, they should at least wrap themselves in Saran Wrap, stick a broom handle...somewhere...and LOOK the part..... [beam][beam][beam]
One does not have to 'hate' to question....repeatedly...why a newspaper can claim objectivity with zero, evidently, alternate views on it's Editorial Board.....
Even the View has a token conservative...sorta....
Compare the number of news reports in our home county paper referencing some source critical of the President versus those congratulating on the booming economy, or the all time low minority unemployment levels, or the GDP already higher than we were told it would ever be again absent a 'magic wand'.....
Any mention in there that this 'racist' President, as so many of the MSM talking heads opine, has done MORE to better opportunities for the folks he supposedly 'hates' than all of their 'friends' in office ever did.
I think there WAS at least an article mentioning that Trump pardoned Jack Johnson after all previous Pres. whiffed on that...

Gary Scoggin

And as I often say, Foxnews is MSM. That don’t come any Mainer.

Gary Scoggin

Let me rephrase the comment I made in far too much of a hurry.... “If you guys dislike the ....”

Jarvis Buckley

Jack I've seen a more fair & balanced
GCDN transform over the past few years. I read the paper every morning
& I definitely see a difference & for that I am grateful.
You will always have the Never Trumpsters , making negative comments , trying to remove our President Trump. These folks were star struck with our former President
Barack Obama . Their lack of knowledge of Americain History is sad. Their push for socialist society,
Indicates their laziness & hand out approach to a government that will
take down our Country which is exactly what our past administration's goal was. I take all these anti Trump comments with a grain of salt. Their uninformed comments shows their lack of ability
to think rationally . They are educated
folks they were just brainwashed at
An early age by socialist professors
that never created a job in their life.
You can't teach stupid, it has been said. But reading the Anti Trump
commenters it makes you wonder.

Bailey Jones

Oh Jarvis - where do you get this stuff? I'm probably the most liberal socialist progressive you'll ever (not go to the trouble to) meet. I've worked since I was 12, never taken a dime from the government, operate 2 businesses besides a full time job, and I can say the same for all of my liberal socialist fellow travelers. "Socialism" is, and has always, been about the value and dignity of work and the workers who do it. Now go enjoy the rest of your 8 hour day, 40 hour week with guaranteed overtime pay, and look forward to collecting your social security check and government provided Medicare.

Gary Miller

Bailey. Socialism is the super rich elite making sure poverty is equally distributed among all "subjects". Subjects work and pay taxes, the elite collect and spend taxes.

Carlos Ponce

"The goal of socialism is communism." - Vladimir Lenin

Bailey Jones

Classic, guys. You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

Bailey Jones

'"The goal of socialism is communism." - Vladimir Lenin' - "and she's buy-y-ing a stai-air case to heaven" - Led Zeppelin, and just as relevant to American Democratic socialism as anything Lenin ever uttered.

Carlos Ponce

Birds of a feather, Bailey. Only the extremely gullible think there is a difference.[whistling]

Bailey Jones

Jim, socialism is what Fox News and talk radio say it is, not some gobbledygook based on reality and facts.

Carlos Ponce

" 'Socialism' is, and has always, been about the value and dignity of work and the workers who do it." What a load of crock!

Jim Forsythe

Socialism is taxpayer funds being used collectively to benefit society as a whole, despite income, contribution, or ability.
Socialism, which you have been told to fear all your life, is responsible for a lot of what we take for granted. A few examples
The Military/Defense - The United States military is the largest and most funded socialist program in the world. It operates thanks to our taxpayer dollars and protects the country as a whole. From the richest citizens to the homeless who sleep under the bridge. We are all protected by our military whether we pay taxes or not. This is complete socialism.
Public Libraries - Yes. That place where you go to check out books from conservative authors telling you how horrible socialism is, is in fact socialism. Libraries are taxpayer funded. You pay a few bucks to get a library card and you can read books for free for the rest of your life.
Medicare - Medicare is one of the most liked socialist programs in America.
Social Security
Customs and Border Protection - the CBP is the largest law enforcement agency in America. This is taxpayer funded, socialist agency of the federal government regulates trade, imports, and immigration.

Carol Dean

Carlos, consider who the people are who are making these uninformed
statements! Remember, "You can't fix stupid"!

Jack Cross

Javis, I was not painting a broad brush of the GCDN, I specifically pointed out two articles that I identified. Reading Mr. Woolsey's columns, he comes across a good family man and a caring person who respects humanity. The Galveston News has treated me fairly. I try to be factual and for that reason, hundreds of readers have spoken to me or email or called me telling me that they appreciate my letters.

Dalton Logan

I have noticed that no one from the GCDN has not jumped in here to defend what Mr. Cross has stated. Can they?

Steve Fouga

Not worth their time. Not their job.

Dalton Logan

'defend the paper per what Mr. Cross Stated'

Charles Olsen

The paper knows hog wash when they read it. Nothing to defend.

Paula Flinn

Jim Forsythe, this year the farmers get subsidies to live on instead of selling their crops because President Trump destroyed their markets for their crops with his “new and improved” tariffs. That’s “Socialism” just as much as Medicaid, Medicare, or Universal Healthcare is or would be.

Don Schlessinger

When our trade problems have ended, and they will, farm subsidies will end. The farm subsidy you need to worry about are land banks. BTW Medicaid, Medicare, and or Universal Healthcare will never end, that's Socialism.

Gary Scoggin

I’m pretty sure farm subsidies will never end, either.

Jarvis Buckley

Jack I enjoy your articles. I always look forward to reading them. You & I agree on a lot more than we disagree on. That's for sure.
I can't believe the progressives push for socialism. The Judas goats in Washington appear to have a following.

Jack by the way pick you up a few extra avocados . They are fixing to get scarce . So NBC, CNN, CBS, MSNBC. Says . How stupid MSM thinks we are.

Steve Fouga

It all depends on your man Trump, Jarvis. No trade with Mexico, fewer avocados.

He doesn't have the guts to do it, though.

Carlos Ponce

Avocados imported from other countries and also grown in the United States.
"The top five producers and their share of the total production were Mexico (30.2%), Indonesia (6.8%), Dominican Republic (6.7%), U.S. (5.6%), and Colombia (5%) Other major producers include Brazil, Chile, and Peru."
http://www.mylotrade.com/avocado-imports-to-u-s.html
I'm certain the other countries will fill in the slack if Mexico is cut off. With the prospect of American Dollar$, I'm certain the other countries will earmark their crops more for the United States and less for domestic consumption and export to other countries. Profit is the game.

Gary Scoggin

The biggest cable network of all is FoxNews. I think that makes them king of MSM. They seem to think we’re stupid as well. Just look at their nightly line up.

George Croix

Gary, trading that 'smart enough' back and forth again, you can't possible be equating commentary with news......

Gary Scoggin

I don’t equate their nightly entertainment shows with news and maybe you don’t either. But there are plenty of people that do, including, it appears, a few regulars on this forum.

Carlos Ponce

" Just look at their nightly line up."
There are NEWS programs on FOX and COMMENTARY/OPINION shows on FOX.
The COMMENTARY/OPINION shows are the nightly lineup.

Jim Forsythe

Senate Passes Resolution Blocking Trump’s Border Emergency Declaration.
The proposal was approved on a 59 to 41 vote, with a dozen Republicans breaking party lines to support it.

Carlos Ponce

"with a dozen Republicans breaking party lines to support it."
Our Texas Senators voted against this measure. The senators who voted for this measure represent states FAR from the border while Texas has the longest border with Mexico.
Some of the Republicans did not want a precedent set for a future Democrat president. NEWS FLASH! They'd do it no matter what Trump does. Note that most Emergency Declarations have come from Democrat presidents.

Jim Forsythe

It make no difference who has the longest border with Mexico. Texas gets 2 votes in the Senate, just like the rest of the states. The ones voting against this, do not want Trump to be able, any time he wants, to take money they wanted used for a needed projects, diverted to some other place. If they allow this to happen, no President will adhere to the budget, but just do what they want. Look for the next President to use this power,if this new power is let to stand, for any project they want.
Many Presidents Have Declared Emergencies — But Not Like Trump Has
Trump's declaration differs from many of those earlier emergencies. About three-quarters of the time, presidents use their emergency power to impose economic sanctions or limit trade with foreign parties. Then-President Jimmy Carter, for example, declared an emergency to limit business dealings with Iran. George H.W. Bush did the same with Iraq. And Barack Obama used emergency powers to limit transactions with Libya.Other declarations have followed terrorist attacks or natural disasters. George W. Bush declared an emergency after the Sept. 11 attacks. And Obama used one to respond to the swine flu epidemic in 2009.

Carlos Ponce

So who cares, Jim? The "resolution" was VETOED by Trump and neither House could override it.
And you're missing an awful lot of NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESOLUTIONS. 58 have been declared.
"But Not Like Trump Has" - So what? No two emergencies are alike. It falls within the guidelines of the National Emergencies Act:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-congress/house-bill/3884

Emile Pope

Some investigators were particularly miffed that Barr had not released the official summaries of the report that their team had prepared, the Post reported. One official told the paper that the special counsel report was written in such a way that would have allowed “the front matter from each section ... [to be] released immediately — or very quickly” to the public"

Washington Post

Carlos Ponce

They can't LEGALLY be released in their entirety to the public. According to the news article they are loaded with grand jury testimony.

Emile Pope

Mueller wrote a report and a summary. Barr dismissed both and wrote his own. Barr didn’t include one single complete sentence from the Mueller report in his summary.

Carlos Ponce

"As the report states: '[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.' ”
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html
"As the report states" means it was taken directly from Mueller's report.

Emile Pope

Garbage. Barr didn't use one complete sentence from the report in his summary. He only used sentence fragments that were misleading...

George Croix

When did you get to read the report to verify that, Pope?
You are a well connected dude.....[beam][beam]

Carlos Ponce

When the redacted report comes out you will see this "fragment" in it not taken out of context.

Gary Scoggin

But not as well connected as Carlos, knows what the report says.

Carlos Ponce

"But not as well connected as Carlos, knows what the report says."
The world is split up into two groups: the informed and the ignorant. I'm on the informed side.

Emile Pope

Actually if you read the summation there is not a quote from the report starting with a capital letter in it ending in a period. Nothing but sentence fragments...

George Croix

Gary, no matter what it says, no matter what character failures or disreputable words or actions were written, what it concluded was no indictments for it's own primary targets. No getting around that. 'Close' only counts with hand grenades and a game of horseshoes.
Now, let's do all that Special Counsel investigating with unlimited time, power, and funds and a Grand Jury for the REAL colluders with the Russians that we KNOW exist, and see if they, too, return no indictments for their primary search targets.
That would be from the 'flexible' ex-POTUS right on down to all the hammered phone smashers and server bleachers....and all in between.....
IF so, then we all should shut up and let it go, as that's how our legal system is supposed to work for all, when it's applied equally to all.....
But, maybe in the meantime, we 'll get that PROOF that Adam Schiff STILL claims he has of 'Trump Campaign Collusion', despite never producing it.
He could put THAT out for the desperate masses yearning to breath life back into the Trump Collusion wish and make himself a hero. Wonder why he's keeping it hidden......for over 2 year, and counting...[rolleyes][whistling][lol]
Maybe release the 'evidence' of it in a video.
Then immediately after, the rebuttal could be the existing, actual all-ya-gotta-do-is-look-and-listen video of Schiff, thinking he was talking to 'Russian sources' offering up dirt on Trump, cheerfully thanking them and promising to have his staff get in touch with them....he got punked, BUT he actually WAS colluding with what he thought were Russians....maybe THAT's his evidence, and he just forgot it was him, not Trump.....
[beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam]

George Croix

It's been claimed by 'sources' that EVERY page of the 300 or so in the report was marked 'May contain Grand Jury Material', or words close to that.
IF that's so, then one would expect to see incomplete sentences, which, of course, do not equate to incomplete bottom line. But WOULD equate to following the law...
On this planet, I mean.....
MAYBE it's a plot by Barr and he's lying and covering for Trump and Trump COULD have really been indicted and the entire Mueller team said so in their report but then declined to actually do so.....
By golly, I bet that's it....they are ALL covering up that they should have indicted but didn't....
Now, we need to figure out exactly why they'd do that.......[whistling][unsure][whistling][unsure]

Gary Scoggin

As we understand things, the report concludes that neither the President nor his staff acted in a way that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. That is different from collusion, which by the way is not a crime. People all around the President were talking with Russians. That bothers me. The President's son took a meeting with the purpose of getting dirt from the Russians on the President's opponent. Then the President helped draft a statement lying about the purpose of the meeting. That bothers me. And the list goes on. That bothers me.

I just remain amazed that it doesn't bother some of the residents on these forums. Instead, people rationalize away the Russian involvement and try to deflect away from our nation's elected leader.

George Croix

"As we understand things, the report concludes that neither the President nor his staff acted in a way that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute."
Gary, THAT is ALWAYS the result when there's no indictment...for anyone....following an investigation and evidenec presented to a Grand Jury.

Doesn't it bother you that the DNC and the Hillary campaign are KNOWN to have paid for Russian dirt and are KNOWN to have both paid money to and accepted it from 'Russians'?
And, PLEASE, none fo that 'She's not President'....it's certainly not from trying, which is what the Russian dirt she paid for, and that 'flexibility' Obama showed in doing nothing about 'interference', were all designed to accomplish....
REAL 'collusion'....with actual proiven payoffs.....
But, she lost, so, never mind......[beam][beam][beam]

Emile Pope

The AG doesn't get to redact a report from Congress.

Carlos Ponce

"The AG doesn't get to redact a report from Congress."
"from Congress" ????
The report is from MUELLER, no Congress.
MUELLER was appointed by ROD ROSENSTEIN, not Congress.
ROSENSTEIN'S authority is from the Department of Justice
Now they do have to follow 28 CFR Part 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL which came into being from Congress: It states, "The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality."

Carlos Ponce

Gary Scoggin: "Then the President helped draft a statement lying about the purpose of the meeting."
"lying"? WAPO said it all true but "left out a lot".
Here's the statement: Saturday July 8:
“It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up. I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.”
The Washington Post reported:
"All of this was apparently true — it just left out a lot, as we later learned."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/14/a-brief-review-of-donald-trump-jr-s-explanations-of-his-meeting-with-a-russian-lawyer/?utm_term=.83092fc59c8f
Now here's Junior's statement: Sunday July 9th
“I was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance I knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant with an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign. I was not told her name prior to the meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to attend, but told them nothing of the substance. We had a meeting in June 2016.”
“After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information. She then changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act. It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.
“I interrupted and advised her that my father was not an elected official, but rather a private citizen, and that her comments and concerns were better addressed if and when he held public office. The meeting lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes. As it ended, my acquaintance apologized for taking up our time. That was the end of it and there was no further contact or follow-up of any kind. My father knew nothing of the meeting or these events.”
WAPO then adds:
"What’s new in this statement: Trump Jr. admits that the focus of the meeting was not adoption, but information about Clinton. Instead of being an introductory meeting, he now says it was a one-off."
Sorry WAPO but his statement: "her comments and concerns were better addressed if and when he held public office" doesn't sound like a "one-off" .

Emile Pope

The Justice Department, a part of the executive branch, does not get to decide what evidence is presented to Congress. And the AG doesn't get to decide if the evidence is sufficient or evidence of a crime. Never...

Carlos Ponce

"The Justice Department, a part of the executive branch, does not get to decide what evidence is presented to Congress."
"The answer is largely up to Attorney General William Barr, who, under the regulations governing special counsel investigations, has the final say on how to handle the report on Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election and potential ties to President Donald Trump’s campaign.
But in making his decision, Barr is bound by federal laws that limit how certain material from federal investigations can be shared. In particular, one section of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — known in legal circles by its number, 6e — prohibits, with few exceptions, the public release of information obtained through grand jury testimony. The rule is intended to keep information classified in federal criminal investigations, and protect the privacy of an individual or entity that has not been charged with a crime."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/could-congress-force-the-mueller-report-to-be-made-public

Emile Pope

I’ve already destroyed your arguments. Congress is not the public. And Barr has absolutely no justification to hide testimony or evidence from Congress. Mitchell tried it and got a prison sentence...

Emile Pope

Garbage. The link you showed had absolutely nothing to do with the AG hiding testimony or evidence from Congress...

Carlos Ponce

Emile needs a reading comprehension lesson.[innocent]

Emile Pope

I would hope you'd be my instructor. "Those who can, do..."

George Croix

"Those who can, do..."
That's an interesting choice of quote you've adopted, Pope, as self-description.....
Which, when applied, since you always ask for 'proof' and yet never ever have any to offer yourself, we can conclude that you not only can't, but demonstrably don't.....
Here's a fitting quote for that:
"Hoist with his own petard"
from a speech in Hamlet, by William Shakespeare
That quote fits, so you must wear it..........

[beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][whistling][rolleyes]

George Croix

A small detail easily noted with minimal scrutiny is that the 'official' quoted is not said to BE one of the investigators.
Now, where have we heard before unvetted, no proof, word of mouth claims from unnamed sources.....??? One might safely say ESPECIALLY from the WAPO or the NYT....
Why, EVERYWHERE.....????

Why not wait to pass the report to Congress, so we can see what's in it.....[beam][beam][beam]

Maybe the Mueller Team should have just saved time and handed the report directly to Congress.
There's a reason for that.....

BTW, to anybody, I never did get an answer from the 'Barr is a toady of Trump because he was appointed by Trump" bunch, as to what other Attorney General was NOT appointed by a President.....make it simple and keep it within the last 100 years....
I suppose, though, that such claimants are, themselves, toadies at their jobs to whomever gave them that job, since that's how they figure it must work......???

George Croix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

Carol Dean

Emile, you can argue "until the cows come home". You already look foolish, why don't you just go back to watching CNN and relying on Face Book to get your "talking points"?

Gary Scoggin

Yes, Emile. Stick to proven sources like Fox, Hannity and Limbaugh.

Emile Pope

And of course, Alex Jones...

George Croix

Fox is a proven news source, Gary. i appreciate your recognizing that. we'd never have heard a word about Hillary's potty based server if not for Fox, as but one example....
But, again, Hannity is a commentator.
Rush is...Rush.........[beam][beam].....

Gary Scoggin

FoxNews’s news operation is good. Their hosts like Bill Hummer, Bret Baier and Shepard Smith are firstrate. They dolet some silly commentary invade their daily newscasts, as does CNNand MSNBC. The problem with entertainers like Sean Hannity is that too many people mistake what he says for legitimate news and analysis you see it reflected in their thinking. For example, people who refuse to admit that the President can make even the slightest mistake.

Jack Cross

`After three years of claims that Republicans in general, and President Donald Trump in particular, are endangering democracy by trampling political norms, Democrats “are not campaigning on a platform of restoring norms, they are just pushing to destroy norms that they don't like.”
Democratic candidates and activists, want to eliminate the Electoral College, expand the Supreme Court to ensure more seats for liberals. Medicare for all, do away with private health insurance entirely. Supporting reparations, open borders every one come in and get free stuff,. 70 percent tax on the rich. Most of the White House hopefuls have endorsed the Green New Deal, AOO who is the leaders of the democratic party said the world will end in 12 years. Good luck with this.
I want you to defend this, democrats are shooting themselves in the foot and this will insure another Trump victory in 2020. They know it, that is why they are trying to drive down his poll numbers.

George Croix

Gary, I personally think it was a mistake to elect him, but a lot LESS of a mistake than to have elected the alternate choice......
Sometimes, just like at emergency scenes or unit upsets, there are NO all the way good outcomes, so you pick the one least bad and go with that goal....
At least we've seen some positive-for-the-country results, if one can get past the childish "but I don't like him' anchor around the neck of reasoned discourse...as opposed to what was promised...promised...to be another term of 'the new normal' of routine failure and low balling America.....
IMO, as always..... [wink][smile]

Gary Scoggin

Jack -- you would like me to defend..

"eliminate the Electoral College, expand the Supreme Court to ensure more seats for liberals. Medicare for all, do away with private health insurance entirely. Supporting reparations, open borders every one come in and get free stuff,. 70 percent tax on the rich. [and] the Green New Deal."

That would be tough for me to do as I don't agree with any of those proposals. Not swallowing the Kool-Aid regarding President Trump is not mutually exclusive with any of those posiitions. But somehow many think it is. Calling the President out for his behavior does not make one a Democrat. It does make one intellectually honest.

For the record, I'm not a Democrat. I used to be a Republican until the party ran off the deep end of the Religious Right, the Tea Party and then the Donald Trump movements. As Ronald Reagan once said about the Democrats, "I didn't leave them, they left me."

And also for the record, in 2016 I voted for Gary Johnson, not Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump. And in 2020 my early support goes to John Kasich. Unless William Weld runs and then I'm all in on him.

So, i suggest you quit making assumptions about my political ideology based on the fact that I don't care much for the guy that's in office now.

George Croix

I will never understand why anyone...anyone...throws a vote away on someone who cannot possibly win the election. ONE of the two viable candidates, either a D or an R, WILL win (and that will be the case forever unless a Third party candidate proves DURING THE PRIMARY SEASON to have a chance at winning....), so NOT voting for one of them is the EXACT SAME as voting FOR the one of them you like least.
Like a starving man voting for T-bone steak when the only thing he can possibly get is bacon or a burger....rather die than take the lesser evil of available choices......
The voter might as well vote for himself, as a 'protest' vote that really means anything....

Gary Scoggin

Voting your conscience is never a wasted vote.

Carlos Ponce

Gary Scoggin, when you go vote, vote for yourself if you don't like either of the D or R candidates. Therefore you will be voting for the person who best shares your values. Think you have a chance? [rolleyes]

Gary Scoggin

I wouldn’t get many votes from the readers of this forum,that’s for sure!

Steve Fouga

I'd vote for you, Gary, but our views are so similar that I'd probably just vote for myself instead.

I really wish for the Republicans to decide they've had enough of Trump, and nominate a traditional conservative, and someone with experience. Kasich was my favorite last time around, and the only person in that huge primary field I would have voted for, but I have to think the Repubs could trot out a few more interesting candidates if Trump ends up being irreparably damaged by scandal. Nikki Haley, for example. I know she has said she won't run but, if she did, the Republicans would instantly negate several of the advantages the Democratic field hold.

Like you, I find it a little annoying that others immediately see me as a Democrat, or a liberal, or a "leftist," just because I don't support the most extreme outlier the Republican Party has ever produced.

Carlos Ponce

Point is, you will never find a person running for office who exemplifies all your views. But if we all voted for ourselves, no one would win. You have a checklist of what is important to you. The candidate with the most ✓s gets your vote, even if he or she does not get 100% of your ✓.

George Croix

Depends on what the vote is for, Gary, ...imo.
if you're voting for a person who cannot possibly win, to make yourself feel better, then you're selecting personal satisfaction rather than an actual choice for a person who will be doing the job that's up for grabs. Nothing wrong with that, but it's also nothing done to control the future of the job at hand even if only to lessen the sting of who does get the job. I, personally, see no reason to bother to vote when that vote carries zero weight, but the election outcome still carries a lot.
But, that's just me....
There's simply no getting around the fact that somebody will win, and electing (no pun) to not play any part at all in who that is, which is EXACTLY what not voting or voting for a no-way-to-win candidate is, means the one candidate you hate most just benefitted from your whiff, because he did not have to get someone else's vote to counter yours.

A vote is the ONE thing a citizen has that allows them to at least exert a tiny bit of influence on their own future as directed by the 'leaders' in DC....
No sense going to James Coney Island and ordering sweet & sour pork.....
[beam][beam][beam]
Personally, I haven't voted FOR a candidate for a national election position in about 35 years now....but voting against the one I liked least has been at least a 50/50 outcome for me...better than nothing...

Gary Scoggin

When voting for President in Texas in 2016, it was obvious that Donald Trump was going to carry the state and get all the electoral votes. So what did my vote, for or against, matter? I found myself in a position where I highly disliked both major party candidates. Neither was worthy of my vote. Gary Johnson, although he had a lot of flaws, stood for many things I believe in - mainly in the areas of personal and economic liberty. Also, I think that this state and the nation needs a viable third party. One way to encourage that is to show that good third party candidates can land support. All votes are for personal satisfaction, even your vote against Hillary. Mine satisfied me a lot.

George Croix

It was obvious who would win in Florida in 2000..until it wasn't.....
[beam]

George Croix

ps
Nope.
gary, I didn't want to vote for either of them in 2016.
I figured both were not the kind of people I wanted to support.
That's hardly satisfaction...at least, none the way I define the word...

Viable 3rd Party candidate? GREAT!!!! I'd be on 'em like white on rice.....
Problem with that is, NOBODY has even come close in my lifetime...
Unless a 3P shows by sufficient national polls and support they CAN have a shot by the end of Primary season, then all they're doing from then on is wasting contributors money and traveling and 'eventing' on OPM.....imo.....they then have all become meaningless for the next 4 years until their next wasted attempt....
So I put my money and vote on Trump who I don't like but who was NOT Obama II, Light Version.....so far, I STILL don't like him, but like most of what he's done to stop the 'new normal' America we were in...........
Well, we'll agree to disagree......
Maybe a New Guy Conservative will ride in to challenge Trump and show that he can do so.....
The clown acts that have announced so far on the other side are collectively at the usefulness of a bucket of warm spit level...IMO again.....
[beam][beam][beam][beam][cool]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.