If anyone has any doubt that George Will sees Democrats as only a slightly less evil alternative

to Trump, he wrote this: "A Democratic-controlled Congress would be a basket of deplorables, but there would be enough Republicans to gum up the Senate’s machinery, keeping the institution as peripheral as it has been under their control and asphyxiating mischief from a Democratic House." In other words, no government is better than a Democratically-led government, and only slightly better than a Trump-led government. Will's mind is poisoned against the Democratic Party, and he is blind to the fact that the Democrats are a far better alternative to a Tump presidency and a Republican-controlled Congress. Will as much as admits that Republicans are useless except as an obstacle to Democratic initiatives. His intellectual dishonesty and his inability to see past his blind hatred of the Democratic Party, render him totally incapable of making a clear analysis of the political and economic state of the union. In Will's mind, the best government is a total stalemate in which the government can do nothing at all. He sounds like an anarchist, or a radical libertarian to me.

Make no mistake about it, Will vehemently hates liberals and Democrats.

And he always will. He writes in this OP that "congressional Democrats are equally supine toward Democratic presidents," ignoring the fact that no Democratic president has come anywhere close to the danger to democracy, national security, or the economy that Trump represents. Will actually makes the point that no one has ever been the immoral, insane monster that Trump is, but still writes not a word about the fact that Democrats are the only viable alternative. Will wants people to vote for libertarians, independents and moderate Republicans, when only a Democrat could possibly defeat Trump.

You make a good point. Trump is surrounded by people who, like him, have learned to lie their way

out of trouble and into positions they desire. It is an ingrained habit, and they don't really have any other strategies to see them through life. They also are not intelligent enough to remember all their lies and make their stories consistent over time.

Good article. It is interesting how comedy is one way we get used to new ideas and changes in

society's norms. Helps us see the absurdities and even the idiocies of customs we take for granted. Seinfeld's comedy is a good example.

I think the exploitation and the reduction of women to lesser, child-like beings, is the crime here,

not necessarily hate per se. It is true that they hate feminists and anybody else who stands up for women's right to be in every way citizens with all the rights that men take for granted. But there is something more subversive and more horrible than hate in the agenda to reduce women to chattel or child-like wards of men. I don't think Southern plantation owners hated their slaves unless they tried to escape slavery or challenged their owner's authority over them. They benefited from the labor, and the sense of superiority they enjoyed by virtue of being a slave's master

Is anyone else out there irritated by how Republicans have continued to call us the "Democrat" Party

It makes me angry that such obvious disrespect is allowed during interviews without being corrected. I know we've come up with various counter-logisms such as "Repubs" and "Rethugs" etc, but I'd like to suggest something more subtle to get their goat. From now on I'm referring to the GOP as the "Republic Party." Join me and let's watch heads explode if it starts to be used by Democrats every time they give interviews.

Forget what they say House Democrats are readying for impeachment

No, Trump cant pardon himself. The Constitution tells us so.

I've excerpted what I think are the most important parts of authors' the argument below. Read the whole thing, It's short and powerfully reasoned.

Can a president pardon himself? Four days before Richard Nixon resigned, his own Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opined no, citing “the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case.” We agree.

The Justice Department was right that guidance could be found in the enduring principles that no one can be both the judge and the defendant in the same matter, and that no one is above the law.

The Constitution specifically bars the president from using the pardon power to prevent his own impeachment and removal. It adds that any official removed through impeachment remains fully subject to criminal prosecution. That provision would make no sense if the president could pardon himself.

Self-pardon under this rubric is impossible. The foundational case in the Anglo-American legal tradition is Thomas Bonham v. College of Physicians, commonly known as Dr. Bonham’s Case. In 1610, the Court of Common Pleas determined that the College of Physicians could not act as a court and a litigant in the same case. The college’s royal charter had given it the authority to punish individuals who practiced without a license. However, the court held that it was impermissible for the college to receive a fine that it had the power to inflict: “One cannot be Judge and attorney for any of the parties.”

The Constitution embodies this broad precept against self-dealing in its rule that congressional pay increases cannot take effect during the Congress that enacted them, in its prohibition against using official power to gain favors from foreign states and even in its provision that the chief justice, not the vice president, is to preside when the Senate conducts an impeachment trial of the president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-trump-cant-pardon-himself-the-constitution-tells-us-so/2017/07/21/f3445d74-6e49-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.4519b526f727

Putin doesn't care whether of not Trump is impeached.

Either way it is "mission accomplished" because he has successfully sown a prodigious amount of discord and confusion among the US population and within the government itself.

Trump says he has the best words. Merriam-Webster disagrees.

The Miriam-Webster Dictionary has been tweeting amusingly snarky jabs at Trump since his election.

When John Dean of Watergate fame predicted “calamity” for Donald Trump’s presidency, Merriam-Webster’s official account tweeted about the prognostication, adding its definition: “an event that causes great harm and suffering.”

If you are unaccustomed to finding such information in the dictionary, you haven’t been keeping up with the new Merriam-Webster, which has been throwing the book — definition: “to punish (someone) as severely as possible” — at Trump.

fter Trump won the election, the dictionary announced that “lookups for ‘misogyny’ spiked after Trump’s victory” — and illustrated the tweet with a photo of Tic Tacs, a reference to Trump’s on-camera boasting about sexual assault.

Merriam-Webster has shown that a word can be worth 50,000 retweets, as when it responded to Conway’s “alternative facts” remark by saying: “A fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality.” After Conway said she was uncomfortable being called a feminist, Merriam-Webster tweeted: “ ‘Feminism’ is defined as ‘the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.’?”