Why don't Democrats admit their worthlessness?

No, they are going to wait until the 2020 elections and have the people vote the criminals out.   The Democrats in the House are smart enough to remember the lessons of 1998 and not pursue a quixotic impeachment proceeding that is doomed to fail in the GOP controlled Senate and would instead cause the Republicans to circle the wagons around Trump and potentially alienate many moderates who are needed to retake the Rust Belt in 2020. 

High hopes for the Moderates.

High hopes for the moderates indeed.  I feel like most Americans are between the 40 yard lines, to use a football analogy.

Unless there is a complete change in course Trump is winning 2020. It's a sad reality that will put us one more step towards Idiocrasy.  

How's that 'anyone but Hillary'  feeling now?  

Do you mean 'they're'? I'm just saying...kinda weird to point out another's worthlessness without even spelling properly. Do you ever say things, or just ask questions? Do you live with a lot of doubt? 

"Their" is used correctly in the thread title.  

You wouldn't say "Why Don't Democrats Admit They Are Worthlessness" would you?

Perhaps "Why Don't Democrats Admit They Are Worthless".  That would work.

You are correct. My bad.

So, do you (Slack) ever say anything? Or only questions? I've noticed that and have started wondering about the whole 'sea-lioning' thing...

At least the Dems admitted such in so far as seeking to use professional counsel for Barr hearings ... the existing crop of lawmakers are mostly not qualified with few exceptions.   If everyone in Congress were to be as on point as Kamala Harris was yesterday, it wouldn't be an issue.

I don't belong to any organized political party.

I'm a Democrat --- Will Rogers

>>>Idiocrasy

“A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing”

Slacker's gonna rag on Adam Schiff until Schiff finds him a below-market apartment.

Slacker what the fuck is that stupid as hell  "javs corner" bullshit you posted? 

Harris grilled Barr quite well and asked him an extremely pertinent question he COULD NOT answer, which was 

HAS ANYONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE ASKED YOU TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE

Because Trump threatened retribution against anyone and everyone after Barr's 4 page whitewash and Barr was going to be his attack dog

OF COURSE TRUMP ASKED BARR TO INVESTIGATE HIS ENEMIES!

Barr is a phony AG protecting a frauduent president!

He's phoney baloney and a total stooge. 

What Kamala said was "Has the President or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation on someone?"

It's a bullshit question that she asked to snare him and he didn't fall for it. Anyone? Who the fuck is anyone? The janitor? Suggest? What does that mean? If someone in a conversation talked about the possibility of investigating someone but then ruled it out, is that considered suggesting? She asked a bullshit question to grandstand and put him in a position where it would look like he was hiding something, but of course any decent lawyer would've poked holes in her question immediately and he did. She didn't want a real answer - she was shooting for a TV prop moment, that's all.

At another point she kept on railing about how he hadn't examined the evidence and went off on that over and over. He calmly responded (accurately) that it was Bob Mueller's job to review the evidence and make a suggestion, something that he weaseled out of. Barr calmly explained that it wasn't his role to review the evidence, which it wasn't. It was his job to review Mueller's report. But of course she went on and on for the cameras about how he hadn't reviewed the evidence.

Again, political grandstanding for the cameras. Leave the emotions out. Write the words down on paper and analyze them. Then you can see the substance (or lack thereof) in those words.

Just write lack of substance.

>>>>Barr calmly explained that it wasn't his role to review the evidence, which it wasn't. It was his job to review Mueller's report. 

He over turned Mueller in two critical areas. On obstruction of justice -  Mueller said he wouldn’t indict a sitting president because to indict someone who can’t be indicted leaves them no forum to defend themselves, but then went on to lay out 10 areas where Trump absolutely obstructed justice. Barr made the judgment call WITHOUT READING THE EVIDENCE that Trump shouldn’t be indicted based on the evidence in the Mueller report that Barr didn’t even read.

On collusion Mueller went out of his way to say there was no such thing as collusion, but that the Russians absolutely worked as hard as the Trump campaign at getting Trump elected and that there were over 60 contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian. He went on to say that the US should write laws to make what the Trump campaign did illegal in the future. Barr in his summary that apparently wasn’t a summary said that the report said there was no collusion. He said it again in the press conference before the report was released, and he said it again in the hearing this week.

How dare you tell someone what to write, even though they don't have a dog in the fight?

Take flight

good idea 

Sometimes you’re the company that you keep, or the delusions that you share

Am I take flight? You can react like kids on a schoolyard all you want, but if you read what I wrote you'll see I'm not wrong. I wasn't talking about what Barr did or didn't say - I was specifically talking about the questions and answers given and that they were carefully crafted by ALL involved to further their political agendas, NOT to get to the truth...

Sorry Tod. Im just goofin around

The Democrats aren't really trying to remove Trump. 

They're just campaigning. <<<

Thank you for statement. 

Am I take flight? You can react like kids on a schoolyard all you want, but if you read what I wrote you'll see I'm not wrong. I wasn't talking about what Barr did or didn't say - I was specifically talking about the questions and answers given and that they were carefully crafted by ALL involved to further their political agendas, NOT to get to the truth...<<

Bullshit.  Trying to elicit whether the president is seeking to punish his "enemies" (whether directly or indirectly) isn't campaigning.

they can't admit reality. "manufactured immigration crisis" my ass. repugs are no better, practically useless.

BETHESDA, Maryland (The Borowitz Report)—Attorney General William Barr on Thursday proved unable to give honest answers to a drive-thru window at a Bethesda, Maryland, Arby’s restaurant.

Barr, who drove up to the window just after noon, appeared evasive and halting after the drive-thru attendant asked to take his order.

“I cannot recall what I would like to order at this time,” Barr said, according to the attendant.

When pressed repeatedly to name a sandwich, drink, or side order that he preferred, Barr stonewalled, the attendant said.

“The questions I was asking him couldn’t have been clearer,” the attendant told reporters. “I asked him if he wanted to order a Smokehouse Brisket sandwich. He refused to give me a yes-or-no answer.”

“I came away feeling that he had been less than candid,” the attendant said.

Speaking through an official spokesperson later in the day, Barr said that he would never appear at Arby’s again.

they are too stupid and brainwashed?

They.  ?

"Bullshit.  Trying to elicit whether the president is seeking to punish his "enemies" (whether directly or indirectly) isn't campaigning."

I see why you would think that, and I guess that's what she's trying to do, but she wasn't asking legally sound questions. Language is important, especially in situations with high-stakes legal implications. Someone like Barr, asshole though he may be, has tons of experience in the manipulation of language into legalese to fit his needs and descriptions. Kamala knows that. Kamala also has a lot of experience in the same area; she knows perfectly well what the language that she uses means or doesn't mean. By asking "Did the President or anyone in the White House..." she left it open for a speculative question. Anyone? Who? The AG has perfect grounds for playing dumb with that, but she knows that, which means she's just using the question to make a point on camera - not to elicit an actual response from him. Same with the word 'suggest'. It's broad, ambiguous, not legal terminology. How do you define it? What are its limits? Barr knows this and played dumb again. She knew it and knew he would play dumb with the question. In other words, she's putting on a show for the camera. Not for campaigning but to make her point in a symbolic rhetorical manner rather than in a legally binding manner. 

Barr just doesn't come across as believable to me.  If he wasn't playing politics he would just do his job and answer the questions and the truth should be enough to convince anyone.  if he was picked to lie for little donnie he isn't doing a very good job of it. imo

Kamala also has a lot of experience in the same area; she knows perfectly well what the language that she uses means or doesn't mean. By asking "Did the President or anyone in the White House..." she left it open for a speculative question. Anyone? Who? The AG has perfect grounds for playing dumb with that, but she knows that, which means she's just using the question to make a point on camera - not to elicit an actual response from him. Same with the word 'suggest'. It's broad, ambiguous, not legal terminology. How do you define it? What are its limits? Barr knows this and played dumb again. She knew it and knew he would play dumb with the question. In other words, she's putting on a show for the camera. Not for campaigning but to make her point in a symbolic rhetorical manner rather than in a legally binding manner. <<<

Lets grant that your assertion that Harris knows that her question is a "no win" for Barr, so what?

If we've gotten to a point where such a question needs to even be asked in the general sense, why should the administration be afforded a "safe space" pertaining to the line of questioning?  It seems to me that Barr unilaterally opened this door all by himself; and as you said, he has tons of experience in the manipulation of words, so why couldn't he have easily qualified his answer to be constrained strictly to the president (and not anyone in the white house)?  I realize it's a bit childish to purport a "he started it" argument, but sadly it reflects the state of affairs that we've devolved into.  It's not as if Harris was pulling the "or anyone else in the White House" out of thin air ... the overall climate within the entire administration has been contentions from the get go (to say the least).  So, even if we accept your argument as being accurate in terms of Harris using a "trick question" for political gain, do you really believe it's in the same league as how the GOP have generally approached related hearings overall?!?  Watch the House Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on Russia’s election interference tactics below and ask yourself if Harris' "theatrics" are even CLOSE to what the GOP are engaged (on a matter of critical national security no less):

https://www.c-span.org/video/?459258-1/house-intelligence-committee-exam...

Slacker has been all politically savvy lately