The governor of Missouri discovers the meaning of “karma”

Governor Mike Parson has tested positive for coronavirus. The news comes hours after the Governor’s office confirmed First Lady Teresa Parson tested positive for the virus.”

32 thoughts on “The governor of Missouri discovers the meaning of “karma”

  1. I suppose we will have to call it karma. For some reason, evangelicals do not see it as the hand of God.

    1. Only hand of God when a Conservative contracts?

      Making light of the misfortune of others based solely on political belief is really sick.

        1. How so? Please elaborate.

          I’m simply asking a question. If I misunderstood I’d be glad to listen kind sir…

          1. Karma is more the homeland security report on hunter biden an how closely it ties to US political decision making in former administration.

            We can’t change what has happened but we can provide direction on where we go.

          2. The report summary says, “The extent to which Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board affected U.S. policy toward Ukraine is not clear.” In other words, since it was written by the Republican majority it really means, “We couldn’t find anything Hunter did that had any impact on US policy.”

            The only thing that seems clear is that Hunter Biden seems like kind of a bad seed who took advantage of his last name. But Joe had no control over that, and there is no evidence that he took action to help Hunter.

            In fact, George Kent’s actual testimony says:

            • “I did not witness any effort by any U.S. official to shield Burisma from scrutiny.”
            • The U.S. effort to oust the Ukrainian prosecutor was NOT about stopping an investigation into Burisma.
            • Kent said that the quest for that ouster was about purging Ukraine of corruption, noting that “Ukrainian society” wanted the prosecutor gone because he was “protecting corrupt friends.”
            • Kent confirmed that the conditioning of aid as leverage was established by the administration and presented to the GOP senators before Biden took it to Ukraine, and that nobody objected.
            • Kent said the leverage policy had nothing to do with Hunter Biden and that it originated with those involved in formulating “Ukraine policy.”
            • Karma is the GOP conducting an investigation against Hunter Biden for alleged corruption. The investigation finds nothing on Biden but uncovers Rick Perry’s corrupt activities instead.

              That seems much more like Karma.

            • Seeing Trump supporters being sanctimonious sickens me. All you brain-dead cultists have is OUTRAGE!

              Roger was just telling it like it is, I thought you brain-dead cultists claimed that’s what you want.

          3. You missed the point, which is that his disease is the result of his own actions, thereby seems like punishment. (From God, if that’s what you believe in.)

            He’s suggesting that God (or nature) would be punishing him for being too stupid or arrogant to respect the disease. It makes no difference whether he’s conservative or liberal.

            The same point could be made about a liberal if they died at the hand of a violent, angry demonstrator while supporting a demonstration.

            1. Largely peaceful demonstrations follow a tradition of free speech and civil disobedience necessary for a functioning democracy. I don’t see your example as karma.

              Many Americans appear to crave a dictatorship where street crime is effectively suppressed but massive criminal corruption thrives. You’re welcome to it…but I suggest you take down the Statue of Liberty, possibly forever.

    2. A sure sign of a moron: an irrelevant reference to either Hunter Biden or George Soros. Bonus moron points if you can get them in the same sentence.

      1. You forgot Hillary’s e-mails, Bill Deecee. Or better yet, her pizza-parlor-basement child sex ring! And work in either Benghazi or Uranium One for the trifecta!

        Many, you have to remember of LOT of things that aren’t so if you want to be a good Trump supporter.

    3. I guess Midwest Conservative does us a service by letting us know what lies and twisted arguments the right is spreading now. Otherwise, I can’t see any point in addressing him. Refuting what he says is of value, of course, but that can be done without mentioning him.

    4. There’s some kind of irony trying to both sides corruption in the GOP. Basically every member of the Trump family lives, eats, and breathes conflict of interest and corruption every day. Literally the same stupid shit about email servers and personal vs. government separation of technology is broken by his dumbass when he uses his phone.

      Meanwhile the GOP are pumping out more Hillary investigations than Friday the 13th sequels. Can’t wait in 2050 to watch ‘Benghazi XXVIII: The return of the ghost of Graham.’ Hillary’s been dead for 20 years, but we’re going to get to the bottom of it!

      Conservatives calling someone corrupt is like PT Barham calling someone a carny fraud. They’ve literally invented, wrote the book, wrote the procedures, authored it, memorized it, and tattooed corruption and conflict of interest into their minds and bodies. GOP hero McConnell’s has been in office since what seems like the stone-age, but has managed to turn himself into a multi-millionaire while in office. Wouldn’t be surprised if he had a Koch Brother tramp stamp logo on his back with how much he’s taken it from them over the years.

      Al Franken stepped down over causing a handful of uncomfortable situations and apologized, while Republican’s literally both sided a grown ass man sleeping with a high school kid when he was in his 40s, and likely assaulted several others. You literally had half of Alabama say ‘well, sure, this guy was pretty much a pedophile, probably a rapist – but Democrats ain’t no angels either! Saw the other guy lied about a speeding ticket he got last week!’

      Gotta love these nutjob conservatives. You could literally have Jesus Christ return to earth the same exact way he looked 2000 years ago born from a poor vagabond virgin mother, and they would throw him and his mother in a cage and call them illegals from shithole countries. Meanwhile you could have John Wayne Gacy run as a Republican in the Midwest or South, and they’ll gladly vote for him with a straight face.

      Never seen a bunch of flat out evil people as conservatives right now. You fuckers are the scum of the earth and there’s absolutely no divinity in any of you.

      1. Look, Indy, it is scary how much I agree with what you say above, but speaking just for me, I feel I need to dial back the anger. It is not good for me, and I guess it is counterproductive, although “counterproductive to what?” is a legitimate question.

        1. Yep, I guess so, Nature Mom. But sometimes I can’t sleep, I’m so angry.

          BTW, what do we do if Trump, his enablers in the Senate, and his new Supreme Court justice declare that Trump has won the election because any evidence to the contrary is fraudulent? Anybody come up with anything about that yet, or are we still not thinking about it because we want to pretend it can’t happen?

          Sweet dreams.

            1. Not to mention 1824 when Andrew “Ol’ Racist” Jackson got the most popular votes and the most electoral votes and still lost – to a guy he had defeated in the popular vote by a double-digit landslide.

            2. It’s a myth that John Kennedy stole the 1960 election. It’s also a myth that Richard Nixon stood down for the good of the country and let Kennedy steal the election.

              In fact, Nixon played the ‘statesman’ while his friends demanded and got investigations into the election in Illinois, and the investigations in Illinois did not find widespread ballot fraud for Kennedy, certainly not enough to swing the result.

            3. That article is a bit misleading because it has always been a given that Illinois alone would not have swung the election, so stating that is a truism. The actual allegation is that the Democrats stole Texas AND Illinois, and therefore the election.

              The Democrats probably did steal Texas, and there was simply nothing Nixon could do about it. As Nixon pointed out in Six Crises, “There was no procedure whatever for a losing candidate to get a recount in Texas.” Did Nixon actually win Texas? Yes, almost certainly. Probably by a landslide. Texas was not just corrupt. It was incredibly corrupt. Historian William Rorabaugh estimated that Nixon was cheated out of as many as 200,000 votes, but there was simply no legal mechanism to appeal the results. Rorabaugh explained, “Texas law made no provision for challenging a presidential election.” Fellow historian Robert Caro echoes the same point: “Texas law gave the [Canvassing] Board no authority to investigate the returns.” Given that Nixon had no chance to overturn the Texas result, even a successful challenge in Illinois would have made no difference in the election.

              Did Nixon actually win Illinois? It is possible, but unlikely. The best evidence suggests otherwise. While popular mythology has suggested there was no challenge to the Illinois results, the fact of the matter is that Cook County was recounted twice, as the Irish Central article notes. One of those recounts happened before JFK’s inauguration (as Nixon well knew, but conveniently ignored whenever he discussed the results)! Both recounts found some fraud, a minor amount, and that whittled down Kennedy’s already narrow lead in the state, but was not enough to erase it. (This is carefully documented in historian Edmund Kallina’s book, “Courthouse over White House: Chicago and the Presidential Election of 1960.”)

              So – bottom line … the Democrats probably did steal Texas, and tried to steal Illinois, but didn’t muster enough Illinois votes to sway the election. JFK actually did win the electoral college fair and square.

              The forgotten story is that there seems to have been so much fraud in Texas that JFK might have actually lost the national popular vote! (Of course liberals have since learned, to their regret, that the popular vote has no bearing on who will get to occupy the White House.) Or he may not have, since Texas was so screwed up, and it was so long ago, that it’s impossible to determine what really happened there.

            4. 1.There are other studies that conclude that the cheating in Texas was not enough to overturn the result given the size of Kennedy’s victory there.

              2.Democrats at the time countered that the reason Nixon publicly disclaimed the vote recounts was that he cheated to win Florida.

              3.The reason most historians give for the real reason Republicans contested the election was to be able to claim that Kennedy was an illegitimate President.

              With the exception of Jimmy Carter, this revisionist history has been standard operating behavior for Republicans:
              A.Republicans falsely claimed that Bill Clinton would not have won had Ross Perot not got back into the Presidential race.

              B.Republicans falsely claimed that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Of course, they started this false claim before Obama won the Presidency (and it might have started with Hillary Clinton and John McCain disclaimed it.)

              In all cases though, Republicans used these things to claim that none of these Democratic Presidents had a real mandate and that they should only pass legislation that had Republican support.

              Of course, when George W Bush and Donald Trump won the Presidency with less votes than their Democratic rivals, they were quick to claim that being President gave them a full mandate to do whatever they wanted.

            5. I’d go with LBJ’s distinguished biographer Caro, who is not at all sure that Kennedy/Johnson would have won that state fair and square.

              And Rorabaugh (as I noted) feels that Nixon not only won, but won in a landslide.

              My guess is that the results in the state were whatever Lyndon wanted them to be. When it came down to dirty, ornery, swaggerin’ double-dealin’, bulldozin’, corrupt scoundrels, Lyndon was Trump 1.0, and was more dangerous than Trump because he had a brain.

          1. It’s certainly possible. It’s well known that Johnson cheated to win his first election to the U.S Senate: the Box 13 scandal.

            Box 13 is also a decent old time radio show starring Alan Ladd.

    5. Nixon conceded three days after Election Day despite the stench surrounding the Illinois and Texas voting. That’s statesman enough for me.
      The Republican Natl. Comm. – not under Nixon control – did push challenges into the next year.

      1. When Nixon declined to pursue the challenge, he knew the RNC would. It was completely insincere of Nixon, which is consistent with his public behavior.

    Comments are closed.