lawmakers' failure to appreciate Me

[Nebe]

I wonder how small trumps #^&#^&#^&#^& really is? 4” ? 5”? Maybe his military parade will make his #^&#^&#^&#^& seem bigger ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I wonder how small trumps #^&#^&#^&#^& really is? 4” ? 5”?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I always appreciated the fact that you are a deep thinker

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

I always appreciated the fact that you are a deep thinker

I don’t think he can get it that deep. That’s the problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I wonder how small trumps #^&#^&#^&#^& really is? 4” ? 5”? Maybe his military parade will make his #^&#^&#^&#^& seem bigger ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like what you did there, not capitalizing Trump's name and Capitalizing #^&#^&#^&#^&. A fine grammatical touch.

Hey, how about solving the NK problem--publically de-pants Trump and Kim mung ungry or whatever his name his, and the biggest #^&#^&#^&#^& wins!!

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I like what you did there, not capitalizing Trump's name and Capitalizing #^&#^&#^&#^&. A fine grammatical touch.

Hey, how about solving the NK problem--publically de-pants Trump and Kim mung ungry or whatever his name his, and the biggest #^&#^&#^&#^& wins!!

Kim not hung is probably lacking in the inter-#^&#^&#^&#^&inental ballistic missle department as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Some of our looney lefty contributors are letting the cheese slide off of their crackers. Not sure any saw the memo about Trump WINNING the election. Let's call a truce; one side takes off their vagina hat and the other stop wondering when Hillary gets prosecuted. This time loop thing is getting tiresome. Jeff, it wasn't close at all. I understand you coming unglued initially but it's time to put on your best big boy pants and stop petting puppies in a safe space.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Jeff, it wasn't close at all. I understand you coming unglued initially but it's time to put on your best big boy pants and stop petting puppies in a safe space.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at the electoral map and actual vote counts. Trump managed to flip three critical swing states (that Obama won) by less than a few percent. That cost Clinton the race...it was very close.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Look at the electoral map and actual vote counts. Trump managed to flip three critical swing states (that Obama won) by less than a few percent. That cost Clinton the race...it was very close.

And Hilary won NV, CO, MN, NH, and ME by a narrow margin - "less than a few percent".

Spence, if you speculate on what would have happened if Trump lost all the states that were decided by less than a few percent, and assume Hilary kept all the states that she won by less than a few percent, I will concede she would have won. What I don't concede, is that there's any value whatsoever, in considering that hypothetical. "If" my aunt had wheels she'd be a tea cart.

They each took a handful of states by a few percent. Trump didn't win all the close calls.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And Hilary won NV, CO, MN, NH, and ME by a narrow margin - "less than a few percent".

Clinton won CO by 5 points, that's a decent margin. As for the others, they represent very few electoral votes compared to the super thin margins in PA (.7%), WI (.7%) and MI (.3%).

Simple fact is Clinton could have easily won had she not had the FBI continuing to drag her through the mud just days before the election.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Simple fact is Clinton could have easily won had she not had the FBI continuing to drag her through the mud just days before the election.

you don't know this...and it doesn't matter

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Look at the electoral map and actual vote counts. Trump managed to flip three critical swing states (that Obama won) by less than a few percent. That cost Clinton the race...it was very close.

I sympathize with you Jeff, but the "actual vote counts" part makes it seem as though you lack an understanding of the process. I like to think you are more intelligent than that but you keep trying to prove me wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

US President Donald Trump has asked the Pentagon to organise a large military parade in the nation's capital.

Nationalism being masked in patriotism

Parade is a generally stupid idea. But keep up all this pseudo Nationalism / Fascism stuff and you will have 4 more years to apply it.

Like those people that are looking for volunteers to lie down in front the parade tanks like it is Tienanmen Square (ya know - REAL Oppression).

Yeh! That'll show American who is sane.

Originally Posted by spence

Clinton lost by a razor thin margin and likely would have won if the investigation had been put to bed. You're just swimming in conspiracy theories now which is exactly what Trump wants.

Yep - she was a real bastion of Truth. So Trustworthy PresidentSlimeball beat her.

Originally Posted by spence

This isn't totally true. I believe we have after a few wars and Kennedy might have done a parade with military gear. That being said, these days I think a parade just to chest thump and stroke Trump's ego is pretty offensive to most.

Using the criteria of previous military parades you must actually win first. So that would exclude Kennedy, and everyone after with the possible exception of Regan/Bush Cold War (that got again screwed up) or Bush the Elder for PG1.

Originally Posted by spence

We'll file this under things you just made up.

[Nebe]

But her emails!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

He won.. I accept that 1 vote or the 1 electoral vote .. water under the Bridge..

its his current actions From the press to the FBI to Immigrants to the DOJ EPA energy Dept the list is endless and the icing holding the Military up as a scared Cow(that can not be touched ) all intended actions to Burn the place down.. are what Disturb me. and the support from his fringe right base and others willing to bring the gas and matches to help.. who cant see today.. but are all ready predicting re election

[wdmso]

I just picture him throwing out this idea to his Cabinet lets have a Military Parade .. and they all responded Dilly !!! Dilly !!!

[scottw]

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.

President Trump has a stronger approval rating today than media darling Barack Obama did back in 2010 on this same day.

Back on February 7, 2010 Barack Obama had an approval rating of 44% while 56% of likely voters disapproved of the far left president.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.

President Trump has a stronger approval rating today than media darling Barack Obama did back in 2010 on this same day.

Back on February 7, 2010 Barack Obama had an approval rating of 44% while 56% of likely voters disapproved of the far left president.

Turns out, people actually like it when their paychecks get bigger. Shocking but true.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I just picture him throwing out this idea to his Cabinet lets have a Military Parade .. and they all responded Dilly !!! Dilly !!!

You have been critical of Trump calling his opponents treasonous. Can I ask, is it only wrong when Trump does it? Corey Booker said those who called for the release of the Nunes memo were treasonous. Howard Dean said Senator Tom Cotton was acting treasonous for criticizing the Iran nuclear deal.

So is it only a problem for you, when Republicans do it? Is it too much to ask that we have one set of rules and standards, which apply equally to all of us?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have been critical of Trump calling his opponents treasonous. Can I ask, is it only wrong when Trump does it? Corey Booker said those who called for the release of the Nunes memo were treasonous. Howard Dean said Senator Tom Cotton was acting treasonous for criticizing the Iran nuclear deal.

So is it only a problem for you, when Republicans do it? Is it too much to ask that we have one set of rules and standards, which apply equally to all of us?

Are those 2 former Presidents? You continue to compare what 1 or 2 Dems. say or compare what Pres. Obama said 1 or 2 times to what our current President says hundreds of times and somehow you think that is the same. How is that having a set of rules when you compare what someone did one time with what someone does mulitple times?

Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. There is no comparing him to any other politician of any party.

Another Trumper will be leaving the WH today - beating his wives. I got a good laugh yesterday reading Kelly's statements about him. Kelly was supposed to be the "grownup" in the room and he is no better than the rest of this admin.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. There is no comparing him to any other politician of any party.

pretty snarky

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Are those 2 former Presidents? You continue to compare what 1 or 2 Dems. say or compare what Pres. Obama said 1 or 2 times to what our current President says hundreds of times and somehow you think that is the same. How is that having a set of rules when you compare what someone did one time with what someone does mulitple times?

Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. There is no comparing him to any other politician of any party.

Another Trumper will be leaving the WH today - beating his wives. I got a good laugh yesterday reading Kelly's statements about him. Kelly was supposed to be the "grownup" in the room and he is no better than the rest of this admin.

Oh, I see. So by some logic, it's ok for US Senators and Governors/presidential candidates to label people as traitors, but that right is forfeited when one becomes president. That makes all kinds of sense. All kinds of sense.

"what 1 or 2 Dems. say "

I didn't pick 1 or 2 obscure names out of democratic registration lists. Obama was a POTUS, and he said "Republicans gotta stop just hatin' all the time". Hilary said we are deplorable and irredeemable. But it's only problematic when a Republican acts in this regard.

"when you compare what someone did one time with what someone does mulitple times?"

You're all over the place. First you said Trump acted inappropriately because he is president, and presidents (unlike everyone else) shouldn't label people as traitors. Now you are saying that it's only unethical to call someone a traitor if they do it multiple times?

So what's the standard? Who can label their opponents as traitors, and who can't? And who can do it how many times before it's unethical?

Anything to protect your side, anything to bash the other side. It's a joke. And it's why Trump won.

"Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. "

I agree he's vile and petty. So was Hilary. She's not anywhere near as outwardly vulgar or crass or sophomoric as Trump. But I can make a compelling case, based on irrefutable facts, that she's vile and petty. But she has a (D) after her name, so you don't call her out on it.

Anyway, I look forward to your telling us who can use the word traitor, and how many times, so we can clear that up and apply it fairly and consistently.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Oh, I see. So by some logic, it's ok for US Senators and Governors/presidential candidates to label people as traitors, but that right is forfeited when one becomes president. That makes all kinds of sense. All kinds of sense. Did I say that? Please point it out. I've asked you before when you say I did something to point it out and you never do.

"what 1 or 2 Dems. say "

I didn't pick 1 or 2 obscure names out of democratic registration lists. Obama was a POTUS, and he said "Republicans gotta stop just hatin' all the time"Yet somehow that is worse that calling people who don't clap for Trump "unAmerican" or "treasonous". You don't think the Repub. showed hate torwards Obama?. Hilary said we are deplorable and irredeemable. But it's only problematic when a Republican acts in this regard. Right - he said it one time. You made my point - thanks. Hillary appologized the very next day but it doesn't matter to you. You just keep bringing it up again and again. When people in the RNC call Trump a deplorable somehow that is not the same as when Hillary uses that exact same word. Double standard????

"when you compare what someone did one time with what someone does mulitple times?"

You're all over the place. First you said Trump acted inappropriately because he is president, and presidents (unlike everyone else) shouldn't label people as traitors. Now you are saying that it's only unethical to call someone a traitor if they do it multiple times?No, I'm not all over the place. I"m saying I can give somone the benefit of the doubt when they say it 1or 2 times. You continue to try to equate somone saying something1 time with somone saying vulgar things repeatedly.

So what's the standard? Who can label their opponents as traitors, and who can'tI guess you and I have different standards bc I can't recall any Dems. calling Repubs. treasonous for not clapping during a speach. ? And who can do it how many times before it's unethical?about 1/100 of the amount of times Trump does it.

Anything to protect your side, anything to bash the other side. It's a joke. And it's why Trump won.You are the one here who constantly starts threads moaning about what a Dem. said, not me. 1,000 of posts with 99.5% here complaining about Dems. Night, day, weekend, late at night. Your always on here complaining about something. Not me.

"Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. "

I agree he's vile and petty. So was Hilary. She's not anywhere near as outwardly vulgar or crass or sophomoric as Trump. But I can make a compelling case, based on irrefutable facts, that she's vile and petty. But she has a (D) after her name, so you don't call her out on it.

Anyway, I look forward to your telling us who can use the word traitor, and how many times, so we can clear that up and apply it fairly and consistently.

I just did tell you. So if somone shoots a Dem. and says they did it bc they are a traitor does Trump deserve blame for it?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have been critical of Trump calling his opponents treasonous. Can I ask, is it only wrong when Trump does it? Corey Booker said those who called for the release of the Nunes memo were treasonous. Howard Dean said Senator Tom Cotton was acting treasonous for criticizing the Iran nuclear deal.

So is it only a problem for you, when Republicans do it? Is it too much to ask that we have one set of rules and standards, which apply equally to all of us?

Last time I checked they weren’t the POTUS at a rally .. again you see things the same because of the word not surprising
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Last time I checked they weren’t the POTUS at a rally .. again you see things the same because of the word not surprising
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

in most of theses things...the democrats have set the very low standard...if you are hoping for or expecting Trump to raise the standard...you may be waiting in vain

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

in most of theses things...the democrats have set the very low standard...if you are hoping for or expecting Trump to raise the standard...you may be waiting in vain

Can’t argue with that .. seems Congress has set the standards low.. to make themselves look good when the pass something. Regardless if’s it’s a good bill or a bad one .. ps good morning..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

I hate to just hammer one point but i think this discussion is due to the inability of moderates to get thru the primaries and get elected. This is how we ended up with Hillary, Bernie and Trump and the more moderates fell by the wayside.
This is really important to our democracy
Gerrymandering Squeezes out the Political Middle
A major victim of partisan gerrymanders and closed party primaries is the moderate middle – moderate voters and centrist politicians willing to work with the other side. Moderates and centrists get squeezed out by gerrymandering. Southern Republicans manipulated district maps to kill off conservative southern Democrats and northern Democrats did the same to moderate House Republicans in the Northeast.

This system has accelerated the rise to power of extremists. This happens largely because in most gerrymandered districts, primary elections have become more decisive than the general election, and in primaries the de facto power of decision rests with the party faithful.

Typically, primary turnout is low, sometimes extremely low. In the 2014 mid-term elections, Republican primary turnout nationwide was 8.9% of the elctorate; for Democrats, it was 14.5%. In seven state primaries, turnout fell below 4%. Such tiny turnouts give enormous leverage to hardcore partisan voters, well-funded special interest groups and more extreme, ideological candidates



Because primary voters often differ significantly in the views from average voters, there is often a disconnect between the broad electorate and the politicians who win primaries and get elected. In recent years, the widespread victories of partisan extremists fuels gridlock in Washington.

“The combination of closed party primaries, gerrymandering of districts and money – that’s why the system is broken,” says eight-term, former Oklahoma Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards. “This problem is deep, deep. The political system is more and more disconnected from the country. We have a system where what the majority of the voters might prefer doesn’t matter because the parties control the process, the parties limit their choices.”

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I hate to just hammer one point but i think this discussion is due to the inability of moderates to get thru the primaries and get elected.

everyone thinks they are a "moderate"....and....Trump wasn't even a politician and he got elected President....

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

everyone thinks they are a "moderate"....and....Trump wasn't even a politician and he got elected President....

Yes, he obviously isn't a politician
Just a populist telling you what you want to hear, it would have been a more interesting race if he had been up against the other populist, the Limbaugh of the Left, Bernie
though Bernie does stay on message

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Yes, he obviously isn't a politician
Just a populist telling you what you want to hear, it would have been a more interesting race if he had been up against the other populist, the Limbaugh of the Left, Bernie
though Bernie does stay on message

moderate politicians don't tell you what you want to hear?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I hate to just hammer one point but i think this discussion is due to the inability of moderates to get thru the primaries and get elected. .”

Agreed 100%.