Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Donald John Trump: 2016 President-Elect


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pixel said:

In any case, I find that any comparison of this sort lends self to encourage a cult-like following, and that makes me very nervous. No matter who it is! Trump or anyone. 

Yeah, I dont' like it either. And the metaphor doesn't even work. A reelection isn't a second coming of anything.

This makes me remember the Press Association dinner where Obama made a good joke about the whole idea. He said that no, he was certainly not born in a manger and sent by God etc. He was born on Krypton and sent here by his father Kal-el.

  • Love 19
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Yeah, I dont' like it either. And the metaphor doesn't even work. A reelection isn't a second coming of anything.

This makes me remember the Press Association dinner where Obama made a good joke about the whole idea. He said that no, he was certainly not born in a manger and sent by God etc. He was born on Krypton and sent here by his father Kal-el.

Dammit. I always knew he wasn't born in the US. 

  • Love 12
Link to comment

Great article here on dealing with Fake News (it starts with recognizing your own biases):

http://www.stonekettle.com/2016/12/blind-spot-part-ii.html

Holidays are always that time where you're up close to how different people see the world. A family member said the other day that now that he wasn't president he thought Obama would join a mosque, then brought up the anti-white church he went to, then said he really just worshiped himself. This while presumably supporting Donald Trump, the guy who told a group of evangelicals, iirc, that he never had anything to ask God's forgiveness for, whose whole campaign was about how only he alone could fix the world in a few days, whose supporters happily claim is God's personal choice for president, who puts his name on everything he can and who just yesterday on Twitter took credit for bringing hope to the world. But it's Obama who worships himself and that's a problem.

  • Love 13
Link to comment
On 12/23/2016 at 1:59 AM, ruby24 said:

The Rockettes are being forced to perform at this asshole's inauguration against their will! They are being strong-armed by their union and  threatened with termination. We should all email the producers directly. I've already done so.

Or they could have just said that they've contracted a contagious case of "bone spurs." If that could get the Pumpkin Prick out of serving in Vietnam, maybe it could get the Rockettes out of the Inauguration. 

Edited by DollEyes
  • Love 11
Link to comment
16 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

Just saw a spot on CNN. If Obamacare goes away so might Black Lung monthly benefits for miners and their widows. Coal country was Trump country- they aren't so supportive now. 

I don't know why not.  It is what they voted for, isn't it?  

All because they couldn't get past the "Obamacare" pejorative and their hatred of the president, they failed and refused to see how the law actually benefited them.  Did they not hear Drumpf state on the campaign trail (like the rest of us did) that he would repeal the ACA on day one?  Didn't he repeat this at one of the debates?  But, I guess that's one of those little lies they chose to ignore because "he didn't really mean that" or "they won't let him do that."  They're just like those self-righteous Bible thumpers who love to cherry pick which of the Ten Commandments and other laws (including dietary ones) they will obey while willfully ignoring the ones that don't allow them to have fun.

They willfully invited a known thief, con man, liar, crook and fraud into their home only to come back from the store and realize that he totally cleaned them out.  Even worse, they had no renter's or homeowner's insurance to mitigate the cost of the theft.  It's like putting an arsonist in charge of the fire department.

Enjoy that buyer's remorse, y'all, because you ain't seen nothing yet!

  • Love 20
Link to comment
1 minute ago, MulletorHater said:

But, I guess that's one of those little lies they chose to ignore because "he didn't really mean that" or "they won't let him do that."

"He didn't mean for me!  He meant all those lazy freeloaders!"  

  • Love 16
Link to comment
11 hours ago, film noire said:

Yep -- completely different situation-- but in a post-truth alt. right world, facts don't matter.

Yes, indeed: it's always different when it's your guy, right? SMDH

If everyone's a Nazi, then no one is.  Some unsolicited advice, that is truly well-meant, as I have a number of liberal friends, and I wish the same for them:

Pace yourselves, or it's going to be a looooong eight years.  

  • Love 1
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, rallymantis said:

Yes, indeed: it's always different when it's your guy, right? SMDH

If everyone's a Nazi, then no one is.  Some unsolicited advice, that is truly well-meant, as I have a number of liberal friends, and I wish the same for them:

Pace yourselves, or it's going to be a looooong eight years.  

Eight??? Bite your tongue.

  • Love 14
Link to comment
On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 11:25 PM, Padma said:

Of course! No more need for the pretense that he cares about products "Made in America"!

Are the hats still $25, though? Because the given reason for them costing that much was that it's so expensive to make things in the US.  (I'm going out on a limb and guessing they're at least as much now, even though made in China.)

Once a con man, always a con man....

Yeah, they were always made in China.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, rallymantis said:

... it's going to be a looooong eight years.  

Don't you mean forever?  Isn't Putin Twitler's BFF?  Doesn't Twitler want to be Putin, as rich, as powerful?  A shit-covered man-child to lead us to Armageddon, oh, what fun.  

  • Love 8
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, rallymantis said:

Yes, indeed: it's always different when it's your guy, right? SMDH

 

Actually, it's different because it's different ; ) The Obama cover was a media headline created from outside Obama's party/political circle, and slapped on a magazine.  But this Jesus/The New King comparison came from a GOP party leader, which gives us a clear snapshot of the mindset at work WITHIN the party  -- big difference between those two circumstances. (And Trump as a holy royal did at least create a moment of unity in that it offended Christians,  Jews, atheists and agnostics -- way to go Priebus!)

Quote

Pace yourselves, or it's going to be a looooong eight years. 

I doubt he'll get past two years without being impeached. He's corrupt down to the bone,  and even his most devoted followers will be forced to address Trump's debased behavior pretty quickly.  But even conceding your argument,  there is no "pacing" when it comes to Trump -- that implies normalizing this election, which millions upon millions of us will never do. 

Quote

If everyone's a Nazi, then no one is.  

I hereby invoke my new pet meme -- Godwin's Martial Law  -- which says: in any online discussion of Trump/ the alt right/ the friends of the Kremlin who helped put Trump in power, the denial of Nazis will immediately arise ; ) 

Edited by film noire
  • Love 24
Link to comment
13 hours ago, rallymantis said:

You guys are right.  Who on earth would compare a president to the Lord?

 

This is what is called a "false equivalence." That's a magazine headline that wasn't written by a member of Obama's administration. For a more apt comparison, say, if David Axelrod had written that and released it as a press statement then, yes, those sentiments would be on par. 

I Googled that cover because it looked fake to me, and to my non-surprise, the only hits I got about it were all from right-wing websites whose own special snowflakeness was on full display when it was originally published. I was unable to track down the contents of the actual article due to lack of time and knowing that whatever the contents were, they'd be of little interest to people who don't value facts. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Great article here on dealing with Fake News (it starts with recognizing your own biases):

http://www.stonekettle.com/2016/12/blind-spot-part-ii.html

Holidays are always that time where you're up close to how different people see the world. A family member said the other day that now that he wasn't president he thought Obama would join a mosque, then brought up the anti-white church he went to, then said he really just worshiped himself. This while presumably supporting Donald Trump, the guy who told a group of evangelicals, iirc, that he never had anything to ask God's forgiveness for, whose whole campaign was about how only he alone could fix the world in a few days, whose supporters happily claim is God's personal choice for president, who puts his name on everything he can and who just yesterday on Twitter took credit for bringing hope to the world. But it's Obama who worships himself and that's a problem.

That's a really good article. Although I try, I am not immune to wanting to believe stories if they fit my preconcieved ideas. The difference between me and fake news deniers is that I do the research (not every time, but almost every time. Sometimes I get lazy), and if someone corrects me and shows me I've shared something fake, I correct it and post an apology right away. I am far more interested in forming opinions based on truth than opinions based on what I want to believe. I have no problem with different viewpoints, as long as they are informed and not based on false information. But even those who are vigilant can be duped by their own bias. It's human nature. The key is to recognize your own bias and remain open to other ideas. 

  • Love 10
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Chicken Wing said:

Eight??? Bite your tongue.

Hey, if you guys keep this hysterical up, you better believe = 8 years.  I've been joking around, but WOW.  Even when I write, "It's no different!" your response is the same: Yes it's totally different because, uh, Reasons! you rascistsexisthomophobicIslamophobicpiece of human garbage Cuckservative!!!

Look at the echo chamber that exists in these threads.  No room for understanding that others are entitled to opinions you do not share.  It would never cross my mind to toss away a friendship or family member for the simple fact of their political leanings.  But I was horrified to read here that some do it with pride.  Families you have no choice in, but suddenly, Trump wins, and you discover old friends are terrible people?  

P. S.: Be careful with the anti-Semite darts. It was the current president, just threw Israel under the bus.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, rallymantis said:

Hey, if you guys keep this hysterical up, you better believe = 8 years.  I've been joking around, but WOW.  Even when I write, "It's no different!" your response is the same: Yes it's totally different because, uh, Reasons! you rascistsexisthomophobicIslamophobicpiece of human garbage Cuckservative!!!

Look at the echo chamber that exists in these threads.  No room for understanding that others are entitled to opinions you do not share.  It would never cross my mind to toss away a friendship or family member for the simple fact of their political leanings.  But I was horrified to read here that some do it with pride.  Families you have no choice in, but suddenly, Drumpf wins, and you discover old friends are terrible people?  

P. S.: Be careful with the anti-Semite darts. It was the current president, just threw Israel under the bus.

And everything here is classic projection, except Twitler's followers shoot up pizza parlors with assault rifles.  .  

  • Love 15
Link to comment

Close your eyes and try to erase the present discussion from your mind. 

Now imagine if you heard someone talking about another person being "the second coming, thinking he's the second coming, etc. What would come to mind?

I have almost never heard the term "second coming" (except when actually talking about Jesus, of course) used without some sarcasm or at least skepticism intended. Not to mention that the subtitle asks whether Obama can deliver. I highly doubt he was being anointed by Newsweek there. 

If you are still in doubt, think back to the last time you referred to anybody or anything (again, except Jesus) as the "second coming," and the context you said it in. Be honest. Did you say it in a 100% positive way? Most likely not. 

ETA: Nothing good comes from expecting a president or other public figure to fix everything and solve all your problems for you - whether it's Obama, Trump, or anyone else. 

Edited by BBDi
  • Love 6
Link to comment
Quote

Hey, if you guys keep this hysterical up, you better believe = 8 years.  I've been joking around, but WOW.  Even when I write, "It's no different!" your response is the same: Yes it's totally different because, uh, Reasons! you rascistsexisthomophobicIslamophobicpiece of human garbage Cuckservative!!!

I've been reading up and down this thread looking for where someone referred to righties as human garbage. I dislike dehumanizing language no matter who it is aimed at. This post exists, right? Right? Anyone? 

The term cuck is used almost exclusively on the right. 

Newsweek is part of a media organization. It has nothing to do with government nor does it have the imprimatur of the government behind it. The GOP is a political party that participates in government. It's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and hand grenades. I'm a liberal and disapprove of authoritarian hero worship; instead of denying and making false equivalencies and hemming and hawing, conservatives might say they flat out reject this cult of personality garbage. Neither side should be treating politicians like saviors.

  • Love 19
Link to comment

^^^ Just more gaslighting from Trump.  He knows at this point that he can lie with impunity.  He (& the GOP in general) rarely, if ever, pay a political price for crap like this.  He is going to do it on a much, much larger scale, however. 

  • Love 22
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, backformore said:

Only -    it's all bullshit!

Donald Trump Claims 100 Percent Of His Foundation’s Money Goes To Charity. That’s A Lie.

Under investigation, Trump tried to close the foundation.  But he is prohibited from dong so, because of the ongoing investigation .   Oh, And despite his claims, Trump himself has not donated any money to his foundation since 2009.

The pitiful thing is that it is such a brazen lie and so easily exposed.  It's as if he believes that if he repeats the lie over and over, somehow it becomes truth.  Then the Crypt Mistress and the aging satyr, Newt Gingrich, have to come behind him and spin his lies as something other than what he actually said.  

I've never seen anyone who takes the concept of "charity begins at home" so literally.  He does nothing unless it benefits himself and some of his fambly members.  It's well documented that despite pledging millions to charity, less than $10,000 was actually distributed in over seven years.

  And, this prolific liar wants people to actually trust that his "wonderful son" will donate money through his own "foundation" to St. Jude?

  • Love 14
Link to comment
2 hours ago, MulletorHater said:

I don't know why not.  It is what they voted for, isn't it?  

I think they are one of the many that has no understanding of where their benefits come from. They are probably the same people that don't understand ' entitlements' are code for Social security and Medicare. They think ending Obamacare and entitlements  will only cut off benefits from the people who choose not to work. 

 

I wish people would educate themselves about where their money and benefits comes from. 

Edited by mythoughtis
  • Love 20
Link to comment

Chris Lehmann (author of The Money Cult: Capitalism, Christianity, and the Unmaking of the American Dream), wrote an article in The Nation about Trump's "gospel of positive thinking."  It's a review of several books about (and one by) Trump, but if you're familiar with The Nation's book reviews, you know it's much more than that.  He delves into Trump's "deft rhetorical maneuvering between the poles of apocalyptic despair and spectacular optimism":

Quote

Trump isn't just a tireless doomsayer; he's also an apostle of the upward-striving mantras of self-help, a lay preacher of the deepest fantasies and longings of the aspirational American soul.  He draws his power from the age-old gospel of American success, the spiritual-cum-motivational faith that beholds the most lavish spectacles of unequal accumulation and pronounces them duly anointed blessings of the divine will.

He also quotes David Cay Johnston's analysis of Trump's success with our idiotic media:

Quote

Many reporters accurately quote what they are told, but don't know much about the underlying issues.  For Trump and others like him, this makes it easy to manipulate most of the press.  Those who see through the manipulation and make connections themselves get a different response: complaints to editors, threats of litigation, and occasionally public denunciations.

But what really made me think of this article again - it ran about a month before the election - is this latest conversation about how Trump is prone to tweeting out blatant lies that can easily be fact-checked, as if he cannot help himself of self-aggrandizing.  Because what Lehmann really digs into is how Trump's fear of being publicly perceived as "an also-ran or a bankrupt loser" was influenced by the positive-thinking creed preached by the pastor of the church young Donald's family attended:

Quote

[M]any features of Trump's message that traditional political observers find so exasperating and resistant to critical inquiry can be traced to the reverend's influence.  In fact, Trump's sprawling record of policy reversals and flat-out lies isn't just a personality quirk, but the logical extension of the reverend's gospel of positive thinking. ... Like his positive-thinking spiritual master, Trump clearly believes that the manic repetition of what he desires to be real, in both the pecuniary and political realms, is enough to make it a reality.  ... This is why the mere suggestion that reality is otherwise sends [him] into unappeasable transports of fury.

When Trump sued a NYT reporter for not labeling him a billionaire (in a book Trump admitted he never actually read), in his deposition, Trump responded to a question of whether he exaggerated his net worth by saying, "I think everybody does.  Who wouldn't?" and later explained that he regarded his 30 percent interest in a development as 50 percent, because "if the seventy percent owner puts up all of the money, I really own more than thirty percent.  And I have always felt I own fifty percent, from that standpoint."  Pressed for an actual, accurate accounting of his net worth, Trump replied, "My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with my feelings."  Asked, basically, if he really just said that last part, he answered, "Yes, even my own feelings, as to where the world is, where the world is going, and that can change rapidly from day to day."

Lehmann explores the connection between Trump's "fiercely defended citadel of megalomaniacal self-regard" and this positive-thinking gospel he heard as a child and praised in his book.  It's an interesting read.

Edited by Bastet
  • Love 15
Link to comment
1 hour ago, backformore said:

Only -    it's all bullshit!

Donald Trump Claims 100 Percent Of His Foundation’s Money Goes To Charity. That’s A Lie.

Under investigation, Trump tried to close the foundation.  But he is prohibited from dong so, because of the ongoing investigation .   Oh, And despite his claims, Trump himself has not donated any money to his foundation since 2009.

A headline using the phrase "It's a lie". Yay!  Hopefully the media will do this routinely with him. Headlines with "lie" and no more wimpiness or equivocation.  David Fahrenthold has proven --over and over in carefully documented research--that Trump's claims above are lies.

If they WEREN'T he'd provide documentation to back them up. But he's lying--and knows his followers won't question him (and won't listen, per his training) to the "lying media".  So he just continues lying big and lying bigger!

Eventually it will catch up with him legally. Personally, I can't wait.

  • Love 14
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Bastet said:

Trump isn't just a tireless doomsayer; he's also an apostle of the upward-striving mantras of self-help, a lay preacher of the deepest fantasies and longings of the aspirational American soul.  He draws his power from the age-old gospel of American success, the spiritual-cum-motivational faith that beholds the most lavish spectacles of unequal accumulation and pronounces them duly anointed blessings of the divine will.

Fascinating post and quote here. It reminds me how one of the things that often strikes me about the attitude he seems to play to is the fact that as excited as people get about all this success that's going to come to them and that they're owed, they don't seem to have a lot of enthusiasm for doing things to get them to it. I don't mean just some flat out "you're lazy" thing, though that might be true for some people, of course. I mean having no interest in it. Like we know that many people just equate money with hard work. So you can inherit a lot of money and never work a day in your life and still be considered hard-working while a person who works 18 hour days for little pay is lazy because it's all judged by the bank account.

But I mean, for instance, things like "Make America Great Again" or "bringing prosperity back to coal country." It never comes along with being motivated to do a thing to make that happen. Like if you want the US to be #1 at things you need to have a great school system to produce really competent students etc. Or you need to train for new jobs for the future, as HRC talked about during the campaign for instance, grabbing the opportunity to be a leading producer in new energy. Instead it's always no, we want less education, less retraining, no eggheads, no languages other than English etc. It's like doing everything you can to *not* succeed in the 21st century while demanding everyone acknowledge your greatness.

But I heard a thing once about how dreaming and visualizing success often had this effect--you trick your brain into thinking you already did the work and spend your time daydreaming instead of doing it. It's like people want America to be those American Idol contestants who come in thinking they can sing, but can't, and when they don't get in they just crow more about how they know they're great.

  • Love 10
Link to comment
22 hours ago, Pixel said:

Dammit. I always knew he wasn't born in the US. 

lol @Pixel

19 hours ago, backformore said:

I bet he won't last 4.

I'm torn. That would leave us with Pence. Hmmm, sane evil or insane evil, hmmm?

Edited by SoSueMe
  • Love 5
Link to comment
1 hour ago, NinjaPenguins said:

I've been reading up and down this thread looking for where someone referred to righties as human garbage. I dislike dehumanizing language no matter who it is aimed at. This post exists, right? Right? Anyone? 

The term cuck is used almost exclusively on the right. 

Newsweek is part of a media organization. It has nothing to do with government nor does it have the imprimatur of the government behind it. The GOP is a political party that participates in government. It's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and hand grenades. I'm a liberal and disapprove of authoritarian hero worship; instead of denying and making false equivalencies and hemming and hawing, conservatives might say they flat out reject this cult of personality garbage. Neither side should be treating politicians like saviors.

I may possibly in a thread here somewhere have referred to righties as human garbage.  I don't know if I did or not, but it's a term I use so I wouldn't be overly shocked to find out I did.  If I did, I won't apologize for it - if people don't like being called human garbage, they shouldn't act like human garbage. 

I don't use cuck though - it sounds like a baby who isn't mature enough to enunciate "ka-ka"  Yes - I know it's short for cuckold - only the right is that paranoid that their sexual prowess isn't good enough to keep a mate that they use it as an insult.  Little do they know that that's not the reason they can't keep a mate. 

  • Love 10
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Padma said:

A headline using the phrase "It's a lie". Yay!  Hopefully the media will do this routinely with him. Headlines with "lie" and no more wimpiness or equivocation.  David Fahrenthold has proven --over and over in carefully documented research--that Trump's claims above are lies.

If they WEREN'T he'd provide documentation to back them up. But he's lying--and knows his followers won't question him (and won't listen, per his training) to the "lying media".  So he just continues lyingn big ad lying bigger!

Eventually it will catch up with him legally. Personally, I can't wait.

I am confident that you meant bigly and more bigly, lol.

  • Love 7
Link to comment
Quote

Trump is so opposite everything Jesus Christ is/was, that I think it's fair to label Trump the Anti-Christ.

When your stormtroo-I mean supporters are arguing whether or not they should shower you on your "inauguration" day with Nazi salutes,  I think that's a decent call ; )

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/trump-fans-deploraball-party-descends-into-chaotic-infighting-over-nazi-salutes-and-book-burnings/

deploraball.jpg

Edited by film noire
  • Love 10
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Lunata said:

“I tell you, that has been a problem in my party,” Mrs. Waters said. “That when we’re in power, we’re nice. We bend over backwards to work with people. Trump has stepped on everybody. He has no respect for his own colleagues, let alone those on the opposite side of the aisle. “He’s called names, he’s lied. He’s done everything to show that he doesn’t have good values and he can’t be trusted,” she continued. “Why should we work with someone that we can’t trust? He’ll tell you one thing today and another thing tomorrow. As a matter of fact, those people who voted for [him] ought to be really concerned about the fact that he has already backpedaled on some of the promises he made.

“I have no intention of pretending everything is all right, that we’re going to work together,” she added.

I had the pleasure of speaking with Maxine Waters for the first time many years ago at a Roe v Wade anniversary event.  In the years since, we've interacted quite a few more times, and my respect and admiration have grown each time; it was quite a highlight when I realized she knew me by name (she came up to congratulate me on a case I'd just won).  I am heartened by her words, and not at all surprised by them.  She takes her job seriously, and she does not suffer fools gladly.

Edited by Bastet
  • Love 24
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Bastet said:

I had the pleasure of speaking with Maxine Waters for the first time many years ago at a Roe v Wade anniversary event.  In the years since, we've interacted quite a few more times, and my respect and admiration has grown each time; it was quite a highlight when I realized she knew me by name (she came up to congratulate me on a case I'd just won).  I am heartened by her words, and not at all surprised by them.  She takes her job seriously, and she does not suffer fools gladly.

I especially like the video of her five years ago telling the Tea Party "go to hell".

  • Love 8
Link to comment
1 hour ago, film noire said:

When your stormtroo-I mean supporters are arguing over whether they should shower you on your "inauguration" day with Nazi salutes or not, I think that's a decent call ; )

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/trump-fans-deploraball-party-descends-into-chaotic-infighting-over-nazi-salutes-and-book-burnings/

deploraball.jpg

I feel like it's only fair to say that Raw Story is super left biased and is not above the fake news game. Having said that, I went to Twitter and yeah, the infighting is there for all to see.  So I did go to the source to vet the info. No offense, and I'm not implying you didn't do the same. I just figured since we are quick to point out fake right news I should also check out the left. All news sources are to be vetted these days!

Edited by Pixel
  • Love 10
Link to comment
Quote

Trump isn't just a tireless doomsayer; he's also an apostle of the upward-striving mantras of self-help, a lay preacher of the deepest fantasies and longings of the aspirational American soul.  He draws his power from the age-old gospel of American success, the spiritual-cum-motivational faith that beholds the most lavish spectacles of unequal accumulation and pronounces them duly anointed blessings of the divine will.

Emphasis mine. Little Donnie Trump advocates "self-help"? I wish my daddy had "self-helped" me to the tune of one million dollars to get started in business. And then a multimillion-dollar inheritance when daddy died. You know, that totally indicates "self-help" to me.  

  • Love 15
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Pixel said:

I feel like it's only fair to say that Raw Story is super left biased and is not above the fake news game. Having said that, I went to Twitter and yeah, the infighting is there for all to see.  So I did go to the source to vet the info. No offense, and I'm not implying you didn't do the same. I just figured since we are quick to point out fake right news I should also check out the left. All news sources are to be vetted these days!

No offense taken, Pixel -- I get it! -- but just so you know, I don't post a link unless I've traced it back/ checked the source.

Edited by film noire
  • Love 7
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, film noire said:

No offense taken, Pixel -- I get it! -- but just so you know, I don't post a link unless I've traced it back/ checked the source.

I didn't figure you did. I just wanted to be clear that I don't just point the finger at fake news when I don't agree with it. :) You know, since I'm admittedly biased toward the left. 

  • Love 4
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Duke Silver said:

^^ I posted the same story in the OK what's next forum.  Hell, the story itself is largely comprised of tweet arguments among the nazis.  Not difficult to ascertain accuracy.

Great minds ; )

Quote

You know, since I'm admittedly biased toward the left. 

The Unhinged Left! (Sounds like a nefarious gang out of a Sherlock Holmes story, no? "The game is afoot, Watson - the Unhinged Left have a rendezvous with Moriarty!")

  • Love 7
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

The consequences of Harry Reid thinking that the democrats would be in charge forever:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/12/dems-nuclear-option-will-allow-trump-to-fill-over-100-court-vacancies-quickly/

Haha, good times, thanks Harry! Seems like he was a victim of the OOOPS! section of this brilliant article:

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/

I try to avoid the opinions of bloggers, they aren't actual journalists, they're only someone's personal perspective, aren't they? But since the 'nuclear' word was brought up in the article, I'm wondering about real threats like how President Donald Trump plans to deal with Kim Jong Un and his intentions of developing a nuclear warhead to attach to his missiles with the objective of sending one to the US West coast? I mean, Donald Trump has already pissed off the Chinese, does he really want to fuck around with Kim Jong Un and piss them off even more? How he handles Kim Jong Un may determine what happens and possible war with China. He has to do something or Kim Jong Un will proceed with his intentions on destroying S.Korea, Japan and possibly the continental US. Then there's the caldron of potential nuclear war with Israel and Pakistan or Arab States. Yeah, there's a lot of other 'stuff' that's a little more important than Harry Reid who is officially retired now.

  • Love 13
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

@Lunata  I agree, the links I provided are blogs discussing current events. Here is a link to The Hill, in an article pre election when Reid was still thinking Hillary would win (hahaha, damn polls were wrong and media bias didn't push her over the top, and collusion was a bust, yadayadayada so sad):

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/302513-reid-dems-could-change-rules-for-supreme-court-nominees

When changing the rules comes back to bite ya. LOL

Harry Reid wasn't the only one that predicted a Democratic win. If for nothing else, the loss of a Supreme Court candidate like Merrick Garland is a huge loss for our democracy. The Republicans refused to even give Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, a hearing or a vote for more than eight months. They argue that the vacancy from Justice Antonin Scalia's death should be filled by the president's successor which is nothing less than playing party politics. To intentionally filibuster for eight months is obstructionism of the democratic process. Now, the Republicans are going to find out what they've fought against for the last eight years. The Democrats are going to fight, filibuster and object to every move the Republicans try to make. I am looking forward to watching it all unfold.

  • Love 16
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

 

@Lunata  I agree, the links I provided are blogs discussing current events. Here is a link to The Hill, in an article pre election when Reid was still thinking Hillary would win (hahaha, damn polls were wrong and media bias didn't push her over the top, and collusion was a bust, yadayadayada so sad):

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/302513-reid-dems-could-change-rules-for-supreme-court-nominees

When changing the rules comes back to bite ya. LOL

 

 

Collusion? What collusion? And, yeah, some media bias. Giving Trump tons of free media coverage, asserting false equivalency between him and Hillary, letting his millions of lies go mostly unchecked, etc.

I'm not clicking on that link because I don't trust it, but the link says "dems could change rules" not that they did. Unlike the Republicans refusing to meet with Garland. So what rule came back to bite them? If anyone's been bitten in the ass by this election it's sane Americans who don't want the country destroyed. Not exactly funny.

  • Love 14
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

I give you Biden, back in 92:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVvxGa0zhWo

He disagrees with you @Lunata  as does Schumer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2WCG2bKQjg

Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than when the death of Antonin Scalia left a vacancy on the bench. There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill. There was no nominee to consider. The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election. The vote was never made by the Senate.

  • Love 11
Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...