monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@snood,

snood wrote:

I hope the writer is correct that the GOP/Trump downfall is inevitable.

I've often seen football fans whose team is down 57-0 at halftime express "hope" that their team will come back and win the game in the second half. Thing is, it NEVER happens, ya know?

Maybe if they had claimed that the winners were "immoral" that would have changed the entire outcome, though, who knows?

Well, maybe not, but at least many fans feel that they have won a "consolation prize" when they brag, after the game, that their team got fewer penalties than the winning team.

Or, failing that, then "even though we got more penalties assessed, they lost more yards on penalties. We got 10 penalties, but lost only 100 yards. Even though they only got 8 penaltees, they lost 105 yards, so we win!"

2 Replies

@layman,

If that don't fly, there's always the reliable: "The russians, oops, I meant referees, CHEATED us!"

0 Replies

What's next on the depose Trump agenda? Let me guess, eh?

Violation of the emoluments clause. Yeah, that's the ticket!

0 Replies

@hightor,

And you might want to consult a doctor about that stick protruding from your posterior. There is nothing really different going on here than what has been going on for the last 16 years. Some of the roles have been reversed, and some of the sensitivities have been exchanged.

Gunga was posting cartoons throughout the Obama years and bobsal was posting them through the Bush years and into the Obama years. I don't know why he left (heard it was as a result of losing a bet) but if he had remained he would no doubt been sharing a slew of Trump cartoons that would routinely get loads of thumbs up.

You apparently don't like it when intemperate and stupid left-wing comments are included in posts in this thread. Isn't that too bad. For years individual Topics were created so that stupid right-wing comments could be condemned and mocked. Maybe you were in those threads arguing against those who insisted it was representative of all conservatives and indicative of their sinister goals, or reminding everyone that it was no big deal, but I don't recall that.

If the desperation of the resident rightists annoys you so much that you feel compelled to constantly scold us for it (this isn't the first time), there's really two very effective responses you might like to try: Take a break from A2K until after Trump is thrown out of office (I know you would never come back during the process just to gloat) or put all of the resident rightists on Ignore. Of course if you enjoy scolding rightists and making a big deal out of certain things not being big deals, I can understand why these options would not be attractive to you.

It may have occurred to you once or twice during your own residency here that the resident rightists very rarely agree with the resident leftists and the two groups don't view national events and those participating in them in the same way. I know this frustrates many of resident leftists, and especially those who go into a state of high dungeon over the level of perfidy, ignorance, immorality, and possibly even evil displayed by resident rightists who don't agree that Trump is destroying America, but, again, there are those two options.

Of course those options have been around for a while and taken by few if any resident leftists, because as much as they enjoy operating in a forum where their posts are automatically thumbed up and the posts of their ideological opponents are automatically thumbed down, and they have a large number of their tribe's members encouraging, echoing, and joining them in throwing darts at members of the other tribe, they would very quickly find it boring if rightists were either excluded, only allowed to participate if they passed an entrance exam created by blatham, or promised to mimic Jennifer Rubin or David Brooks in their writing.

I certainly don't expect this post to change your opinion or behavior and so the Two options remain open to me as well, but you might want to ask yourself if whining about whining is any different than what you perceive to be whining and so obviously can't abide?

1 Reply

Every president in history should have been impeached for taking **** from foreign countries in connection with obvious attempts to bribe them into granting favorable concessions.

Quote:

For decades, foreign dignitaries have showered U.S. leaders with presents

For decades, foreign leaders have showered them with presents: Theodore Roosevelt—a zebra and a lion from Ethiopia; Richard Nixon—a panda from China; George W. Bush—300 pounds of raw lamb from Argentina

President Obama and his family have received everything from swords to a “robe of sheer white fabric.” That same year saw the Sultan of Malaysia give the president a 20-inch steel sword in a gemstone encrusted sheath, while not to be outdone, the prime minister of Algeria gave the president a ceremonial dagger with coral stones and silver work.

The Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act of 1966 was prompted in part by the expensive gifts some Arab kings would bring on their visits, like luxury cars and fine horses, according to Hand. In political culture, “perception becomes reality,” says Hand, and it did not look good to have the president accept something that flashy from a foreign leader. The rule put a limit to the value of a gift a president could accept... As of January 2014, the limit is currently set at $375.

Presidents and other government officials have the option to purchase the gifts they received in office for their market value if they choose, as Hillary Clinton did following her tenure as secretary of state. She chose to purchase the black pearl necklace given to her by Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi in 2012, a gift, priced at $970.

What the ****!? They let Hillary buy **** at fair market value? A filthy quid pro quo arrangement!? That's an illegal emolument, I tellzya!

Even if it aint illegal, it's certainly immoral. As every good commie knows, property is theft. Capitalism is pure evil.

1 Reply

I don't think this latest will bring about Trump's impeachment, but, all the same, this Trump Jr/Kushner Russian meeting thing is being investigated by US officials and in particular the Russian intelligence operative who also attended the meeting. Despite the fact Trump wants closer ties to Russia, Russia is a hostile country to the US. They have interfered with our elections and in other parts of the western world.

Quote:

U.S. officials are examining what role a Washington-based lobbyist who they consider a Russian intelligence operative may have played in a controversial June 2016 meeting he attended between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer.

Rinat Akhmetshin, a dual U.S.-Russia citizen, told The Associated Press on Friday that he attended the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump’s son and Natalia Veselnitskaya, a politically connected Russian lawyer who the Trump team believed had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and then-campaign manager Paul Manafort also attended the meeting, which was arranged by Trump Jr.

Politico

3 Replies

@layman,

Hillary should never have had to PAY for anything. It's all hers, dammit:

Quote:

Hillary Can’t Stop Stealing Furniture From the American People

Helping herself to the public’s furniture seems to be a recurring theme in Hillary’s political career. When the Clintons transitioned out of the White House the Washington Post reported that the Clintons took with them nearly $200,000 worth of furniture, artwork, china and rugs.

As shown on page 44 of this FBI document, Hillary and her staff walked out with taxpayer-funded furniture and lamps and took them to her Georgetown home:

“Early in CLINTON’s tenure as Secretary of State, she and her staff were observed removing lamps and furniture from the State Department which were transported to her residence in Washington, D.C.”

https://www.atr.org/hillary-can-t-stop-stealing-furniture-american-people

See, what these fascists can never seem to understand is that, since property is theft, the only moral thing to do with property is to liberate it from the evil capitalists who have stolen it.

It's just a shame that the deplorable voters don't recognize TRUE integrity and morality when they see it. If only Clinton had been elected, we would now have a moral administration.

1 Reply

Think this one will show up on Mira Lagos walls?

http://media2.intoday.in/indiatoday/images/stories/trump-jr-time-story-fb_647_071417121828.jpg

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

snood wrote:
I hope the writer is correct that the GOP/Trump downfall is inevitable.

I've often seen football fans whose team is down 57-0 at halftime express "hope" that their team will come back and win the game in the second half. Thing is, it NEVER happens, ya know?

Maybe if they had claimed that the winners were "immoral" that would have changed the entire outcome, though, who knows?

Well, maybe not, but at least many fans feel that they have won a "consolation prize" when they brag, after the game, that their team got fewer penalties than the winning team.

Or, failing that, then "even though we got more penalties assessed, they lost more yards on penalties. We got 10 penalties, but lost only 100 yards. Even though they only got 8 penaltees, they lost 105 yards, so we win!"

Hope springs eternal in matters of love and political apocalypse.

I wish I had a dollar for every prediction that one party or the other was going down and the other one would rise to decades of dominance.

My favorites were the ones spouted by Democrats, from the minute Trump became the GOP nominee, that took as fact that the Obama years proved that America is left of center, and is committed to progressive policies and therefore predicted that Republicans would likely never win another presidential election. As one, they chortled while mocking Trump and then doubled down on their prediction: Not only will Republicans never win the White House again, Trump is going to destroy the Republican party and it could be decades before they regain control of either the House or Senate.

By nominating Trump not only did the Republicans affirm their cowardice and corruption, they handed the Democrat Party (and of course by extension America) a beautiful gift: The seeds of their destruction...and better still, they themselves had planted them!

Of course we know what happened and that the first part of their prediction could not be more wrong (Regardless of popular vote counts), and nominating Trump sure as hell didn't lose them Congress. However, now we have predictions that because of the Trump presidency, the GOP is going down and will be banished to the wasteland for decades, if not obliterated entirely. This time though we have conservative savants like Jennifer Rubin and Michael Gershon gazing into their crystal balls and seeing the same outcome, and so it has to be right!

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

It's interesting to see how Rubin, Gershon, Krauthammer, and other anti-Trump conservatives have been remade in the minds of liberals simply because they don't like Trump. Rubin is the best example. Her columns in WaPo were religiously dogged by a cult-like group of left-wingers who simultaneously found her hateful and ridiculous. Take a look at the Comments section of any of her columns in which she rips Trump (it's easy to find one since she does it in just about everyone she writes), and you will find that she has been remade in the minds of most of the Rubin Haters who for years made a hobby of insulting and mocking her. Of course you'll see the usual "I may not like a lot of the opinions of our Jenny (one of the affectations of the cult was to refer to Rubin as if she were a small child), but I have to admire her courage and her true patriotism!"

You can often tell when a conservative is pleasing the left with what he or she has to say. Rather than being referred to as "right-wing," or "reactionary," or as a "Right Wingnut," "Neo-con" or "Repug," they are allowed the honorific of "conservative." This is ironic since normally that word for the left has a very negative connotation, but apparently it's the least insulting pejoratives at their disposal. If they really want to throw the former right-winger a bone, they'll refer to them as "a true conservative" or toss in an allusion to Buckley or Goldwater. Apparently they believe a "true conservative" is actually a liberal and that both Buckley and Goldwater were secretly liberals themselves.

Conservative pundits like David French and Kevin Williamson who routinely writes scathing criticisms of Democrats and progressives, have suddenly been recast as responsible or intelligent because they've criticized Trump. Actually I'm surprised Williamson isn't blatham's right-wing hero because he once likened Donald Jr and Eric to Uday and Qusay Hussein. I know he reads National Review (how else would he be able to identify responsible conservatives?) so I think he must have missed that column by Williamson.

In any case, obviously the old adage of the enemy of my enemy is my friend is at play here.

Having said all this, there are quite a few right-wingers out there who are just as narrow-minded and even as cultish as the ones that dogged Rubin. A conservative pundit can publish three columns in a row in which what he or she writes can be described as "defending" or "praising" Trump, but if in the fourth, Trumps tweeting is criticized, the writer is besieged with comments and e-mail complaining of constant criticism of Trump and declaring that he or she has been revealed as a closet liberal...or worse, much worse.

I don't know if the internet and social media has simply revealed vices of Americans (regardless of ideology) that have always been there, or cultivated them to grow far beyond what they once were, but that's a topic for another thread.

I'm working on a post that addresses this more specifically, but I've come to realize that not all of the people who are unyielding in their defense of Trump or who won't brook any criticism of him by conservatives, are not motivated by a slavish adoration of the man, but instead see their doing so as necessary tactics in an ongoing Cold Civil War in this country.

1 Reply

If any of the putrid vermin occupying the White House gets brought to justice, I'll take consolation in that.

But I know there won't be any satisfaction in the comeuppance of the apologists, because they will just go on denying and obfuscating. If absolute incontrovertible proof of collusion with a hostile government to subvert our system or hard proof of obstruction of justice are uncovered, they'll just say it's lies of the left and a desperate attempt at a coup. If there are indictments of Manafort or Flynn or Kushner or Jr., they'll just say "The Fake News won a small victory".
I am convinced they are immune to any objective proof of wrongdoing by this disgrace of an administration. That's why I don't argue too hard against their bullshit.
.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I think you can add Shepherd Smith to the growing number of reporters who are siding against the Trump regimes use of the lie. Smith said,
"If this is such a nothing-burger, as the GOP says it is, why are we being fed all these lies"..."Were gonna wake up... soon..."
Chris Wallce ;"Ive got nothing in response"

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

You apparently don't like it when intemperate and stupid left-wing comments are included in posts in this thread.

What you believe I like or don't like is really immaterial. If people think Bill Clinton's transgressions are germane to a discussion of the Trump presidency I should be able to comment on it. I don't post stupid right-wing comments to be condemned or mocked, I merely respond to comments and submissions that appear here. I thought that was why people participated in these sorts of forums. Are you saying that if someone posts stupid left-wing comments — and uses them to indict all critics of Mr Trump — he is somehow above criticism?

Quote:

If the desperation of the resident rightists annoys you so much...

If you read my post I believe it's pretty clear that I'm referring to the posts made in the last week or so as the details of the meetings with the Russians are finally beginning to come to light; it has nothing to do with the history of political posting on A2K. And I also said that "desperate hardly begins to describe the behavior of our resident rightists". It's not any alleged "desperation" that annoys me, it's the supercilious and schoolmarmish defensiveness on the one hand and the superficial dismissive attitude on the other.

I don't believe I've ever referred to "evil" or used "immorality" in a political post, but the current level of lying and back-pedaling hearkens back to the lowest ebb of the Clinton presidency and just about the entire Nixon presidency. I think I should be allowed to refer to the phenomenon without being chastised. I don't, by the way, think that Trump is "destroying America".

Quote:

Of course those options have been around for a while and taken by few if any resident leftists...

"Resident leftists" lacks the alliterative charm of "resident rightists" so maybe you could try "Democrat denizens" or "local leftists' instead of parroting the term. But really, everything that follows your statement here could apply to any and all participants in any and all online forums. Why don't you put me on "ignore" if that's the way you feel?

Quote:

whining about whining

Huh? Are you accusing the rightist faction of "whining"? Because I didn't. I simply find their response to the Don Jr revelations to be worthy of mockery; it's hardly something to whine about.

By the way:

Quote:

Rep. Scott Hamann, D-South Portland, has been removed from two legislative committees because of statements he made online that suggested he would harm President Donald Trump if he got close enough.

BDN
I know, he should have been waterboarded.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

I don't think this latest will bring about Trump's impeachment, but, all the same, this Trump Jr/Kushner Russian meeting thing is being investigated by US officials and in particular the Russian intelligence operative who also attended the meeting. Despite the fact Trump wants closer ties to Russia, Russia is a hostile country to the US. They have interfered with our elections and in other parts of the western world.

Unless it can be proven that Trump knew of all of the details of the meeting and approved it, or if it was actually arranged at his level and he sent his son as a surrogate, I can't imagine how the sins of the son can be visited on the father.

Clearly, the entire matter involving Junior is not a positive for the Trump Administration, and if it develops into something even worse (for Junior not his father) than it appears now, the impact on the Administration will be worse as well. The fact that it's his son involved increases the political complexity by tenfold.

Without getting into the merits of the charges being leveled against Junior by the Opposition, the fact that Junior is a political novice who may very well be motivated by some deep seated urge to please and impress his father, can help to mitigate the fallout in the minds of many Americans. At the same time, should this develop to a point where criminal charges were brought against Junior (again, not commenting on likelihood of this happening or if there any grounds for it to happen) the president would be faced with a more difficult and complex question than if a non-family member was the target.

Do you use your power as the president to pardon your oldest son and namesake? I'm not sure what the extent of the fallout from such an act would be among the American people, but I'm sure we would all agree that it would lead to a deafening uproar from the Opposition.

Whether Trump would pardon a non-family member is, of course, unknown. I'm sure his decision would be influenced by his belief about the the full extent of the person's guilt (Were they found guilty of a "technical" violation of some statute? Were the proceedings proper and just?) but "loyalty" is an important component of the Trump model or myth, and it would be tested as well. Political repercussions would be considered as well, but I doubt Trump wants to be seen as someone who disregarded loyalty because of potential political problems.

If the person is his son? That's a big new dimension to the problem. It's one thing to risk being seen as throwing a loyal "satellite" under the bus, but throwing your loyal son under? And while I'm sure most members of the Anti-Trump Club don't believe Trump is even capable of viewing such a dilemma in terms of simply right and wrong, it's not a small thing for a father to condemn a son, or refuse to use a means to save him, even if he believes the son is guilty.

If it gets that far, there will eventually be operas composed about it.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

Relative to relations with Russia, one way or the other, we are going to have them. They are a huge, important foreign power that is capable of destroying all of America, and probably the world. That they are our adversary and not our friend goes without saying, but this obviously doesn't mean we won't have relations with them, and it is extremely shortsighted (at best) to not work to have good relations with them.

China is our adversary and while Russia may have attempted to hack into our election system to manipulate votes, China successfully hacked into our government's systems and stole over 20 million personnel files of present and former government employees. They didn't do this to see which employees got the best performance ratings or how much we pay the average government worker, they did it so they could identify people with the best potential for being turned into spies for them. It was a major blow. Plus, this isn't the only example of a successful Chinese cyber-attack. No one though has been clamoring for greater sanctions (assuming any were originally imposed) against China, and most people recognize that we need to maintain "good" relations with them if there is to be any chance of their helping us with North Korea.

Mitt Romney, during that debate, should have included China in his assessment of our greatest foreign threat, but he probably would still have been mocked by Obama, the MSM, and liberals everywhere. Never-the-less he was right about Russia and no one seems to agree more than the very folks who mocked him for his comment. Russia is a threat to our security and it clearly places its own interests over ours (as do all nations; even the ones we call allies) and is willing to actively work to undermine our interests. It would be utterly foolish for any president to think that he could develop a relationship with Putin that would result in Russia becoming a friend such as Israel or the UK (or even France), but there is zero evidence that Trump is so foolish.

Reasonable people can disagree with a president's foreign policy based, in part, on the nature of relations with foreign countries. I was not fan of the Obama foreign policy for that very reason, and I often wanted him to come our more strongly against certain nations and in support of others, but I never presumed that his attitude towards Israel was born of anti-Semitism, or that because of his past experience with Islam he was the lap dog of the Iranian mullahs. His views of the sort of relations we should have with certain other nations did not always coincide with mine, but so what? He was wrong and I was right, but he was president and I wasn't. Plenty of Americans agreed with his policies.

The current fear and loathing of Russia that has gripped the left is not a result of them reconsidering Mitt Romney's argument and at last seeing the wisdom in it. It is not even a result of Russia making attempts to influence a US election as they have, in one form or another, for the last 100 years. It is because Hillary Clinton lost the election and Russian Hacking was seen as a great vehicle for bringing down the Trump Administration. If she had won it would have faded away as news story the was the Chinese cyber-attacks have.

I don't doubt for a minute that you are sincerely concerned and/or outraged by the Russian's attempts, but I also don't doubt for that same minute that had Hillary Clinton won and the story had faded as I've suggested, you would not still be writing posts about it, and if Clinton decided to try and improve relations with Russia, you'd be all for it.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I think you can add Shepherd Smith to the growing number of reporters who are siding against the Trump regimes use of the lie. Smith said,
"If this is such a nothing-burger, as the GOP says it is, why are we being fed all these lies"..."Were gonna wake up... soon..."
Chris Wallce ;"Ive got nothing in response"

Smith has been anti-Trump since he announced his candidacy for the GOP nomination. He's one of the originals although it's only notable because he works for Fox. He's not a conservative, nor does he have to be, but it's not as if he's been a staunch supporter who has now turned. Regardless of his politics, I never appreciated him as an anchor. He's too often overly dramatic and makes pronouncement on news that no anchor should.

Chris Wallace is much better than Smith in keeping his personal political biases to himself, and so I've no firm idea of the ideology which he most often embraces. He could be a Republican or he could be a Democrat. He goes after both of them equally in his interviews. I think he's an excellent journalist and enjoy watching him. If he criticizes Trump, that's fine with me, and I often agree with his criticism.

0 Replies

@snood,

Actually I think they are past the stage of denials, they are up to justification.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Thanks for the laugh, Finn!

1 Reply

@farmerman,

That's funny. You posted to Finn that Shep Smith and Chris Wallace are among the growing number of reporters who are speaking out against the Trump clan's lies...
Rather than make any commentary at all about the real object of your post - namely that the endless lies are stirring growing opposition - he gives his unsolicited (and typically snotty) critique of the journalistic skill and credibility of the reporters you named. Such crap.

2 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
You apparently don't like it when intemperate and stupid left-wing comments are included in posts in this thread.

Quote:
What you believe I like or don't like is really immaterial. If people think Bill Clinton's transgressions are germane to a discussion of the Trump presidency I should be able to comment on it.

What I believe may be immaterial to you, and if so, fair enough, however it's not immaterial to me and obviously it prompted this comment, and if it was truly immaterial why bother to respond? Was it inaccurate to say you don't like it when intemperate and stupid left-wing comments are included in posts in this thread. If so, you could have fooled me.

Obviously you can comment on whatever you want and that includes other people's comments just as I did with yours. I fail to see how you interpret anything I've written as some sort of attempt to prohibit you from making whatever comments you choose to.

Quote:
I don't post stupid right-wing comments to be condemned or mocked, I merely respond to comments and submissions that appear here. I thought that was why people participated in these sorts of forums.

Who suggested you did? Many others have, over many years and did so in individual threads dedicated to the comments. I pointed this out in response to what certainly seems to be your exasperation with what you might deem to be a recent flood of similar posts in this one thread. It's been a common practice here for a long time and yet it now seems to spell "desperation." You've repeatedly commented with annoyance or amusement (you tell me) whenever a "resident rightist" has posted and criticized some comment from a leftist, that the rightist is making a big deal out of essentially nothing, and, in any case, the criticism demonstrates hypocrisy. The comment of the rightist is not directed at you, but your responses are certainly directed at the rightist. If you want to make such comments, knock yourself out, but you might want to consider getting less touchy when someone responds to them.

Quote:
Are you saying that if someone posts stupid left-wing comments — and uses them to indict all critics of Mr Trump — he is somehow above criticism?

Of course not. How did you arrive at that question? I am saying that you should acknowledge that your responses have been intended as criticism and not simply the expression of an opinion on contemporary political rhetoric, and realize this is not some new phenomenon

Quote:
If the desperation of the resident rightists annoys you so much...

If you read my post I believe it's pretty clear that I'm referring to the posts made in the last week or so as the details of the meetings with the Russians are finally beginning to come to light; it has nothing to do with the history of political posting on A2K. And I also said that "desperate hardly begins to describe the behavior of our resident rightists". It's not any alleged "desperation" that annoys me, it's the supercilious and schoolmarmish defensiveness on the one hand and the superficial dismissive attitude on the other.

I obviously read your post and It's not as clear as you think it is and even if you are only referring to posts of the last week or so, what difference does that make in terms of my response? You've specifically addressed a behavior of posting by "resident rightists" as a sign of something new and less than positive. The fact that similar posts have been made for years in this forum is quite germane. I get you don't appreciate them, but I don't get why you think they are a significant new development.

If "desperate hardly begins to describe the behavior of our resident rightists" than it is clearly implied that the behavior includes desperation and something far worse. If you didn't mean to concur with Olivier's assessment of desperation then you should have chosen your words better, and made it clear that you don't see desperation. As for the "supercilious and schoolmarmish defensiveness on the one hand and the superficial dismissive attitude on the other " you'll need to be more specific if I am to respond to your charges, although I believe I've already addressed them specifically in exchanges around comments of mine that you've deemed schoolmarmish.

Quote:
I don't believe I've ever referred to "evil" or used "immorality" in a political post, but the current level of lying and back-pedaling hearkens back to the lowest ebb of the Clinton presidency and just about the entire Nixon presidency. I think I should be allowed to refer to the phenomenon without being chastised. I don't, by the way, think that Trump is "destroying America".

And I didn't say or imply you did. What I wrote was

Quote:
I know this frustrates many of resident leftists, and especially those who go into a state of high dungeon over the level of perfidy, ignorance, immorality, and possibly even evil displayed by resident rightists who don't agree that Trump is destroying America, but, again, there are those two options.

Trust me, if I believed you were among this group I wouldn't have been so indirect in stating it. Please don't now try to tell me you are unaware of anyone in this forum who fits the description.

And if you are going to chastise, as you do, then it's pretty rich to express indignation or hurt feelings about being chastised.

Quote:
Of course those options have been around for a while and taken by few if any resident leftists...

Quote:
"Resident leftists" lacks the alliterative charm of "resident rightists" so maybe you could try "Democrat denizens" or "local leftists' instead of parroting the term.

Parroting. Now that's cute. I'm pretty sure you would respond with indignation or hurt feelings if I pointed out what a childish and gratuitous dart that is...so I won't.

Quote:
But really, everything that follows your statement here could apply to any and all participants in any and all online forums. Why don't you put me on "ignore" if that's the way you feel?

Seems you missed where I acknowledged that I have the options as well. I thought it was obvious why I don't use them, but if not I will explain. Just like the resident-leftists, this forum would bore me if there no opponents with which to engage and it would be far less helpful in meeting one of my primary purposes for being here: to hone by point of view.

Quote:
whining about whining

Quote:
Huh? Are you accusing the rightist faction of "whining"? Because I didn't. I simply find their response to the Don Jr revelations to be worthy of mockery; it's hardly something to whine about.

Sorry, but your responses seem like whining to me, and if you can throw around terms like supercilious, schoolmarmish and superficial, I'm not going to feel any regrets about employing "whining"

Quote:
By the way:

Quote:
Rep. Scott Hamann, D-South Portland, has been removed from two legislative committees because of statements he made online that suggested he would harm President Donald Trump if he got close enough.

BDN
I know, he should have been waterboarded.

Thanks that's actually good to see. I'm glad there were some consequences for the asshole's drunken rant on FB, but you need to dial your outrage way down. Waterboarding would have been an entirely excessive consequence. It wasn't really that big of a deal you know.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know