192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 07:05 pm
@Debra Law,
I agree that Trump is not popular. Actually, he's unpopular with an approval rating in the mid-thirties. 54% disapprove.
He has a conflict of interest problem that he hasn't resolved.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/21/there-are-1-000-unanswered-questions-trumps-conflict-of-inte/21659830/
I smell impeachment in the air.
layman
 
  -3  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 07:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I smell impeachment in the air.


Yeah, and some teeny-bopper somewhere believes that Justin Beiber will come marry her and rescue her from her hated parents, too, eh?

Dream on, cheese-eater.
cicerone imposter
 
  4  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 07:34 pm
@layman,
No relationship. Stick with the topic - if at all possible. I know you're a juvenile, and have difficulty with staying on topic.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 07:40 pm
Speaking of basketball, and ****, made me think of John Wooden--arguably the best coach of all time, college or pro.

Wooden would not allow any free-lance one-on-one play. No showboating, no fancy-ass "no-look" passes, no hanging on the rim dunks,--nuthin like that.

His teams were simply drilled to be methodical, deliberate, and relentless in the intelligent execution of patterns which had proven effective. They played team ball, with the individual star of the game being irrelevant.

He didn't have to do much "coaching" from the bench during games. He just wound-up his well-oiled machine and set it in motion.

Occasionally some grand-standing individual would deviate from the charted course, whereupon Wooden would immediately yank the bastard and send in an equally efficient player from his bench, but that was about it. No "strategic" time-outs, no yellin orders from the sidelines, nuthin like that.

Thats kinda the difference between Trump and Obama, I figure. Like Obama, Trump will probably focus on giving speeches to cheering crowds and bragging on his accomplishments, but that's all that will be required. He will have assembled an efficient team to carry out the nuts and bolts, day to day, operations while he's out golfing and partying, with no need to worry about that.

McGentrix
 
  -2  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 07:45 pm
@blatham,
4 charged after man beaten following car crash as bystanders yelled anti-Trump taunts

The Chicago Tribune, a right winged media source? Huh.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 07:46 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
What do you think he could have done but had no courage to do that was actually doable? Why do you think it would have been doable? Or, what did you want him to do?

I wanted him to keep his word.

He effectively had full control of the priorities and direction of the DEA. He could have appointed someone that would facilitate the promises he made to act on the top two priorities in his own request for what changes the people wanted. Instead he mocked them and appointed a bunch of ******* drug war advocates. He could have easily ended the insanity and blatant lie of making cannabis a schedule 1 drug.

Drug policy is not the only or most important issue in government. But it is the easiest issue for us to know the facts about and see how a president stacks up. If he can't get that right, he can't get anything right.

Obama Care? Not new. The Democrats have wanted to move in the direction of full government control of health care for decades. Totally predictable that he would push that when he had the control. Trump is right, the Republicrats are doing Obama a favor by killing it before it flops around like a dying fish on land and starts smelling really bad.

Good riddance to the asshole. Not that I have much hope for better from Trump
McGentrix
 
  -3  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 07:50 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Ya think? A much more reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party consists almost exclusively of dumb-asses, I figure.


This.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 08:08 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
Quite the opposite: Bernie Sanders had a far greater prospect of winning the election than Hillary Clinton had.

The people didn't want Hillary in 2008. They didn't want her in 2016. But the DNC undermined Bernie and stacked the deck in Hillary's direction and did so knowing the people didn't want her. A reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.
That may well be knowably true in retrospect, but I doubt seriously that at any time until the final days of the campaign that many Democrat leaders expected or wanted Hillary to lose. Indeed their behavior as and after the results came in very strongly suggests the opposite.

Debra Law wrote:
Quote:
It's also clear that the extended period of concerns about e mails & security , influenced peddling for the Clinton foundation, and an extended string of prevarications by Hillary about all these matters and her tenure as Sec State eroded her support within the party and among her opponents.
You're just stating more well-known reasons why the people didn't want her. If she was the party's nominee, she was destined to lose. A reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.
They are indeed reasons for her loss, and I'll agree a possible inference is the Democrat Party didn't want her, however I don't think it either reasonable or plausible. Hillary won the Primary by comfortable margin despite the unexpected wave of enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders. I can't believe the rest of the Democrat establishment, included sitting Senators and Congressmen wanted her to loose - they all had too much at stake. While we all know now that "Hillary was "destined to lose" I believe only a minority of really thought she would lose = the behavior of Democrat voters, office holders and their media supporters as the results came in all attest to that. Nither you nor any of the many Democrat posters here ever indicated any doubt in a Clinton victory. Hell, until they called the Ohio results election night, I didn't think Trump would win.

Finally, while I can understand the reaction of some Democrat apologists, suggesting they're better off with the defeat, it appears this is more of the very extensive denial delusion and rationalizations we have seen from them, something that in my view is a sewrious problem for the Democrat party now.


Quote:
Underlying all this was the fact that mainline Democrats had no alternative to Hillary: between her status as annointed successor and a strange sclerosis within the party during the Obama years, no viable alternatives had emerged during eight years, itself an unusual and remarkable occurrence.


Very unusual and remarkable that no one from the ranks of the party establishment stepped forward. A reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.

Quote:
Finally Clinton ran a campaign without a a theme or purpose, other than the "war on women" and unbelieveble (coming from her) complaints about income inequity.



A reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.


Quote:
Trump struck some chords with an increasing segment of the public early in his campaign that few of us detected ( i certainly missed them).


Given the crowded car of clowns on the Republican side who cannibalized each other, it was easy for Trump to float to the end on his gaseous cloud of attention seeking narcissism and the media fascination with the stench.

Quote:
I believe this was indicative of some deep seated resentments that arose during the Obama years.


You're feeding yourself a lot of BS. Progressives wouldn't support Hillary and refused to vote for her. Did you miss that discussion thread on this forum? The universal dislike of Hillary had nothing to do with Obama. The progressives didn't want her in 2008 and they didn't want her in 2016. By putting her forward as the only party candidate (while simultaneously sabotaging Sanders), a reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.

Quote:
Trump is riding a clearly populist wave . . .


I don't think so. Maybe that's the story you're trying to sell, but there's no populist wave. He merely won against the only person he possibly could win against. A reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.


Quote:
Trump's blunt and direct rhetoric and his clear criticism of the whole existing extablishment of government has given him both leverage in making change and the obligation to do it quickly . . . .


I know you like to tell your story. Maybe you have convinced yourself, but almost everyone else can see the swamp is becoming swampier. Americans are not idiots. A huge swamp is beneficial to both Republican and Democrat politicians who owe their allegiance to the people who are filling their pockets rather the ones who are paying their salaries.
[/quote]
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 08:17 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
Quite the opposite: Bernie Sanders had a far greater prospect of winning the election than Hillary Clinton had.

The people didn't want Hillary in 2008. They didn't want her in 2016. But the DNC undermined Bernie and stacked the deck in Hillary's direction and did so knowing the people didn't want her. A reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.
That may well be knowably true in retrospect, but I doubt seriously that at any time until the final days of the campaign that many Democrat leaders expected or wanted Hillary to lose. Indeed their behavior as and after the results came in very strongly suggests the opposite.

Debra Law wrote:
Quote:
It's also clear that the extended period of concerns about e mails & security , influenced peddling for the Clinton foundation, and an extended string of prevarications by Hillary about all these matters and her tenure as Sec State eroded her support within the party and among her opponents.
You're just stating more well-known reasons why the people didn't want her. If she was the party's nominee, she was destined to lose. A reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.
They are indeed reasons for her loss, and I'll agree a possible inference is the Democrat Party didn't want her, however I don't think it either reasonable or plausible. Hillary won the Primary by comfortable margin despite the unexpected wave of enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders. I can't believe the rest of the Democrat establishment, including sitting Senators and Congressmen wanted her to loose - they all had too much at stake. While we all know now that "Hillary was "destined to lose" I believe only a minority of really thought she would losem until the votes were counted. The behavior of Democrat voters, office holders and their media supporters as the results came in all attest to that. Nither you nor any of the many Democrat posters here ever indicated any doubt in a Clinton victory. Hell, until they called the Ohio results election night, I didn't think Trump would win.

Finally, while I can understand the reaction of some Democrat apologists, suggesting they're better off with the defeat, it appears this is more of the very extensive denial, delusion and rationalizations we have seen from them since the election, something that, in my view, is a serious problem for the Democrat party now.


Debra Law wrote:
Quote:
Underlying all this was the fact that mainline Democrats had no alternative to Hillary: between her status as annointed successor and a strange sclerosis within the party during the Obama years, no viable alternatives had emerged during eight years, itself an unusual and remarkable occurrence.

Very unusual and remarkable that no one from the ranks of the party establishment stepped forward. A reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.
Again I find that implausible - no one in the Democrat establishment, their office holders, their media supporters or Democrat posters here ever indicated anything but expectations of victory and most had a great deal to lose by her defeat.

layman
 
  -3  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 08:42 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
A reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.
Again I find that implausible - no one in the Democrat establishment, their office holders, their media supporters or Democrat posters here ever indicated anything but expectations of victory and most had a great deal to lose by her defeat.


Your choice of the word "implausible" is extremely generous, George.

In truth, this ridiculous proposition is just downright preposterous.

What kind of delusional nonsense will these wacky cheese-eaters come up with next, I wonder?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 08:53 pm
That's one difference between you and me, I guess, eh, George. You are willing to give courteous and detailed attention to a long-winded (non)argument, and respond to it with point-by-point rational refutation.

Me, I can only say to hell with that and cut to the quick--call a spade a spade and move on.

Let them run to their "safe spaces." Don't hurt my ass none.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 09:04 pm
Has anyone heard about the 300 newly-discovered Podesta emails?

Turns out that at least 6 republicans, including McCain and Ryan, were on the Clinton payroll and were taking campaign contributions from them in exchange for publicly opposing Trump.

Now, there's a real case where certain members of a political party actually wanted their candidate to lose. Well, maybe "selling out" their party is a better way of putting it. Of course, even Clinton herself would do that for enough cash.
layman
 
  -1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 09:11 pm
I aint lyin, neither:

Quote:
WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton Bribed Republicans to Influence Election

Never mind the Russians. It was Hillary Clinton who was actually trying to sabotage the 2016 Presidential Election, according to a WikiLeaks release.

The information released shows that the Hillary Clinton campaign staffers bribed six Republicans to “destroy Trump”.

The evidence includes an email from John Podesta to Huma Abedin discussing diverting Clinton campaign funds to various Republicans who were secretly on the Clinton payroll.


http://canadafreepress.com/article/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-bribed-republicans-to-influence-election
layman
 
  -2  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 09:32 pm
@layman,
I may be a little confused about which emails contain what here, and which ones are "newly discovered" versus newly revealed. There's also this story out there:

Quote:
...last Sunday evening, during the NFL playoff game between the New York Giants and the Green Bay Packers, the FBI posted on its website more than 300 emails that Clinton had sent to an unnamed colleague not in the government -- no doubt her adviser Sid Blumenthal -- that had fallen into the hands of foreign powers. It turns out -- and the Sunday night release proves this -- that Blumenthal was hacked by intelligence agents from at least three foreign governments and that they obtained the emails Clinton had sent to him that contained state secrets. Sources believe that the hostile hackers were the Russians and the Chinese and the friendly hackers were the Israelis.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/12/andrew-napolitano-why-criminal-investigation-hillary-clinton-is-back-to-front-and-center.html

Here's another site reporting on the republican payoff story:

https://conservativedailypost.com/6-republicans-took-secret-payments-clinton-destroy-trump-new-wiki-leak/
layman
 
  -2  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 09:53 pm
@layman,
A few excerpts, eh?:

Quote:
The email, sent in July of this year, describes how funds were being diverted from Clinton’s campaign to the Super PACS of Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, and John Kasich.According to the email:

“JB, CF, and JK PACS will be noticeably silent for the rest of the campaign. Each will receive a significant allowance from advertising budget. HRC is in the loop and has talked to all three personally. Eyes only."

=====

Other emails that surfaced...It seems at a glance that the Clinton Foundation has bought off several key members of the Republican Party to push the Clinton agenda. Such as:

“He is on board, will retract the invitation to speak. Eyes only.”

This email was dated days before Speaker of the House Paul Ryan withdrew the invitation to Donald Trump to speak at an event in Wisconsin.

======

FEC reports shows that two large donations from PACS and private sources ln early October went to John McCain right after he attacked Trump and publicly criticized Trump. That happened shortly after a slew of emails concerning moving money to support one candidate and move support from another.

====

There were a lot of politicians who were opposed to Donald Trump. These, in particular, all share a common bond, however: Trump humiliated them on stage in front of hundreds of millions of people around the world. This is more than just politics or conscientious objecting, this was revenge.


What a fuckin swamp, eh?

Could all be "fake news" as far as I know. I haven't seen this in a msn outlet, but I wouldn't put it past them to suppress it, either.

Either way, a good story, I figure.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 10:11 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Some American cheddars are pretty decent indeed.


I absolutely love fresh cheese curds. They are the trimmings from cheese molds. OK, so I have base appetites, so sue me.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 10:19 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Speaking of basketball, and ****, made me think of John Wooden--arguably the best coach of all time, college or pro.

Wooden would not allow any free-lance one-on-one play. No showboating, no fancy-ass "no-look" passes, no hanging on the rim dunks,--nuthin like that.

His teams were simply drilled to be methodical, deliberate, and relentless in the intelligent execution of patterns which had proven effective. They played team ball, with the individual star of the game being irrelevant.

He didn't have to do much "coaching" from the bench during games. He just wound-up his well-oiled machine and set it in motion.

Occasionally some grand-standing individual would deviate from the charted course, whereupon Wooden would immediately yank the bastard and send in an equally efficient player from his bench, but that was about it. No "strategic" time-outs, no yellin orders from the sidelines, nuthin like that.

Thats kinda the difference between Trump and Obama, I figure. Like Obama, Trump will probably focus on giving speeches to cheering crowds and bragging on his accomplishments, but that's all that will be required. He will have assembled an efficient team to carry out the nuts and bolts, day to day, operations while he's out golfing and partying, with no need to worry about that.




ROTFLMAO...YOU SLAY ME MAN
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -2  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 10:22 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Has anyone heard about the 300 newly-discovered Podesta emails?

Turns out that at least 6 republicans, including McCain and Ryan, were on the Clinton payroll and were taking campaign contributions from them in exchange for publicly opposing Trump.

Now, there's a real case where certain members of a political party actually wanted their candidate to lose. Well, maybe "selling out" their party is a better way of putting it. Of course, even Clinton herself would do that for enough cash.


I bet Lindsey Graham was on that list too.
layman
 
  -2  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 10:37 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

I bet Lindsey Graham was on that list too.


Yeah, John, sho nuff.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 10:38 pm
@Olivier5,
Layman is a Velveeta cheese man.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.46 seconds on 03/27/2025 at 05:54:12