Trump/GOP bullshit

[Kierland]

Any other lies you want to tell you klepto fuck?

[Joe in PB]

I'm not the one who doesn't want to secure the border, clean up downtown addicts, & abolish Ice. That would be you, eunuch.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Kierland]

So only two lies that time, you are getting better.
Only anti American fucks want to keep ICE the rest of us don’t like jackboots.

[Goober McTuber]

Liars gonna lie.

That the President of the United States doesn't tell the truth -- a lot -- is not new news.

And so, while the fact that President Donald Trump has now said more than 10,000 false or misleading things in his first 827 days in office, according to The Washington Post Fact Checker, is both galling and appalling, isn't all that surprising.

What is surprising -- and even more important -- than the sheer number of falsehoods Trump spews is that the rate at which he does so has picked up dramatically seemingly with every month he has spent in the White House.

This line, from the Fact Checker analysis, was knock-you-over stuff for me:

"All told, the president racked up 171 false or misleading claims in just three days, April 25-27. That's more than he made in any single month in the first five months of his presidency."

Think on that for a minute. In a three-day period, the President said or tweeted 171 untruths. That's an average of 57 untruths a day. It's hard to do that even if you are trying.

Over the last seven months, again according to Fact Checker calculations, Trump is not telling the truth at a rate THREE times higher than he did in his first 600 days in office -- and even then he was averaging eight false or misleading statements a day.

What's clear here is that as Trump's presidency rolls along, he retreats more and more into a world of his own creation, a world that is increasingly devoid of any objectively accepted facts. What's also clear is that as Trump turns more and more to his 2020 reelection race, his exaggerations, distortions and outright lies grow more and more common.

All of which means that if it took 827 days to say 10,000 false things, it could well take half that time for him to get to 20,000. (In case you are wondering, 413 days from today is June 15, 2020 -- which is right in the heart of the campaign season.

Two things are true about this stunning mountain of lies and distortions:

1) It will make very little difference as to whether Trump is reelected in 2020

2) It is the defining trait of his presidency and will be his lasting legacy on politics

On the first point, it's important to remember that Trump didn't win in 2016 because people thought he was honest and trustworthy. Just 33% of voters said they believed him to be honest and trustworthy, according to exit polling, while 64% said he was not. Most remarkably, 1 in 5 people who said Trump wasn't honest or trustworthy voted for him anyway.

That Trump has prevaricated, exaggerated and distorted while in office isn't a surprise for most Americans. It's baked in when it comes to Trump. People don't expect him to tell the truth. In the same way they don't expect him to act "presidential" or to stop tweeting. They may not like that we have a President who makes false claim after false claim, but they aren't going to vote him out of office because of it.

Which brings me to my second point: That whether or not voters care about Trump's lying -- and whether or not they punish him for it -- is immaterial. What Trump has done -- and continues to do -- is devalue the idea of truth in our culture. If not telling the truth at the highest levels of our government and on issues that have global consequences, isn't punished, then what incentive do people in everyday life have to adhere to facts and truth? If the President of the United States can lie with impunity, then why not take advantage of the truth in your own life every once in a while?

This is, obviously, hugely corrosive to civil society and democracy itself. Without an ability to agree that capital "T" truth exists and without a moral framework to judge lying as wrong -- and carrying potential penalties -- our ability to come together on literally anything is badly compromised.

That will be the Trump legacy -- no matter whether he loses in 2020 or wins a second term. A legacy that not telling the truth is OK -- as long as you get away with it. That facts are fungible. That reality is in the eye of the beholder.

[Mikey]

The Appeasement of Donald Trump
By Andrew Sullivan

The definition of appeasement, according to Dictionary.com, is “to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: i.e. to appease an angry king” and to “yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.”

That’s where we are aren’t we? We are appeasing an angry king. And the usual result of appeasement is that the angry king banks every concession and, empowered and emboldened by his success, gets more aggressive and more power hungry. Far from restraining him, appeasement gives him time to amass strength, until there’s no restraining him at all. By the time it’s absolutely clear that he is a tyrant, it’s too late. That’s the core narrative of every Shakespeare play that charts a historical bid for absolute power. And every one of those plays is a tragedy.

This week, in the face of Democratic appeasement and Republican complicity, Trump has upped the ante once again. He is lying about the devastating proof of obstruction of justice in the Mueller report, as is his attorney general, the person supposed to defend the rule of law. He is again attempting to intimidate a witness to his abuses of power, this time Don McGahn. He is refusing to let anyone in his administration testify before the Congress, in an unprecedented act of contempt for the legislative branch. He is constantly hinting in his tweets that the DOJ should investigate what he has deemed “spying” on his campaign in 2016; he’s tried multiple times to get the Justice Department to go after his political opponent, Hillary Clinton; and he has retweeted a list of those who should be targeted — including Obama and Clinton — for investigation. And now that he has a toady in the Justice Department, he may well get what he wants. (Can you believe we actually miss Jeff Sessions?) For good measure, his spokesman has said, revealingly, that the president is “not inclined” to release his tax returns at this moment, despite what appears to be a constitutional obligation. In the immortal words of Mel Brooks, it’s good to be the king

More to the point, he has refused to protect the American election system from the malevolent designs of a foreign enemy. Thanks to leaks, we know now that he has been doing this for the last two years, even though other members of the administration, like Kirstjen Nielsen, were prepared to take strong, defensive measures. Why? Because any mention of Russian interference reminds him of the question of his legitimacy, and that enrages him. Which is to say he has openly put his personal amour propre before the interests of every citizen in this country who wants to preserve our electoral integrity. This alone is an unambiguously impeachable offense. Congress should immediately subpoena Nielsen to testify about the president’s deliberate refusal to perform his core duties. I see no way Trump can actually stop her now she is outside the administration — if she has the courage to expose the ugly truth.

On Wednesday, the president again attacked the justice system, by impugning the integrity of a by-the-book investigation, lying about the lawyers who did their duty, and appealing to the Supreme Court (of all places) to stop impeachment: “The Mueller Report, despite being written by Angry Democrats and Trump Haters, and with unlimited money behind it ($35,000,000), didn’t lay a glove on me. I DID NOTHING WRONG, If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only … are there no “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” there are no Crimes by me at all. All of the Crimes were committed by Crooked Hillary, the Dems, the DNC and Dirty Cops — and we caught them in the act! We waited for Mueller and WON, so now the Dems look to Congress as last hope!”

This is, of course, deranged. Robert Mueller is neither an Angry Democrat, nor, so far as we can tell, a Trump hater. The Supreme Court has no role in impeachment. Obstruction of justice is a textbook case of a high crime and misdemeanor, as the articles of impeachment for both Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon quite plainly show. Mueller — it is vital to keep repeating — demonstrates that Trump attempted to obstruct justice on six occasions, and argues that several more cases of obstruction need to be taken seriously. In the case of Paul Manafort, it appears the president succeeded in thwarting the investigation by encouraging him not to cooperate. (Mueller: The evidence “supports the inference that the President intended Manafort to believe that he could receive a pardon, which would make cooperation with the government as a means of obtaining a lesser sentence unnecessary.”) But it’s telling, it seems to me, that in this tweet, Trump clearly regards the Supreme Court as his ultimate backstop — because he has created a majority that he assumes will always defend him. His intent is to get another branch of the government “on his team,” i.e. under his direct control.

That’s how he sees the federal courts — as an extension of a strongman’s will. So far, that hasn’t been the case (in some instances, especially on immigration, the judicial pushback has actually been excessive) but with more and more judges chosen precisely because they do not believe in challenging executive power, it is seemingly Trump’s intention that the judiciary will be his. In other words, he’s slowly neutering the judicial checks and balances and defying the congressional ones. (As a way to nullify the Senate’s “advice and consent” function, for example, Trump increasingly relies on “acting” secretaries, appointed with no Senate approval and thereby even more vulnerable to Trump’s personal leverage. As Trump explained, “I like ‘acting’. It gives me more flexibility. Do you understand that?” Yes, Mr. President, we do.)

When you combine this looming scenario of a completely unaccountable president (outside presidential elections) with the powers of the presidency as they have evolved since the Second World War, you have a Turkey scenario. The GOP will not stand in the way of strongman rule, and will, in fact, try to buttress it. Even when Trump usurped the Congress’s power of the purse by declaring a fake national emergency, 182 out of 195 Republican House members eagerly backed him, surrendering their constitutional power in favor of Trump’s diktat. Just look at that sad sack, Lindsey Graham. He’s a man who insisted that perjury in a civil suit on sexual harassment was impeachable — and led the prosecution in the Senate trial of president Clinton no less — but that dangling pardons, intimidating witnesses, attempting to fire a special prosecutor, and threatening “the integrity of the justice system,” in Mueller’s devastating words, is no big deal. That’s the power of the Trump cult in the GOP base.

The House Speaker, for her part, reacted to a report outlining ten cases of obstruction of justice (ten more than Clinton was accused of) by immediately dissing the idea of impeachment. Steny Hoyer firmly ruled it out. Their response to Mueller was, to my mind, incredible, but telling. I can fully understand taking your time. No one is asking for an impeachment vote yet — just hearings including Trump officials who spoke with Mueller, in a consideration of impeachment. The Dems too often assume a defensive crouch, even when our Constitution is at stake. Against the Big Lie of “No Collusion. No Obstruction,” their message is muddled. They are beginning to wake up, but if a president wantonly obstructs justice and the opposition party immediately worries about the political cost of impeachment, we’re in deep trouble.

I’m no more optimistic about the likely result of impeachment than I ever have been. Even if the House were to approve articles of impeachment, I doubt Senator Mitch McConnell would follow what are the obvious constitutional obligations. McConnell has ripped up Senate rules when they might hurt the GOP’s interests before — remember Merrick Garland? Or the Supreme Court filibuster? And there is some wriggle room here. The Constitution does not explicitly mandate a trial in the Senate if the House approves articles of impeachment. It simply says the Senate has “the sole power to try” a president. You think McConnell would hesitate to use that nuance to shut any trial down before it started? Bob Bauer has noted: “The question presented in some form would be whether, under the relevant rules, the Senate is required to hold an impeachment ‘trial’ fully consistent with current rules — or even any trial at all. A chair’s ruling in the affirmative would be subject to being overturned by a majority, not two-thirds, vote.” If you think McConnell would ever convene a trial, or that a majority would vote for it, you’re underestimating the radicalism of the current GOP.

Trump didn’t invent the powers he is now abusing. The slow accretion of powers vested in the executive have been growing for quite a while, from the Second World War onward into the Cold War. But the 21st century has broken new ground. We know, for example, that the last president once stated he could not unilaterally change immigration law to prevent Dreamers from being deported because he is “not a king,” and then, in his second term, went ahead and did it anyway. We know he launched a new war against ISIS in 2015 based on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2001 because the Congress abdicated its constitutional duty to declare war. What Trump demonstrates is that a brilliant demagogue with one party’s cultlike support can use these extraordinary powers to install a version of a strongman presidency in the model of Erdogan in Turkey or Orban in Hungary.

Only a massive public insurrection against strongman rule can begin to reverse this. It’s not happening, but it needs to. The shock and zeal and passion so many felt in 2016 needs to be summoned again. The Congress needs to subpoena Don McGahn and Kirstjen Nielsen to testify about their experiences in the White House. They need to tell the story that Mueller has laid out, in vivid testimony day after day. They may well have to go to court to enforce their oversight role. The focus should be on Trump’s claim to be beyond the rule of law. The Democratic candidates need to be clear about domestic policy and focus on it as a way to remove Trump by the ballot box — but they shouldn’t duck the gravity of our current constitutional crisis. It’s real and it’s important.

More sane right-of-center voices — like that of the admirably sane Andrew Napolitano and David French — need to explain that this is not about right or left, or Democrats or Republicans, but about the preservation of our republic. Mitt Romney has to do more than simply feel sickened. It took a long time for Nixon’s crimes to sink in with the public. But eventually they did.

Yes, Trump’s hegemony is strong, and getting stronger. He can bypass the television networks in ways Nixon couldn’t have dreamed of. He has a very strong economy. He has successfully marginalized much of the mainstream media for half the country. He has a shamelessness that is rarely found, even the most vulgar and venal. He is prepared to push buttons in the national psyche that few sane or decent people would. He can seem, in his demagogic genius, intimidating.

No one should be intimidated. And of course appeasement in the past has not always led to defeat. With a long, bitter, damaging campaign of resistance and counterattack, it can end in victory as well. Let’s put aside all our differences on policy and politics, and together do our constitutional duty. Every hour. Every day. Until we have not only defeated this president’s assault on America but cast him and his party into the rubbish bin of history.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/ ... trump.html

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Andrew Sullivan.

You just linked to an Andrew Sullivan article.
The only thing I'll say beyond that, is go find the Youtube video where Christopher Hitchens reduces Andrew Sullivan to tears for being a hysterical, shrieking housewife. It's fucking solid gold.

[Mikey]

Andrew Sullivan.

You just linked to an Andrew Sullivan article.
The only thing I'll say beyond that, is go find the Youtube video where Christopher Hitchens reduces Andrew Sullivan to tears for being a hysterical, shrieking housewife. It's fucking solid gold.

You mean the foul mouthed, chain smoking, drunken Limey evangelical atheist?
His cigarettes killed him seven years ago.

Bode Sullivan.

[Kierland]

And those are just the positive things that can be said about his bloated corpse.

[Screw_Michigan]

Sullivan is a douchebag. Why does he get so much credit?

[Mikey]

Sullivan is a douchebag. Why does he get so much credit?

So you disagree with what he wrote here?

[Screw_Michigan]

Sullivan is a douchebag. Why does he get so much credit?

So you disagree with what he wrote here?

I didn't read it, I'll read it later.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I didn't read it, I'll read it later.

Save yourself the discomfort and skip it. Sullivan is a monumental neo-con, troop-worshipping douche-nozzle,

[Mikey]

I didn't read it, I'll read it later.

Save yourself the discomfort and skip it. Sullivan is a monumental neo-con, troop-worshipping douche-nozzle,

...as opposed to your pin-up boy Christopher Hitchens, who's...dead.

[Goober McTuber]

Once more, with feeling.

The judicial branch just delivered a sharp jab to the chin of President Donald Trump, in a foreboding omen for his strategy for thwarting investigations that threaten his presidency.

When a federal judge ruled Monday that the President's longtime accounting firm Mazars must hand over his financial records, he did not just deliver a win to stonewalled Democrats.

He made a sweeping point about Congress' power to hold a President to account -- in an argument that will reverberate throughout Trump's attempt to fend off an oversight offensive.

Judge Amit Mehta said it was "simply not fathomable" that a Congress that is constitutionally authorized to remove a president did not have the power to investigate him.

Trump is appealing the decision, and long court battles loom -- so Monday's ruling was a setback in a much longer war, a factor that offers Trump a significant political advantage.

And typically, his response signaled that he has no intention of backing down and will take each bout in his battle against Congress as far as he can, potentially to the Supreme Court.

But Monday put down an early marker in the separation-of-powers feud between Congress and the White House and may hint at how other court battles between Democrats and Trump may pan out.

"It is a good opinion. It sets a very good bedrock framework for how all of these skirmishes between House committees and the White House are going to go," Preet Bharara, former US attorney for the Southern District of New York, said on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."

Depending on how the White House reacts to any eventual court orders that contravene the President's wishes, Monday's drama may also have brought a constitutional crisis one step closer.

Former FBI general counsel James Baker told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Monday that Congress had not always exercised powers inherent in the Mazars case, and had over the years ceded power to the presidency.

"I think it is a recognition that Congress has a lot of power under the Constitution -- that is just the case," Baker said on "The Situation Room." "This is them taking some of this back by trying to enforce this subpoena, so the ruling from the court doesn't surprise me."

Trump's legal team had argued that Congress is on a crusade to overturn material that the Democrats could use to embarrass him now and in the 2020 presidential election.

But House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings, a Maryland Democrat, called the ruling a "resounding victory for the rule of law and our constitutional system of checks and balances."

Democrats did not have it all their way Monday.

Trump ordered his former White House counsel Don McGahn not to honor a subpoena to testify about the Russia investigation -- escalating his show of defiance toward Congress.

And McGahn confirmed that he would not show up for a hearing Tuesday of the House Judiciary Committee -- which is now certain to turn into a theatrical venting before an empty witness chair.

His lawyer, William A. Burck, argued that since McGahn was facing contradictory instructions from two coequal branches of government, he was compelled to side with his former client.

But House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat, told reporters: "We are having the hearing tomorrow and we expect Mr McGahn to show up pursuant to the subpoena."

The blocking maneuver means yet another dispute between Congress and the White House is likely heading for the judicial branch, as the presidency becomes consumed by a forest of litigation.

That may suit Trump, since it will put off the political reckoning that may eventually come and could delay the release of documents he wants to keep secret -- such as his tax returns.

The White House appears to have far stronger arguments in the murky and largely untested area of executive privilege than the President did in his personal suit over his financial records.

But one complication to Trump's arguments lies in the fact that McGahn was made available for hours of testimony already before Robert Mueller -- some of which has already been publicly published in the special counsel's report.

If Trump succeeds in thwarting testimony from McGahn it would potentially establish a precedent that Congress could never cross-examine a member of any president's senior staff.

Democrats want to question McGahn on a mound of evidence that Mueller piled up suggesting possible obstruction of justice by the President, including the revelation that he had ordered the then-White House counsel to fire the special counsel himself.

The President got more potentially troubling news with the release Monday of closed-door testimony to Congress by his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

Cohen claimed in testimony in March that the President's attorney Jay Sekulow knew that Cohen's claim to Congress that the Trump Tower Moscow project had ended in January 2016 was false.

Sekulow's attorneys said Cohen was trying to blame others and argued that it defied logic for lawmakers to take the word of a man who is currently in jail, partly for lying to Congress.

Mazars, Trump's accountancy firm, will not have to comply with the subpoena for his financial records for another seven days, according to Judge Mehta.

But to stop the handover then, another court will have to step in, possibly as part of the appeals process.

The President reacted to the decision by politicizing it -- painting it as somehow invalid because Mehta had been appointed by his predecessor.

"It's totally the wrong decision by, obviously, an Obama-appointed judge," the President told reporters.

Trump's argument, a familiar one, suggests that he believes justice can be delivered only by a judge who shares his politics, a viewpoint that contravenes basic democratic principles.

The President also resorted to partisan arguments that help him navigate Washington's political wars and please his base.

"The Democrats were very upset with the Mueller report, as perhaps they should be. But, I mean, the country is very happy about it because there was never anything like that."

But one lesson of Monday's ruling is that Trump's personal political arguments and evasions, though serviceable to survive a news cycle, tend to be far less effective in the courts.

[Softball Bat]

Donald is running the four corners offense.

There are SO many different elements that are deeply problematic for him, however.

Ultimately somethings(s) will come out into the public arena that he desperately needs to keep hidden.


tick tock...

[ML@Coyote]

If something is to come out into the public arena (as you say), why not by now? His enemies have been working night and day to destroy him ever since he first took office. Face it, no matter what you think of the guy, there just isn't anything new that's going to come up miraculously out of nowhere and save the day. The Dems better get their butts in gear and come up with a real opponent, or Donald is going to win again. Honestly, I don't think the country would mind much if we had four more years of a strong economy, no wars, no 9-11s, and tighter borders. The public doesn't care if their representative is a jerk or scumbag or an alcoholic or a womanizer or a big mouth or an outright pig. Look at Ted Kennedy. He was a senator for 47 years.

Tick tock...you're right about the clock ticking. But it's ticking for the Dems, not Donald.

[Softball Bat]

If something is to come out into the public arena (as you say), why not by now?

Congress has issued multiple lawful subpoenas and are being stonewalled.

Did you really not know this?

Or should I assume brain damage?

[ML@Coyote]

If something is to come out into the public arena (as you say), why not by now?

Congress has issued multiple lawful subpoenas and are being stonewalled.

Did you really not know this?

Or should I assume brain damage?

Should you assume that I have brain damage? Seriously SB, I don't know which is funnier: Marty with his 17k posts telling me to post less, or you with your flat earth theory telling me I'm brain damaged.



But let me explain this to you in a way even you may be able to understand. I am not defending or supporting Trump. I am simply making a layman's observation. And that observation is that the dems are making a huge mistake if they're thinking that they're going to get Trump out of their way with politically motivated late-in-the-game charges of financial wrongdoing. They're going to discover these charges are very, very hard to prove, given that they're even true. What the dems should be doing is coming up with a candidate who can take on Trump and explain to the voters how he or she is going to make the country better. This will be no small task considering that most people (whether you agree with them or not) believe the country is doing pretty darn good right now. Subpoenas? Inflated assets? Conflicts of interest? You're making me laugh, dude. That's a fight that could go on for years. Right now if I was a betting man, I'd put my money on Trump for another term. And I say the dems will have no one to blame but themselves.

[Kierland]

No wars? WTFAYTA?
Most polls don’t show people are happy with how the country is going or approve of Don the Con.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Any other lies you would like to drop?

[ML@Coyote]

You've actually made a couple rational points. Maybe I should have said no major war. I think if you were to ask most voters what they thought, they would tell you that our country is not embroiled in an outright and major "war." The Iraq War comes to mind. And polls? Depends on who is doing the poll, and when they are doing it. And what is being polled. What was that James Carville said? "It's the economy, stupid!" Trump is doing pretty good right now on the economy, per CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/politics ... index.html

I think the dems have a lot to worry about. They underestimated Trump last election. It would be really stupid for them to do it again, but that's what I see happening.

[Screw_Michigan]

I think the dems have a lot to worry about. They underestimated Trump last election. It would be really stupid for them to do it again, but that's what I see happening.

Were you in a coma during the 2018 election? Wakey wake, already.

[Softball Bat]

If something is to come out into the public arena (as you say), why not by now?

Congress has issued multiple lawful subpoenas and are being stonewalled.

Did you really not know this?

Or should I assume brain damage?

Should you assume that I have brain damage? Seriously SB, I don't know which is funnier: Marty with his 17k posts telling me to post less, or you with your flat earth theory telling me I'm brain damaged.



But let me explain this to you in a way even you may be able to understand. I am not defending or supporting Trump. I am simply making a layman's observation. And that observation is that the dems are making a huge mistake if they're thinking that they're going to get Trump out of their way with politically motivated late-in-the-game charges of financial wrongdoing. They're going to discover these charges are very, very hard to prove, given that they're even true. What the dems should be doing is coming up with a candidate who can take on Trump and explain to the voters how he or she is going to make the country better. This will be no small task considering that most people (whether you agree with them or not) believe the country is doing pretty darn good right now. Subpoenas? Inflated assets? Conflicts of interest? You're making me laugh, dude. That's a fight that could go on for years. Right now if I was a betting man, I'd put my money on Trump for another term. And I say the dems will have no one to blame but themselves.

I'm not Democrat, so I am not interested in them winning or losing.

[ML@Coyote]

I think the dems have a lot to worry about. They underestimated Trump last election. It would be really stupid for them to do it again, but that's what I see happening.

Were you in a coma during the 2018 election? Wakey wake, already.

Listen, I could be completely wrong. And I hope I am. I definitely don't want to see another four years of Trump as our president. But I do not see the dems moving in the right direction for the reasons I've mentioned. I guess time will tell.

[ML@Coyote]

I'm not Democrat, so I am not interested in them winning or losing.

Just out of curiosity, who would you like to see be the next president?

[Softball Bat]

I'm not Democrat, so I am not interested in them winning or losing.

Just out of curiosity, who would you like to see be the next president?

I don't identify any person now.

It would have to be someone who says they intend to drain the swamp, but really mean it.

[ML@Coyote]

I'm not Democrat, so I am not interested in them winning or losing.

Just out of curiosity, who would you like to see be the next president?

I don't identify any person now.

It would have to be someone who says they intend to drain the swamp, but really mean it.

Here's the problem with that. No one man can do it. And the fact that you have no one in mind is telling.

[Softball Bat]

I don't see "Ross Perot."

If I do, I will endorse him with my vote.

[smackaholic]

I don't see "Ross Perot."

If I do, I will endorse him with my vote.

Really?

Trump is the closest thing we have to Ross these days. I will grant you that they are worlds apart in some areas, but in one area, the area that set Perot apart, international trade, they are more or less identical. I have noticed that Ross seems to be laying low and hasn't publicly endorsed any of Trumps positions. I don't know if it is because he despises Trump, as a person, or because he's completely senile.

[Kierland]

What is a major war you war mongering fuck?
One poll says he finally is in the black? If he wins again it will be because we don’t elect our Presidents using a democratic process you stupid silly fuck.
You are a part of the red menace you just won’t admit it.

[ML@Coyote]

What is a major war you war mongering fuck?
One poll says he finally is in the black? If he wins again it will be because we don’t elect our Presidents using a democratic process you stupid silly fuck.
You are a part of the red menace you just won’t admit it.

A major war in the context of my post is a major war as perceived by the voting public.

You brought up polls, not me.

If Trump wins it will be because he was elected.

The only thing menacing about me is my German Shepherd...who will lick you to death if you make a wrong move.

[Goober McTuber]

The only thing menacing about me is my German Shepherd...who will lick you to death if you make a wrong move.

I hope you named him Melty.

[Kierland]

And the voting public thinks these are minor wars? Link?
You brought up the public sentiment. How else can you judge it besides polling, at least in a non election year?
Yes if he wins he will have been elected by the electors. Not by a democratic vote.
You are a closet Don the Con jock rider, it’s painfully obvious from the deference you have shown for his policies. That makes you part of the red menace.

[ML@Coyote]

Sorry, I don't have a link to my opinion. You're free to disagree with it. In fact, I would prefer that you did.

Okay, then you do like polls. Make up your mind. I provided you with a legitimate one.

If you don't like the electoral system, I guess that's your tough luck.

[Kierland]

Your opinion is shit.
Polls are ok, most say you are full of shit.
You said you didn’t think the county would mind more of Don the Con but that’s not the issue. The issue is if more of the electors think the red menace is good for us.

[Joe in PB]

The issue is a main stream media that is bought and paid for like Capitol Hill. According to your polls Hillary would be President in a landslide.......

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Kierland]

That’s not how the USC works you lying, fake news tard.

[Joe in PB]

You fail to understand why there is an Electoral College. Hint: So the 4 or 5 largest cities in the country don't dominate elections.
Like ML stated, Democrats ought to be trying to come up with a platform for the 2020 election that benefits the majority of citizens. As opposed to pointing figure at Trump and stone walling the federal government.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Kierland]

Yes, it’s because the framers we not all that hip to democracy. I passed Con Law in Law school thank you.

[Goober McTuber]

Your opinion is shit.

So is yours. Particularly when you present it as fact.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Your opinion is shit.