Sally Vix wrote:
Sally is a dumb-dumb wrote:
Sally is soooooo dumbbbbbb.
It would not be the first time I have been accused of being dumb.
Probably a good reason for that.
Sally Vix wrote:
Sally is a dumb-dumb wrote:
Sally is soooooo dumbbbbbb.
It would not be the first time I have been accused of being dumb.
Probably a good reason for that.
Sally Vix wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Okay. Please provide specific examples where Trump has been sued for tax cheating multiple times and lost many times. PROVIDE SPECIFIC EXAMPLED WHERE HE HAS BEEN SUED AND LOST TO TAX CHEATING. You make a baseless claim and back it up - OR SHUT THE EFF UP. Tax cheating is a felony and Trump would be prosecuted for it. SO EFFING SHUT THE EFF UP OR PROVIDE PROOF OF YOUR CONTENTION.
I apologize for the tone of the last statement. Had a long day at work. Hope you guys are doing well.
Nice job, brother.
Trollminator wrote:
They are already getting into their traditional defensive mode. Since Pelosi slapped Trump down on the wall they have quickly put their doomsday playbook to action. From now until the the foreseeable future all you will see is this nonsense to motivate the mouth breathers to vote through fear. It’s a two party system and Americans don’t care nor are motivated to vote so the pendulum will keep swinging. Trump is probably just the beginning of the GOP circus act, they will go much lower.
Exactly. Can you imagine a normal human being following Trump as GOP leader? Seemingly impossible. The Simplistic Angry Male base finally has someone who hates the same people they hate, and is scared of the same things they are scared of, and is equally willing to ignore facts and logic in favor of frothing tunnel-vision anger and insecurity.
So who shows up next, a reasonable person similar to Bob Dole or John McCain or Mitt Romney or John Kasich? Seemingly not a chance. I've seen right wingers calling for Trump Jr. as successor...and they are serious. It will have to be someone devoted to fear.
In a decade or so it won't matter. The so-called Silent Generation will have faced mortality, meaning the most heavily pro-Republican voting block will be a non-factor. Every subsequent generation has a blue tilt. Not impossible for a Republican to win under those circumstances but it would be uphill and incredibly low margin for error. The candidate-to-candidate edge would need to be enormous. That is the reason Dick Morris talked about, "the last Republican president we'll ever see," a decade or so ago. He understood the math and the demographic changes and the generational imprinting. But naturally he had to shut up about it to keep his role. They don't like realities like that on Fox News.
Trump can definitely win in 2020. I am not going to let my ideology deflect the situational perspective. If any Republican won in 2016 he was a huge favorite to be re-elected in 2020. Only Jimmy Carter in more than a century has lost as incumbent whose party has been in power only one term.
The GOP successfully applied the socialist tag here in Florida last year, defeating Andrew Gillum and Bill Nelson. It was preposterous to call Nelson a socialist but one commercial after another branded the two Democrats that way. Then the exit poll revealed that 46% of Florida voters said Gillum was too liberal for the state. I have studied exit polls since 1992 and have never seen anything threatening that type of number. Republicans finally figured out that the word liberal was mostly worn out, so they replaced it with socialist. But the exit poll does not ask about socialism, at least not as of 2018. I expect a related question will be added to 2020.
If the 2020 Democratic nominee does not have a competent response to socialist fear tactic in 2020, then he/she will be on the defensive throughout. Frankly I hope it is not Kamala Harris. I don't trust her instincts at all toward a long general election. That "modern day lynching" comment she made the other day sounds just like her caliber...believing she has to immediately respond to anything and everything. Harris would make one mistake after another, IMO, but based on Democratic message boards she is preferred.
It will take two full generations for Donald Trump to properly settle into his deserved reputation for all of history. Fear, hate, lies, bigotry and divisiveness are not American values. He will be slotted as one of the worst Americans of all time. There will be centuries of debate and disbelief that the country ever allowed it to unfold this way. But right now the SAMs are still in their spewful glory, as evidenced by all the airball posts here every day.
Since Trump broke conventional political norms to come to power I see no reason conventional political norms keep him in power. Statistics are just statistics until Election Day creates new statistics.
Alan
Good morning! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine am?
A very stabIe genius! wrote:
Good morning! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine am?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/07/12/trump-speaks-after-nato-summit-stable-genius-newday-vpx.cnn
Bracing myself for for the re-emergence of the Bernie bros
That's very interesting. Thanks for posting.
The legal case for building the wall with emergency funding is even weaker than I thought.
Not to mention they'll make sure it stays in the news for the next 6 months or so while the courts decide it
Democrats lose again wrote:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/18/kamala-harris-wont-comment-on-jussie-smollett-after-calling-alleged-attack-attempted-modern-day-lynching/Laughing loudly at democrat “men”.who can’t wait to vote for more shrill, cackling hillary clones.
Hahahahahaha!!!!
Democrats lose again!!!!
Republicans covering themselves with glory:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alabama-newspaper-editor-calls-for-the-ku-klux-klan-return-to-clean-out-dc/ar-BBTMhCK?ocid=spartanntphttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/key-witness-testifies-to-tampering-with-absentee-ballots-in-nc-house-race/ar-BBTMrwC?ocid=spartanntpjohnny99 wrote:
Democrats lose again wrote:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/18/kamala-harris-wont-comment-on-jussie-smollett-after-calling-alleged-attack-attempted-modern-day-lynching/Laughing loudly at democrat “men”.who can’t wait to vote for more shrill, cackling hillary clones.
Hahahahahaha!!!!
Democrats lose again!!!!
Republicans covering themselves with glory:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alabama-newspaper-editor-calls-for-the-ku-klux-klan-return-to-clean-out-dc/ar-BBTMhCK?ocid=spartanntphttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/key-witness-testifies-to-tampering-with-absentee-ballots-in-nc-house-race/ar-BBTMrwC?ocid=spartanntp
WELCOME TO TRUMPS AMERIKKKA!
[‘Time for the Ku Klux Klan to night ride again’: an Alabama newspaper editor wants to bring back lynching]
http://va.topbuzz.com/s/UsNkxQL L wrote:
Something that is socialist adheres to the principles of socialism but it is not soicalism itself.
Medicare is the community distribution of funds to cover healthcare for a specific group and is regulated by the community that is government.
The means to do this is owned by this community.
Medicare is socialist.
we're dealing with semantics here, but it matters. Because the Rs are going to tar everything the Ds propose as socialism, and it will work.
You are arguing that basically anything the government does is socialis*t* but not socialis*m*?
This is one of the best descriptions I've seen of Trump and of our national problem. It describes Trump well, and also the problem of the presidency when controlled by a malignant force, without a congress willing to control it.
The first way to look at President Trump is as the Toddler in Chief, a president inept at exercising power. This is a man who knows nothing about policy and barely more than that about politics. He appointed a cadre of toadies and incompetents who have beclowned the executive branch from Day 1. Despite having GOP control over both houses of Congress, he was only able to ram through one significant piece of legislation in two years. He failed to repeal Obamacare, failed to get wall funding, and it is far from clear that he will be able to get “NAFTA II: The NAFTAing” through Congress. He has lost the fight for clean coal, and lost badly. After two years, Trump made himself the focus of the midterms, leading to the biggest Democratic Party gains in the House since Watergate. His shutdown strategy was an unmitigated disaster, leading to less funding that was initially on offer in December. The man’s command of the English language is so bad that it’s impossible to read what he says without cringing. He’s a weak leader.
The second way to look at Trump is as a president who has not met a civilized norm that he will not shatter. His administration imposed an abhorrent travel ban from several Muslim-majority countries, an action that did not advance U.S. interest or U.S. values — and yet the Supreme Court wound up affirming his power to do so. He also announced a ban on transgender people serving in the military, and last month the Supreme Court allowed a partial ban to take effect while litigation continues. His administration instituted a cruel separation policy to handle migrant families seeking asylum in the United States. In his rhetoric, the president is rude, crude, bigoted, narrow-minded and abusive. He has insulted career civil servants and threatened members of the press. On foreign policy, he has withdrawn the United States from a panoply of agreements and badly weakened America’s standing in the world. He is the president of the United States, and that role has only agglomerated more power in recent decades.
There are a lot of things that I like about Kamala Harris.
I like her on policy and I like her charisma.
But I don't like all of the people that go public with snap judgments and she's one of them.
She gave an immediate opinion that the governor of Virginia should step down as soon as that pic came out.
And if she described the Smollett situation as a modern day lynching the moment that news broke, that's also a bit quick.
I would like a leader to be more deliberate and measured.
I liked the way she questioned Kavanaugh.
I, personally waited to react on the Kavanaugh allegations. Once they had a hearing, I had more information to make a decision on.
They didn't vote until after the rushed, short hearing happened.
Racket wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
That's very interesting. Thanks for posting.
The legal case for building the wall with emergency funding is even weaker than I thought.
Not to mention they'll make sure it stays in the news for the next 6 months or so while the courts decide it
Agip's description is totally wrong: "....must be used on a military installation." The president has a very broad range of what he or she can do with the act. He or she can freeze bank accounts, can take control of the internet, and many other things not related to the military.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/This is just what happens when two things occur :
1) you put in a guy that has zero experience.
2) that guy very obviously does not want to be in the White House.
#1 isn't the worst thing. When combined with #2 though, it makes for a pretty rough scenario. None of this should be surprising. He was a retarded, mean spirited firebrand with absolutely no idea what he was doing in 2016. He remains that to this day.
agip wrote:
L L wrote:
Something that is socialist adheres to the principles of socialism but it is not soicalism itself.
Medicare is the community distribution of funds to cover healthcare for a specific group and is regulated by the community that is government.
The means to do this is owned by this community.
Medicare is socialist.
we're dealing with semantics here, but it matters. Because the Rs are going to tar everything the Ds propose as socialism, and it will work.
You are arguing that basically anything the government does is socialis*t* but not socialis*m*?
Meh. I don't think calling everything "socialism" or "socialist" is going to fly very well. People like free stuff.....Medicare For All, Free College, ....people like those ideas. They poll well.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
agip wrote:
we're dealing with semantics here, but it matters. Because the Rs are going to tar everything the Ds propose as socialism, and it will work.
You are arguing that basically anything the government does is socialis*t* but not socialis*m*?
Meh. I don't think calling everything "socialism" or "socialist" is going to fly very well. People like free stuff.....Medicare For All, Free College, ....people like those ideas. They poll well.
Alan
Yeah I'm gonna go ahead bookmark this page of the thread. We'll be revisiting this post around this time next year to see how your prediction plays out!
Runningart2004 wrote:
Going Green is only nuts because of the upfront costs involved. It requires too much change from EVERYONE....not just the US.
Alan
It's really not very expensive.
We need to greatly expand R&D on energy projects and we need to start managing these projects the same way the military does its own R&D. Ideally, the military and civilian energy projects would be merged and managed jointly. It wouldn't require much additional spending by taxpayers. The military is already funding much of the R&D we need.
The renewable energy subsidies in place right now are phasing out and they need to be replaced with something more effective. To pay for the subsidies we will need in the near future, we can just get rid of the wasted billions we are giving to the oil and gas industry. So that would actually end up saving money.
We need to revamp our grid infrastructure. This one does have a big price tag. But green or not, it has to be done. The current grid is a mess and a smart grid saves us billions in the long run.
I could go on, but long story short, you eventually bring the cost of energy to near zero. The economic benefits of free energy are mind-boggling. So it's a relatively low investment for a stupendous return.
Fat hurts wrote:
The economic benefits of free energy are mind-boggling.
I agree, very mind boggling! Especially considering it's impossible
Democrats lose again wrote:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/18/kamala-harris-wont-comment-on-jussie-smollett-after-calling-alleged-attack-attempted-modern-day-lynching/Laughing loudly at democrat “men”.who can’t wait to vote for more shrill, cackling hillary clones.
Hahahahahaha!!!!
Democrats lose again!!!!
haha I'm right there with ya! I can't believe there are actually "men" in America who would vote for these stuck-up, bitchy women with ridiculous ideas that a middle school student would come up with as a joke. It honestly is hilarious, yet scary at the same time.
These "Men" that vote for these dem ladies are probably one also looking to change their genders. LMFAO