Flagpole's insecurity wrote:
POTY!!!!!!! Flagpole to a T, especially number 6! That's you Flagpole, own it. And, you get no satisfaction out of being right because it happens so rarely.
Congrats flagpole, Rigged is your uncontested #1 fanboy
Flagpole's insecurity wrote:
POTY!!!!!!! Flagpole to a T, especially number 6! That's you Flagpole, own it. And, you get no satisfaction out of being right because it happens so rarely.
Congrats flagpole, Rigged is your uncontested #1 fanboy
Sorry, Murkowski voted present, but would have voted no if the one Republican that was not present was there and voted no.
So, if Democrat Manchin and R Susan Collins voted No, he would not have been confirmed.
Or Jeff Flake, who held up the initial vote and was not running for re-election.
Republicans wanted Kavanugh in for his conservative views.
They don't really want Trump in.
They just fear his tweets.
But Trump's ire has backfired.
He went after Jeff Flake to the point where he dropped out because he knew he would have lost the primary.
His replacement lost to a Democrat in the general.
Arizona now has a Democrat Senator strictly by the fault of Trump.
Flake would have won the general if he had survived the primary.
Alabama also has a Democrat Senator that defeated Trump's guy (who was really Bannon's guy)
And the House flipped blue as Trump campaigned for Republicans.
Republicans fear insulting Trump because of primaries, but at the same time he hurts them in general elections in many cases.
I think killing the wicked witch would help Republicans.
Racket wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
That's why I'm so interested in the resolution to stop the vanity wall.
There are definitely some Republicans in the senate that strongly disapprove of Individual-1's emergency declaration. This will be a test vote to see which ones are willing to stand up against him at this juncture.
I think you and Flagpole strongly overestimate the "moral integrity" of these people in Congress. If you're putting it above zero then you're being too generous.
Why do you think a bunch of them "retired" or decided to not seek reelection? They've been crooks for years (or decades in some cases) and instead of being exposed in all this they just bow out silently. It's a sinking ship right now. Those who haven't jumped overboard aren't going to have a change of heart. And I challenge Flagpole to find me one Republican that has actually stood up to Trump in a meaningful way (and that means actually voting against Trump's high level judges, cabinet members, policies, etc).
Fair criticism, and in my case, I recognize that I expect more people to have integrity than are ultimately proven to...this is why I was disappointed with B. Clinton and why I felt he should have been removed from office.
I will push back on your challenge though. A person can agree with Trump's judges, cabinet members, and policies and sill be against him in other ways. No one, Republican or Democrat, should go against their morals and vote either for OR against an issue they support just to stick it to the President.
Racket wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
That's why I'm so interested in the resolution to stop the vanity wall.
There are definitely some Republicans in the senate that strongly disapprove of Individual-1's emergency declaration. This will be a test vote to see which ones are willing to stand up against him at this juncture.
I think you and Flagpole strongly overestimate the "moral integrity" of these people in Congress. If you're putting it above zero then you're being too generous.
Why do you think a bunch of them "retired" or decided to not seek reelection? They've been crooks for years (or decades in some cases) and instead of being exposed in all this they just bow out silently. It's a sinking ship right now. Those who haven't jumped overboard aren't going to have a change of heart. And I challenge Flagpole to find me one Republican that has actually stood up to Trump in a meaningful way (and that means actually voting against Trump's high level judges, cabinet members, policies, etc).
I actually agree with you for the most part.
Susan Collins has already come out and said she will vote for a clean resolution to stop the vanity wall. So that's one.
Murkowski has strongly indicated that she might vote for it as well.
The one that always amuses me is Rand Paul. He always acts so outraged and threatens to vote against the president. But when push comes to shove he never follows through.
Fat hurts wrote:
Racket wrote:
I think you and Flagpole strongly overestimate the "moral integrity" of these people in Congress. If you're putting it above zero then you're being too generous.
Why do you think a bunch of them "retired" or decided to not seek reelection? They've been crooks for years (or decades in some cases) and instead of being exposed in all this they just bow out silently. It's a sinking ship right now. Those who haven't jumped overboard aren't going to have a change of heart. And I challenge Flagpole to find me one Republican that has actually stood up to Trump in a meaningful way (and that means actually voting against Trump's high level judges, cabinet members, policies, etc).
I actually agree with you for the most part.
Susan Collins has already come out and said she will vote for a clean resolution to stop the vanity wall. So that's one.
Murkowski has strongly indicated that she might vote for it as well.
The one that always amuses me is Rand Paul. He always acts so outraged and threatens to vote against the president. But when push comes to shove he never follows through.
Your comment and mine preceding it shows that we can accept criticism and that we have the self-awareness to be able to do so. I actually admit fault and make concessions more than any other poster here, and that's not tough to do because pretty much no one here (though you just did) admits any fault at all.
Another day with President Trump being more popular than Nobama.
49% > 44%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb22
_its_baddude wrote:
Pointing It Out (again) wrote:
WTF? What does that even mean, "using that video for propaganda"?
You mean that the video is fake? That this is not what actually happened in Charlotte?
Or do you mean, "Sure it happened but the fact that it happened is pretty inconvenient for my argument so it is not very polite of you to bring it into this discussion."?
prop·a·gan·da
Dictionary result for propaganda
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun
noun: propaganda; noun: Propaganda
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
That video does not convey what really happened.
Oh, I get it. It's one of those, "Who are you going to believe - me? Or those lying eyes of yours?"
You have learned well, little baby Trump.
Flagpole wrote:
1) Excellent comment about the running and the strength...as if that matters...so good show there, brother.
2) You are correct that for most people (the vast majority even), talking politics is a game of gotcha. For me, that is not true at all. I find it interesting what others think, but for me on this particular topic (The Orange One), I am just interested in justice. I will get no sense of satisfaction from being proven right. My only satisfaction will come from the fact that our nation will be safe from the lying and the corruption in the White House...doesn't mean another won't try, but then we deal with that one. Donald Trump is a serial liar and a criminal of epic proportions. He needs to have his comeuppance (and he will) both for justice's sake and to deter any other like-minded individuals who might attempt the same crap.
Just a friendly word of advice. When you can say, "You are correct that . . ." OR you can say "I agree that . . .", you might want to consider choosing the latter.
Saying "You are correct that . . . " makes you come across as a pompous prick - as if some else' statement needs your authoritative approval to be determined to be correct.
Saying "I agree that . . ." makes you come across as a normal dude simply expressing his opinion.
All of this may be obvious to you, of course. And maybe coming across as a pompous prick is just part of your shtick. IDK.
Either way, carry on.
Racket wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
That's why I'm so interested in the resolution to stop the vanity wall.
There are definitely some Republicans in the senate that strongly disapprove of Individual-1's emergency declaration. This will be a test vote to see which ones are willing to stand up against him at this juncture.
I think you and Flagpole strongly overestimate the "moral integrity" of these people in Congress. If you're putting it above zero then you're being too generous.
Why do you think a bunch of them "retired" or decided to not seek reelection? They've been crooks for years (or decades in some cases) and instead of being exposed in all this they just bow out silently. It's a sinking ship right now. Those who haven't jumped overboard aren't going to have a change of heart. And I challenge Flagpole to find me one Republican that has actually stood up to Trump in a meaningful way (and that means actually voting against Trump's high level judges, cabinet members, policies, etc).
This ^
I have not seen even a single significant Republican figure who has taken a principled stand against Trump who was not already either resigning/retiring or dying. Those folks who announce their retirement and then start speaking out against Trump are even more embarrassments to humanity than all the rest.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
USS Flagtanic Crew:
Captain Clownpole
First Officer Trollminator
Navigator agip
Chief of the Boat Runningart2004
Chef Fat hurts
Chief Medical Awsi Dooger
Chief Engineer The Gallant Pig Man
Bosun LL
Deckhands: jesseriley, foo, SDSU Aztec, Monkeys Typing, Pookie Washington, Count Chocula, pop_pop!_v2.2.1, Rigged for Trump
Current location...
http://aboutkazakhstan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ship-graveyard-aral-sea-kazakhstan-22.jpgInteresting stuff coming out of NJ. The state senate has just passed a bill that would require Trump to release 5 yrs of tax returns for him to be included on the state's 2020 ballot. NJ isn't a big deal for 2020 but if a few others get on board this will be troubling for his run. Curious - do you think he'd rather not run than have to release his tax returns?
A Friendly Voice wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
1) Excellent comment about the running and the strength...as if that matters...so good show there, brother.
2) You are correct that for most people (the vast majority even), talking politics is a game of gotcha. For me, that is not true at all. I find it interesting what others think, but for me on this particular topic (The Orange One), I am just interested in justice. I will get no sense of satisfaction from being proven right. My only satisfaction will come from the fact that our nation will be safe from the lying and the corruption in the White House...doesn't mean another won't try, but then we deal with that one. Donald Trump is a serial liar and a criminal of epic proportions. He needs to have his comeuppance (and he will) both for justice's sake and to deter any other like-minded individuals who might attempt the same crap.
Just a friendly word of advice. When you can say, "You are correct that . . ." OR you can say "I agree that . . .", you might want to consider choosing the latter.
Saying "You are correct that . . . " makes you come across as a pompous prick - as if some else' statement needs your authoritative approval to be determined to be correct.
Saying "I agree that . . ." makes you come across as a normal dude simply expressing his opinion.
All of this may be obvious to you, of course. And maybe coming across as a pompous prick is just part of your shtick. IDK.
Either way, carry on.
I'm very aware of how the use of language works. I tell people they are correct when they are, and I use the words "I believe" or "I think" or "I agree that" when it is appropriate. Now, deciding that I am a pompous prick is all on you, brother. You can either decide to be dominated by my persona here on this site as many are, or you can decide to be your own light.
With your own rules, I THINK you should have said, "I believe that saying..."
Also, you just told me to "carry on". I don't need your authoritative approval to carry on. Gives me no joy to defeat you so soundly, but as I have the heart of a teacher, I am a little happy that perhaps you have learned a lesson here.
Keep America Great 2020 wrote:
Trump was telling it like it is.
No matter what anyone thinks of the job Trump is doing as POTUS, the concept of Donald Trump ever telling it like it is is preposterous if you've paid attention to him over the last 40 years. He's always made it up as he goes along.
Keep America Great 2020 wrote:
Pointing It Out (again) wrote:
You seem to be English language challenged. Perhaps English is not your first language?
Politically correct means just what it says - something expressed to convey political advantage to the person doing the expressing, regardless of the truth or accuracy of the statement. In this case, Trump was clearly pandering to his base for political advantage - i.e., being politically correct.
BTW - what is your native language? Perhaps you can try expressing your thoughts using it.
Trump said both sides were to blame. Both sides were to blame. Trump was telling it like it is.
Apparently, that hurts your feelings. I'm sorry, snowflake.
One side showed up with torches and heavily armed. One person on this same side decided to in a cowardly manner run over innocent people with a car causing one fatality and multiple serious injuries.
What exactly did the other side do again? Tell it like it is? Called out racists as racists? Cowards as Cowards?
Do tell oh great one.
Here's how it's gonna go down, trumpers. Republican criminals will expect pardons. New York State will say fine, we'll charge you. Enjoy jail, trumpers.
All these trumpers are going to be hit with state charges, especially anyone named trump or Kushner. As they should be.
TTH wrote:
Keep America Great 2020 wrote:
Trump was telling it like it is.
No matter what anyone thinks of the job Trump is doing as POTUS, the concept of Donald Trump ever telling it like it is is preposterous if you've paid attention to him over the last 40 years. He's always made it up as he goes along.
I'm going to let this slide and assume you had a massive "brain fart", but telling it like it is is EXACTLY what President Trump does.
Hani Saleem wrote:One side showed up with torches and heavily armed. One person on this same side decided to in a cowardly manner run over innocent people with a car causing one fatality and multiple serious injuries.
What exactly did the other side do again? Tell it like it is? Called out racists as racists? Cowards as Cowards?
Do tell oh great one.
And the other side has Antifa, violently protested because of some statue. Real mature. But apparently in your liberal land antifa is a good thing?
Stack the bodies high, baby!
Flagpole wrote:
A Friendly Voice wrote:
Just a friendly word of advice. When you can say, "You are correct that . . ." OR you can say "I agree that . . .", you might want to consider choosing the latter.
Saying "You are correct that . . . " makes you come across as a pompous prick - as if some else' statement needs your authoritative approval to be determined to be correct.
Saying "I agree that . . ." makes you come across as a normal dude simply expressing his opinion.
All of this may be obvious to you, of course. And maybe coming across as a pompous prick is just part of your shtick. IDK.
Either way, carry on.
I'm very aware of how the use of language works. I tell people they are correct when they are, and I use the words "I believe" or "I think" or "I agree that" when it is appropriate. Now, deciding that I am a pompous prick is all on you, brother. You can either decide to be dominated by my persona here on this site as many are, or you can decide to be your own light.
With your own rules, I THINK you should have said, "I believe that saying..."
Also, you just told me to "carry on". I don't need your authoritative approval to carry on. Gives me no joy to defeat you so soundly, but as I have the heart of a teacher, I am a little happy that perhaps you have learned a lesson here.
Good DOG, but that was stupid!
Oh well, carry on.
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
