US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Skybird]

Germany (...) but most of its forces are available for NATO defense anytime and that is a key differentiation to most other member states.

No, they are not. I have touched upon it several times in the GER politics thread. I fear the truth is that German readiness level is extrenely low, and only a fraction of its systems and heavy platforms are redy for operation. The Germans take over command for some Eastern readiness force anytime soon - but last time I read about it, only 2 or 3 of the paper strength of 40+ IFVs were available. Whereever the Germans go they must lend equipment for the outgoing unit from all across the BW. On severla occaisons over the past years, it was said and admitted clearly that Germany currently in no way is capable to fulfill its alliance duties. Most German tanks, IFVs, helicopters, transport planes, submarines, navy units, are grounded and not operational. Infantry suffers a massive shrtage in even most propfund base suppliesl from helmets and Flak jackets to NVGs and even just battle dress uniforms of the demanded latest standard.


Unforgotten is when barrack barbie von der Leyen visited some country and could not continue her travel easily, ebcasue the Luftwaffe transport plane broke down. They sent a backup plane, which never came, becasue it also broke down. I don'T know how it ended. Same pattern lke with the big moor fire some weeks ago: a helicopter fired into dry woods, and a massive fire blazed up. a fire extinguishing tank that was on ready duty, broke down, they sent a backup, and it also broke down. No more such tanks were available.



It took over two weeks to extinguish all fires.

[em2nought]

No, they are not.


Don't feel bad, our military left $2 billion worth of F-22s directly in the path of a hurricane.



You'd think maybe they'd at least have holes dug and big bags they could at least bury them in to protect them. Thailand has bags that people can put their cars in for flooding so...

https://www.floodguardph.com/


...and Iraq can hide stuff from us in sand, so why couldn't we hide things from a hurricane the same way??? seems like something the military couldn't cry "poor" over

[Skybird]

Sounds logical to me, I mean F-22s are air superiority fighters. Hurricane's eye sees them and is scared away.

[Mr Quatro]

Were you aware of this little known fact:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/everything-you-need-know-about-2018-midterm-elections-n832226

WASHINGTON — In every midterm election since the Civil War, the president's party has lost, on average, 32 seats in the House and two in the Senate.

In this year's battles, Democrats need only 24 seats to flip the House and two to take the Senate.

"History says we're going to lose the majority," said Cory Bliss, the executive director of the Congressional Leadership Fund, a major Republican super PAC.

"Our job is defy history."

[Onkel Neal]

It could happen.

[nikimcbee]

Just make the smurfin political ads stop!

[Skybird]

Maybe there should be a law that makes it mandatory for every US citizen to connect to Twitter at least twice per day. :O:

[STEED]

Just make the smurfin political ads stop!

https://s.faketrumptweet.com/jo4ftuiu_j8jwk8_uemqbz.png

[Catfish]

^:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::up:


I propose this as one of the best posts this year :D

[Jimbuna]

Maybe there should be a law that makes it mandatory for every US citizen to connect to Twitter at least twice per day. :O:

Oh heaven spare us. One is more than enough thanks.

[August]

https://s.faketrumptweet.com/jo4ftuiu_j8jwk8_uemqbz.png




Fake news! :) You foreigners couldn't know that no New Yorker would ever call someone a "Hairy old dog". Somebody in a tweed jacket with patches on his elbows wrote that, be sure!

[STEED]

Fake news! :) You foreigners couldn't know that no New Yorker would ever call someone a "Hairy old dog". Somebody in a tweed jacket with patches on his elbows wrote that, be sure!

Game of Polo anyone? :haha:

[Jimbuna]

Americans have begun voting in nationwide elections that are being seen as a referendum on Donald Trump's presidency.

Polling stations opened on the East Coast amid a battle by both Republicans and Democrats to take control of the two houses of Congress.

Governor posts and seats in state legislatures are also up for grabs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46106086

Probably the first time I've experienced any interest in the above.

[u crank]

Yea it is going to get interesting. If things stick to the script....

The party of the incumbent president tends to lose ground during midterm elections: over the past 21 midterm elections, the President's party has lost an average 30 seats in the House, and an average four seats in the Senate; moreover, in only two of those has the President's party gained seats in both houses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election

This time around the experts, (I'm not one of them) say that the Dems will win back the House. By how much is the unknown factor. On the other hand the GOP should retain control of the Senate and maybe pick up a seat or two.

Pass the popcorn Skippy. :D

[Jimbuna]

Yea it is going to get interesting. If things stick to the script....



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election

This time around the experts, (I'm not one of them) say that the Dems will win back the House. By how much is the unknown factor. On the other hand the GOP should retain control of the Senate and maybe pick up a seat or two.

Pass the popcorn Skippy. :D

Pretty much the UK newsline too :yep:

https://i.imgur.com/KXZpj3n.gif

[Skybird]

Gerrymandering. An image says more than a thousand words. Three images, in this case.


https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court-gerrymandered/index.html


Strange how these and many other - considered "legal" :D - ways of manipulating election outcomes still are tolerated.

[Mr Quatro]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46106086

Probably the first time I've experienced any interest in the above.

I feel the same way Jim and I live over here ... I've never been this excited about an outcome of an election year that didn't include the POTUS.

So much at stake ... I don't have any democrat friends left ... if I do they aren't saying anything. :D

Big turn out all ready expected to be the most voters that ever voted in any mid-term election :yep:

[mapuc]

I have the deepest respect for others standpoint when it comes to Mr. Trump.

If they are for or against him I respect it.

I have however very difficult to find this respect, when a person starts his or her argument with

Look at his face/hair/hands/body or his way of walking

And I have seen lots of these.

Back to the Midterm Election

Markus

[STEED]

I hear Catfish is so happy he's going to streak around the yard. Skybird is in for a shock looking out the window.


So hows it going you lot across the pond?

We want election news. :)

[August]

I hear Catfish is so happy he's going to streak around the yard. Skybird is in for a shock looking out the window.


So hows it going you lot across the pond?

We want election news. :)


Too early yet. We might know who runs Congress by this time tomorrow but there are no guarantees.

[Mr Quatro]

Too early yet. We might know who runs Congress by this time tomorrow but there are no guarantees.


https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.n8ixKXgRmVXteHG1CEe1TwHaKC&w=191&h=260&c=7&o=5&dpr=1.5625&pid=1.7

[Rockstar]

Oh my I'm soo excited.

https://media.giphy.com/media/hryZ5xPHpPAQ/giphy.gif

[STEED]

Too early yet. We might know who runs Congress by this time tomorrow but there are no guarantees.

In this fast tech world we still have to wait...:hmmm:

Hope their not using Win10. :03:

[Skybird]

In this fast tech world we still have to wait...:hmmm:

Hope their not using Win10. :03:
Windows 10 will be the reason why the result will be like it will be. :O:

[STEED]

Windows 10 will be the reason why the result will be like it will be. :O:

Oh great...Blame the Russian's again. :roll::shifty:;)

[Bilge_Rat]

I would not worry too much about tonite. The one thing that is certain is that no matter who wins, nothing much will change. The last three mid-terms: 2006, 2010 and 2014 were supposed to be major realignments...notice much of a change?


I also got a laugh of the post Jimbuna made in the 100 years ago thread…


6 november 1918:


As the result of yesterday’s midterm elections in the United States, the Republicans take control over the House and Senate. :haha:

[vienna]

Gerrymandering. An image says more than a thousand words. Three images, in this case.


https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court-gerrymandered/index.html


Strange how these and many other - considered "legal" :D - ways of manipulating election outcomes still are tolerated.


California had a real problem with gerrymandering in its history and continued until 2008 when a State Proposition was passed creating a Commission (California Citizens Redistricting Commission) to redraw the Congressional district following the 2010 US Census. Part of the push for the Commission's creation was complaints from the CA-GOP over allegations of CA-DEMs manipulating the redraw process:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission


The belief of CA-GOP members was a new, non-partisan redraw committee would break the CA-DEMs stranglehold on the political life of CA, making it easier to get CA-GOP candidates elected. Interestingly, it was the Far Right CA-GOP factions who expressed the most concerns about using a non-partisan Commission for the redraw; the theory behind their concerns was attributed to their desire to be able to, likewise as the CA-DEMs prior to the Commission, manipulate district lines, if the CA-GOP ever took back control of the CA State government. The Commission redrew the district maps and, instead of gaining new seats, the CA-GOP wound up losing more seats than before...










<O>

[Onkel Neal]

Strap in, it's gonna be a rough night. :k_confused:

[Catfish]

I hear Catfish is so happy he's going to streak around the yard. [...] :)


What? :hmmm:
Me, happy? :wah:

[Skybird]

Presidential election campaign de facto begins TODAY.

[Skybird]

I think for Trump it is indeed a win. His party is set to defend majority in the Senate, even stronger thana before, so can block impeachment attempts. And the Democratic majority in Congress may be able to call up endlessly committees of inquiry, but I read that several leading Democrats won in quite conservative electoral districts and so this might reduce their appetite for confronting a conservative govenment too strongly, because they have to deal with their conservative voters.

What I notice is that Trump turned this election into a personal thing although it was not about electing the president. And it did NOT backfire against him.

I indeed think this day was a win for Trump. And I think more than before that no matter whether one likes it or not: he probably will get reelected in two years. The Democrats still have no strong name to challenge him serioulsy.



Over the long time to come, the changing demography however will reward the Democrats' now rather open shift to the socialist left side of politics.


Its all a foolish game, honestly said. I play the numbers and statistics, but I do not take it serious, nor do I think it is an especially clever game with a well thought-out rulebook. Plenty of manipulation, and subverting the rules, is part of it.

[Onkel Neal]

Over the long time to come, the changing demography however will reward the Democrats' now rather open shift to the socialist left side of politics.




That. And with it goes America. Nothing can halt this erosion of our culture and greatness. It's just a natural progression, a result of too much success and a gradual psychological shift away from accountability to empathy.

[Skybird]

That. And with it goes America. Nothing can halt this erosion of our culture and greatness. It's just a natural progression, a result of too much success and a gradual psychological shift away from accountability to empathy.
:up:
Fantastic wording! I never have heard it being put into these words before: from accountability to empathy. I know exactly what you mean and I completely agree.

[Jimbuna]

Looks like it all panned out as expected/predicted.

[Platapus]

At my precinct, we had more people vote in this election than voted in the presidential election of 2016. We came very close to 70% voter turnout including the absentee ballots.

The citizens were motivated to get out and vote and that's a good thing:up:

[Catfish]

[...] shift away from accountability to empathy. I know exactly what you mean and I completely agree.


So what does it mean? What has one to do with the other?
I know what Neal means but those words have no connection.
The sense is like "from responsibility to digestibility". :hmmm:
Why should a responsible and accountable man have no empathy?

[Platapus]

Only in American Political circles can empathy be considered a undesirable trait I guess.

[u crank]

Why should a responsible and accountable man have no empathy?

Good question. The answer is they should. The problems start when irresponsible and unaccountable men have misguided empathy towards groups and individuals who seek just that. What you get then is a whole culture of victim hood, constant outrage and the worst of political correctness.

The end result, sadly is more irresponsible and unaccountable people.

[Skybird]

What Neal pointed at implies - and he is right in that - that there is not both accountability and empathy in the ideological change, but that the latter gets boosted at the cost of the first. Its not a mutual existence of accountability and empathy, but a shift from the one to the other. And that is correct, and all to obvious obvious observation.


Good men do good deeds and pay for them with their own money and take the responsibility for the consequences, good or bad, no matter what the others aroudn them do. Good-doers however do what is by ideology labelled a politically correct deed and demand the others to pay for it, they also leave it to the others to face the consequences, and refuse the responsbility for these. Heart rules over head. Emotion trumps reason.



Long-term consequences, and the question of affordability - you better don't ask about that. All you will get are nasty denounciations.

[Bilge_Rat]

so mid-terms are over. Thank god. Now we have two months before the 2020 election begins…:O:


main take aways for me.


1. trump's 2016 election has been legitimised. The main narrative for the past two years from Democrats was that Trump's election was an unfortunate accident and that voters would repudiate him the first chance they got. Well that did not happen last night, GOP losses are more or less the historical average and a lot less than the shellacking Obama got in 2010.


2. Trump's takeover of the GOP is complete. The GOP did not just increase GOP senators. Trump's main GOP critics, McCain, Corker and Flake are gone and the new crop of GOP senators were all hand picked by Trump and owe their election to him. Expect the GOP Senators to be even more pro-Trump going forward.

[GoldenRivet]

This midterm election, Texas was a battleground.

Newcomer Robert O'rourke, who campaigned as "Beto" to pander to the Hispanic population, gave the incumbent Ted Cruz an honest run for his money... in a state that has not elected democrat leadership since i was a fifth grader. thats 30 years ago.

Robert O'rourke is hardly the ideal political candidate for those unfamiliar with him. but so few of our candidates are these days. In 1996 he was arrested for breaking and entering into the physical plant of the University of Texas El Paso. The university suddenly and abruptly dropped the charges against him and his friends, some allege this abrupt change in stance occurred after his wealthy father made a substantial donation to the university. Unable to stay out of trouble, O'Rourke was arrested again two years later for crashing a car on Interstate 10 while driving under the influence of alcohol, but he negotiated out of the charges in exchange for taking a DWI course.

Under republican leadership there has been much to talk about in the state. Texas leads the nation in jobs growth, in fact there have been 28 continuous months in a row to date of positive jobs growth in the state. In a whole slew of new rankings, Texas leads the nation. Numerous independent sources site Texas as the number one state for doing business, number one for export revenues, number one for livestock revenues... the state has no personal income tax, and a median household income on par with the national middle class.

Though there was no "blue wave victory" in the state of Texas like many of my liberal colleagues aggressively touted about on facebook and other social media platforms... Ted Cruz, the incumbent republican, won re-election by a margin of only a quarter million votes... out of a total of over 8,000,000 voters who showed up at the polls.

While republicans in the state today wake up to victory, it is important for them to remember that they just won the super bowl, their uniforms stained with blood and mud and dirt... against a brand new rookie franchise... in overtime... by a single field goal.

Texas politics is something of a paradox.

Under republican leadership we have a booming economy, fastest jobs growth in the nation, minuscule unemployment, we are attracting more businesses and industries... yet as all of this attracts more people to our great state our urban areas begin to swell and for some reason, they show up at the polls and vote against the very things that attracted them here.

it is outside the realm of my intelligence to understand why they vote for socialism, welfare state, pro crime, pro corruption nonsense but here we had 48% of our fellow Texans rush for just that side of the ballot!

i consider myself to be a pretty smart guy... but i cannot wrap my head around anyone’s reasoning for voting for illegals and against veterans.... for welfare and against jobs... for poverty ridden socialist agendas and against a job exploding free market.

what kind of person wants those things for their state?

Personally, my travels have taken me to many of these blue states. they are unhappy, filthy, crime infested, corrupt hell holes in which the homeless are nearly as abundant as the trees. boarded up buildings that literally span miles. thousands of acres of steel mills and factory’s that have churned not a puff of smoke in 40-60 years.

in fact, the only boarded up building in my home town... has a "BETO FOR SENATE" political sign prominently displayed out front. go figure.

where Texans, and Texas republicans should be concerned... is that 48% of the voting population of the state showed up and voted for a Texas of the unemployed, boarded up variety.

48%

Republicans are going to have to work harder and harder every election year to maintain the red state bastion that is the Lone Start State.

[Jimbuna]

Thread merge: US Politics.

[AVGWarhawk]

so mid-terms are over. Thank god. Now we have two months before the 2020 election begins…:O:


main take aways for me.


1. trump's 2016 election has been legitimised. The main narrative for the past two years from Democrats was that Trump's election was an unfortunate accident and that voters would repudiate him the first chance they got. Well that did not happen last night, GOP losses are more or less the historical average and a lot less than the shellacking Obama got in 2010.


2. Trump's takeover of the GOP is complete. The GOP did not just increase GOP senators. Trump's main GOP critics, McCain, Corker and Flake are gone and the new crop of GOP senators were all hand picked by Trump and owe their election to him. Expect the GOP Senators to be even more pro-Trump going forward.

I predict a blood bath for Trump at the hands of the House. More time will be spent starting investigations and impeachment proceedings that nothing else will get accomplished.

Pelosi, oh brother......:doh:

[Jimbuna]

I predict a blood bath for Trump at the hands of the House. More time will be spent starting investigations and impeachment proceedings that nothing else will get accomplished.

Pelosi, oh brother......:doh:

Doesn't the Senate have the authority to stop any impeachment attempt? :hmmm:

[Mr Quatro]

Doesn't the Senate have the authority to stop any impeachment attempt? :hmmm:

Pelosi said in her first victory speech that no impeachment was planned by her ... so then President Trump said: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election/democrats-will-seek-to-rein-in-trump-after-taking-u-s-house-idUSKCN1NB1CW?il=0

“In all fairness, Nancy Pelosi deserves to be chosen Speaker of the House by the Democrats. If they give her a hard time, perhaps we will add some Republican votes. She has earned this great honor,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

[STEED]

Well that was a let down dam media hype. So its back to gridlock screaming and blaming each other. :03:

[Bilge_Rat]

you need a two-thirds majority in the Senate to impeach, i.e. 67 out of 100 senators, so it was always a pipe dream.


However, the Democrats may launch impeachment proceedings just to generate negative publicity against Trump ahead of 2020.


I doubt there will be a big rush to impeachment though. I think you could make an argument that part of the Dem losses in the Senate are due to the backlash over the Kananaugh circus. I think the Dems will be a bit smarter in picking their next battles instead of just shooting at everything.

[AVGWarhawk]

Doesn't the Senate have the authority to stop any impeachment attempt? :hmmm:

you need a two-thirds majority in the Senate to impeach, i.e. 67 out of 100 senators, so it was always a pipe dream.


However, the Democrats may launch impeachment proceedings just to generate negative publicity against Trump ahead of 2020.


I doubt there will be a big rush to impeachment though. I think you could make an argument that part of the Dem losses in the Senate are due to the backlash over the Kananaugh circus. I think the Dems will be a bit smarter in picking their next battles instead of just shooting at everything.


As Bilge_Rat stated concerning impeachment proceedings. All in unison will scream impeachment at any given moment to put Trump in a bad light. Trump does that by using Twitter! No needed help from the democrats. The argument that those(dems) that lost also voted No to Kavanaugh stands as just that, IMO.

I would hope the battle the dems are looking to wage is working together and moving forward. I can't take more years of investigations, distractions and general nonsense that impede moving forward on anything of substance.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well that was a let down dam media hype. So its back to gridlock screaming and blaming each other. :03:

Just another day in the good ole' US of A!

[Mr Quatro]

To defeat the democrat's in 2020 all the GOP will need a commercial with all of the dumb things Pelosi has ever said
or I should state that she will say as leader of the House majority :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

To defeat the democrat's in 2020 all the GOP will need a commercial with all of the dumb things Pelosi has ever said
or I should state that she will say as leader of the House majority :yep:

She is a twit. Totally out of touch with reality.

https://dcstatesman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Nancy-Pelosi-squeezing.jpg

[Platapus]

Doesn't the Senate have the authority to stop any impeachment attempt? :hmmm:

No, the Senate has no part in the initial impeachment process. That decision is up to the House and specifically the Speaker of the House.

Once articles of Impeachment have been approved, only then does the Senate get involved.

The House is in control of Impeachment
The Senate is in control of the Impeachment trial.

[Platapus]

I think it would be a big mistake to put Pelosi as Speaker. She would be better served as Majority Leader or Majority Whip.

She had her term. They need to bring in someone without the history and baggage that Pelosi brings.

[AVGWarhawk]

I think it would be a big mistake to put Pelosi as Speaker. She would be better served as Majority Leader or Majority Whip.

She had her term. They need to bring in someone without the history and baggage that Pelosi brings.

Understand the Pelosi running the house is a gift to Trump. He wants her there as she is a blithering idiot. Throw in Maxine Waters. The dynamic duo of what is wrong with the democratic party. Two the best moving targets Trump could ask for.

[AVGWarhawk]

No, the Senate has no part in the initial impeachment process. That decision is up to the House and specifically the Speaker of the House.

Once articles of Impeachment have been approved, only then does the Senate get involved.

The House is in control of Impeachment
The Senate is in control of the Impeachment trial.

High crimes and misdemeanors. Let the waste of time inquiries begin......sigh....

[Mr Quatro]

I thought speaker of the House and the majority leader were the same thing.

Yes, no, I don't know?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/38045/here-come-crazies-nancy-pelosi-speaker-maxine-joseph-curl

Pelosi is a career politician who has already served 16 terms in the House, but some party leaders wish she'd go away.

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) said late last year it was time for Pelosi — and other longtime party leaders — to depart and let a new generation lead House Democrats

[AVGWarhawk]

What this all boils down to is governing by executive order. B Obama did this at will. Trump will do the same....and probably relish in it!!

[Dowly]

Well, that didn't take long.


Embattled Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigns under pressure (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/trump-says-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-resigns.html)


Mueller probe will now be overseen by Sessions' Chief of Staff Matthew Whitaker.

[Skybird]

No, the Senate has no part in the initial impeachment process. That decision is up to the House and specifically the Speaker of the House.

Once articles of Impeachment have been approved, only then does the Senate get involved.

The House is in control of Impeachment
The Senate is in control of the Impeachment trial.
No matter who launches it - the Senate can block any successful impeachment attempt. A supermajority of two thirds is needed in senate to let any such attempt pass. That means 40% of Republican senators would need to vote with a complete team of Democrat senators. Will not happen. Trenches are too deep.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, that didn't take long.


Embattled Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigns under pressure (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/trump-says-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-resigns.html)


Mueller probe will now be overseen by Sessions' Chief of Staff Matthew Whitaker.

He was asked to resign. :D

[Skybird]

Well, that didn't take long.


Embattled Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigns under pressure (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/trump-says-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-resigns.html)


Mueller probe will now be overseen by Sessions' Chief of Staff Matthew Whitaker.
Hehe, its the first 24 hours, so I won 10 bucks from my neighbour then. :up:

[AVGWarhawk]

No matter who launches it - the Senate can block any successful impeachment attempt. A supermajority of two thirds is needed in senate to let any such attempt pass.

The issue is the time and money spent on impeachment posturing when it should be of good use for what these folks are elected to do.

Maxine Waters has spend the last 19 months doing just that.

I will say this, if the House looks to impeach Trump and Kavanaugh...I can guarantee a Trump win in 2020.

[Platapus]

I thought speaker of the House and the majority leader were the same thing.



It can get confusing.

Currently, the Speaker of the House is Paul Ryan (Wisconsin)
The House Majority Leader is Kevin McCarethy (California)
The House Majority Whip is Steve Scalise (Louisiana)

Generally speaking the Speaker has the more prominent appearance when dealing with the public while the Majority Leader works more behind the scenes.

[Platapus]

No matter who launches it - the Senate can block any successful impeachment attempt.

Technically and legally no. But it may be a matter of semantics. It is common for people to confuse impeachment with conviction for that impeachment.

This is why it is more appropriately referred to as impeachment and Removal as that describes the two related but separate actions. (Article 1 s 3 and article 2 s 4)

The only powers the Senate has is to either convict or acquit. Regardless of their decision, the impeachment charge is a matter of history. This is why Presidents Johnson and Clinton are considered impeached.... just acquitted. Acquittal does not remove the record of impeachment.

It is just like for an ordinary citizen who is indicted and tried. Even if they are acquitted, there is still a record of the indictment.

There is nothing that the Senate can do to affect the House's decision to impeach. The rules were put in place to keep the power of impeachment and the power of conviction separate.

[Bilge_Rat]

that was quick...Sessions is OUT!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jeff-sessions-resigns-as-attorney-general

[Skybird]

Technically and legally no. But it may be a matter of semantics. It is common for people to confuse impeachment with conviction for that impeachment.

This is why it is more appropriately referred to as impeachment and Removal as that describes the two related but separate actions. (Article 1 s 3 and article 2 s 4)

The only powers the Senate has is to either convict or acquit. Regardless of their decision, the impeachment charge is a matter of history. This is why Presidents Johnson and Clinton are considered impeached.... just acquitted. Acquittal does not remove the record of impeachment.

It is just like for an ordinary citizen who is indicted and tried. Even if they are acquitted, there is still a record of the indictment.

There is nothing that the Senate can do to affect the House's decision to impeach. The rules were put in place to keep the power of impeachment and the power of conviction separate.
That may be legally very important to discriminate between the process and the final outcome, but the general understanding of the term in Germany and I think in English language as well is that impeachement implies "successfully doing so" (the person gets kicked). The Senate will not allow an impeachment to be succesfull. And thats what it is about. Trump is not the kind of sensible nature that cries lonely in his bed in the night over having had such a trial in his biography - as long as it was tried unsuccessful. He probably would even boast with it.

[u crank]

that was quick...Sessions is OUT!

Can't say I'm surprised. Not a bit.

[Jimbuna]

This must be oh so entertaining for the likes of Russia and China.

[AVGWarhawk]

This must be oh so entertaining for the likes of Russia and China.

Definitely a circus. Mostly a distraction.

[Jimbuna]

Definitely a circus. Mostly a distraction.

And now this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46133268

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQMSk8c4-WY

[u crank]

Yea. Ted Baxter strikes again. What an idiot with a complete lack of self awareness.

It's sad. The media has gone from investigation and serious questions to lecturing the President to his face. This guy and Don Lemon are taking CNN down the toilet.:nope:

[AVGWarhawk]

And now this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46133268

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQMSk8c4-WY


Acosta has had his press pass revoked. Hopefully permanently. The entire press conference was a disgrace. Obama would not have had this happen to him. Further, the others in the room feel justified in simply standing up and screaming questions at Trump over and above those that have the microphone. I honestly don't understand the disrespect, not just the other journalists asking their question, but for Trump himself. It is like a team of rabid dogs. And, not to mention the daily beatings Sarah Huckabee gets at the hands of these cretins.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's sad. The media has gone from investigation and serious questions to lecturing the President to his face. This guy and Don Lemon are taking CNN down the toilet.:nope:

Don Lemon is a douche bag. Busily stating we should not categorize/demonize a group of people and the next breath say all white men are the biggest terrorist threat. Wait...what?

Don Lemon. Dope at large:
"We have to stop demonizing people and realize that the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them."

[Dowly]

SKEPTICAL OF POSSIBLE VIDEO 'DOCTORING',SHS tweeted a doctored version of the video, making it seem like Acoste almost "karate-chopped" her hand.


Sarah Sanders Accused Of Sharing Doctored Infowars Video To Justify Acosta Ban (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sarah-huckabee-sanders-jim-acosta-video_us_5be3ccd6e4b0769d24c905aa?ncid=%20edlinkus aolp00000029)


Once more I have to ask: If they are in the right, why must they so often lie?

[AVGWarhawk]

SHS tweeted a doctored version of the video, making it seem like Acoste almost "karate-chopped" her hand.


Sarah Sanders Accused Of Sharing Doctored Infowars Video To Justify Acosta Ban (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sarah-huckabee-sanders-jim-acosta-video_us_5be3ccd6e4b0769d24c905aa?ncid=%20edlinkus aolp00000029)


Once more I have to ask: If they are in the right, why must they so often lie?

Sarah probably forwarded a video unknowingly doctored. It happens. However, I see no reason for Sarah to forward any video. The incident was plastered all over the news. Further, dropping this out there is a great distraction from Acosta and his belligerent personality.

[Onkel Neal]

Trump needs a bouncer. The Presidential Bouncer. I would pay to watch that.

[AVGWarhawk]

Trump needs a bouncer. The Presidential Bouncer. I would pay to watch that.

:har: Maybe join the team. :o

[AVGWarhawk]

Time to retire Bernie. Just how the hell did Obama win two terms? Not to mention the African-Americans that are in office???? Pulling the race card when it does not need pulling.

“I think, you know, there are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American,”

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/415705-bernie-sanders-on-close-contests-of-gillum-and-abrams-many-white-voters

[STEED]

For better or worst you have to admit Trump has spiced up American politics. :03:

[AVGWarhawk]

For better or worst you have to admit Trump has spiced up American politics. :03:

:yeah: It is entertaining. Even more so the political correctness thrown out the window. Although, sometimes Trump says some really stupid things.

[u crank]

SHS tweeted a doctored version of the video, making it seem like Acoste almost "karate-chopped" her hand.


Sped up or not Acosta physically prevented the intern from taking the mike. She was doing her job. Trump pointed at another reported so time is up. Be a gentleman and a good human being. Don't treat a young lady like that. The mike does not belong to Jim Acosta or CNN. It belongs to the White House. Every reporter there is there because they have a privilege others don't have. Why abuse it?

[em2nought]

:yeah: It is entertaining. Even more so the political correctness thrown out the window.


If there was ever something that needed thrown out a window, political correctness would be that thing.



The USA will eventually end up with all the folks who won't wear a pink vagina hat or an antifa mask being rounded up and "erased" in whatever method is the most "green".


Revelations, the part of the bible seemingly written by someone on an acid trip, has become believable. :o

[Skybird]

For better or worst you have to admit Trump has spiced up American politics. :03:
The CNN guy incident is unimportant. Both men behaved in a way that they deserved each other.

What becomes of Robert Mueller's investigation - that is the important thing. That the Donald kicked Sessions - dont try starting a hair splitting orgy: he was fired, plain and simple - so shortly after the elections and brought in a loyal follower instead, is reason to be concerned about the going-on of the investigation.

[u crank]

What becomes of Robert Mueller's investigation - that is the important thing. That the Donald kicked Sessions - dont try starting a hair splitting orgy: he was fired, plain and simple - so shortly after the elections and brought in a loyal follower instead, is reason to be concerned about the going-on of the investigation.

Trump is not going to get burned again. Matthew Whitaker has been appointed 'acting' attorney general. He can remain at that position for 210 days. It's a job tryout. He could end up being the actual AG or not. Whitaker has been critical of Mueller's over reach on the probe. Probably why he got the job. :D

[Bilge_Rat]

Mueller is now on borrowed time. If he has any evidence that Trump was somehow colluding with the Russians in 2016, he has to produce it now.

Now that Trump has locked up GOP support in the Senate and there is no possibility of a law to protect the investigation, he will act quickly, certainly before the end of the year to shut down the investigation.

The Democrats will have a meltdown, but if there is no actual evidence, it will blow over in a few weeks.

The only real jeopardy to Trump would be if Mueller actually has any evidence of criminal acts by Trump, not dubious "obstruction of justice" charges.

[eddie]

Mueller doesn't have to jump because of the Republicans!! I'd be more worried about who the choices for AG will be, I mean Christie and Giuliani!?! What a joke!!:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

[August]

The CNN guy incident is unimportant. Both men behaved in a way that they deserved each other.

What becomes of Robert Mueller's investigation - that is the important thing. That the Donald kicked Sessions - dont try starting a hair splitting orgy: he was fired, plain and simple - so shortly after the elections and brought in a loyal follower instead, is reason to be concerned about the going-on of the investigation.


It's been no secret here for awhile that Sessions would be out right after the mid-terms so you are worried about nothing. He has been an empty suit ever since he got the AG job and if you ask me Trump should not have waited even this long. I'd have dumped the guy the second he recused himself and found someone who could actually do the job he was hired to do.

[Jimbuna]

The only real jeopardy to Trump would be if Mueller actually has any evidence of criminal acts by Trump, not dubious "obstruction of justice" charges.

Pretty much how I see it :yep:

[eddie]

If Trump is really innocent, then whats he worried about?

[Dowly]

If Trump is really innocent, then whats he worried about?That's the question I've been asking for a long time. (+ add the lies)

[Platapus]

Yea. Ted Baxter strikes again. What an idiot with a complete lack of self awareness.

You are talking about Trump right?

[u crank]

You are talking about Trump right?

:har:

Sometimes it's hard to tell. Maybe this will help.

Similarities between Jim Acosta and Donald Trump.

They both like the sound of their own voices.
They both think a lot of themselves.
They both have funny hair.
They can both act like babies at any moment.
Neither one of them has a White House press pass.

Differences between Jim Acosta and Donald Trump.

Jim Acosta works for CNN.
Donald Trump keeps CNN from going broke.:D

[vienna]

An interesting analysis of the Mid_terms:

The strange argument that Democrats actually lost the midterms, debunked --

https://www.vox.com/midterm-elections/2018/11/9/18076068/midterms-2018-results-democrats-progressivism-left-trump









<O>

[Rockstar]

:har:

Sometimes it's hard to tell. Maybe this will help.

Similarities between Jim Acosta and Donald Trump.

They both like the sound of their own voices.
They both think a lot of themselves.
They both have funny hair.
They can both act like babies at any moment.
Neither one of them has a White House press pass.

Differences between Jim Acosta and Donald Trump.

Jim Acosta works for CNN.
Donald Trump keeps CNN from going broke.:D


That was good.

I can add one more too the list. Both have the annoying attitude they somehow are morally better than the other.

[vienna]

Wow, Trump is really pushing for governmental efficiencies -- nominating people to his Cabinet who are already under Federal criminal investigation:

FBI Is Investigating Florida Company Where Whitaker Was Advisory-Board Member --

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-is-investigating-florida-company-where-whitaker-was-advisory-board-member-1541799564

...and putting Whitaker in oversight of the investigation, to boot; talk about cutting out the middle-man! :haha:

...what next? Pre-indicted appointees? :har:












<O>

[August]

If Trump is really innocent, then whats he worried about?


Innocent of what?

[vienna]

Florida is such a screwed state:


FDLE is not investigating Broward elections — because Gov. Scott didn’t order it --


https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article221407235.html




Just another GOP loser bitching and whining and acting like the victim...


...maybe, if he just did his damn job properly, quit with all the phony politicking, he wouldn't be in danger of losing it all...












<O>

[Rockstar]

Personally, I blame MTV

[u crank]

Florida is such a screwed state:
Just another GOP loser bitching and whining and acting like the victim...


https://i.imgur.com/DeKxHyA.jpg

[Hawk66]

I guess this whole debate and this thread is senseless apart from being just a form of entertainment.

The next generation has to deal with the mess...the current one is too stubborn to change anything.

[Skybird]

The next generation has to deal with the mess...the current one is too stubborn to change anything.
So was the generation before, and so will be the next one.

[u crank]

I guess this whole debate and this thread is senseless apart from being just a form of entertainment.

Well in a way that is part of the problem. Politics, especially in the US is a form of entertainment. Just ask Jim Acosta and April Ryan. They know what they are doing. All of the MSM are complicit in this. Boring news doesn't sell. Politics in of itself is very boring. So what to do? The answer is to hype it up. Good guys vs bad guys. Our side vs their side. These people know exactly what they are doing. They know how to keep their audience fixated. And because of that these people, the media and the politicians deserve to be mocked and ridiculed big time. Don't expect a change anytime soon.

Oh yea and if you have anything to contribute to this thread, feel free. You can be serious, funny or irreverent. It's all good. I for one like to ponder the serious stuff and perhaps reply. I also like to laugh and contribute to the funny stuff.

[Rockstar]

I guess this whole debate and this thread is senseless apart from being just a form of entertainment.

The next generation has to deal with the mess...the current one is too stubborn to change anything.






Debate, here, in this thread? See Hawk66 you're contributing to the funny aspect of this thread. Debate is a process that involves formal discussion.

What have here is emotionally charged confrontational rhetoric, trolls, ideological dialogue, hand wringing and finger pointing. I dont expect wit and wisdom. I come here to be entertained. :)

[HunterICX]

What have here is emotionally charged confrontational rhetoric, trolls, ideological dialogue, hand wringing and finger pointing.


Not only here but it's all you see in politics these days in the US and Europe if one flips on the News or read the papers.

[Skybird]

Politics is the showact of letting inapt, parasitical narcissists appear as being important - and making the mob believe in that.

[Rockstar]

http://www.ericalanjohnson.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Say_Gullible_Slowly.jpg


;)

[Mr Quatro]

I guess this whole debate and this thread is senseless apart from being just a form of entertainment.

The next generation has to deal with the mess...the current one is too stubborn to change anything.

I see this thread like a bulletin board to air your thoughts and frustrations.

We already know who will agree and who will disagree.

Sometimes it's like a dog peeing to mark it's territory, but at the end of the day we still love each other :up:

[Rockstar]

I see this thread like a bulletin board to air your thoughts and frustrations.

We already know who will agree and who will disagree.

Sometimes it's like a dog peeing to mark it's territory, but at the end of the day we still love each other :up:


Our thoughts, are you kidding? How many times have we been chastised and asked to provide an internet link to everything written here. :har:

[Mr Quatro]

I see this thread like a bulletin board to air your thoughts and frustrations.

We already know who will agree and who will disagree.

Sometimes it's like a dog peeing to mark it's territory, but at the end of the day we still love each other


Our thoughts, are you kidding? How many times have we been chastised and asked to provide an internet link to everything written here. :har:

Links? We don't need no stinking links :o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ

High crimes and misdemeanors. Let the waste of time inquiries begin......sigh....

What this all boils down to is governing by executive order. B Obama did this at will. Trump will do the same....and probably relish in it!!

No matter who launches it - the Senate can block any successful impeachment attempt. A supermajority of two thirds is needed in senate to let any such attempt pass. That means 40% of Republican senators would need to vote with a complete team of Democrat senators. Will not happen. Trenches are too deep.

He was asked to resign. :D

Hehe, its the first 24 hours, so I won 10 bucks from my neighbour then. :up:

The issue is the time and money spent on impeachment posturing when it should be of good use for what these folks are elected to do.

Maxine Waters has spend the last 19 months doing just that.

I will say this, if the House looks to impeach Trump and Kavanaugh...I can guarantee a Trump win in 2020.

It can get confusing.

Currently, the Speaker of the House is Paul Ryan (Wisconsin)
The House Majority Leader is Kevin McCarethy (California)
The House Majority Whip is Steve Scalise (Louisiana)

Generally speaking the Speaker has the more prominent appearance when dealing with the public while the Majority Leader works more behind the scenes.

Technically and legally no. But it may be a matter of semantics. It is common for people to confuse impeachment with conviction for that impeachment.

This is why it is more appropriately referred to as impeachment and Removal as that describes the two related but separate actions. (Article 1 s 3 and article 2 s 4)

The only powers the Senate has is to either convict or acquit. Regardless of their decision, the impeachment charge is a matter of history. This is why Presidents Johnson and Clinton are considered impeached.... just acquitted. Acquittal does not remove the record of impeachment.

It is just like for an ordinary citizen who is indicted and tried. Even if they are acquitted, there is still a record of the indictment.

There is nothing that the Senate can do to affect the House's decision to impeach. The rules were put in place to keep the power of impeachment and the power of conviction separate.

That may be legally very important to discriminate between the process and the final outcome, but the general understanding of the term in Germany and I think in English language as well is that impeachement implies "successfully doing so" (the person gets kicked). The Senate will not allow an impeachment to be succesfull. And thats what it is about. Trump is not the kind of sensible nature that cries lonely in his bed in the night over having had such a trial in his biography - as long as it was tried unsuccessful. He probably would even boast with it.

Can't say I'm surprised. Not a bit.

This must be oh so entertaining for the likes of Russia and China.

Definitely a circus. Mostly a distraction.

Yea. Ted Baxter strikes again. What an idiot with a complete lack of self awareness.

It's sad. The media has gone from investigation and serious questions to lecturing the President to his face. This guy and Don Lemon are taking CNN down the toilet.:nope:

Sarah probably forwarded a video unknowingly doctored. It happens. However, I see no reason for Sarah to forward any video. The incident was plastered all over the news. Further, dropping this out there is a great distraction from Acosta and his belligerent personality.

Trump needs a bouncer. The Presidential Bouncer. I would pay to watch that.

:har: Maybe join the team. :o

For better or worst you have to admit Trump has spiced up American politics. :03:

:yeah: It is entertaining. Even more so the political correctness thrown out the window. Although, sometimes Trump says some really stupid things.

Sped up or not Acosta physically prevented the intern from taking the mike. She was doing her job. Trump pointed at another reported so time is up. Be a gentleman and a good human being. Don't treat a young lady like that. The mike does not belong to Jim Acosta or CNN. It belongs to the White House. Every reporter there is there because they have a privilege others don't have. Why abuse it?

If there was ever something that needed thrown out a window, political correctness would be that thing.



The USA will eventually end up with all the folks who won't wear a pink vagina hat or an antifa mask being rounded up and "erased" in whatever method is the most "green".


Revelations, the part of the bible seemingly written by someone on an acid trip, has become believable. :o

The CNN guy incident is unimportant. Both men behaved in a way that they deserved each other.

What becomes of Robert Mueller's investigation - that is the important thing. That the Donald kicked Sessions - dont try starting a hair splitting orgy: he was fired, plain and simple - so shortly after the elections and brought in a loyal follower instead, is reason to be concerned about the going-on of the investigation.

Trump is not going to get burned again. Matthew Whitaker has been appointed 'acting' attorney general. He can remain at that position for 210 days. It's a job tryout. He could end up being the actual AG or not. Whitaker has been critical of Mueller's over reach on the probe. Probably why he got the job. :D

Mueller is now on borrowed time. If he has any evidence that Trump was somehow colluding with the Russians in 2016, he has to produce it now.

Now that Trump has locked up GOP support in the Senate and there is no possibility of a law to protect the investigation, he will act quickly, certainly before the end of the year to shut down the investigation.

The Democrats will have a meltdown, but if there is no actual evidence, it will blow over in a few weeks.

The only real jeopardy to Trump would be if Mueller actually has any evidence of criminal acts by Trump, not dubious "obstruction of justice" charges.

Mueller doesn't have to jump because of the Republicans!! I'd be more worried about who the choices for AG will be, I mean Christie and Giuliani!?! What a joke!!:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

It's been no secret here for awhile that Sessions would be out right after the mid-terms so you are worried about nothing. He has been an empty suit ever since he got the AG job and if you ask me Trump should not have waited even this long. I'd have dumped the guy the second he recused himself and found someone who could actually do the job he was hired to do.

Pretty much how I see it :yep:

If Trump is really innocent, then whats he worried about?

That's the question I've been asking for a long time. (+ add the lies)

You are talking about Trump right?

:har:

Sometimes it's hard to tell. Maybe this will help.

Similarities between Jim Acosta and Donald Trump.

They both like the sound of their own voices.
They both think a lot of themselves.
They both have funny hair.
They can both act like babies at any moment.
Neither one of them has a White House press pass.

Differences between Jim Acosta and Donald Trump.

Jim Acosta works for CNN.
Donald Trump keeps CNN from going broke.:D

Innocent of what?

Personally, I blame MTV

Well in a way that is part of the problem. Politics, especially in the US is a form of entertainment. Just ask Jim Acosta and April Ryan. They know what they are doing. All of the MSM are complicit in this. Boring news doesn't sell. Politics in of itself is very boring. So what to do? The answer is to hype it up. Good guys vs bad guys. Our side vs their side. These people know exactly what they are doing. They know how to keep their audience fixated. And because of that these people, the media and the politicians deserve to be mocked and ridiculed big time. Don't expect a change anytime soon.

Oh yea and if you have anything to contribute to this thread, feel free. You can be serious, funny or irreverent. It's all good. I for one like to ponder the serious stuff and perhaps reply. I also like to laugh and contribute to the funny stuff.

Debate, here, in this thread? See Hawk66 you're contributing to the funny aspect of this thread. Debate is a process that involves formal discussion.

What have here is emotionally charged confrontational rhetoric, trolls, ideological dialogue, hand wringing and finger pointing. I dont expect wit and wisdom. I come here to be entertained. :)

Not only here but it's all you see in politics these days in the US and Europe if one flips on the News or read the papers.

Politics is the showact of letting inapt, parasitical narcissists appear as being important - and making the mob believe in that.

Our thoughts, are you kidding? How many times have we been chastised and asked to provide an internet link to everything written here. :har:

[em2nought]

If the democrats steal the election in Florida I damn well better get a free taco from Taco Bell. :03:

[Rockstar]

If the democrats steal the election in Florida I damn well better get a free taco from Taco Bell. :03:

Link?

[vienna]

https://i.imgur.com/DeKxHyA.jpg (http://https://i.imgur.com/DeKxHyA.jpg)




What can I say? Speaking the truth is very often harsh...


...to those who ignore the truth... :03:




BTW, you never looked better... :D
















<O>

[u crank]

BTW, you never looked better... :D

"Why thank you Darlin'. You are a charmer.

Ever since I got that job down here in Broward County rigging.. I mean changing.. I mean.. you know....that thing we do with the ballots.:03::03:

Well it's done wonders for my looks. Any way gotta go, they just found some more."

[Bleiente]

Maybe this helps somehow...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwZNL7QVJjE&list=PLHE6dkXvnNgMQd6ogwNOncbWt5V-x5oRF&index=14

:03:

[vienna]

A while back, someone said there had better be something more substantive than mere obstruction of justice charges in order to indict or impeach Trump...

...ask and ye shall receive:

The increasing evidence suggesting Trump violated campaign-finance law --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/09/evidence-trumps-involvement-campaign-finance-violation-just-got-stronger/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3887f932641c

Feds Now Have Evidence Trump Broke the Law to Become President. Will Whitaker Bury It? --

https://www.thedailybeast.com/feds-now-have-evidence-trump-broke-the-law-to-become-president-will-whitaker-bury-it

...and, gee, we've yet to hear what has been developed on all the other crimes with which Trump has been connected; small wonder Trump has been so worried and grumpy of late...

Speaking of Whitaker, it seems Trump says he doesn't know him:

Trump distances himself from Whitaker amid scrutiny over past comments and business ties --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-distances-himself-from-whitaker-amid-scrutiny-over-past-comments-and-business-ties/2018/11/09/c77b7388-e44c-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html?utm_term=.7a0ee151b3a8




Defiant and testy as he departed the White House on Friday morning for a weekend visit to Paris, Trump claimed four separate times that he did not personally know Whitaker, who had been serving as chief of staff at the Justice Department.

“I don’t know Matt Whitaker,” Trump told reporters, adding that he knew him only by reputation.

That claim is false, according to the president’s past statements as well as the accounts of White House officials — one of whom laughed Friday at Trump’s suggestion that he did not know Whitaker.

Trump and Whitaker have met in the Oval Office several times, and Whitaker briefed Trump when the president preferred not to talk to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whom he had disparaged publicly, according to White House officials. As Trump said last month on Fox News Channel, “I know Matt Whitaker.”



Seems Trump has 'buyer's remorse' over Whitaker; just goes to show what happens when you think you're the smartest guy in the room ... and you're not...


So, what happens when Don, Jr. gets indicted? Does Trump make a statement like this: "Look, I barely know him. I have nothing to do with him. In fact, I not sure he is even mine. He's probably working for Obama or Lying Hillary..."...

Also, in case you're wondering why Cohen, Manafort, and others have flipped on Trump in spite fo proffered hints of Presidential pardons, it would seem Trump, in typical idiot fashion, has painted himself into another corner; Trump could pardon any of those who choose to accept a pardon, but if a pardon is shown to be a quid pro quo, a reward for subornation of perjury or as a means of witness tampering, Trump could easily be charged with ... wait for it ... obstruction of justice!. A President can pardon anyone he wishes, but if he does so as part of a criminal enterprise, his actions are then criminal; by a strange irony, those he pardons may be free, but he would face his own charges and possible incarceration...







<O>

[Rockstar]

I call for a vote to create a new annual regonition called 'The Dead Horse Award".

Anyone second the motion?

[u crank]

I call for a vote to create a new annual regonition called 'The Dead Horse Award".

Anyone second the motion?

You got it buddy. :sunny:

[Catfish]

Bad enough anyone needed a legal/juristic evidence to get this.. something.. out, instead of just using sanity and reason. The 'rest' of the world continues laughing, eating popcorn, and will not forget.

[vienna]

First nominee: Trump...














<O>

[Bleiente]

Do not worry - the Predator will get Trump. :yep:

[vienna]

I thought Trump is The Predator...


https://i0.wp.com/www.thenewstrumpet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/trumpator.png?resize=294%2C300









<O>

[Jimbuna]

Back on topic, if that is possible.

After the ceremony both leaders returned to Paris, where the French president hosted a dinner at the Musée d’Orsay for Donald Trump and dozens of other foreign leaders before Sunday’s commemoration ceremony at the Arc de Triomphe.

The US president, who had flown in to the French capital on Friday, had been due to visit the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery on Saturday, where American and French troops repelled the Germans in 1918, but called it off because of the rain.

That sparked incredulity among some of Trump’s critics: Nicholas Soames, the Conservative MP and grandson of Sir Winston Churchill, tweeted: “They died with their face to the foe and that pathetic inadequate @realDonaldTrump couldn’t even defy the weather to pay his respects to The Fallen #hesnotfittorepresenthisgreatcountry.”

The US political commentator David Frum tweeted: “It’s incredible that a president would travel to France for this significant anniversary – and then remain in his hotel room watching TV rather than pay in person his respects to the Americans who gave their lives in France for the victory gained 100 years ago tomorrow.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/10/macron-merkel-trump-armistice-compiegne





Words escape me :nope:

[Skybird]

What is rotten inside, does smell to the outside, so no surprise.

[Rockstar]

The way I see it saying "it's the weather" was a polite way of saying your country is an unsecured crap-hole filled with dumbasses and terrorists carrying fake and real bombs.


FRANCE - Country Risk Level - High

1. Six held over `plot´ to attack France´s President Macron. What idiot would want to be standing next to Macron? I have seen Trump paying his respects elsewhere but no where have I seen those two out in the open together https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-6359715/Six-held-plot-attack-France-s-President-Macron.html

2. Dunkirk bomb ALERT: Major security operation in hospital - area in LOCKDOWN https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1042061/Dunkirk-hospital-France-news-bomb-threat-lockdown-terror-fears

3. Eurostar forced to remind all Remembrance Day passengers not to bring souvenir bombs in their luggage https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/remembrance-sunday-2018-eurostar-first-world-war-centenary-bombs-shells-luggage-brussels-a8619656.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/remembrance-sunday-2018-eurostar-first-world-war-centenary-bombs-shells-luggage-brussels-a8619656.html)

4. Supporters of the "Trump Means War" movement, organized by the Paris Against Trump and Stop the War groups, will stage a demonstration beginning at 14:00 (local time) at Place de la Republique in Paris on Sunday, November 11. Demonstrators are reportedly protesting the policies of US President Donald Trump, who is participating in World War One centennial commemorations in Paris on November 11, along with several other foreign dignitaries. A heightened security presence and associated transportation disruptions are likely in the vicinity of the demonstration.

[Dowly]

^ That's what right wing media does to your brain.

[Schroeder]

@Rockstar
Says the guy from the country were people get gunned down every day. :doh:


What a sorry excuse for Trump's behavior.

[u crank]

What a sorry excuse for Trump's behavior.

I doubt very much that the decision was Trump's. He is in a foreign country. He does what his security experts tell him.

Even so a female protester got within feet of Trump's motorcade along the Champs-Elysees. :o

[Rockstar]

^ That's what right wing media does to your brain.




Ummm no, I got the information from here. http://etraveltechnologies.com/

[August]

Words escape me :nope:

What a sorry excuse for Trump's behavior.


Well I just watched Trump make a speech, in the rain, at a US WW1 commemoration in a Paris war cemetery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajyxNiLeh3g


I don't see Macron there nor any representatives from the British government either. and speaking of grave visitations Schroeder has Merkel visited my Great grandfathers war grave in Belgium or any other German WW1 cemetery this armistice day? I'm betting not.

[Rockstar]

@Rockstar
Says the guy from the country were people get gunned down every day. :doh:







I'm not the one in denial. Nor would I expect anyone especially the President of the U.S. to stand next to a target like Marcon.

[Catfish]

Of course Trump was there, he just did not visit the US cemetery.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2018/nov/11/world-leaders-gather-in-paris-for-armistice-day-video

Thumbs up from Putin lol
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/11/thumbs-up-from-putin-as-trump-rains-on-armistice-parade

[Rockstar]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2018/nov/11/world-leaders-gather-in-paris-for-armistice-day-video

Macron the idiot who says nationalism is the exact opposite of patriotism. What a moron.

[Schroeder]

Patriotism = You love your country.
Nationalism = You hate all other countries.


Nationalism is what brought us two world wars and countless smaller ones before so Macron is spot on.

[em2nought]

and speaking of grave visitations Schroeder has Merkel visited my Great grandfathers war grave in Belgium or any other German WW1 cemetery this armistice day? I'm betting not.[/QUOTE]


Maybe she's in Gallipoli placing a wreath on one of Johnny Turk's graves. :03:

[Catfish]

Trump can do what he wants, his echoers will always applaud.
Thumbs up from Putin for Trumps efforts to destroy the western alliance.

I would like to tell some of those US nationalists to go to hell. But they are already there.

[August]

Patriotism = You love your country.
Nationalism = You hate all other countries.

Nationalism is what brought us two world wars and countless smaller ones before so Macron is spot on.


Maybe that is your definition of the term but I don't think it is Trumps.

[Schroeder]

Maybe that is your definition of the term but I don't think it is Trumps.
I wasn't talking about Trump....:hmmm:

[August]

I wasn't talking about Trump....:hmmm:


Does that matter?

[Rockstar]

Patriotism = You love your country.
Nationalism = You hate all other countries.


Nationalism is what brought us two world wars and countless smaller ones before so Macron is spot on.


Patriotism and nationalism are whats called a synonym. They are words that mean exactly or nearly the same as another lexeme (word or phrase) in the same language. Words that are synonyms are said to be synonymous, and the state of being a synonym is called synonymy.

So I stand by my words that if Macron thinks patriotism is an antonym of nationalism, Macron is an idiot.

[Schroeder]

Oh brother you need to stop drinking the koolaid man. Patriotism and nationalism are whats called a synonym.
They are in my dictionary words that mean exactly or nearly the same as another lexeme (word or phrase) in the same language.

Almost but not exactly. Let's have a look:


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism



Definition of nationalism

1 : loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness sense 1c (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness)) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supranational) groups

//Intense nationalism was one of the causes of the war.


2 : a nationalist movement or government opposing nationalisms


The Difference Between Nationalism, Patriotism, Sectionalism, and Jingoism

Nationalism has a number of near-synonyms, each of which carries its own distinct meaning. Patriotism (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriotism) is similar insofar as it emphasizes strong feelings for one’s country, but it does not necessarily imply an attitude of superiority...That difference is very important. One loves his country, the other loves his too but also feels his country is superior over others.
It was the feeling of superiority that let the European nations so willingly into WWI (and so many smaller ones before) which then turned into that huge catastrophe for everyone involved. Would somebody who loves his country want to bring death and destruction to it? Most likely not but it happened more than once. The Nazis were nationalistic...didn't turn out so well for anybody either. The feeling of national superiority has often damaged the nations that were blinded by it. Is it patriotic to have your population suffer in a pointless war that was sparked through the feeling of superiority and disdain for your neighbors? No. But it's nationalistic. That's why Macron IMO rightfully claims that nationalism is the enemy of patriotism as it divides nations and makes them susceptible to hate others which often led to war which then led to death and destruction.

[Rockstar]

Just answer the question. Are nationalism and patriotism

1. Synonyms i.e. similar

or

2. Antonyms or as President Morcron says exact opposites.

Keep in mind president moron didnt state the degree to which either can used he said they are antonyms. Which is utter political nonsense.

As far your thought that nationalism is something bad because it brought this world into two wars. It also put a stop to them. Every soldier over there died wearing the uniform of his or her country not of some global patriotic socialist union motherland. They were patriots who knew and felt quite strongly they and the country they represented were better than the bad guys country.

[Skybird]

Best put it was by some Frenchman whose name I always forget, he sdaid somethign like this: Patriotism is love for your people, nationalism is hate against other people.

Specifying it further, the first focusses on the loyalty to your own kin, people, tribe, I would even go as far as saying: culture. The latter focusses on the rejeciton of other people, cultures, based often on a sense of oneself being superior, the other being demonized without causal cause in the wake of this self-understanding.

One can have a sense of historically grown own cultural identity which can be additional to a strong feeling of patriotism. A man can be grown up in a Bavarian village, which makes him Bavarian and loving his home town, and he also is German and is aware of the rich cultural heritage of German history and arts and culture, which may make him a German patriot, and still he also sees himself as a Westerner/European who bases his way of living, thinking and values on the tradition of the Jerwish-Christian value order, the tradition of European humanism, the ancient Greek philosophical foundation of Europe'S culture, and so forth, which makes him an "Abendländer".

Identity necessarily means to separate between "us" and "them". This is true on the level of the human psychology, and is true on the level of societies, cultural spheres as well. A Spaniard, a british, a German and a Fin may be different in general mantlaity, they may have different preferences, different ways to look at life and what is important to them - but all these differences vanish if these four men would travel together to lets say india or China - suddenly they realise they have more in common than what separates them, becasue the contrast to the surrounding culture of India or China is so immense that it commands the realise that "we are Westerners".

In psychology, ther lack of borders between "me" and "you/them" means psychopathologic propblems and according symptooms, syndroms, and in egneral: suffering. Its not different if nations or cultures refuse to separate between "usa" and "them". Realising and accepting differences - the original meaning of the word 'discrimination' - is precondition for peaceful and tolerant coexstince of people. I can tolerate the other only by knowing where I set the limits of tolerance, I must be aware of what and who I am and what and whom I do not want to be or become, in order to define these limits of tolerance. Where I am endlessly tolerant, I and my society doing the same suffer from cultural borderline syndrome. To live together with somebody I must be somebody myself, in personality and culture. This is neither already nationalism nor supremacism. Its simply is vital psychohygienics.

Thats why I am absolutely rejecting ideas of denying cultural and natioanl differences between people, religious and cultural differences between people, and social melting experiments between cultures that are of lets say mutually exlcuding value priorities and self-understandings. I indeed think that often peace is better served by not forcing together what does not belong together, but to keep it apart, and if needed even separating it by walls and fences. Things may change in these regards from one generaiton to the next, but the change may be for the better - or for the worst. That things change for the worst is possible.

The EU wants to defeat all this realising of differences and also accountabiilties, it wants to run a social planning and engineering experiment which is the biggest of its kind in history. And for this I dispise and even hate it so unreservedly. I see the hybris in this and I predict that right this megalomaniac folly of believing that man can plan and manage just anything, that this attitude of just can-do-anything without paying attention to limits and differences and thinking one can ignore them all without punishment, will spell the self-destruction not only of the EU, but of Europe itself. The EU is not "Europe".

Who wants to be a truem European, must be antio natiuonalist, but can very well be a patriot - and for this reason must be necessarily against the EU as well. You can not be loyal to the idea of identity and the ideas that deny and destroy identity at the same time. And the artificial, uniform surrogate identity from the ideological polit-laboratory that the Eu wants to prescribe for everybody in Europe, is only a pitiful wannabe-replacement for the rich and diverse heritage of European cultures and identities - there is it again, the plural.

What we must learn again, however, is the self-responsibility and accountability of nations and people. Patriotism that allows getting paidf for by the others, all too easdily can tgurn into nationalism. You base more and more on the other paying your bills, and for this you even start to hate the other, because he obviously can afford it to pay your bills, else he would not do it (if he is of a sane mind), this must lead to hostility, due to cognitive dissonance that makes you to argue that it is not your fault, but that the other is malicious against you, et voila: nationalistic hate is born.

Coexistence is only possible between self-relying, self-aware actors who are strong enough to carry their own load. Reciprocity is vital. They should not demand that others have to live for their egoist sake. Where such demands are raised, the side facing these demands hopefully is strong enough to reject these, and is hopefully strong enough to even support this rejection with force, if being challenged by deed or conflict.

[Schroeder]

Just answer the question. Are nationalism and patriotism

1. Synonyms i.e. similar

or

2. Antonyms or as President Morcron says exact opposites.

Technically speaking neither nor. But the consequences were often times the exact opposite. Nationalism is aggressive as it includes disdain for others and therefore often brought war and destruction to one owns country while patriotism doesn't. That's why Macron said it that way. Nationalism often did damage to one own's country.


Keep in mind president moron didnt state the degree to which either can used he said they are antonyms. Which is utter political nonsense.
See above.

As far your thought that nationalism is something bad because it brought this world into two wars.

Two? Which war in Europe wasn't started by nationalism? Well, those started by religion but that's the same mechanic (our side is better than yours so we'll teach you a lesson).


It also put a stop to them. Not at all, see below.

They were patriots who knew and felt quite strongly they and the country they represented were better than the bad guys country. And so felt our soldiers. They were better than those other "bastards"....now how did that put an end to wars? Oh right, it didn't as we've already had that time and again in the past. One side gets defeated, swears revenge (no way those inferior bastards defeated us!!!! <Insert chanting of respective country's name here> ) and once it's strong enough the cycle starts anew as nationalism keeps the hate for others going.
Western Europe has the longest period of peace since human history because we've stopped hating one another. If we had still our WWI mentality we would have been at each other's throat again for sure.
That doesn't mean we can't be patriotic. You can love your own country and be willing to defend it without hating all others.

[HunterICX]

Best put it was by some Frenchman whose name I always forget, he sdaid somethign like this: Patriotism is love for your people, nationalism is hate against other people.

Charles de Gaulle -

''Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.''

[Rockstar]

So we have yet again another politician redefining a word.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlCqAKwCIAAccMX.pnghttp://theaimn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/gullible.jpg

Not one dictionary I've read says anything about nationalism being something hateful. A sense superiority yes, but hate is not in the definition. Where in the two definitions below do you see the word hate?

Nationalism meaning:

loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of national consciousness on of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational group.

Patriotism meaning:
love for or devotion to one's country.

They are synonymous they are alike in meaning or significance having the same connotations, immplications, or reference. They are NOT antonyms which is a word of opposite meaning. The usual antonym of good is bad or Macron is intelligent

Put away your political advocacy handbooks guys. Its OK to be German, have a desire to maintain a culture and to put your interests above someone else, just dont get too cocky again.

And I still think President Moron is an idiot for thinking patriotism and nationalism are exact opposites. However I have no doubts they can both be used in their extreme forms to generate a war or stop one. They can also be used to generate some pretty damn good things too. Let see there is U.S. nationalism wanting to put its interest over that of yours by expecting you to pay your fair share in NATO. Then there's British nationalism in the form of BREXIT wanting to put its national interests over the loony bin the rest of Europe has become.

And of course what do we hear from the looney bin? Nationalism is hate. I dont hate you man just do your job, pay up and quit crying about it.

[Catfish]

And then, there's jingoism :hmmm:

[Rockstar]

especially loudmouthed jingoism with orange hair :03:

[Dowly]

Nationalism meaning:

loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of national consciousness on of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational group.


The actual meaning that Schroeder posted:
loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.
(Source (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism))


Why do you have to lie so much, Rockstar?

[Rockstar]

It wasn't a lie dick Tracy it came from Merriam Websters online dictionary I just cut and pasted it here. If you look closely the definition you and I posted are the same damn thing. :doh:


In case you haven't noticed my quarrel was to show that nationalism and patriotism are not as President Moron stated 'opposites'. They are synonymous, similar, alike the same and furthermore neither contain hate in their definitions. The idea one is friendly and another hateful is purely political rhetoric. Though as I stated both can in their extreme forms generate wars and or stop them as well as serve a good purpose of which I gave three examples. Its OK to be German, its OK to expect another to pay their dues, and to leave a loony bin to get their pride back


Its not rocket science man

[Dowly]

It wasn't a lie dick Tracy it came from Merriam Websters online dictionary I just cut and pasted it here. If you look closely the definition you and I posted are the same damn thing. :doh:
On how many drugs are you on? I even bolded the part you left out. Here it is again:
[..]exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion[..]

Why do you have to lie so much, Rockstar?

[Rockstar]

On how many drugs are you on? I even bolded the part you left out. Here it is again:
[..]exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion[..]

Why do you have to lie so much, Rockstar?


ahh I see what you're driving at. Apparently my cut and paste didnt work out so well when I tried removing the hyperlink in CONSCIOUSNESS.

loyalty and devotion to a nation
especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

Great detective work with the word search dick Tracy now whats your point? It still doesnt change anything I said. That patriotism and nationalism are not as President Moron said oposites. Instead they are synomynous. Nor is hate included in the diffinition of either nationalism or patriotism.

[August]

So now whats your point dick Tracy?


No need for name calling Bud. I think he is saying that exalting your own nation above others is the same thing as actually hating other nations. Maybe it's a translation thing.

[Platapus]

Normally I can't stand reading articles by Chris Cillizza. But this time, I think he is right on the money.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/12/politics/hillary-clinton-2020-donald-trump/index.html

Here's why Hillary Clinton 4.0 is a terrible idea



On Sunday, two former advisers to Hillary Clinton made a bold claim in a Wall Street Journal op-ed (https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-will-run-again-1541963599). Here it is:
"Get ready for Hillary Clinton 4.0. More than 30 years in the making, this new version of Mrs. Clinton, when she runs for president in 2020, will come full circle—back to the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994. True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. She won't let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House."


(https://www.youtube.com/user/CNN?sub_confirmation=1)



That's former Clinton pollster Mark Penn and former New York City politician Andrew Stein (https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-will-run-again-1541963599)'s view of how Clinton will run (again) and win in two years' time.


And, before you pull a muscle from rolling your eyes too hard (this is a real injury!), consider what Clinton told Recode's Kara Swisher (https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics/hillary-clinton-2020-run/index.html) last month about another run for the nation's top office:


"Well I'd like to be president. I think, hopefully, when we have a Democrat in the Oval Office in January of 2021, there's going to be so much work to be done. I mean we have confused everybody in the world, including ourselves. We have confused our friends and our enemies. They have no idea what the United States stands for, what we're likely to do, what we think is important, so the work would be work that I feel very well prepared for having been at the Senate for eight years, having been a diplomat in the State Department, and it's just going to be a lot of heavy lifting."

In case you are keeping track at home, that isn't a "no." Or even close to one.


You can understand why Clinton wouldn't want to totally rule out another bid. Buyer's remorse from voters who helped elect Donald Trump in 2016. The backing of an energized female base within the Democratic Party. Plus, if Joe Biden (75 years old) and Bernie Sanders (77) can run again for president, why can't she?


True enough! But here's the thing: Democrats should be rooting VERY hard against another presidential run by Clinton. That is, if they want to beat Donald Trump in 2020.


As you may remember, Clinton lost the 2016 presidential race to Trump. You might have missed it, it wasn't that big a story.
She lost that race despite these facts:


She was seeking to follow a popular Democratic president in office.
She drastically outraised and outspent Trump in all key battleground states.
A tape emerged just weeks before the end of the race where Trump made a laundry list of misogynistic comments.
Her opponent was Donald Trump.


Yes, there were mitigating factors -- most notably James Comey's decision to announce that he was re-opening the FBI investigation into her use of a private email server just days before the election. And WikiLeaks' strategic release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee designed to embarrass the Clinton team and distract them from the task at hand.


BUT, but, but. The 2016 race was still a VERY winnable one for Clinton -- and one that most experts, polls and people expected her to win, and win easily.


And then she lost.


The roots of that defeat are pretty obvious in retrospect. People didn't like Trump. But they didn't like Clinton any better. People didn't trust Trump or think he was honest. But they felt the exact same way about Clinton.
In the end, people voted for Trump -- and, yes, Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million -- because they wanted RADICAL change. And he was that change. Clinton was, well, more of the same.


Here's a number that tells the story of that election (https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls): Almost 4 in 10 voters said that the most important thing about a candidate for them was that he or she could bring about needed change in the country. Trump got 82% of the vote among that group. Clinton got 14%.
Now, ask yourself this: What's changed? I'll answer that one for you: Not a hell of a lot.


If anything, Clinton is in a worse position, politically speaking, than she was back then. According to Gallup polling in September (https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/snapshot-hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-low.aspx), just 36% of people have a favorable view of Hillary Clinton. That's down 7 points from where it stood just before the 2016 election and is tied for her lowest favorable rating ever in Gallup polling.


Why? Who knows? Some of the low regard in which Clinton is held is tied to the devastating efficacy of Trump's "Crooked Hillary" attacks. Some likely has to do with her decision to remain a vocal and high-profile critic of the president after losing. Some -- much? -- of it has to do with the fact that negative feelings about Clinton are baked into the electorate and just will never change.


That deep-seated negative opinion about Clinton is at the center of why she would be a very poor choice for Democrats in 2020. Clinton's many years in the public eye -- and the many questions raised about her time in public life -- allowed Trump to make the election a referendum on her and her baggage rather than on him and his own deep flaws as a person and a politician.


Which, interestingly enough, Penn and Stein acknowledge right at the start of their piece arguing that Clinton will run and win in 2020. The very fact that there can be a "Clinton 4.0" suggests she may have a) been around national politics too long and/or b) changed shape as a politician too many times over that multiple decade run in the public eye.


With a field packed with fresh faces -- including California Sen. Kamala Harris, who is the new No. 1 in our 2020 rankings (https://t.co/FQfkc3tbVg) -- the case to give Clinton a third (or fourth) bite at the apple is a tough sell.
And, remember this: Beating Trump is harder than it might look from the outside. For all of his abnormalities in office, he has demonstrated an ability to rally the Republican base like few GOP politicians before him. And he will do absolutely anything -- literally -- to win.


Democrats would do well to try a different approach than Clinton used in 2016, which, when boiled down, amounted to this: I'm running against Donald Trump, and you're certainly not going to vote for him, are you?
And they'd be well served to try a different candidate to deliver that different message -- not someone who was rejected by voters in the last presidential election even though she was running against the weakest Republican nominee in modern memory.


The third time is rarely the charm in presidential politics. Especially when you're talking about a candidate as divisive as Hillary Clinton.
The Democrats running Hillary in 2020, would go a long way to getting Trump reelected.



It was stupid for them to run her in 2016 and it will be doubly stupid to run her in 2020. But the Democrats are perfectly capable of losing in 2020 if they don't start thinking clearly.

[Rockstar]

Atleast didnt accuse him of being a liar.

What I find funny is every leader in the free world primary job is to place and advance the interest of the nation which they lead above others. Therefore by deffinition making every farking one of them a nationalist. Until that is when someone else steps on their toes. Then they cry foul and accuse the other of being a nationalist and how nationalism is filled with hate that starts wars like the 30's.

What starts wars is not when politicians redefine words. Its when the lemmings begin to belive it to be the proper deffinition.

[August]

FWIW, although I'm sure the Trump haters don't care.


Explained: The controversy over Trump not visiting one US cemetery in the rain, for another

President Trump’s scheduled visit to a cemetery with American casualties from World War I was canceled over the weekend in France, though he attended a similar event at a different cemetery the following day.
On Saturday, the President was supposed to hold a moment of silence and place a wreath to commemorate the lost personnel, however, the White House attributed the cancellation to bad weather, The Associated Press reported Saturday.
President Trump reportedly had no say in the decision, as the Marine Corps and White House Military Office made the determination collaboratively with the Secret Service that Paris’ overcast and rainy conditions posed too much risk for Marine One to fly to Aisne-Marne, which is about 60 miles northeast of Paris.


https://americanmilitarynews.com/2018/11/explained-the-controversy-over-trump-not-visiting-one-us-cemetery-in-the-rain-for-another/?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=militarymemes&utm_campaign=alt&fbclid=IwAR1hTSbRdObC646YxTr1Ug7BQMt0KILzH2j0XgOdz nOjRTb3ApAdODkCoaI

[Skybird]

Charles de Gaulle -

''Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.''
He may have said that this way, or even quoted the guy I mean, but I am quite certain that the quote I refered to was not originally by de Gaulle. I would have remembered that.


I tried to find it, only found that this quote has been used by some more people than just de Gaulle. German president Friedrich von Weizsäcker as an exmaple, in 1989.

[Schroeder]

FWIW, although I'm sure the Trump haters don't care.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2018/11/explained-the-controversy-over-trump-not-visiting-one-us-cemetery-in-the-rain-for-another/?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=militarymemes&utm_campaign=alt&fbclid=IwAR1hTSbRdObC646YxTr1Ug7BQMt0KILzH2j0XgOdz nOjRTb3ApAdODkCoaI

If that's true then it's of course reasonable. But it would have been better to communicate that from the beginning though to not give critics ammunition.


Regarding the nationalism thing there might have been a shift in meanings between the US and Europe. For example when I look up the German term for nationalism I get results like this:
Übersteigertes Bewusstsein vom Wert und der Bedeutung der eigenen Nation (https://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/lexika/pocket-politik/16501/nation). Im Gegensatz zum Nationalbewusstsein und zum Patriotismus (Vaterlandsliebe) glorifiziert der Nationalismus die eigene Nation und setzt andere Nationen herab....That means "Exaggerated awareness of the value and meaning of one own nation. Nationalism glorifies one's own nation and belittles others as opposed to national consciousness and patriotism (love of one's country). "

https://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/lexika/pocket-politik/16503/nationalismus


Wikipedia goes a step further and divides nationalism into two categories. Inclusive and exclusive nationalism:
/wiki/Nationalismus#Inklusiver_vs._exklusiver_Nationalis mus (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalismus#Inklusiver_vs._exklusiver_Nationalis mus)


(surpisingly good) Translation by google:

Including nationalisms aim to integrate all subgroups of a society, regardless of their political orientation and their cultural identity. They are committed to the values and symbols of their own nation and endorse this to other nations too. Including nationalisms refer to different characteristics of the nation positive: on the republican tradition, the democratic constitution (constitutional patriotism), welfare state, economic success or international reputation. [11]I myself have never heard of nationalism in this context. It sounds very much like patriotism to me.



Exclusive nationalism or chauvinism is an exaggerated sense of value, which aims at the sometimes aggressive demarcation of other nations. The exaggeration of one's own nation, with the aim of uniting people and space as far as possible, is often accompanied by exclusion and discrimination, in the extreme, to the expulsion or annihilation of ethnic and other minorities, who are considered alien or harmful to the imagined national body. Examples of exclusive nationalisms include Italian fascism, German National Socialism, and ethnic cleansing after the collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The exclusive nationalism raises a "loyalty and interpretation monopoly": The individual should no longer view his religion, his home region or the ruling dynasty as the identity-forming focus of thought and action, but only the nation. [12] This claim can lead in an integral nationalism to the relativization or even devaluation of the individual: "You are nothing, your people is everything." [13] Therefore, this nationalism is classified among the political religions. [14] Since the 1970s, the term has been used almost exclusively in the sense of chauvinism. [15]That's the definition I know. Chauvinism = nationalism (we barely use the term chauvinism in Germany though that's why I didn't think about it earlier).


So it seems that the term has different meanings in the US (inclusive nationalism) and Europe (exclusive nationalism) and that explains allot of the confusion here.

[Catfish]

FWIW, although I'm sure the Trump haters don't care. [...]

"EU nations are not allowed to visit this site."

Censorship? Conspiracy! lol
Whatever, it does not work :hmmm:

[Schroeder]

"EU nations are not allowed to visit this site."
Yep, but that's an issue with our privacy protection laws here. You can find that on many sites now.:-?

[Catfish]

So censorship is being called privacy protection. Doublespeak at its finest :03::D

Seroiusly, on one hand privacy protecrion is good. It is unbelievable what a load of spyware you get stored on your PC just by clicking on an ebay, Google or any link. A hundred cookies etc. in no time, and then you get your "tailored" (read: spied out) advertisements, along with tailored news especially for you or the target group they think you belong to.

However this clunky implementation by the authors of said websites "following" the DPRG is a joke. Either they drew the plug entirely, or you have to "accept all", or you have to spend an hour by choosing which cookies you accept, and which not, and who shall get the information. Every fn time you get on this site.

I usually just click on "accept all" and then instantly wipe all cookies, settings and stored info with various tools. But it really is too much fuzz meanwhile. Use the net and you can be sure anything you click on or visit is being monitored, and stored. No privacy, no anonymity. And it is not that you give those informations voluntarily as with Facebook et al, it is simply taken from you.


So it is general spying like in China, only the direct results vary. Yet.

[u crank]

The Democrats running Hillary in 2020, would go a long way to getting Trump reelected.

It was stupid for them to run her in 2016 and it will be doubly stupid to run her in 2020. But the Democrats are perfectly capable of losing in 2020 if they don't start thinking clearly.

Yep. Kinda like letting Nancy Pelosi return as House Majority Leader.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244658/democrats-favor-someone-pelosi-speaker.aspx

[Bleiente]

"EU nations are not allowed to visit this site."

Censorship? Conspiracy! lol
Whatever, it does not work :hmmm:
I've written it elsewhere before - just use the Tor Browser (ie the Tor network). :yep:



:salute:

[August]

If that's true then it's of course reasonable. But it would have been better to communicate that from the beginning though to not give critics ammunition.


I believe that it was communicated within minutes of the decision but the hostile press portrays it differently.

[vienna]

FWIW, although I'm sure the Trump haters don't care.




https://americanmilitarynews.com/2018/11/explained-the-controversy-over-trump-not-visiting-one-us-cemetery-in-the-rain-for-another/?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=militarymemes&utm_campaign=alt&fbclid=IwAR1hTSbRdObC646YxTr1Ug7BQMt0KILzH2j0XgOdz nOjRTb3ApAdODkCoaI

I believe that it was communicated within minutes of the decision but the hostile press portrays it differently.



What unmitigated BS. The President is the Commander-In-Chief and if he really want to attend, he could have overridden any arguments to the contrary. This is just the latest of several lame excuses Trump and his minions have rolled out to save his political ass. Even members of previous Presidential staff tasked with POTUS outdoor appearance have stated they always, always, had rain option factored in to the pre-planning for POTUS appearances; that Trump and his staff did not, only points, again, to the scatterbrained nature of their brand of misgovernment and mismanagement. What was Trump's real fear? That he might get wet and start dissolving into the ground while crying out "I'm Melting!! I'm melting!! ... Ohhhhh, what a world, what a world..."...




You know, they just don't make Presidents like they used to:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z82Zmerqmqo


When it rained on the day of the above ceremony, Truman's staff and the military brass tried to talk him into either taking the ceremony indoors, where only a few of the unit members, as representatives of the whole, would receive/witness the awarding, or for Truman to not attend and just allow one of the ranking military brass make the award on Truman's behalf. Truman immediately nixed the ideas; he told his subordinates that if brave men such as the 442nd, with their history of service could march and stand in the rain, the least he could do for them was to do likewise; he also told them that the whole of the unit deserved to be present and witness their achievement, not just a few in an indoor setting...









<O>

[Onkel Neal]

I don't think anyone is comparing Trump to Truman.

[vienna]

Trump probably would...


...but only to point out how much, much "better" he is... :03:




Here's a picture of Trump, Merkle and Maron; note the somber faces:


https://3dwnh01icn0h133s00sokwo1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/181111104406-armistice-trump-merkel-macron-exlarge-tease.jpg


Now here's a picture of the same as Putin arrives:


https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ie3FNodrCGmM/v0/560x-1.jpg


Note who of the three is happy to see "Dady's Home!"...


So, what is it? Is Trump anticipating a special Xmas bonus from the Boss...


...or is he going to hit up Putin for political asylum?...




Poor little Donnie, all on his own...


https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ietlYDewj9c4/v0/560x-1.jpg




:haha::haha:
















<O>

[Skybird]

Trump is Grrreat (tm). Who is Truman?

[August]

Trump is Grrreat (tm). Who is Truman?


Trump is more like a Teddy Roosevelt than a Harry Truman.

[August]

Some of you will get a kick out of this:


Donald Trump may be remembered as the most honest president in modern American history.


Don’t get me wrong, Trump lies all the time. He said that he “enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history” (actually they are the eighth largest (https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/is-trumps-bill-largest-tax-cut-in-history-no/index.html)) and that “our economy is the strongest it’s ever been in the history of our country (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/07/president-trumps-repeated-claim-greatest-economy-history-our-country/?utm_term=.51310b1510f5)” (which may one day be true, but not yet). In part, it’s a New York thing — everything is the biggest and the best.
But when it comes to the real barometer of presidential truthfulness — keeping his promises — Trump is a paragon of honesty. For better or worse, since taking office Trump has done exactly what he promised he would.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-could-be-the-most-honest-president-in-modern-history/2018/10/11/67aefc5a-cd76-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html?fbclid=IwAR2GcZoC56CCn2izh-jtPk4SFC8lF8Bmlw2Oy8gLS6wvtr5o6n2elXzcUJA&noredirect=on&utm_term=.ef25da0ec1f6

[Bleiente]

Trump is more like a Teddy Roosevelt than a Harry Truman.
:o...:doh:...:har:

Trump is pretty much the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt in all his qualities. :03:

:salute:

[August]

:o...:doh:...:har:

Trump is pretty much the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt in all his qualities. :03:

:salute:


What would you know about it?

[Bleiente]

What would you know about it?
I would advise you to read a few books ... about history in general and presidents in your own country. :03:

Do you have any books?!? :hmmm:



:salute:

[August]

I would advise you to read a few books ... about history in general and presidents in your own country. :03:

Do you have any books?!? :hmmm:



:salute:


I'll bet i've read more about TR than either of you have.

[Onkel Neal]

:o...:doh:...:har:

Trump is pretty much the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt in all his qualities. :03:

:salute:

Yeah, true. Teddy was an intellectual, a sportsman, and a real combat soldier. He took a bullet and finished his speech.

The man read many books. He wrote many books. There was no one like him. It’s well known among historians that our venerated 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt, was probably the most well-read president, and perhaps one of the most well-read men in all of history. He would read a book before breakfast every day, and depending on his schedule, another two or three in the evening (he was a speed reader extraordinaire). By his own estimates he read tens of thousands of books over the course of his lifetime.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/516GJakHPHL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81DAUvU--4L._AC_US218_..jpg
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41EKhp0yZ0L.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/516GJakHPHL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

I've read that one. It's a corker!

[Schroeder]

It's a corker!
...and I've just learned a new term. Thanks.:)

[Jimbuna]

If you say that someone or something is a corker, you mean that they are very good.

something or somebody striking or outstanding

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/corker

[STEED]

I've read that one. It's a corker!

Steve must have some Brit blood in him. :)

[August]

Yeah, true.



True enough but there are plenty of things that they share, including a healthy sense of American Nationalism. (I add the American prefix for our European friends whose own definition of nationalism seems to be somewhat different and far more dark than our own).

Speaking of Europeans, TR was quite bellicose when it came to European interference on our side of the pond, he did as much as anyone to start war with Spain and he exceeded his authority as assistant SecNav to give marching orders to Admiral Dewey vastly expanding the war from just Cuba to the Philippines as well. He also ran roughshod over the sovereignty of another nation in order to get the Panama Canal built.

[August]

Interesting article on what the breakup of the American states might look like.


Let’s just admit that this arranged marriage isn’t really working anymore, is it? The partisan dynamic in Washington may have changed, but our dysfunctional, codependent relationship is still the same. The midterm results have shown that Democrats have become even more a party of cities and upscale suburbs whose votes are inefficiently packed into dense geographies, Republicans one of exurbs and rural areas overrepresented in the Senate. The new Congress will be more ideologically divided than any before it, according to a scoring system developed by Stanford political scientist Adam Bonica: the Republicans more conservative, the Democrats more liberal.


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/maybe-its-time-for-america-to-split-up.html

[Onkel Neal]

True enough but there are plenty of things that they share, including a healthy sense of American Nationalism. (I add the American prefix for our European friends whose own definition of nationalism seems to be somewhat different and far more dark than our own).

Speaking of Europeans, TR was quite bellicose when it came to European interference on our side of the pond, he did as much as anyone to start war with Spain and he exceeded his authority as assistant SecNav to give marching orders to Admiral Dewey vastly expanding the war from just Cuba to the Philippines as well. He also ran roughshod over the sovereignty of another nation in order to get the Panama Canal built.

OK, that's very true, Teddy was an unapologetic nationalist. That element they do share.

[Onkel Neal]

Interesting article on what the breakup of the American states might look like.


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/maybe-its-time-for-america-to-split-up.html

If we could split, I would support that even if it was difficult for my side. I would much rather prefer challenges avoiding poverty than being in a blue state totalitarian government.

Your article reminds me of this

https://newrepublic.com/article/140948/bluexit-blue-states-exit-trump-red-america

The author clearly is trying to make it sound like us poor red States couldn't make it without the Metropolitan centers. I sure would be willing to find out. And I would say to the author of that article, hope you can feed yourself add extract all the fuel you need from the ground without us

[AVGWarhawk]

True enough but there are plenty of things that they share, including a healthy sense of American Nationalism. (I add the American prefix for our European friends whose own definition of nationalism seems to be somewhat different and far more dark than our own).

Speaking of Europeans, TR was quite bellicose when it came to European interference on our side of the pond, he did as much as anyone to start war with Spain and he exceeded his authority as assistant SecNav to give marching orders to Admiral Dewey vastly expanding the war from just Cuba to the Philippines as well. He also ran roughshod over the sovereignty of another nation in order to get the Panama Canal built.

Some would think Nationalism is a four letter word.

[Bleiente]

OK, that's very true, Teddy was an unapologetic nationalist. That element they do share.
These were all states at that time - especially the old feudalist states of Europe.
Th. Roosevelt acted and reacted foreign policy in the spirit of the time then common.
This alone has brought the US to the world stage.

But what I find much more important - Th. Roosevelt has smashed for the benefit of ordinary people such exploitation companies such as Standard-Oil (Rockefeller).

He has created an environmental policy and social measures for the common man, which made America really big first and could benefit until the late 60s.

Does this sound like a sissy like Trump? :haha:

[Mr Quatro]

These were all states at that time - especially the old feudalist states of Europe.
Th. Roosevelt acted and reacted foreign policy in the spirit of the time then common.
This alone has brought the US to the world stage.

But what I find much more important - Th. Roosevelt has smashed for the benefit of ordinary people such exploitation companies such as Standard-Oil (Rockefeller).

He has created an environmental policy and social measures for the common man, which made America really big first and could benefit until the late 60s.

Does this sound like a sissy like Trump? :haha:

See August ... Bleiente reads ... you put him down too soon. :yep:

You can't say that Neal and Steve don't read cause you respect them.
You should apologize for being rude. :yep:

As for Roosevelt reading a book before breakfast everyday ... I read one a month :D

[Sailor Steve]

Steve must have some Brit blood in him. :)
My great-great-great-great-grandfather James Bradfield, living in Fredericksburg, Virginia in 1785, is listed as coming from South Wales, as is his wife Elizabeth Lorentz.

So, yeah.

[Bilge_Rat]

Let’s just admit that this arranged marriage isn’t really working anymore, is it? The partisan dynamic in Washington may have changed, but our dysfunctional, codependent relationship is still the same. The midterm results have shown that Democrats have become even more a party of cities and upscale suburbs whose votes are inefficiently packed into dense geographies, Republicans one of exurbs and rural areas overrepresented in the Senate. The new Congress will be more ideologically divided than any before it, according to a scoring system developed by Stanford political scientist Adam Bonica: the Republicans more conservative, the Democrats more liberal.

yet more navel gazing... that is not a U.S. only problem, but a worldwide trend.

you look at every election, whether U.S., Canada, UK, France, etc., liberal parties always do better in urban areas and conservative parties always do better in rural areas. Splitting up the country is NOT the answer, trying to fix your electoral system is.

The big problem IMHO is the permanent election, Congress is elected every two years where the norm in every other country is four years, so Congress never has time to legislate and Congressmen spend all their time campaigning or raising funds for the next Campaign.

With a 4 year Parliament, you can have 2.5-3 years of actual governing followed by 1-1.5 years of positioning for the next election so something can actually get done.

[Dowly]

Splitting up the country is NOT the answer, trying to fix your electoral system is.
Fix or fix? :O:

[em2nought]

Fix or fix? :O:


Depends on which side of the aisle you're on. :03:


https://pics.me.me/breaking-news-astronomers-discover-comet-full-of-ballots-headed-toward-37710174.png

[vienna]

Ya know, when I posted the Truman clip, my intention wasn't to directly compare Truman to Trump, but, rather, as an example of a President who deemed the responsibility to honor the actions of those who serve (Truman, himself was a WWI veteran who saw action) as greater than personal comfort or expediency. Over the decades, I have seen newspaper and TV reports showing other Presidents attending various memorials to US war dead ,or for those who served, under poor weather conditions and who did not shirk their responsibilities as Commanders-In-Chief to suitably express the gratitude of the nation. It just happened I was very familiar with the Truman situation and it was the easiest clip to find...

If you want to find out why Truman was so determined to personally honor the 442nd, I suggest reading about Truman's own military record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman#World_War_I


Well, as long as we're making comparisons, it should be noted Truman kept a sign on his desk saying: "The Buck Stops Here":

https://www.trumanlibrary.org/buckstop.htm

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1d21Ve63ZFw/WVU_0RGLSpI/AAAAAAAAFgg/xDhXo4Ikq7gH-dnFtgfZ_wb41haeKQKzACLcBGAs/s1600/Buck%2Bstops%2Bhere.jpg




If Trump had a sign on his desk it would probably go something like:





There's no buck here.


And, if there is, its a fake buck made up by the lying media.


And if they come looking for the buck, its all just a witch hunt.


And I don't know any buck.


And if I did, it only a low level buck I didn't interact with.


Why aren't they looking for Obama's buck?




For Trump, the Buck Never Stops Here --

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/06/29/for-trump-the-buck-never-stops-here/














<O>

[August]

Well Bientes extensive research aside, apparently I am not the only one who feels this way:


https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-teddy-roosevelt-trump-comparison-perspec-0208-md-20170207-story.html





Is Trump the new Teddy Roosevelt?


"By Godfrey!" Theodore Roosevelt seethed. "I'll get them on the record yet!"
A young state legislator in Albany, N.Y., Roosevelt declared war against the bosses of Tammany Hall. The president on Mount Rushmore has since become more mountain than man. But how much do we really remember about how he made his mark on America? History has a way of making the future seem inevitable.

The rise of Teddy Roosevelt was strangely similar to that of President Donald Trump.
There's an uncanny likeness between the two: A mythical fascination with the military, a projection of boundless energy, unique physical flair (Roosevelt's spectacles and teeth were so famous that people drew them on envelopes to write to the White House; Trump's orange skin and blond hair are the subject of memes everywhere); a throw-the-bastards-out reformist image, a disposition toward action and authority.


Both candidates transformed traditional relationships with the media.
People forget that Roosevelt had a temper. He stomped, he stormed, he beat his way through opposition like a dog on attack. He snapped his teeth viciously, threw speeches like punches and understood the awesome power of media. He campaigned through newspapers and witch hunts. He pioneered the art of spin, twisted facts and blasted enemies through explosive headlines.


"Speak softly and carry a big stick"? That was advice for other people.
Roosevelt crusaded to right wrongs; he saw the world's injustices in black and white. When someone or something was in his crosshairs he whipped up a populist fury until public outrage carried him to victory.


Sound like someone you know? A president with a terrific temperament and a big bark? A vicious counterpuncher? During the campaign, Trump transformed the traditional candidate-press relationship by demonstrating what we all know: When you are the news, your social media can reach anyone. You don't need no stinking newspapers. They're just whipping boys, foils, smaller kids who can't hit back when you beat them up to feel good.

[August]

See August ... Bleiente reads ... you put him down too soon. :yep:


Put him down? I just told him that I bet I read more about TR than he did which was in response to him rudely suggesting that I have never read a book in my life.


You should apologize for being rude. :yep:


Well I think you should apologize to me for being a buttinski and being wrong. :yep:

[August]

If we could split, I would support that even if it was difficult for my side. I would much rather prefer challenges avoiding poverty than being in a blue state totalitarian government.

Your article reminds me of this

https://newrepublic.com/article/140948/bluexit-blue-states-exit-trump-red-america

The author clearly is trying to make it sound like us poor red States couldn't make it without the Metropolitan centers. I sure would be willing to find out. And I would say to the author of that article, hope you can feed yourself add extract all the fuel you need from the ground without us


I somewhat agree although they do have the numbers to take what they want.



Were a split to happen however though the rural areas should expect a lot of refugees. If the US is going to split up there are a lot of us now living in Blue Land that are going to want to make it to the free states before the new Iron Curtain goes up.

[vienna]

Was TR a woosy with 'bone spurs' who was afraid to get a little wet? Was TR the sort of President to dodge responsibility for his actions or to make weak excuses for acts of severe ethical and/or moral failing? (Then, again, TR seems not have had those kind of failings.) Sorry, as much as the Trumpettes may want to put lipstick on their pig, still no one is asking it to the prom. The mid-terms proved that Trump has no political "coattails" (hell, he's probably got less than 'vest tails') and the majority of the voting public still ain't backing his hand. Compare all you like, but Donny still comes out the loser that he is...

...and, oh yes, heard today two more House sets have flipped towards the DEMs; must be that "Trump Effect", huh?...











<O>

[Onkel Neal]

I somewhat agree although they do have the numbers to take what they want.



Were a split to happen however though the rural areas should expect a lot of refugees. If the US is going to split up there are a lot of us now living in Blue Land that are going to want to make it to the free states before the new Iron Curtain goes up.


You would be required to exchange one of our welfare recipients to your Blue state. Then you would be welcome. See, in the Red States of America, welfare would be very limited, subject to a means and ability test, and time limited. So we may as well move the unfortunate to the Blue States of America, where the people love and want to take care of the poor. :yep:

[August]

You would be required to exchange one of our welfare recipients to your Blue state. Then you would be welcome. See, in the Red States of America, welfare would be very limited, subject to a means and ability test, and time limited. So we may as well move the unfortunate to the Blue States of America, where the people love and want to take care of the poor. :yep:


Well with cousins in Texas, Indiana, Ohio and North Dakota i'm sure that we could come up with a deadbeat or three yearning for the city lights. :)

[Buddahaid]

I suppose you will just have to suffer as the blue states states won't be subsidizing the red states with their tax dollars.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/ap-fact-check-blue-high-tax-states-fund-red-low-tax-states

[Onkel Neal]

Ok, cancel the succession. We'll stay in the union until the Blue States run out of money :ping:

[Catfish]

https://countryeconomy.com/countries/usa-states/compare/california/texas


Next look when the rests of oil have been quenched out :03:

[Bleiente]

I just told him that I bet I read more about TR than he did which was in response to him rudely suggesting that I have never read a book in my life.
And I sincerely apologize for that.
Nevertheless, I think you should reflect your opinion and yourself.
Blind idol worship has never been good... :03:



:salute:

[August]

And I sincerely apologize for that.
Nevertheless, I think you should reflect your opinion and yourself.
Blind idol worship has never been good... :03:


Except that I don't blindly worship anyone. I didn't vote for Trump but I have grown rather fond of him based on his actions since he became president. SCJ's, tax cuts, etc and like I have said before he continues to piss off all the right people!

[em2nought]

The democrats will eventually win the day, and Republicans will have been so vilified by then that killing conservatives will eventually be viewed in the same manner as hanging Hitler's henchmen at Nuremburg. After the conservatives are "erased" the USA will become another Venezuela when there isn't anymore wealth to take from somebody else. Not a very nice bedtime story is it? :hmmm:


...and then the Chinese who are in it to win it pay a visit.
结束
Jiéshù

[Buddahaid]

Bull. Stop trying to divide the country with that crap.

[August]

Bull. Stop trying to divide the country with that crap.


The country is already divided.

[Buddahaid]

I don't think it's as divided as you think, or any worse then it ever was in general. The division is what people make of it. If you choose to see it that way, it's all you will ever see, so choose differently.

[Cybermat47]

The democrats will eventually win the day, and Republicans will have been so vilified by then that killing conservatives will eventually be viewed in the same manner as hanging Hitler's henchmen at Nuremburg. After the conservatives are "erased" the USA will become another Venezuela when there isn't anymore wealth to take from somebody else. Not a very nice bedtime story is it? :hmmm:


...and then the Chinese who are in it to win it pay a visit.
结束
Jiéshù

So you think that if a conservative party gains power in America, all the American conservatives will be killed?

But by that logic, if an even more conservative party like the Republicans gain power, wouldn’t all the conservatives be killed anyway?

And with no conservatives left, a liberal party will take power - which would presumably kill all the liberals, leaving, as you say, America open to the Chinese. Who, upon taking power, would probably kill all the Chinese?

Where is this going?

[Buddahaid]

You have his point flipped.

[Cybermat47]

You have his point flipped.

Well, there are only two political parties in the US - the conservative Democrats, and the even more conservative Republicans.

[Schroeder]

Well, there are only two political parties in the US - the conservative Democrats, and the even more conservative Republicans.
That's what I find so strange about US politics too. There isn't even a left choice to vote for yet everybody on the farther right predicts communism if the repubs don't win.:doh:

[Skybird]

Democrats in general are quite left-leaning already, and several of their new hopes who won a seat recently are de facto socialists and "progressives" in the left-leaning understanding of the term, if judging them by their voiced demands and agendas.

The Republicans will follow that shift sooner or later - or stop winning elections because their voter base - as is now - simply gets bred out. Mind you, by simply counting the ballots for the parties, the Demcorats already now are leading over Republican voters, without all that gerrymandering and other methods to manipulate voting results, the Donald probably would not have become president. This numerical dominance of the Dems can be expected to grow due to demographic change.

[u crank]

Well, there are only two political parties in the US - the conservative Democrats, and the even more conservative Republicans.

That's what I find so strange about US politics too. There isn't even a left choice to vote for yet everybody on the farther right predicts communism if the repubs don't win.:doh:

Really. You guys need to do some research. The Democratic party in the US is liberal, progressive and very left leaning. And becoming more so all the time.

Of course there are some moderates in both parties.

Democrats in general are quite left-leaning already, and several of their new hopes who won a seat recently are de facto socialists and "progressives" in the left-leaning understanding of the term, if judging them by their voiced demands and agendas.

The Skybird knows. :D

The Republicans will follow that shift sooner or later - or stop winning elections because their voter base - as is now - simply gets bred out.

Many experts say this but it is a broad assumption. Many people vote out of dissatisfaction. Trump is a shining example. Obama's 2010 midterm crash is another. If the US electorate continues to shift left it will have to be accompanied by voter satisfaction. Ideology only works in the short term. The party in power always gets the blame and in most cases rightly deserves the back lash.

Mind you, by simply counting the ballots for the parties, the Demcorats already now are leading over Republican voters, without all that gerrymandering and other methods to manipulate voting results, the Donald probably would not have become president.

In the USA the overall popular vote means nothing other than a talking point for one party and both sides are guilty of gerrymandering.

This numerical dominance of the Dems can be expected to grow due to demographic change.

Again there is no guarantee that future generations will vote in a particular way. Yes it is trending that way but again...Donald Trump.:O:

[Catfish]

^ no wonder Putin and Xi Jinping despise western "democracy" :hmmm:
I do not mean the US alone, of course.

[em2nought]

This numerical dominance of the Dems can be expected to grow due to demographic change.


Unfortunately while all this is happening in the USA, Europe will have become a Caliphate so.... sucks for us all. :Kaleun_Sick:

[Skybird]

Already Homer let his king of Troy, Priamos, bicker with fate that his best men having been the first to be slain, while the scum still putters around in the streets.


What gets build by constructors, attracts consumers destroying it again. And the latter has always been easier to complete than the first.

[Dowly]

Donald Trump Says Finland Doesn't Have California Wildfires Problem Because ‘They Spent a Lot of Time on Raking' (https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-says-finland-doesnt-have-california-wildfires-problem-because-1220911)

In a press conference Saturday afternoon in Northern California President Donald Trump did not blame climate change for the deadliest wildfire the nation has seen in a century, but said instead that Finland doesn’t have the same problem because “they spend a lot of time on raking” leaves.

"You’ve got to take care of the floors. You know the floors of the forest, very important. You look at other countries where they do it differently and it’s a whole different story,” Trump said standing next to California Governor Jerry Brown and Governor-elect Gavin Newsom.

“I was with the president of Finland and he said, ‘We have a much different—we're a forest nation.’ He called it a forest nation, and they spent a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things,” Trump said, making a moving motion with his hand. “And they don't have any problem.”How dumb is this guy? Not only is the climate in Finland completely different, so is the vegetation. We also don't rake "the floors of forest" because it might become a fire hazard, but because the stuff can be burned in power plants or be used in industry. There are plenty of swamps, lakes, rivers and streams to halt a forest fire, not to mention the fact that we get a lot of rain and, of course, snow.


Something tells me he is eyeing for reasons to give private companies logging permissions on federal land and/or sell the land.

[Onkel Neal]

The democrats will eventually win the day, and Republicans will have been so vilified by then that killing conservatives will eventually be viewed in the same manner as hanging Hitler's henchmen at Nuremburg. After the conservatives are "erased" the USA will become another Venezuela when there isn't anymore wealth to take from somebody else. Not a very nice bedtime story is it? :hmmm:


...and then the Chinese who are in it to win it pay a visit.
结束
Jiéshù


Wow, pretty good summary, yeah, that's how I see it, too. The only amendment I would make is to fill in the process that leads to it. The watering down of accountability and the natural tendency for people, even conservatives, to take the easy route, is what will lead to The democrats will eventually win the day. As more and more people give up their liberty to the government in order to be taken care of, there will be fewer and fewer real conservatives, and a smaller segment of the population that will be paying their share of taxes to support the govt. At some point, the taxpayers will be such a small portion of the population that has it will no chance of winning elections, and then it'll be all over. Pretty much like Skybird describes.

[Buddahaid]

Something tells me he is eyeing for reasons to give private companies logging permissions on federal land and/or sell the land.

Exactly, and people who don't live here will swallow it up because a "good" politician can sell anything, even the truth sometimes.

[Mr Quatro]

Really. You guys need to do some research. The Democratic party in the US is liberal, progressive and very left leaning. And becoming more so all the time.

Of course there are some moderates in both parties.

Originally Posted by Skybird
Democrats in general are quite left-leaning already, and several of their new hopes who won a seat recently are de facto socialists and "progressives" in the left-leaning understanding of the term, if judging them by their voiced demands and agendas.

The Skybird knows. :D



The democratic party panders to the poor in the south for sure ... I first noticed this when LBJ was President. Today they want open borders, they want to raise taxes (like they always do) and they talk double talk to the poor to get them to vote for them.

They are as liberal as it gets ... I would say 85% of the party are left wing liberals.

I'm shocked that you overseas folks (except Skybird) would think any different :o

[Buddahaid]

And very likely the opposite is true for the republican party.

The republican party panders to the rich in the north for sure ... I first noticed this when LBJ was President. Today they want close borders, they want to lower taxes (like they always do) and they talk double talk to the rich to get them to vote for them.

They are as conservative as it gets ... I would say 85% of the party are right wing conservatives.

So it finds some balance where most get something they want and give up something they want. I don't think any of of us really want it any other way.

[AVGWarhawk]

The democrats will eventually win the day, and Republicans will have been so vilified by then that killing conservatives will eventually be viewed in the same manner as hanging Hitler's henchmen at Nuremburg. After the conservatives are "erased" the USA will become another Venezuela when there isn't anymore wealth to take from somebody else. Not a very nice bedtime story is it? :hmmm:


...and then the Chinese who are in it to win it pay a visit.
结束
Jiéshù

The fun loving democrats conducting public hangings? Not in your or my lifetime. However, the idea makes for a good futuristic movie.

[Onkel Neal]

And very likely the opposite is true for the republican party.

The republican party panders to the rich in the north for sure ... I first noticed this when LBJ was President. Today they want close borders, they want to lower taxes (like they always do) and they talk double talk to the rich to get them to vote for them.

They are as conservative as it gets ... I would say 85% of the party are right wing conservatives.

So it finds some balance where most get something they want and give up something they want. I don't think any of of us really want it any other way.


Sounds about right.

[August]

And very likely the opposite is true for the republican party.

The republican party panders to the rich in the north for sure ... I first noticed this when LBJ was President. Today they want close borders, they want to lower taxes (like they always do) and they talk double talk to the rich to get them to vote for them.

They are as conservative as it gets ... I would say 85% of the party are right wing conservatives.

So it finds some balance where most get something they want and give up something they want. I don't think any of of us really want it any other way.

Sounds about right.


It does, especially the lowering taxes part. I could take some more of that!

[vienna]

A bit of a laugh...or not...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IABRgZH12YA








<O>

[u crank]

A bit of a laugh...or not...


That was pretty good. :up:

[vienna]

Just thought we could use a chuckle...












<O>

[Onkel Neal]

:Kaleun_Wink: Nice one, Vienna

[Jimbuna]

Yep, enjoyed that :yep:

[vienna]

Chief Justice John Roberts Criticizes Trump For ‘Obama Judge’ Asylum Comment --




WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts is pushing back against President Donald Trump for his description of a judge who ruled against Trump’s migrant asylum policy as an “Obama judge.”

It’s the first time the Republican-appointed leader of the federal judiciary has offered even a hint of criticism of Trump, who has previously blasted federal judges who ruled against him.

Roberts said Wednesday the U.S. doesn’t have “Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.” He commented in a statement released by the Supreme Court after a query by The Associated Press.

Roberts said on the day before Thanksgiving that an “independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”


Trump may not want to irritate someone who may be in a position to rule on possible future issues regarding Trump's legal problems...











<O>

[u crank]

Chief Justice John Roberts Criticizes Trump For ‘Obama Judge’ Asylum Comment --

Once again Trump's vocabulary skills fail him. :haha:

Had he said 'Obama appointed Judge' he would have been speaking the truth.....but we all know what he was getting at. :O:

[vienna]

Once again Trump's vocabulary skills fail him. :haha:

Had he said 'Obama appointed Judge' he would have been speaking the truth.....but we all know what he was getting at. :O:

Dang, I'm getting old; I forgot to post the link to the source:

Chief Justice John Roberts Criticizes Trump For ‘Obama Judge’ Asylum Comment --

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-roberts-trump-obama-judge_us_5bf597f4e4b0eb6d930af693




The president complained that his opponents file their lawsuits in courts that are part of the liberal-leaning 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Every case that gets filed in the 9th Circuit, we get beaten. And then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court, like the travel ban, and we won,” Trump said.

The president went on to say about the asylum ruling: “This was an Obama judge.”

But the initial travel ban ruling in 2017 was issued by U.S. District Judge James Robart, an appointee of President George W. Bush. Roberts also was appointed by Bush.





It should also be pointed out that the Judge who ruled against Trump's ban on CNN's Acosta was a Trump appointee. Several SCOTUS Justices, as well other Federal Judges, have commented on how, once they were sworn in, donned the robes, and were faced with the reality of the serious, weighty, and important nature of their task, developed a whole new perspective towards their responsibilities; sometimes this reconsideration has worked to the detriment of those who appointed them in search of an 'easy vote'...












<O>

[vienna]

Vox Populi:

Democrats won House popular vote by largest midterm margin since Watergate --

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-won-house-popular-vote-largest-midterm-margin-watergate-n938996




Must be the "Trump Effect" that accounts for this GOP success...







<O>

[u crank]

Vox Populi:

Democrats won House popular vote by largest midterm margin since Watergate --

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-won-house-popular-vote-largest-midterm-margin-watergate-n938996

Must be the "Trump Effect" that accounts for this GOP success...

5 Flaws in 'Popular-Vote-Repudiates-Trump' Argument.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/11/20/5_flaws_in_popular-vote-repudiates-trump_argument_138698.html

Normally, midterms feature a fairly equal number of uncontested seats on both the Democratic and Republican sides. But this year, Democrats ran unchallenged by a GOP opponent in no fewer than 40 House races. Only three Republican candidates could say the same. In other words, there wasn’t a House Republican even listed on 40 ballots, which skewed the popular vote in Democrats’ favor.

..also noted that Democrats garnered a large portion of their vote margin from districts that demographically are overwhelmingly blue, such as Florida’s 20th District (dominated by Rep. Alcee Hastings) and California’s 13th District (commanded by Rep. Barbara Lee).


And in the Senate...

Why you shouldn't care so much about the popular vote.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/voting-2018-popular-vote/index.html

Speaking of California, its primary system meant that two Democrats faced off on Election Day, so presumably de León's 2.8-plus-million votes are in the Democratic column, along with California winner Dianne Feinstein's more than 3.3 million votes.

[Mr Quatro]

I've learned my lesson not to trust FB anymore, but I just saw this and it peaked my interest due to Beto almost won the Senate race in Texas against Ted Cruz, but I heard Beto spent something like 78 million dollars to lose.

Should we put him on the list with Biden, Bernie and heaven forbid Hillary Clinton?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/just-like-obama-democrats-are-falling-for-the-idea-of-beto-2020

Just like Obama, Democrats are falling for the idea of Beto 2020

Beto has gone nationwide.

With praise coming in from everyone from Beyoncé to former President Barack Obama and the Texas representative hinting at a possible run at the White House in 2020, Beto O’Rourke has become the cause célèbre among Democratic donors and activists around the country - and looks to shake up what already promises to be a crowded field of Democrats challenging President Trump.

[Cybermat47]

Perhaps the Democrats have learnt that nominating Clinton was a mistake.

I wonder how many people didn’t vote for Trump, but instead against Clinton?

[Buddahaid]

I didn't vote for either of them. Her because of what she represents, and him because he's an idiot.

[Onkel Neal]

Same here. I don't think he is an idiot, though. He's a lot smarter than I gave him credit for, he did manage to outmaneuver the experienced Republican field and beat Madam Hillary at her own game. He is uncouth, crass, and quite a huckster.

[Platapus]

Perhaps the Democrats have learnt that nominating Clinton was a mistake.

I wonder how many people didn’t vote for Trump, but instead against Clinton?

2016 was truly a race to the bottom of the barrel.

I believe that if the Democrats had put almost anyone other than Hillary up, they would have won.

The Republicans could have put almost anyone other than Trump and still beaten Hillary.

Hillary's legacy is being probably the only candidate that could lose against a buffoon like Trump

Putting Hillary up will go down as a political mistake equal to the GOP putting up Palin.

There are times when one as to ask "what were they thinking?"

[Rockstar]

... He is uncouth, crass, and quite a huckster.

In otherwords the perfect politician.

[Buddahaid]

In otherwords the perfect politician.

Not really. The other hucksters at least know how to use decorum when it's required of the office.

[Rockstar]

You gotta admit though his lack of political decorum didn't get in the way of him becoming president. I'd even go so far as to say it helped him get elected.
Call me crazy but from what I have been reading in the news the last several months I predict the economy will tank and become the headline just in time for the 2020 presidential election.

[Buddahaid]

I don't disagree with that. I'm just disappointed that he just doesn't get it, or if he does, he doesn't care. Sure, speak plainly, but why crudely? I have never had any respect for the man, and I see any reason to change my opinion while he's had a wonderful opportunity to be great, and has/will blown it by being a class A-1 jerk.

[Catfish]

Rockstar wrote:
You gotta admit though his lack of political decorum didn't get in the way of him becoming president. I'd even go so far as to say it helped him get elected.

100 percent agree. Isn't that frightening? :D

[u crank]

100 percent agree. Isn't that frightening? :D

For some people.:D

Two possible predictions for the future.

#1. A 'Trump' from the left. The play book has been written and published. Politicians will resort to any means to get elected. It's in their genes.

#2. If a recurrence of conditions like 2016 happen again... another Trump from the right.

I will be available to disavow any prediction should they turn out to be wrong.:O:

[Onkel Neal]

Not really. The other hucksters at least know how to use decorum when it's required of the office.

That's exactly right. At least the other politicians respected the office enough to act properly. I give Obama that. And Bush. I have nothing against a President who steps outside the usual lanes when the occasion warrants it, but Trump lives outside the lane. Some of his blathering is more appropriate for budget TV ads

[vienna]

[QUOTE]

Speaking of California, its primary system meant that two Democrats faced off on Election Day, so presumably de León's 2.8-plus-million votes are in the Democratic column, along with California winner Dianne Feinstein's more than 3.3 million votes.


California has what is called an "Open Primary" or "Voter-Nominated" system for almost all but local (county/city) offices:


Primary Elections in California --

https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/primary-elections-california/



What is a voter-nominated office?

The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act, which took effect January 1, 2011, created "voter-nominated" offices. The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act does not apply to candidates running for U.S. President, county central committees, or local offices.

Most of the offices that were previously known as "partisan" are now known as "voter-nominated" offices. Voter-nominated offices are state constitutional offices, state legislative offices, and U.S. congressional offices. The only "partisan offices" now are the offices of U.S. President and county central committee.


How are primary elections conducted in California?

All candidates for voter-nominated offices are listed on one ballot and only the top two vote-getters in the primary election – regardless of party preference - move on to the general election. Write-in candidates for voter-nominated offices can only run in the primary election. A write-in candidate will only move on to the general election if the candidate is one of the top two vote-getters in the primary election.

Prior to the Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act, the top vote-getter from each qualified political party, as well as any write-in candidate who received a certain percentage of votes, moved on to the general election.

The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act does not apply to candidates running for U.S. President, county central committee, or local office.


(Italics mine)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_primaries_in_the_United_States#California_and _Primary_Election_Alternatives




California and Primary Election Alternatives

A "modified closed primary" was in effect in California from 2001 to 2011. Each political party could decide whether or not they wish to allow unaffiliated voters to vote in their party's primary. This appeared to avoid the constitutional concerns of both the open and the closed primary. In the 2004 and 2006 primary elections, the Republican, Democratic, and American Independent parties all opted to allow unaffiliated voters to request their party's ballot. However, since the 2008 presidential primary election, only the Democratic and American Independent parties took this option, while the Republican party did not.

In 2011, the state adopted a "modified open primary". Individual citizens may vote for any candidate, and the top two candidates regardless of party will advance to the general election. The Presidential election is exempt from this voting method as it is a contest for delegates rather than a direct election for an office.

A potential side effect of the open primary is that parties that run more candidates may find themselves at a disadvantage, since their partisan supporters' votes will be split more ways in the primary and thus those candidates may have a harder time reaching the top-two ranking when competing with parties that run fewer candidates.



As noted above, the former Primary system tended to work against voter from 'third parties' or Independents (IND) like myself. In prior primaries, IND voters were given ballots listing only candidates from 'third parties' or the occasional independent, "lone wolf' candidates; now the primary is open to all voters of any or n affiliation. It seems to work pretty well (although the two major parties still have hardliners who grouse about letting anyone other than their own participate), and, in the last primary, an Independent candidate actually won a space on the November 2016 General Election ballot for the position of State Insurance Commissioner, proving, if you run a worthy candidate, voters will support them, regardless of affiliation. The candidate in question is Steve Poizner, who was once Insurance Commissioner, but gave up his office in an unsuccessful run for Governor. He ran as a GOP candidate back when he first won the Commissioner's office, but this last time, he ran as an Independent; he didn't want to have deal with the 'Trump-taint', as he appears to not be a fan of Trump. In the primary of 2016, he actually got the highest vote percentage, beating out a DEM candidate, but lost in the General Election to the DEM candidate; it's a shame really, since his single term as CA Insurance Commissioner was one of the most productive and effective in CA history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Poizner#California_Insurance_Commissioner





The California Insurance Commissioner was created in 1988 via the voter approval of Proposition 103. Poizner took office in January 8, 2007 and served until January 3, 2011. As Insurance Commissioner, Poizner received praise for his handling of the San Diego wildfires in 2007, for taking on health insurance companies' illegal rescission practices and rate increases, and for decreasing spending in his state government department's discretionary operating budget by 13%. At the end of his term, Poizner was praised for his efforts to streamline and modernize the CDI through spending cuts and conducting a top-down review of the department. Poizner oversaw nearly 2,800 fraud-related arrests, the most in CDI history, in a 3-year span and conducted the first ever terror finance probe by a US Insurance Commissioner, which resulted in millions of dollars diverted from Iran.



I voted for him as an IND candidate and I would have voted for him if he were a GOP candidate...



...and, as far as the total vote tallies go, let's be honest: if the 2018 General Election vote totals were reversed and the GOP wound up with the majority of the vote, the GOP would be loudly hailing it as an affirmation of Trump , and as a "mandate from America' for GOP policies and the DEM commentators would be posting their own versions of the two links u crank posted. So lets not just go by the "vox populi", let's go by the fact 28 GOP incumbent House members lost their seats to DEM candidates and no DEM incumbents lost their seats; or how about the GOP losing seven Governor's office nation wide; or how about it appears the GOP will pretty much have stagnated when it comes to Senate gains? Or maybe how in states and areas where Trump won in 2016 by double digits, GOP candidates pretty much either squeaked by or lost? Somehow, I haven't head many, if any, reports of significant gains by the GOP in the 2018 General Election...


That's exactly right. At least the other politicians respected the office enough to act properly. I give Obama that. And Bush. I have nothing against a President who steps outside the usual lanes when the occasion warrants it, but Trump lives outside the lane. Some of his blathering is more appropriate for budget TV ads

Decorum by a President is the face the US presents to the world, but what we have now is what some have referred to as a 'drunken uncle at a family party'; I tend to think of Trump as as a sort of "Cliff Clavin" character, like from Cheers (and I apologize to Cliff for the highly unflattering comparison), the loudmouthed guy at the end of the bar, forcefully declaiming fuzzy 'facts' or, if facts fail, just making up lies in order to seem knowledgeable. Trump is a huckster, like all con men and Trump has been a con man for a very long time, but con men don't do well in the light of day. When Trump won election, I predicted his past and present cons would come back to haunt him and, with the looming Mueller investigation results about to come, and with the rising notice of Trump's blatant and rampant dishonesty even more evident, the prediction is about to come true; Trump, prior to office,could rely on the fact his dishonest activities would ot rise to the level of extended and detailed scrutiny, but he now faces the fact everything, anything a holder of a prominent office does or did is fair game for the news media and for the investigative arms of the various justice branches; he can no longer secretly make a deal to keep his wrongs from the public eye...


In case any of you might be looking for an Xmas 'stocking stuffer' for the Trump-lover you might know (or yourself), this little item has been out for about a year now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9qv8RSreIM









<O>

[Rockstar]

Rockstar wrote:


100 percent agree. Isn't that frightening? :D




meh, I've been a sailor all of my life so I've heard and said worse. Just not everyday. :Kaleun_Cheers:

[u crank]

California has what is called an "Open Primary" or "Voter-Nominated" system for almost all but local (county/city) offices:

Well thanks for the civics lesson on California's 'jungle primary'. I didn't need it.:D

The point of this quote..

Speaking of California, its primary system meant that two Democrats faced off on Election Day, so presumably de León's 2.8-plus-million votes are in the Democratic column, along with California winner Dianne Feinstein's more than 3.3 million votes.

..is pretty obvious. In the 'popular' vote count for the Senate nation wide, 6.1 million Democrat votes were counted from the state of California. Zero Republican votes were counted. That is almost 2 million more that what Clinton beat Trump by in 2016 in that state. Are we to suggest that no Republicans would have voted for their candidate if there was one on the ticket. Because of this the national popular vote count is kinda meaningless.

...and, as far as the total vote tallies go, let's be honest: if the 2018 General Election vote totals were reversed and the GOP wound up with the majority of the vote, the GOP would be loudly hailing it as an affirmation of Trump , and as a "mandate from America' for GOP policies..

Doesn't make it any more valid.

..and the DEM commentators would be posting their own versions of the two links u crank posted.

Last time I checked Z. Byron Wolf and Chris Cillizza are DEM commentators. :O:

As for Trumpy Bear..this YouTube comment is priceless.

I tried to buy this and was shocked when it showed up at my house. They took the money and the bear actually showed up. He's been riding in my back seat for 3 months and I still can't believe this is all real. I went to a psychologist because I was concerned that I could see Trumpy Bear and to my horror, she could see him too. We're both now seeing separate counselors as we try to grapple with this Ursus phenomenon. I submitted myself to a psychiatric clinic to see if they could talk me out of Trumpy's existence but they were dumbfounded and turned us away. Trumpy Bear is real.

:har:

[vienna]

The point of this quote..

..is pretty obvious. In the 'popular' vote count for the Senate nation wide, 6.1 million Democrat votes were counted from the state of California. Zero Republican votes were counted. That is almost 2 million more that what Clinton beat Trump by in 2016 in that state. Are we to suggest that no Republicans would have voted for their candidate if there was one on the ticket. Because of this the national popular vote count is kinda meaningless.





Hmm, when the Primary for US Senate was tabulated, the highest ranking GOP candidate was James P. Bradley in 3rd place with 8.3% of the total vote; I guess if you don't run a candidate the voters are actually willing to vote for, that's what happens... Feinstein (DEM) got 44.2% of the total vote in the open, non partisan primary. There were 35 candidates, from all parties, including independents, who ran for the office. The voters, of all parties got to choose and they did. As in much of the races run in CA, the GOP just ran candidates either out of step with the majority of the voters or just unknown quantities to the voters...

There were over 6,168,767 ballots cast in the CA US Senate race, all going to the two DEM candidates; since there are 8,438,268 DEM and 4,769,299 GOP registered voters in CA (net total 13,207,567), the chances of any of the GOP Primary candidates, had they got on the ballot, actually making a significant dent on the final vote tally, as regards the DEM haul, was unlikely; the Governor's race, which did have both a DEM and GOP candidate, resulted in the DEM winning 60% to 40%, with 4,158,682 votes of those cast going to the DEM candidate. There were a total of 7,141,987 votes cast in the General Election, roughly about 970,000 votes less than the total ballots statewide. I'm willing to bet not every single GOP voter abstained from voting for one of the DEM candidates, and there were probably a lot of IND and Third Party voters who cast vote in the Senate race, so technically, the vote total is not just DEM voters. Are you seriously suggesting only DEM voters voted in the race and no other party or IND voters took part? Seems unlikely...

...and it has been stated before by posters in this forum, when defending the "quality" of Trump's win in 2016, that 'a win is a win', no matter how ugly or convoluted, so just suck it up and deal with the fact that, even without CA's vote included, the GOP and Trump got their asses handed to them, losing some 40 House seats, making no gains in the Senate, losing seven governorships, and watching a slew of states and counties where Trump won by double digits either losing the GOP hold or having the GOP candidates barely squeaking by; and, the DEMs got more votes cast for their candidates, nationwide, than the GOP. Trump has no power over and his influence with the majority of voting Americans has been, is, and continues to be minimal to none and, once the hearing and indictments start, he will be less a party leader than a very heavy albatross to the GOP. If you want to see the possible future of the GOP, look up the results in Orange County, CA, a place once called Regan country: in 2016, the very heavily GOP county, for the first time in 80 years, did not elect a GOP candidate for President, and, in 2018's General election, turned every single House seat over the DEM column, the first time in 80 years not a single House district in the County will be represented by a GOP rep.; add to this the fact Orange County is also the county that contributes the most funds of any county in the US to GOP coffers, and the future does not bode well for the GOP...









<O>

[u crank]

^

I'll not dispute any of those facts except...

making no gains in the Senate

Hmm.. GOP are up two Senate seats overall and will likely make it three on Tuesday. If Cindy Hyde-Smith can keep her foot out of her mouth she should win in the special election in deep red Mississippi. Final result GOP +3.

[Skybird]

The behaviour Trump shows in all regards, is the only one he knows, which shows how limited he is. He is successful in being popular, because it is right this bulling behaviour for which the crowd likes him.

He is not master of his ways, nor of himself. He is haunted by the way he behaves, he is ridden by it, pushed, chased. Its the only thing that keeps him in office. The foundation of his populism.

All this makes three things very unlikely:

First, that he will ever show any other behaviour.

Second, that he can keep himself in power once this behaviour is no longer being asked for, or tolerated. Because he does not know any other.

Third, that any of the career parasites who rose just becasue of him, will speak out against his rudeness and bulliness and narration of his fake reality.

He will get reelected, most likely. And leader and people deserve each other like rarely before.

Thus, zero compassion from me.