Will Trump Be Impeached ?

Quote: MrV

If on the other hand they are at loggerheads and it gets corrosive: he'll be toast.

That's why Obama was impeached, he refused
to get along with the Repub congress for the
last 6 years. He was toast.

Not that I wish this on him or anyone, but he should be worried about being impaled, not impeached.

Trump fires AG for not enforcing travel ban.

The last POTUS to do this was Nixon, who fired the AG because they were investigating watergate. This is what began his impeachment hearings.

Quote: gamerfreak

Trump fires AG for not enforcing travel ban.

Who could see that coming. Trump has lots of
experience firing people.

Quote: EvenBob

...Obama was impeached,....

Really? You learn something new everyday.

Quote: Romes

Yes, I saw it prior in my hometown and loved it... They have so much information/detail you can't even take it all in with one trip. Blood vessel systems, full bronchial tubes, muscular, glands, and even cancer/diseases identified, etc... So much. We could get comped tickets for our decent sized group so we decided to take everyone to it. I wish I had saved some of the other pictures I put on my snapchat instead of my camera roll. It was a really cool experience and I would highly recommend going.

I guess you should head over to the Luxor next time and see that show as well. Not my cup of tea but years and years ago my grandmother asked me to take her and I can barely remember what I saw over there. I know it was kinda morbid and seemed to be a lot of dead bodies around. It must be fun for most people cause now they have two shows in town!

Quote: OnceDear

Really? You learn something new everyday.

Yes. Its an alternative fact. Didnt you know?

Can anybody out there name one country, and when it happened, that turned to protectionism and saw their economy grow for anything other than a short period?

Quote: EvenBob

...he refused to get along with the Repub congress for the last 6 years..

lol... the republican congress that when he was elected came out and made the statement "We are going to block everything you do and our goal/mission is to make you a 1 term president!" ???

[sarcasm]Yeah, he didn't get along with them... That's the problem.[/sarcasm] lol just wow... Don't even get me started on how Obamacare was a REPUBLICAN health plan modeled after Mitt Romney's plan yet the republican congress said "We can't let the black guy get credit for this! ...let's F it up so Americans think it's really bad!"

Quote: steeldco

Can anybody out there name one country, and when it happened, that turned to protectionism and saw their economy grow for anything other than a short period?

Japan

Quote: gamerfreak

Trump fires AG for not enforcing travel ban. The last POTUS to do this was Nixon, who fired the AG because they were investigating watergate. This is what began his impeachment hearings.

Richardson and Ruckelshaus both resigned.

Quote: WatchMeWin

Will Trump be impeached before his 4 year term is up?

Absolutely... not.

Thus far he has kept and delivered on many promises, and is working at a tremendous pace early on in his term.

His popularity is growing within the Republican Party and he just hit a homerun with his selection of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

He is doing exactly what the voters who supported him wanted him to do, and as a Trump voter and supporter, I am very happy he is reaching into the societal paradigm and breaking that bubble from the inside out.

This Country has become too liberal with thin skinned sensitive millenials leading us into the Abyss.

#PALADIN
Protect
Against
Liberally
Aggressive
Democrats
Insurgent (in our)
Nation

Liberals are flag burning, riotous, looting insurgents that should be arrested, tried for terrorism and deported to the nearest border in garbage trucks.

Thankfully, Republicans will win again in 2018 to put an end to this silly topic.

Quote: AZDuffman

Japan

I'm not so sure that Japan is doing well......

Quote out of "Trading Economics"...
"The Japanese economy grew an annualized 1.3 percent on quarter in the third quarter of 2016, lower than a 2.2 percent expansion in the previous period. GDP Growth Annualized in Japan averaged 2.12 percent from 1980 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 12.90 percent in the fourth quarter of 1989 and a record low of -18 percent in the first quarter of 2009."

2.12% GDP growth since 1980 is not exactly blowing the doors off.....

From Wikipedia...
"In 2016, United States public debt-to-GDP ratio was estimated at 71.8%,[2] including external debt.[3] The level of public debt in Japan 2013 was 243.2% of GDP"

Much more debt with a mediocre growth rate. I don't think that I can buy into your choice.

Quote: steeldco

I'm not so sure that Japan is doing well......

Quote out of "Trading Economics"...
"The Japanese economy grew an annualized 1.3 percent on quarter in the third quarter of 2016, lower than a 2.2 percent expansion in the previous period. GDP Growth Annualized in Japan averaged 2.12 percent from 1980 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 12.90 percent in the fourth quarter of 1989 and a record low of -18 percent in the first quarter of 2009."

2.12% GDP growth since 1980 is not exactly blowing the doors off.....

From Wikipedia...
"In 2016, United States public debt-to-GDP ratio was estimated at 71.8%,[2] including external debt.[3] The level of public debt in Japan 2013 was 243.2% of GDP"

Much more debt with a mediocre growth rate. I don't think that I can buy into your choice.

No, look at their growth 1950-1990. That is what I am talking about. Industries protected at home used profits there to take over markets overseas. From destroyed in 1945 to second largest economy in the world in a generation.

Undeveloped countries benefit from protectionism. Japan, after the war, would have been considered as such. They got the initial pop in growth thru about 1960 and then it ended and one might argue that it left them in a rather poor position in terms of debt.
Sorry, I still believe that Japan is not a good choice. The US has done better.

Quote: steeldco

Undeveloped countries benefit from protectionism. Japan, after the war, would have been considered as such. They got the initial pop in growth thru about 1960 and then it ended and one might argue that it left them in a rather poor position in terms of debt.
Sorry, I still believe that Japan is not a good choice. The US has done better.

The long term debt has nothing to do with protectionism. The long term debt is from the endless Keynesian stimulus plans, one after the other. The "pop" lasted far longer than 1960, it lasted to 1989. It might have kept going had the internal economy been more free.

Fell free to disagree, but history has shown that moving production to Mexico is not a path to wealth for the USA.

Quote: JoelDeze

Absolutely... not.

Thus far he has kept and delivered on many promises, and is working at a tremendous pace early on in his term.

That's funny... I just watched clip after clip last night of top republicans saying "look that was all campaign talk, he's not actually going to do those things..." ..."he's not actually going to ban muslims, that was all talk" ...etc.

Quote: JoelDeze

His popularity is growing within the Republican Party and he just hit a homerun with his selection of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

O rly??? That's why Mitch and Ryan are distancing themselves from him saying they didn't think he'd actually go through with some of the crap he's already done in week 1? The only thing they agree on him with is getting rid of Obamacare (which was a republican plan copying Mitt Romney's plan from day 1 but they couldn't let the black guy get credit for that so they f*'d it up). Do you watch what your top republicans are actually saying about him??? There's clips everywhere so you can take it from their mouths. Try a different site than your one off beat biased site that won't show you anything negative.

Quote: JoelDeze

He is doing exactly what the voters who supported him wanted him to do, and as a Trump voter and supporter, I am very happy he is reaching into the societal paradigm and breaking that bubble from the inside out.

That's exactly what everyone was afraid of. When he ACTUALLY got elected all I heard from my 'friends' that actually voted for him (out of sheer ignorance) was "he's not actually going to do half the sh*t he said"... So for the first time ever we were hoping a president elect DIDN'T DO what he promised... but you're right, he's delivered on every horrible thing he planned to do. If there's one good thing about trump, he told you exactly who he was and what he was going to do... People were just too dumb to listen (or blinded by their ridiculously biased "news sources" - such as facebook).

Quote: JoelDeze

This Country has become too liberal with thin skinned sensitive millenials leading us into the Abyss.

THIN SKINNED? LOLOLOLOL Now you're just trolling right? This coming from a guy who supports Trump... A man whom week after week watches SNL, a show that has made fun of EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT FOR THE LAST X YEARS, and cries and gets butt hurt enough to tweet out how awful the show is because they make fun of him. Then he tunes in next week to do it all over again. Trump has the biggest ego and the thinnest skin known to man (not to mention the smallest hands and tiniest penis - so I've heard from MY news sources). He's never done anything in his life incorrectly in his eyes. If the news covers him in a way he doesn't like, then all the sudden it's fake news. He's attempting to oppress information that could oppose him by putting gag orders on our nations government scientists from sharing REAL FACTS (not alternative ones) with the nation.

lol... This post was a joke, right?

Quote: JoelDeze

Liberals are flag burning, riotous, looting insurgents that should be arrested, tried for terrorism and deported to the nearest border in garbage trucks.

Thankfully, Republicans will win again in 2018 to put an end to this silly topic.

I'll take that bet. I'll bet you whatever you want that Trump will not be re-elected, and we're only just finished with week 1 of his presidency. The nation hates him... and if you think any differently, then perhaps you should get off of facebook and "www.TrumpRul3z.com" and go out and seek real, actual facts... not alternative ones.

Quote: AZDuffman

The long term debt has nothing to do with protectionism. The long term debt is from the endless Keynesian stimulus plans, one after the other. The "pop" lasted far longer than 1960, it lasted to 1989. It might have kept going had the internal economy been more free.

Fell free to disagree, but history has shown that moving production to Mexico is not a path to wealth for the USA.

And why do you think that they had to apply "endless Keynesian stimulus"? Could it be for lack of growth?

Quote: steeldco

And why do you think that they had to apply "endless Keynesian stimulus"? Could it be for lack of growth?

It was because their stock market had a major crash which made many companies illiquid. The system was set up to keep funding bad companies, never letting them go out of business. This led to zombie banks and lack of capital available.

Their growth had leveled off from the boom early 60s to mid 80s. But protecting their home markets clearly worked for them.

But protectionism worked for the EC to a lesser extent during the same period.

Quote: AZDuffman

It was because their stock market had a major crash which made many companies illiquid. The system was set up to keep funding bad companies, never letting them go out of business. This led to zombie banks and lack of capital available.

Their growth had leveled off from the boom early 60s to mid 80s. But protecting their home markets clearly worked for them.

But protectionism worked for the EC to a lesser extent during the same period.

Are you referring the Japanese stock market crash of 1990? Are you trying to tell me that the crash from 25 years ago has caused the stimulus employed since then? Really? Protecting their home markets hasn't worked for them for 35 years. Crap for growth over this period with ballooning debt.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, look at their growth 1950-1990. That is what I am talking about. Industries protected at home used profits there to take over markets overseas. From destroyed in 1945 to second largest economy in the world in a generation.

Sure. That (arguably) worked because there were markets to sell into. Who do you think can afford to buy American when we're actively trying to increase the production cost of our goods?

Quote: steeldco

Can anybody out there name one country, and when it happened, that turned to protectionism and saw their economy grow for anything other than a short period?

Yes. The Unites States of America, beginning with the Tariff Act of 1789 and continuing to the present. The USA is the most protectionist nation on the planet, with 800 protectionist measures since 2008. 200+ years of economic growth.

Works nicely.

Quote: steeldco

Undeveloped countries benefit from protectionism. Japan, after the war, would have been considered as such. They got the initial pop in growth thru about 1960 and then it ended and one might argue that it left them in a rather poor position in terms of debt.
Sorry, I still believe that Japan is not a good choice. The US has done better.

Well, I think there's a false dichotomy in play here.

Media, politicians, many academics etc. posit that "free trade" means, "letting corporations write trade laws that benefit them and screw everybody else."

And, if you oppose that, you oppose free trade.

I don't know that Trump opposes free trade, in the sense of comparative advantage. The meaningful sense. He might to some degree, but I'm sure he recognizes the general benefit of trade.

Quote: Tanko

Yes. The Unites States of America, beginning with the Tariff Act of 1789 and continuing to the present. The USA is the most protectionist nation on the planet, with 800 protectionist measures since 2008. 200+ years of economic growth.

Works nicely.

Interesting. So the United States, as the most protectionist nation on the planet currently, has been doing poorly in terms of growth and now wants to add even more protectionist measures. How do you feel this makes sense? Does not the poor growth relate to the 800 protectionist measures since 2008?

Quote: steeldco

Interesting. So the United States, as the most protectionist nation on the planet currently, has been doing poorly in terms of growth and now wants to add even more protectionist measures. How do you feel this makes sense? Does not the poor growth relate to the 800 protectionist measures since 2008?

No.

China also has a very aggressive protectionist policy and their GDP has been growing nearly 10% annually since 1989.

Last year it grew 6.9%.

Most nations use some form of protectionism, and it does slow global economic growth to some extent, but protectionism is not the cause of our slow growth in GDP.

Government, public and corporate spending drive economic growth.

What has been lacking for the past eight years is corporate spending on innovation.

That was one of the reasons for quantitative easing. Corporations borrowed trillions at low interest rates, but instead of investing in innovation and equipment and construction of new facilities, which would lead to increasing revenues, job creation and long term growth, most of those corporations bought back their own shares to reduce share count, to make their earnings per share appear stronger.

I don't really understand nor do I care about this topic but I recall years ago seeing huge pictures of Bill Clintons face on the front page of newspapers with this word "IMPEACHED" above him. It didn't seem to slow him down nor did he have to leave office.

I also recall Bill lying many times and getting caught lying many times. I don't see how Trump or Obama or whoever is president is any worse or better. I like Trump better than Obama but I know they have nothing to do with running this country. This country is a corporation and will be run as such. We all know the bankers own it.

You want to really do something you have to revolt but this isn't exactly as easy as it once was in centuries past.

Who wants to revolt and die when they got free poison food, air conditioning, air conditioned cars, money in the bank, drugs, wife, girlfriends, hookers, play stations, cell phones, wi-fi, Disney Land, fun, fun, fun 24/7? Nobody is gonna give that up for a revolution.

Double post

Quote: Tanko

What has been lacking for the past eight years is corporate spending on innovation.

I disagree
Just about all high tech production companies are constantly innovating their product to stay in business.
One of my client companies based here in the USA is in the engine business
Company has invested tons of money in a Pune India facility hiring thousands of engineers just for research and development
Keeping this USA company on the cutting edge of the latest engine technology

Quote: Tanko

No.

China also has a very aggressive protectionist policy and their GDP has been growing nearly 10% annually since 1989.

Last year it grew 6.9%.

Most nations use some form of protectionism, and it does slow global economic growth to some extent, but protectionism is not the cause of our slow growth in GDP.

Government, public and corporate spending drive economic growth.

What has been lacking for the past eight years is corporate spending on innovation.

That was one of the reasons for quantitative easing. Corporations borrowed trillions at low interest rates, but instead of investing in innovation and equipment and construction of new facilities, which would lead to increasing revenues, job creation and long term growth, most of those corporations bought back their own shares to reduce share count, to make their earnings per share appear stronger.

I don't believe that you are correct. Below are some stats I found from 2012. If I get a minute, I'll try to find something more current. In any case, however, 2.05 trillion of exports vs. 1.817 trillion of imports doesn't seem like there's a lot of protectionism there........or they're doing a piss poor job of protectionism. Your argument would be false.



Total value of exports: US$2.05 trillion
Primary exports - commodities: electrical and other machinery, including data processing equipment, apparel, radio telephone handsets, textiles, integrated circuits
Primary exports partners: US (17.2 of total exports), Hong Kong (15.8 percent), Japan (7.4 percent), South Korea (4.3 percent), Germany (3.4 percent)
Total value of imports: US$1.817 trillion
Primary imports - commodities: electrical and other machinery, oil and mineral fuels, optical and medical equipment, metal ores, motor vehicles
Primary imports partners: Japan (9.8 percent of total imports), South Korea (9.3 percent), US (7.3 percent), Germany (5.1 percent), Australia (4.6 percent)

Quote: steeldco

Are you referring the Japanese stock market crash of 1990? Are you trying to tell me that the crash from 25 years ago has caused the stimulus employed since then? Really? Protecting their home markets hasn't worked for them for 35 years. Crap for growth over this period with ballooning debt.

This is all fairly well known. Their market lost over half of its value in the early 1990s. This both killed demand at the same time balance sheets were such that many companies were unable to borrow. It caused deflation, which stimulus after stimulus has not been able to solve. Now demographics are killing them, no pun intended.

Actually their markets are far more open now than pre-1989. My point remains, I was asked and answered a nation that protectionism worked for. It worked in Japan.

Quote: gamerfreak

And in terms of Obama being a hero, I do consider him a personal hero for several reasons. Putting into motion the greatest civil rights advancement in 30+ years is among the most significant.

Please pretend the only news I see is what gets posted on FB. What civil rights advancements? Women, blacks, latinos - all have the right to work, vote, own property, all that stuff. Please elaborate.

Quote: AZDuffman

It was because their stock market had a major crash which made many companies illiquid. The system was set up to keep funding bad companies, never letting them go out of business. This led to zombie banks and lack of capital available.

Their growth had leveled off from the boom early 60s to mid 80s. But protecting their home markets clearly worked for them.

But protectionism worked for the EC to a lesser extent during the same period.

There are economists who disagree. I choose to take their side.

"Economists Fumio Hayashi and Edward Prescott argue that the anemic performance of the Japanese economy since the early 1990s is mainly due to the low growth rate of aggregate productivity. Their hypothesis stands in direct contrast to popular explanations that are based in terms of an extended credit crunch that emerged in the aftermath of a bursting asset “bubble.” They are led to explore the implications of their hypothesis on the basis of evidence that suggests that despite the ongoing difficulties in the Japanese banking sector, desired capital expenditure was for the most part fully financed. They suggest that Japan’s sluggish investment activity is likely to be better understood in terms of low levels of desired capital expenditure and not in terms of credit constraints that prohibit firms from financing projects with positive net present value (NPV). Monetary or fiscal policies might increase consumption in the short run, but unless productivity growth increases, there is a legitimate fear that such a policy may simply transform Japan from a low-growth/low-inflation economy to a low-growth/high-inflation economy."

Thank god, Trump is getting rid of Dodd/Frank.

WSJ: Trump Will Sign Executive Order to Roll Back Dodd-Frank

“Americans are going to have better choices and Americans are going to have better products because we’re not going to burden the banks with literally hundreds of billions of dollars of regulatory costs every year. The banks are going to be able to price product more efficiently and more effectively to consumers.”

“We have the best, most highly capitalized banks in the world, and we should use that to our competitive advantage,” he added. “But on the flip side, we also have the most highly regulated, overburdened banks in the world.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-moves-to-undo-dodd-frank-law-1486101602

Yeah, this will be interesting with all the mortgage and financial industry deregulation. Consumers have to wisen up, the industry wont protect them anymore!

I might have to dust off my old mortgage broker license

Adjusting ARMs and big margins

Are you trying to make a bet? My bet would be a big No. America is just not used to have a good leader like him and his doing a fantastic job and making his campaign promise come true one by one.

Quote: charlestfuller

Yeah, this will be interesting with all the mortgage and financial industry deregulation. Consumers have to wisen up, the industry wont protect them anymore!

I never quite understood how anyone could say the mortgage industry was "deregulated."

We had piles of regulations to comply with all day long.

Quote: AZDuffman

I never quite understood how anyone could say the mortgage industry was "deregulated."

We had piles of regulations to comply with all day long.

That's like saying NAFTA was about "free trade". It was over 1200 pages of regulated trade.

Yes, all the regulations are still in place...for now. But repealing Dodd-Frank and doing away with the fiduciary responsibility for financial advisers could bring a new wave of the Wild West in this industry. I work in this sector, but I'm still in my 20's. I imagine this could ultimately become what it was 10 years ago.

Quote: ProfessorSlot

Are you trying to make a bet? My bet would be ....

Some offshore bookies are starting to take those bets.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/politics-government/article130724204.html

Quote: Article

Across the world, online gambling websites are offering increasingly attractive odds that Trump will either be impeached or resign before his first term as president ends in 2020.

Quote:

Across the world, online gambling websites are offering increasingly attractive odds that Trump will either be impeached or resign before his first term as president ends

It does make sense in a twisted illogical
kind of way. He's not really running! He'll
be last in the polls! He'll never be center
stage at the debates! He'll never win the
nomination! If he does win, he'll never be
nominated! If nominated he'll never beat
Hillary! He'll lose the recount! The Electoral
College will flip their votes and it will go
to congress! He'll never be sworn in! And
finally, after being 100% wrong on all the
predictions: He'll be impeached or quit!

Every one of the points above was in the
headlines for weeks, remember? All they
have left now to hope for is impeachment.
That enough members of the Repub party
screw the pooch & kiss the house and senate
goodby in the next two elections by
impeaching their own man out of the
WH. They all know if they did that, the
voter faith in their party would go out the
window.

This is all so silly, silliness personified.

I'd say it's still a long shot, but chances are improving almost daily.

This has got to be the most hilarious administration in the history of mankind
Everybody wants in
Margaret Cho is now begging SNL to play Ben Carson

SNL is back with comedy gold
Thanks Donald :-)

Quote: EvenBob

Thank god, Trump is getting rid of Dodd/Frank.

WSJ: Trump Will Sign Executive Order to Roll Back Dodd-Frank

“Americans are going to have better choices and Americans are going to have better products because we’re not going to burden the banks with literally hundreds of billions of dollars of regulatory costs every year. The banks are going to be able to price product more efficiently and more effectively to consumers.”

“We have the best, most highly capitalized banks in the world, and we should use that to our competitive advantage,” he added. “But on the flip side, we also have the most highly regulated, overburdened banks in the world.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-moves-to-undo-dodd-frank-law-1486101602

I literally bought my 2nd house about a few months ago, and simply because I'm younger looking the loan officer was even BS'ing and telling me about the regulations/etc. There's a ton, but even he said before they were in place the banks and load offices were just FLEECING people. They would drop extra fee's here, extra percentages there, and line their own pockets. There's a reason the regulations were put in to place... To protect people that TRUSTED non-fiduciaries (which really means a guy next door who's claiming to just know stuff about money/markets/banking/etc). Stripping these regulations is going to usher in another age of the 90's, sure.... When the banks were in charge, fleeced everyone, built up the big bubble, and burnt it all to the f*cking ground using our money to do it. Yeah, let's have that happen again!

That's substantially better than figuratively buying your second house. Congrats!

After nixing TPP, Trump seems to be retreating on much of his populist agenda. So now, a person who has a high school education and works 60 hours a week, is supposed to find the time, energy and knowledge to deal with taking out loans from unregulated banks.

But it's all good, because big banks are good, as it turns out. Freed from regulation, they will kindly pass on the savings directly to the consumer, nobly passing up the opportunity for personal and corporate profit at his expense.

Very believable.

Quote: Rigondeaux

That's substantially better than figuratively buying your second house. Congrats!

After nixing TPP, Trump seems to be retreating on much of his populist agenda. So now, a person who has a high school education and works 60 hours a week, is supposed to find the time, energy and knowledge to deal with taking out loans from unregulated banks.

But it's all good, because big banks are good, as it turns out. Freed from regulation, they will kindly pass on the savings directly to the consumer, nobly passing up the opportunity for personal and corporate profit at his expense.

Very believable.

Ppbbbthhh. He isn't retreating on
Anything. Where are the Republicans with balls to call him on this stuff? Where are the nevertrumpers? Busy raking in the donations, I guess. No ethics. No constituent consideration.

His tough on wall street policies must have them quaking in their boots. All the way to the bank.

Want to know why Trump won and Hillary
didn't? Watch the Netflix series Grace and
Frankie.

It stars Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin, Sam Waterston,
and Martin Sheen. All huge showbiz names.
It has the Lib storyline that puts the rest of them
to shame. It's as far left of middle America as
you can get.

Martin and Sam own a law firm and have had
a secret Gay relationship for 40 years. Their
wives, Jane and Lily, divorce them when they
find out. Lily and Sam had no kids so they
adopted a Black son who now runs the law
firm. Jane is a super successful business owner
and Lily is a 60's hippie, clothes and all.

Lily has a Black boyfriend. Jane's daughter
has never been married and when she doesn't
have a disposable boyfriend, pays expensive
male hookers for sex. Jane and Lily are is the
'vibrators for old ladies' business together.

They have a robbery and Jane has a gun that
Lily doesn't know about and she goes insane
over it for 2 episodes. I mean insane, out of
her mind. One of the sons buys one of those
tiny homes on wheels and lives in it.

It goes on and on like this, every Left wing nutso
idea is on this show, on parade. Keep in mind
all the main characters are in their mid 70's. Lot's
of scenes of the two straight male actors, Sam
and Martin, kissing on the mouth or making out.
Jane Fonda looks fantastic, she looks 55, not 78.
Her face is flawless, her figure perfect.

This is why Hillary lost. The Left thinks this show
represents America, or how it should look. It's
about as far from the average Trump voter as
you can get.

Quote: EvenBob

Want to know why Trump won and Hillary
didn't? Watch the Netflix series Grace and
Frankie.

It stars Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin, Sam Waterston,
and Martin Sheen. All huge showbiz names.
It has the Lib storyline that puts the rest of them
to shame. It's as far left of middle America as
you can get.

Martin and Sam own a law firm and have had
a secret Gay relationship for 40 years. Their
wives, Jane and Lily, divorce them when they
find out. Lily and Sam had no kids so they
adopted a Black son who now runs the law
firm. Jane is a super successful business owner
and Lily is a 60's hippie, clothes and all.

Lily has a Black boyfriend. Jane's daughter
has never been married and when she doesn't
have a disposable boyfriend, pays expensive
male hookers for sex. Jane and Lily are is the
'vibrators for old ladies' business together.

They have a robbery and Jane has a gun that
Lily doesn't know about and she goes insane
over it for 2 episodes. I mean insane, out of
her mind. One of the sons buys one of those
tiny homes on wheels and lives in it.

It goes on and on like this, every Left wing nutso
idea is on this show, on parade. Keep in mind
all the main characters are in their mid 70's. Lot's
of scenes of the two straight male actors, Sam
and Martin, kissing on the mouth or making out.
Jane Fonda looks fantastic, she looks 55, not 78.
Her face is flawless, her figure perfect.

This is why Hillary lost. The Left thinks this show
represents America, or how it should look. It's
about as far from the average Trump voter as
you can get.

Probably more accurate to watch the doc the sixties available on Netflix. Shows how righty middle america likes racist homophobia even fifty years ago

We havent got rid of them. They just all showed up to vote for one of their boys

Quote: darkoz

Probably more accurate to watch the doc the sixties available on Netflix. Shows how righty middle america likes racist

Most people are racist in some way, they
just are in denial or won't admit it. La Raza
is having a cow over trump being president.
La Raza literally means The Race.

In one episode, both old ladies fall down
and can't get up. The whole ep they crawl
around on their backs trying to reach a
phone. Yet when the kids give them Life
Alert buttons, Grace breaks hers with her
shoe and Frankies puts hers in a drawer.
Those are for classless mid Americans,
not hip left coasters.