2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Quote: BozAdd in the House and Senate and there is a mandate, no different than 2009. How the GOP uses these 2 years will determine if the American people agree with it.
Didn't the Republicans lose seats in the Senate and House in 2016?
Quote: ams288Didn't the Republicans lose seats in the Senate and House in 2016?
Sure they did, but it doesn't take away the fact that voters across the country gave them control of all 3.
Just another example of the far left refusing to trust Trump on anything. Their right but certainly shows their bias. After all, being treated equally was never the goal of the "Gay" community, its more about punishing those who don't support it.
Quote: Bozhttp://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_588ffea3e4b0522c7d3cbe59?
Just another example of the far left refusing to trust Trump on anything. Their right but certainly shows their bias. After all, being treated equally was never the goal of the "Gay" community, its more about punishing those who don't support it.
It's 2017. It ain't "far left" to support gay rights.
It's "far right" to pretend the majority of the country doesn't.
Quote: ams288It's 2017. It ain't "far left" to support gay rights.
It's "far right" to pretend the majority of the country doesn't.
Not sure where you got that from my post. My point is the far left, which the HP is, condemned Trump for something that is good for gays.
And I agree most people are ok with gays being treated equally but many on the far left want to take away the religious right of some to be against it.
Quote: BozNot sure where you got that from my post. My point is the far left, which the HP is, condemned Trump for something that is good for gays.
Ah, I see what you meant.
But what did Donald do that is good for gays?
He doesn't get credit for *not repealing* a 2014 EO that President Obama signed.
The First Military Raid Under Trump Was a Total F!#/ Up.
Quote: 777I'm praying that the following story is not a FAKE NEWS story.
The First Military Raid Under Trump Was ...
You're hoping it is true?
Quote: RSYou're hoping it is true?
I'm afraid the story was made up by the Russian in an attempt to destabilized the racist, sexist, and rapist Trump.
Quote: ams288This is nonsense.
By definition, you cannot lose the popular vote (by nearly 3 million!) and have a mandate. That's just common sense.
You seem to be under the impression the election is based on the popular vote or that we live in a democracy. The only votes that matter are the electoral college, where Trump won handily (give Hillary another CA and Trump still wins).
Quote: RSYou seem to be under the impression the election is based on the popular vote or that we live in a democracy. The only votes that matter are the electoral college, where Trump won handily (give Hillary another CA and Trump still wins).
Nope.
I just thought your phony definition of "mandate" was funny.
"One candidate got three million more votes than the fat orange blob I voted for. I'm gonna claim that he got a mandate!"
Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.
Quote: ams288Nope.
I just thought your phony definition of "mandate" was funny.
"One candidate got three million more votes than the fat orange blob I voted for. I'm gonna claim that he got a mandate!"
Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.
Quote: ams288By definition, you cannot lose the popular vote (by nearly 3 million!) and have a mandate. That's just common sense.
It has been proven that Trump won the popular popular vote if not for the millions of people who voted illegally:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Quote: TomGIt has been proven that Trump won the popular popular vote if not for the millions of people who voted illegally:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
I can't tell if you're being serious or not.
Quote: RS
*SNIFFLE*
Quote:Jerry Falwell Jr. Asked to Lead Trump Higher Education Task Force
Quote:Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr., one of the nation's most prominent evangelical Christian leaders, has been asked to head a White House task force on reforming the U.S. higher education system, the Virginia college told NBC News on Tuesday night.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jerry-falwell-jr-asked-lead-trump-education-task-force-n715116
Yes, my head did explode, thanks for noticing.
Quote: TomGIt has been proven that Trump won the popular popular vote if not for the millions of people who voted illegally:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Quote: BozTrump could cure cancer and the left would still hate him simply because he threatens their view of the world and the country. .
Well there is one thing Trump (or any President could do) that would make me happy.
Put a small team at the IRS together and create "comprehensive" downloadable free tax software each year comparable to the commercial offers..
How many people would that take to develop, 10 maybe. It's a bargain government project by any definition..
It's hella lot easier than simplifying the tax code, which they could also do, but don't hold your breath.
The preceding does not mean I think the Republicans were in the right for not considering Obama's nomination. And it does not mean I think there aren't many Republicans who would be obstructionist if the tables were turned.
But I live in the now. I can't wait to find out which Dems care more about their party and less about the country. Their vote on this will tell me.
I guess most of America isn't against Trump as some seem to think, even with 99% of the press against him. The left still doesn't get it and probably never will.
Quote: MaxPenThis Saudi prince loves his Falcons so much he bought 80 seats for them.
Ha! I actually thought you were talking about Superbowl tickets... til I saw the picture! Yikes!
Quote: SOOPOOI love the Supreme Court selection of Gorsuch. Another Columbia man to replace Obama in the spotlight. Anyway, apparently he is qualified by any objective standard, so it will be clear after the successful confirmation vote which are the Democrats that will just be obstructionists and vote against anything that Trump is for. And which Democrats are willing to put party aside and move the country forward. I think what the Democrats hate most about him is that he is only 49 years old and will be on the Court for 30 + years .
The preceding does not mean I think the Republicans were in the right for not considering Obama's nomination. And it does not mean I think there aren't many Republicans who would be obstructionist if the tables were turned.
But I live in the now. I can't wait to find out which Dems care more about their party and less about the country. Their vote on this will tell me.
I hope the Dems filibuster him.
I have no doubt that he will get through. But I'd like them to make Mitch McConnell have to use the nuclear option. That way in the future when there is a Dem President, he or she will only need 50 votes to seat whoever they want....
It's time for the Dems to play dirty like the Repubs always do. If there's anything the Dems should take away from the last 8 years, it's this: obstruction will cost you nothing politically...
Quote: ams288
It's time for the Dems to play dirty like the Repubs always do. If there's anything the Dems should take away from the last 8 years, it's this: obstruction will cost you nothing politically...
I disagree. Any Dem in a state Trump won who participates in a clearly obstructionist filibuster will be looking for a new job after the next election. Any Dem that shows he can play with the new boss in town will have a chance at re-election. If you represent NY (Shumer or Gillibrand) you can filibuster without personal consequences.
Quote: SOOPOOI disagree. Any Dem in a state Trump won who participates in a clearly obstructionist filibuster will be looking for a new job after the next election. Any Dem that shows he can play with the new boss in town will have a chance at re-election
We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Donald is extremely unpopular already.
The massive protest crowds that keep popping up every few days are craving obstruction for EVERYTHING Donald does...
Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio is up for re-election next year and was the first Dem senator on the record saying he's against Gorsuch. He will be an interesting case study for 2018.
Quote: SOOPOOI disagree. Any Dem in a state Trump won who participates in a clearly obstructionist filibuster will be looking for a new job after the next election. Any Dem that shows he can play with the new boss in town will have a chance at re-election. If you represent NY (Shumer or Gillibrand) you can filibuster without personal consequences.
5 States where Trump won and Dems have Senate seats they will be underdogs in 18.
Democrats in Republican territory: West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, Missouri, Indiana
WV...Trump won by 40. Manchin could switch parties very easily.
ND... Trump won by 36. Bye bye Heidi!!
Montana....Trump won by 21 Cant see Tester winning again
Missouri & Indiana.....Trump won by 19 each McCaskill is already done and Donelly is right behind her.
All 5 better start working on their resumes.
Time to que up the liberals line that a lot can change in 2 years. OK.
Swing state Democrats: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan
Four of the Democrats up in this category are veteran senators, like Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey, Michigan’s Debbie Stabenow and Florida’s Bill Nelson. The fifth, Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, was elected to her seat in 2012 and is the first openly gay U.S. senator.
The other Democratic races: Virginia, Massachusetts, Minnesota
Warren will be probably be facing Curt Shilling and while she will be a big favorite its no lock. Hillary won MINN by 2 points and could be a toss up again like when that guy from Trading Places won after a recount.
Compare that to 2 GOP seats where the Dems may have a chance. Nevada & Arizona. Both have large hispanic populations but Heller is very popular there if he runs again. Flake could be in trouble but again they said that about McCain and he did fine.
The bigger question is if 60 GOP Senators is a possibility. It's all up to Trump to do the things he promised. And believe it or not liberals, most Americans are rooting for him to do it. And that is what scares you the most.
Quote: BozThe bigger question is if 60 GOP Senators is a possibility. It's all up to Trump to do the things he promised. And believe it or not liberals, most Americans are rooting for him to do it. And that is what scares you the most.
"Most Americans"?
Wrong.
Most Americans voted for someone else. Most Americans disapprove of his handling of the Presidency thus far.
Quote: ams288"Most Americans"?
Wrong.
Most Americans voted for someone else. Most Americans disapprove of his handling of the Presidency thus far.
Actually most Americans didn't vote, but time will tell.
Quote: BozActually most Americans didn't vote, but time will tell.
Agreed.
And most Americans who did vote, voted for someone other than Donald.
Quote: Boz5 States where Trump won and Dems have Senate seats they will be underdogs in 18.
Democrats in Republican territory: West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, Missouri, Indiana
WV...Trump won by 40. Manchin could switch parties very easily.
ND... Trump won by 36. Bye bye Heidi!!
Montana....Trump won by 21 Cant see Tester winning again
Missouri & Indiana.....Trump won by 19 each McCaskill is already done and Donelly is right behind her.
All 5 better start working on their resumes.
Time to que up the liberals line that a lot can change in 2 years. OK.
Its all depends on the economy
Economy does all right next 2 years, repubs retain power
Economy tanks, repubs in trouble
Quote: terapinedIts all depends on the economy
Economy does all right next 2 years, repubs retain power
Economy tanks, repubs in trouble
Not necessarily. I could see Teflon Don blaming 'the hole' Obama put us in, sort of the way Obama blamed Bush for his own failings. I think the map in 2018 favors the repubs just too much for the dems to overcome, barring a total meltdown.
Here is the lede to story:Quote: rxwineQuote: SanchoPanzaEven Politico has him at 49 percent approval rating. Other post-inaugural ratings have hit 59 percent.
Link goes to page not found. (approval rating not found)
By Jake Sherman
02/01/17 06:33 AM EST
. . . Overall, the new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll — which was conducted Jan. 26 through Jan. 28 among 1,991 voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent — paints a mixed picture for the new president.
Trump's approval rating is ticking upward toward 50 percent: 49 percent of voters approve of how Trump is handling his job, and 41 percent disapprove. . . .
This link tested well: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/poll-donald-trump-voter-fraud-234458
Quote: BozMany liberals think they are doing the "right" thing helping people instead of realizing there are people willing to take and take as long as someone is giving.
Bah, I still think plenty of conservatives give to chartable organizations without knowing whether their money is being used effectively. Most church organizations don't even do any proper screening of recipients and they get quite a lot of support from the Right.
Quote: rxwineBah, I still think plenty of conservatives give to chartable organizations without knowing whether their money is being used effectively. Most church organizations don't even do any proper screening of recipients and they get quite a lot of support from the Right.
Will never argue with that. Charity for humans starts at home. Give to animals, and never trust the people in the administration of the money.
The spin the left continues to put out there shows they are grasping at straws. They are the ones trying to show women are victims, not capable of thought on their future. Instead they are victims, not able to make rational decisions on their future.
It's the only way the far left can justify Trump winning, because the truth of Americans sick of being told how they should think is more than they can imagine.
Liberalism is at stake here and they are not going down without a fight. Sadly they don't have issues to stand on so all they have left is a few vocal radicals left in the streets along with much of the press.
Counting on Madonna, a fake Indian, a Socialist and a few Chucks (Todd and Amy's cousin) is a sad way to go down. But America has always been a 2 party country so I'm sure another party will step up to fill the void. Hopefully they are somewhere in the middle. We need a reasonable alternative to the GOP.
Quote: BozLiberalism is at stake here and they are not going down without a fight.
Never thought that was true when the right seemed to think they weren't close to regaining power, which they definitely thought not long ago.
What happened? Democrats lost some focus, and Trump is a pretty unusual candidate now Republicans are in the catbird seat. They happened to gain some advantages, like with Scalia vacating unexpectedly.
Was there some big reorganization on the right that brought them to power. Hell no. At least I didn''t see anything. They had already tried the Tea Party, and that has some limited success. But no, nobody really changed up the party.
Being out of power is not the same as being finished. So, I'm not convinced. That doesn't mean the Democrats will have the right viable candidate to run against Trump. They may not. Trump may self-destruct, but even then, Pence is still in the wings.
Quote: rxwineNever thought that was true when the right seemed to think they weren't close to regaining power, which they definitely thought not long ago.
What happened? Democrats lost some focus, and Trump is a pretty unusual candidate now Republicans are in the catbird seat. They happened to gain some advantages, like with Scalia vacating unexpectedly.
Was there some big reorganization on the right that brought them to power. Hell no. At least I didn''t see anything. They had already tried the Tea Party, and that has some limited success. But no, nobody really changed up the party.
Being out of power is not the same as being finished. So, I'm not convinced. That doesn't mean the Democrats will have the right viable candidate to run against Trump. They may not. Trump may self-destruct, but even then, Pence is still in the wings.
You may be right, but I am only channeling Rachel Maddow from 2009 who gloated that the GOP was done. She cited the changing demographics in America and the large margin Obama won by. Sadly she has never discussed how wrong she was. She probably knew it was only wishful thinking, but in her mind if she put it out there, it must be true. Or enough suckers would believe it.
Again you may be right that it's cyclical but I like to believe most Americans want to control own destiny and the Dems seem to think people are not capable of that without their help.
Quote: Bozhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kellyanne-conway-sexual-harassment_us_58920004e4b0522c7d3e3fc0?c4mkozmwzz4hx5hfr&
The spin the left continues to put out there shows they are grasping at straws. They are the ones trying to show women are victims, not capable of thought on their future. Instead they are victims, not able to make rational decisions on their future.
It's the only way the far left can justify Trump winning, because the truth of Americans sick of being told how they should think is more than they can imagine.
Liberalism is at stake here and they are not going down without a fight. Sadly they don't have issues to stand on so all they have left is a few vocal radicals left in the streets along with much of the press.
Counting on Madonna, a fake Indian, a Socialist and a few Chucks (Todd and Amy's cousin) is a sad way to go down. But America has always been a 2 party country so I'm sure another party will step up to fill the void. Hopefully they are somewhere in the middle. We need a reasonable alternative to the GOP.
Obamba, Hilltard, Sorass, and the media are trying to foment insurrection. Good luck with that.
Quote:U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.
As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists.
The Pentagon directed queries about the officials' characterization of the raid to U.S. Central Command. The latter pointed only to its statement on Wednesday.
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-officials-trump-ordered-raid-in-yemen-that-killed-us-navy-seal-was-approved-without-sufficient-intelligence-2017-2
Business Insider was really low key with such inflammatory news. Kind of interesting.
Quote: rxwineThink I just heard a "bombshell" go off. Or maybe it's that fake news.
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-officials-trump-ordered-raid-in-yemen-that-killed-us-navy-seal-was-approved-without-sufficient-intelligence-2017-2
Business Insider was really low key with such inflammatory news. Kind of interesting.
Quote:"Knowing that we killed an estimated 14 AQAP members and that we gathered an unbelievable amount of intelligence that will prevent the potential deaths or attacks on American soil – is something that I think most service members understand, that that’s why they joined the service,” Spicer said.
Unbelievable
Quote: Spicer Translation:-
I'd tell you that we gathered a massive amount of intelligence, but you wouldn't believe me: Why should you on my past form?
Quote: OnceDearUnbelievable
One thing is easy to believe. That Trump set something in motion without sufficient review or information. That's the way he's been operating on everything else, AFAICT.
