Trump has his Willie Horton, Pelosi handed it to him on a silver platter. Trumps ability to provoke his opponents into making idiots of themselves, is unlike anything I have ever seen. He brought the NFL and ESPN to their knees with stupid comments. He’ll have Pelosi hosting a telethon for ISIS next month.

The GOP already has well-done commercials showing Pelosi defending the demonic murderers in MS-13. Pelosi is now saying that low unemployment doesn’t really matter to regular people. We have democrats saying they’ll repeal that tax cuts if they can, which they cant unless they get a veto proof majority, and not even MSNBC is expecting that.

My question is, how does any democrat win any election, anywhere, ever? Defending MS-13 and promising tax hikes is a winning strategy in purple states? We’ll soon see.

If the gop runs commercials of people like me saying how much they enjoy their increased take home pay, and show Pelosi defending MS-13 and saying low unemployment isnt healthy, that sounds like a winning approach to me.

Jim, do you fact check ANYTHING you post?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/may-jobs-numbers-are-bad-news-for-democrats.html

Pelosi criticizing trump for calling ms13 animals.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/17/pelosi-ms-13-animals/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pelosi dismissing low unemployment

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/02/nancy-pelosi-downplays-positive-jobs-report-strong-employment-numbers-mean-little
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dems promise to raise taxes if elected...https://davidharrisjr.com/politics/democrats-hit-new-strategy-raise-taxes-elected/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

MS-13 the new ISIS anything to rally the uniformed base most think ms-13 is something new

MS-13 the new ISIS anything to rally the uniformed base most think ms-13 is something new

ms-13...that's an assault rifle ...right? :huh:

Pelosi criticizing trump for calling ms13 animals.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/17/pelosi-ms-13-animals/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Aha, a right wing tabloid. Surprised it wasn’t a meme.

Thinking cap, google.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ms-13...that's an assault rifle ...right? :huh:

No, if it was an assault rifle, the liberals would be opposed to it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Aha, a right wing tabloid. Surprised it wasn’t a meme.

Thinking cap, google.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There’s video of her saying it. Must be taken out of context.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

MS-13 the new ISIS anything to rally the uniformed base most think ms-13 is something new

The base is rallied, the economy is firing on all cylinders, and every time trump says something as controversial as “MS-13 is bad”, he breaks liberal brains even more. They are bonkers with hate, absolutely bananas, it’s hysterical.

What rallies the base, is when trump calls ms13 animals, and the liberals all claim he said all Latinos are animals. It’s that kind of dishonest crazy talk that got him elected, and the liberals are too blind to see it, too thoughtless to stop.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

6 more years of liberals loosing their minds.
I love it 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

6 more years of liberals loosing their minds.
I love it 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How does one loose a mind?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ms-13...that's an assault rifle ...right? :huh:

Yes a machine silenced 13 rounds a second silenced ghost gun. In the same way an AR 15 is not an assault rifle
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=zimmy;1143847]How does one loose a mind?

minds not firmly attached to reality....like this...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/opinion/sunday/obama-ben-rhodes-world-as-it-is.html

"As president, Obama always found us wanting. We were constantly disappointing him. He would tell us the right thing to do and then sigh and purse his lips when his instructions were not followed.

Shortly after Donald Trump was elected, Rhodes writes in his new book, “The World as It Is,” Obama asked his aides, “What if we were wrong? But in his next breath, the president made it clear that what he meant was: What if we were wrong in being so right? What if we were too good for these people?

So really, he’s not acknowledging any flaws but simply wondering if we were even more benighted(in a state of pitiful or contemptible intellectual or moral ignorance) than he thought. He’s saying that, sadly, we were not enlightened enough for the momentous changes wrought by the smartest people in the world — or even evolved enough for the first African-American president.

We just weren’t ready for his amazing awesomeness."

:yak4::yak4::yak6:

So the quote from Obama is "maybe we pushed too far" not "What if we were wrong in being so right? What if we were too good for these people?" That is an interpretation of what he meant by that. A loose-minded interpretation. Are you judging his actual statement or the interpretation of what that meant? 20-30 years ago, gay marriage or marijuana legalization had no shot. I know tha tis complicated for you Scott, easier for you to post some BS snowflake fake news that fits your agenda. TERRIBLE!

post some BS snowflake fake news that fits your agenda. TERRIBLE!

you are funny... lib upset over the interpretation in an article by a lib of something a lib Idol said....."Obama the Great"


what's my agenda?....

fake news?....

....marijuana?

:rotf2:....pretty loose

How does one loose a mind?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


They keep voting Democrat & they continue to sit here in this political forum crying instead of living & enjoying life 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are funny... lib upset over the interpretation in an article by a lib of something a lib Idol said....."Obama the Great"


what's my agenda?....

fake news?....

....marijuana?

:rotf2:....pretty loose

You missed that the funny part is that you are quoting a NYT opinion, not that I am upset with her interpretation. You are also confused that I am upset. Not surprised that you are confused though. Your agenda is being a d-h :uhuh:

“It’s not America First, it’s America Alone,”
Must have been a liberal that said that?
Keep drinking that Orange Koolaid

Must have been a liberal that said that?
Keep drinking that Orange Koolaid



the last two articles I've linked were by Andrew Sullivan and Maureen Dowd..from the NY York Times

fake news?....agenda??

is that Orange Koolaid?

you guys need to get a grip :uhuh:

You missed that the funny part is that you are quoting a NYT opinion, :

Dowd was ranked #43 on The Daily Telegraph's list of the 100 most influential liberals in America

They keep voting Democrat & they continue to sit here in this political forum crying instead of living & enjoying life 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well said, Ronie :kewl:

Well said, Ronie :kewl:



You ask me, everyone on this forum, both sides of the isle (me included) is a frigging idiot.
We argue which side is right or wrong or better etc.........
Meanwhile every single senator & Congress person is a multi millionaire even though very few of them were close to being wealthy when 1st elected.
I’ll continue supporting the guy who had billions before elected and by most accounts doesn’t need the job or the & and is saving this country from becoming a 3rd world #^&#^&#^&#^& hole and socialist
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You ask me, everyone on this forum, both sides of the isle (me included) is a frigging idiot.
We argue which side is right or wrong or better etc.........
Meanwhile every single senator & Congress person is a multi millionaire even though very few of them were close to being wealthy when 1st elected.
I’ll continue supporting the guy who had billions before elected and by most accounts doesn’t need the job or the & and is saving this country from becoming a 3rd world #^&#^&#^&#^& hole and socialist
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'll agree with you on the house and senate but I think the truth about Trump will eventually emerge. Time will tell.
As far as keeping the usa from becoming a 3rd world country
Here is a report that says we are on the way there, assume is half true.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22533

You ask me, everyone on this forum, both sides of the isle (me included) is a frigging idiot.

[]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/i][/size]

it's amusing...

There’s video of her saying it. Must be taken out of context.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Of her saying what exactly?

Of her saying what exactly?

So you haven’t seen it, yet you accuse me of posting lies? Interesting.

Google it, put it in whatever context you want.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is a little context for you, why Trump is claiming that only he can save you from those evil (fill in the blank) and why he is painting his opposition as anti whatever

Trump defended his hardline immigration rhetoric, central to his 2016 campaign, as an asset for the midterms.

"And you can say what you want, but I think border security and security in general is a great issue for the Republican Party," Trump said. "I think it's a great issue, not a bad issue."

The White House has repeatedly highlighted victims of gang violence as evidence that the U.S. needs more stringent immigration laws, including rolling back some forms of legal immigration. Critics, however, say the administration is simply exploiting such tragedies for political gain and to disparage Hispanic immigrants.

Google it, put it in whatever context you want.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:humpty:

Here is a little context for you, why Trump is claiming that only he can save you from those evil (fill in the blank) and why he is painting his opposition as anti whatever

Trump defended his hardline immigration rhetoric, central to his 2016 campaign, as an asset for the midterms.

"And you can say what you want, but I think border security and security in general is a great issue for the Republican Party," Trump said. "I think it's a great issue, not a bad issue."

The White House has repeatedly highlighted victims of gang violence as evidence that the U.S. needs more stringent immigration laws, including rolling back some forms of legal immigration. Critics, however, say the administration is simply exploiting such tragedies for political gain and to disparage Hispanic immigrants.

this is context that you cut and pasted from NPR...good grief...that's hardly an unbiased source for context :huh:....Spence would label that VERY questionable if the other ox was being gored

Of her saying what exactly?

http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/op_ed/2018/06/defending_ms_13_animals_a_losing_play_for_dems

http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/op_ed/2018/06/defending_ms_13_animals_a_losing_play_for_dems
I'm well aware of what she said, she wasn't defending MS-13 and Trump's accusation she's an MS-13 lover is just more absurdity.

I'm well aware of what she said, she wasn't defending MS-13 and Trump's accusation she's an MS-13 lover is just more absurdity.

the democraps took trumps statement and used it to attack him claiming he was talking about all immigrants which he clearly was not...trump took the democraps attack claiming that they were defending ms-13 which was what trump was talking about to begin with....

fair is fair...:hihi:

I'm well aware of what she said, she wasn't defending MS-13 and Trump's accusation she's an MS-13 lover is just more absurdity.

She may not have defended them, but she most surely did criticize Trump for calling them animals.

“we’re all God’s children. ... Does he not believe in the spark of divinity, the dignity and worth of every person?”

Pelosi criticizing trump for calling ms13 animals.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/17/pelosi-ms-13-animals/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and just because you believe one sides absurdity doesn't make the other sides less absurd.

Pelosi should be playing balloon tennis on a table at an old folks home

Here is a little context for you, why Trump is claiming that only he can save you from those evil (fill in the blank) and why he is painting his opposition as anti whatever

.

No that's funny. Today's democratic party is founded on the notion that anyone who disagrees with you about anything, is a hatemonger of some sort, Recall Hilary's 'deplorables' comment?

I agree that Trump plays this card all the time, but it's the backbone of current liberalism.

I'm well aware of what she said, she wasn't defending MS-13 and Trump's accusation she's an MS-13 lover is just more absurdity.

I don't think she loves MS-13. She bought into the lie that he used the term "animals" to apply to all immigrants, when obviously he was talking about MS-13. They couldn't let that go, so they claimed he was talking about all immigrants. They lied.

He will club her with this like a baby seal, and he's right to do so. Trump said that MS-13 are animals, and they took that completely out of context (see, this is what it looks like when someone makes that accusation legitimately), trying to make him out to be a racist.

No that's funny. Today's democratic party is founded on the notion that anyone who disagrees with you about anything, is a hatemonger of some sort, Recall Hilary's 'deplorables' comment?

I agree that Trump plays this card all the time, but it's the backbone of current liberalism.
A form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques for an anti-liberal, anti-socialist, violently exclusionary, expansionist nationalist agenda.
Sound like anyone you know and love?

She may not have defended them, but she most surely did criticize Trump for calling them animals.

“we’re all God’s children. ... Does he not believe in the spark of divinity, the dignity and worth of every person?”



and just because you believe one sides absurdity doesn't make the other sides less absurd.

For a few hours after Trump made the comment, the liberal narrative was that he was referring to all immigrants as "animals". It was a blatant lie, it was obvious he was talking about MS-13, but these kooks are willing to set the truth aside to attack Trump. She may have been assuming that he was talking about all immigrants, but she criticized Trump LONG after everyone else conceded that he was talking about MS-13, and she has never bothered to respond to the fact that he was obviously talking about murderers.

She stepped in it, she refused to admit she made a mistake, so she deserves to get clobbered with it.

A form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques for an anti-liberal, anti-socialist, violently exclusionary, expansionist nationalist agenda.
Sound like anyone you know and love?

Sure, that sounds like Trump. He's one guy.

Many elected democrats refer to the pro-life crowd as anti-woman. They refer to those who want to enforce immigration laws, as xenophobes. They refer to Christians as homophobes. They refer to those who are concerned with jihadists as Islamophobes.

This kind of demonization of the other side, is far more common on the left, it's a huge reason Trump got elected, the right wanted someone who would hit back.

She may not have defended them, but she most surely did criticize Trump for calling them animals.

“we’re all God’s children. ... Does he not believe in the spark of divinity, the dignity and worth of every person?”
By calling them animals doesn't that mean they're not responsible for their actions? I think the last thing you'd want to do is dehumanize people regardless of their behavior, which is not instinct it is learned.

Combine that with Trump's track record of negatively generalizing immigrants and I think her critique is rightly deserved.

By calling them animals doesn't that mean they're not responsible for their actions? I think the last thing you'd want to do is dehumanize people regardless of their behavior, which is not instinct it is learned.

Combine that with Trump's track record of negatively generalizing immigrants and I think her critique is rightly deserved.

Context, Spence....Context

By calling them animals doesn't that mean they're not responsible for their actions? I think the last thing you'd want to do is dehumanize people regardless of their behavior, which is not instinct it is learned.

Combine that with Trump's track record of negatively generalizing immigrants and I think her critique is rightly deserved.

"By calling them animals doesn't that mean they're not responsible for their actions?"

For Gods sake, you know what he meant. They act in a way that's less than human. That's going too fast for you? You can't keep up with Trump's simple mind now?

"Combine that with Trump's track record of negatively generalizing immigrants and I think her critique is rightly deserved"

we are all shocked that you agree with her. Let's see if the people in Wisconsin and Ohio agree with her, come November. That's what matters.

Context, Spence....Context

And you are 100% correct, Trumps use of the word animals to describe MS-13, is exactly in keeping with that definition of the word 'animal'.

Sure, that sounds like Trump. He's one guy.

Many elected democrats refer to the pro-life crowd as anti-woman. They refer to those who want to enforce immigration laws, as xenophobes. They refer to Christians as homophobes. They refer to those who are concerned with jihadists as Islamophobes.

This kind of demonization of the other side, is far more common on the left, it's a huge reason Trump got elected, the right wanted someone who would hit back.
Since you have agreed that Trump fits Paxton's description of a Fascist leader, where are we now in Paxton's five stage of Fascism?
Here are the five stages of Fascism
1. Intellectual exploration, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in discussions of lost national vigor
2. Rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage
3. Arrival to power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite the movement to share power
4. Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.
5. Radicalization or entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule.

Context, Spence....Context
Ok.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/us/politics/fact-check-trump-animals-immigration-ms13-sanctuary-cities.html

Ok.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/us/politics/fact-check-trump-animals-immigration-ms13-sanctuary-cities.html

Point????

Point????

same as always...democrat=good, republican=bad.

He has no point, all he knows is that if it makes the NYT then it is certainly gospel. Material is running thin when Raider Ron makes the most sense in the forum. If the lefty fruitcakes want to keep fanning the flames then they better plan it for the long haul. They are the folks most responsible for the current bozo in chief and they can't seem to figure that part out obviously. Maggots🐛
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Point????
That the whole Trump dialogue is intentionally muddy to serve a purpose of fear and division.

That the whole Trump dialogue is intentionally muddy to serve a purpose of fear and division.

So to you, calling MS-13 animals., is fear-mongering and divisive. Have fun with that.

I’ll continue supporting the guy...and is saving this country from becoming a 3rd world #^&#^&#^&#^& hole and socialist
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device\

That is a remarkable perception of him. It does explain why you support him, but it is like that ridiculous Laurel/Yanny thing going around the other week.

That the whole Trump dialogue is intentionally muddy to serve a purpose of fear and division.

And when Obama said “republicans gotta stop just hatin’ all the time”, that was intended to bring us together? Same with Hilary’s deplorable comments?

Give it a rest. Give the hypocrisy a rest why dontcha??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And when Obama said “republicans gotta stop just hatin’ all the time”, that was intended to bring us together? Same with Hilary’s deplorable comments?

Give it a rest. Give the hypocrisy a rest why dontcha??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What do you call when you compare one statement that a Dem. made with 0,000s of statements Trump made and consider them equal?

speaking of hypocrisy - did you comment in the Samantha Bee thread about what a vile word the "C" word is yet you've used that same vile word in the past. I'm assuming you didn't make any statements.

Didn't I pull up a thread when you where blaming the Dems. for the Scalise shooting showing that you and double standard made the exact opposite arguement when Giffords was shot?

What do you call when you compare one statement that a Dem. made with 0,000s of statements Trump made and consider them equal?

speaking of hypocrisy - did you comment in the Samantha Bee thread about what a vile word the "C" word is yet you've used that same vile word in the past. I'm assuming you didn't make any statements.

Didn't I pull up a thread when you where blaming the Dems. for the Scalise shooting showing that you and double standard made the exact opposite arguement when Giffords was shot?

If that was the only time that Obama/Clinton demonized Republicans for their beliefs, you'd have a point. It wasn't, so you don't.

Trump is much more overtly vulgar than Obama or Clinton. I don't think he's more divisive. Liberals just didn't see the divisiveness when Obama was POTUS, because they weren't the ones getting demonized.

This is why Trump is POTUS.


"did you comment in the Samantha Bee thread about what a vile word the "C" word is yet you've used that same vile word in the past."

I didn't use it at my job. If I did, I'd expect to be fired. Apples and oranges. I concede that it's a disgusting term. No hypocrisy, zip.

If that was the only time that Obama/Clinton demonized Republicans for their beliefs, you'd have a point. It wasn't, so you don't.If you think it is a good comparison to compare the very, very few statements of Obama/Clinton to the daily tweets of Trump you have lost your mind. There is no comparison.

Trump is much more overtly vulgar than Obama or Clinton. I don't think he's more divisive. Liberals just didn't see the divisiveness when Obama was POTUS, because they weren't the ones getting demonized.yet, Trump calls Dems and the press enemies of the country and scum. Obama or Clinton never used such language - not even close. You used to complain that Obama would talk about Bush yet Obama never made lies up about him like Trump does. Drop the moral outrage.

This is why Trump is POTUS.


"did you comment in the Samantha Bee thread about what a vile word the "C" word is yet you've used that same vile word in the past."

I didn't use it at my job. If I did, I'd expect to be fired. Apples and oranges. I concede that it's a disgusting term. No hypocrisy, zip.

Sure it is hypocrisy. She is a late night comedian. Shouldn't have said it but they want late night comedians to be edgy. You used it so cut the moral outrage.

"THESE ARE President Obama’s last few days in office, and so conservatives are dusting off their favorite critique: Barack Obama has been one of the most divisive presidents in memory.

It’s something you can expect to hear from right-wing media, so today, let’s take a tour through right-wing reasoning.
Obama has divided America, we’re told, by pointing out, after the mass shootings that this country suffers with mind-numbing regularity, that our lax gun laws are part of the problem. (Imagine!) He’s attacked wealthy Americans with incendiary comments such as this one: “The wealthiest Americans should pay their fair share.” Why, he has even demonized corporate jet owners by targeting a tax break they enjoy! (Have you no sense of decency, sir?)
Meanwhile, he’s been utterly reckless on race. One conservative website blasts the president for noting, in his remarks at the July memorial service for five slain Dallas police officers, that “if you’re black, you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested; more likely to get longer sentences; more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime.” There is, after all, nothing quite so offensive as saying what’s true.
Granted, Obama usually talked in reasonable tones, but that is part and parcel of what made his divisiveness so insidious. “He spoke softly and antagonized only by innuendo,” one conservative intellectual wrote in the The American Thinker.

Now, a naif might call divisiveness by innuendo oxymoronic. (Or perhaps even pare that adjective down to something less syllabic.) Ah, but even if mostly unspoken — and perhaps even unintentional — Obama’s divisiveness “split the country like an ax of covert bigotry.”

Mind you, there are other kinds of presidential divisiveness that are every bit as troubling — and just as difficult for a nonconservative to spot. It is, for example, extremely alienating if a duly elected Democratic president supports policies conservatives don’t.

No wonder, then, that divisiveness detective Mo Brooks, a Republican US representative from Alabama, has declared Obama the most “racially divisive, economic divisive [sic], president” since those “who supported slavery.” Obama, you see, “really does not try to win elections based on public policies that are based on the best interest of America.” This placid prophet of antipolarization is the same congressman who suggested that Obama should be impeached and imprisoned for his executive actions on immigration.
Other times, Obama is panned for having the temerity to stick to his political priorities in the face of GOP opposition. Thus Obama found a way to “ram through” the Affordable Care Act, though it only had the support of a measly 59 Senators. Similarly, writing in the Sunday New York Times, Eric Cantor, House minority whip during Obama’s first two years, faulted the president for pushing ahead with his economic stimulus plan in the face of Cantor’s objection. The new president, Cantor recalls, said: “Elections have consequences and . . . I won. So I think on that one I trump you.” Why, the established order hasn’t witnessed such brazen solipsism since Napoleon crowned himself emperor rather than letting Pope Pius VII do the honors.

Elephantine observers may recall that some congressional Republicans, Cantor among them, had already decided to slow down Obama’s legislative agenda and deny him meaningful victories. And that the then-minority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, declared his single most important goal was to make Obama a one-term president — and engaged in a long, obstructionist effort to that end. But none of that can be called divisive because . . . well, because it would ruin the conservative story line.

When it comes to divisiveness, then, what conservatives have is not a standard but rather a double standard. So here’s the question: After their hair-trigger criticism of Obama, will conservatives call out Donald Trump’s truly polarizing behavior — or suddenly decide that divisiveness no longer matters?"
By Scot Lehigh GLOBE COLUMNIST JANUARY 18, 2017
Actually I think Trumplicans are saying: It's ok, we are getting what we want, just don't look behind the curtain

Sure it is hypocrisy. She is a late night comedian. Shouldn't have said it but they want late night comedians to be edgy. You used it so cut the moral outrage.

"calls Dems and the press enemies of the country and scum. Obama or Clinton never used such language - not even close"

Hilary said republicans are deplorable and irredeemable. Look up the definitions of those words. Again, not as vulgar as saying "scum", but of course she's expressing equal loathing for her opponents that Trump does, she's just using more elegant language. I don't give points for masking hate behind elegant language, perhaps you do.

John McCain and Mitt Romney are deplorable and irredeemable? Whatever...

"calls Dems and the press enemies of the country and scum. Obama or Clinton never used such language - not even close"

Hilary said republicans are deplorable and irredeemable. Look up the definitions of those words. Again, not as vulgar as saying "scum", but of course she's expressing equal loathing for her opponents that Trump does, she's just using more elegant language. I don't give points for masking hate behind elegant language, perhaps you do.

John McCain and Mitt Romney are deplorable and irredeemable? Whatever...

No, Jim, she did not say all republicans are deplorable. You are generalizing and resorting to hyperbole, something you get on us liberals for all the time.

She was referring to the Trump supporters who were homophobic, xenophobic etc… That is not calling all republicans and certainly not specifically McCain and Romney deplorable. I think the folks that fall into those racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic are deplorable. On that I’d agree with her.

Listen, she wasn’t my first second or fifth choice for 2016, but I think she was a better choice than the jackass we have now. This isn’t a defense of a comment that probably could have been more tactful and less derisive, but don’t generalize to try and fit your agenda. I would also love to see Pelosi go, she isn’t the leadership I want in the current democratic party.


Quote (from politifact, I added bold),
We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

No, Jim, she did not say all republicans are deplorable. You are generalizing and resorting to hyperbole, something you get on us liberals for all the time.

She was referring to the Trump supporters who were homophobic, xenophobic etc… That is not calling all republicans and certainly not specifically McCain and Romney deplorable. I think the folks that fall into those racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic are deplorable. On that I’d agree with her.

Listen, she wasn’t my first second or fifth choice for 2016, but I think she was a better choice than the jackass we have now. This isn’t a defense of a comment that probably could have been more tactful and less derisive, but don’t generalize to try and fit your agenda. I would also love to see Pelosi go, she isn’t the leadership I want in the current democratic party.


Quote (from politifact, I added bold),
We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Ok, so she called half of trump supporters ( tens of millions of people), the most disgusting things possible. You want to defend that, pretend it was something other than what it was, knock yourself out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok, so she called half of trump supporters ( tens of millions of people), the most disgusting things possible. You want to defend that, pretend it was something other than what it was, knock yourself out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am not defending anything Jim, but context and full quotes matter (god I sound like Spence, ugh).

Yes, she called the half of Trump supporters who are racist, sexist, homophobic etc.. deplorable. If someone is a racist, sexist and homophobe, I agree, they are probably a deplorable human being...

Maybe it is only 25% of the trump supporters, that fit that bill..... :smash:

No, Jim, she did not say all republicans are deplorable. You are generalizing and resorting to hyperbole, something you get on us liberals for all the time.

She was referring to the Trump supporters who were homophobic, xenophobic etc… That is not calling all republicans and certainly not specifically McCain and Romney deplorable. I think the folks that fall into those racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic are deplorable. On that I’d agree with her.

Listen, she wasn’t my first second or fifth choice for 2016, but I think she was a better choice than the jackass we have now. This isn’t a defense of a comment that probably could have been more tactful and less derisive, but don’t generalize to try and fit your agenda. I would also love to see Pelosi go, she isn’t the leadership I want in the current democratic party.


Quote (from politifact, I added bold),
We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Before trump, influential conservatives wanted to talk about the merits of the issues, liberals just want to demonize.

Example- I’m pro life. And I follow politics, and I follow the news. When I hear influential liberals talking about those who are pro life, I hear us described as anti choice, sexist, opposed to women’s health. You know what I have never heard, not once? The truth. I have never heard an influential liberal say, “ you know what? Pro life people base their position on empathy. I think it’s misguided empathy, but it’s based on empathy nonetheless.” I will never hear that, because it’s more politically effective to call he mysogynist like Hilary did.

Trump plays their dirty game, no question. He beats them at it, in fact.

But he didn’t come out of nowhere. He was the conservative answer to the dirty tactics the liberals and the media used against McCain ( the racist) and Romney ( the heartless plutocrat).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As she said the following day
"Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that's never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’ -- that was wrong. But let's be clear, what's really ‘deplorable’ is that Donald Trump hired a major advocate for the so-called ‘alt-right’ movement to run his campaign and that David Duke and other white supremacists see him as a champion of their values. It's deplorable that Trump has built his campaign largely on prejudice and paranoia and given a national platform to hateful views and voices, including by retweeting fringe bigots with a few dozen followers and spreading their message to 11 million people. It's deplorable that he's attacked a federal judge for his ‘Mexican heritage,’ bullied a Gold Star family because of their Muslim faith, and promoted the lie that our first black president is not a true American. So I won't stop calling out bigotry and racist rhetoric in this campaign. I also meant what I said last night about empathy, and the very real challenges we face as a country where so many people have been left out and left behind. As I said, many of Trump's supporters are hard-working Americans who just don’t feel like the economy or our political system are working for them. I'm determined to bring our country together and make our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top. Because we really are ‘stronger together.’ "

Of course when you are at the Trump Gloryhole, just be happy and don't look behind the curtain.

As she said the following day
"Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that's never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’ -- that was wrong. But let's be clear, what's really ‘deplorable’ is that Donald Trump hired a major advocate for the so-called ‘alt-right’ movement to run his campaign and that David Duke and other white supremacists see him as a champion of their values. It's deplorable that Trump has built his campaign largely on prejudice and paranoia and given a national platform to hateful views and voices, including by retweeting fringe bigots with a few dozen followers and spreading their message to 11 million people. It's deplorable that he's attacked a federal judge for his ‘Mexican heritage,’ bullied a Gold Star family because of their Muslim faith, and promoted the lie that our first black president is not a true American. So I won't stop calling out bigotry and racist rhetoric in this campaign. I also meant what I said last night about empathy, and the very real challenges we face as a country where so many people have been left out and left behind. As I said, many of Trump's supporters are hard-working Americans who just don’t feel like the economy or our political system are working for them. I'm determined to bring our country together and make our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top. Because we really are ‘stronger together.’ "

Of course when you are at the Trump Gloryhole, just be happy and don't look behind the curtain.

A self-serving apology, suggested by her campaign staff when people were justifiably offended by her insane remarks. Not impressed. I am certain she knew exactly what she was saying (like Obama's bitter clinger remarks), and equally certain she meant it.

I despise Trump, hate his behavior. I know exactly what's behind the curtain, I know how vindictive and self absorbed he is. I call out ugliness on both sides.

Integrity was not on the ballot in 2016, not anywhere.

A self-serving apology, suggested by her campaign staff when people were justifiably offended by her insane remarks. Not impressed. I am certain she knew exactly what she was saying (like Obama's bitter clinger remarks), and equally certain she meant it.
Just curious how hard you type when you write this stuff.

"calls Dems and the press enemies of the country and scum. Obama or Clinton never used such language - not even close"

Hilary said republicans are deplorable and irredeemable. Look up the definitions of those words. Again, not as vulgar as saying "scum", but of course she's expressing equal loathing for her opponents that Trump does, she's just using more elegant language. I don't give points for masking hate behind elegant language, perhaps you do.

John McCain and Mitt Romney are deplorable and irredeemable? Whatever...

Did she say all Repubs. where deplorable? And didn't Clinton apologize the very next day? You use that tired old insult repeatedly bc there are so few to use - Whatever.

Just curious how hard you type when you write this stuff.

If that’s the best response you have, we know I’ve won. And the answer is not hard at all. You are confusing being right, with being angry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did she say all Repubs. where deplorable? And didn't Clinton apologize the very next day? You use that tired old insult repeatedly bc there are so few to use - Whatever.

She said half - tens of millions of people.

Yes she apologized. I was deeply moved, almost brought to tears. Nothing looks more like a sincere apology, than a politician apologizing for a scripted remark that the polls show bombers. It just reeks of sincerity and authenticity.

So few insults to use against her? I’d get carpel tunnel syndrome before I scratched the surface.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She said half - tens of millions of people.

Yes she apologized. I was deeply moved, almost brought to tears. Nothing looks more like a sincere apology, than a politician apologizing for a scripted remark that the polls show bombers. It just reeks of sincerity and authenticity. Far better than Trump who won't appologize for anything.

So few insults to use against her? I’d get carpel tunnel syndrome before I scratched the surface.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's have a little contest. I'll donate a $1 for every insult Clinton made and you donate $.25 for every insult Trump made and we'll net the 2 and the proceeds can be donated to charity.

Here’s a start
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html
Then you can go to his public appearances
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here’s a start
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html
Then you can go to his public appearances
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many time do you think Clinton was called the C word at Trump's rallys?

Let's have a little contest. I'll donate a $1 for every insult Clinton made and you donate $.25 for every insult Trump made and we'll net the 2 and the proceeds can be donated to charity.
Not sure he can afford it even with his bigger paycheck.

Should read he comments above again, ignore for a moment exactly how big the deplorable bucket is and Clinton was exactly right.

How many time do you think Clinton was called the C word at Trump's rallys?

In retrospect, she prob. was not called it at all given how upset the Repubs are its use.

How many time do you think Clinton was called the C word at Trump's rallys?

A lot.

How many times was Ben Carson called the n-word at democrat rallies? Probably a lot.

I'm talking about the behavior of people ta the top. And group with tens of millions of people in it, is going to have bad people. That says nothing about the group, unless the group is provoking the bad behavior.

Trump does some of that, I would bet he's responsible for some barroom brawls. Al Sharptons words have put multiple innocent bystanders in the grave, and the left gives him his own TV show.

People see it, Paul. It's why Trump got elected, and it's why under obama's watch the democrats took an historic drubbing at all levels, it's exactly why the GOP controls the oval office, both houses of congress, and a huge majority of state governorships and legislatures. The proof is in the pudding.

The only reason why the left matters right now, is because they control the media and academia, and they were brilliant to seize those institutions. Absolutely brilliant. They may prevail because of it. As of now, they have a long, LONG way to go.

Republicans want to talk about the merits of their ideas, because they are confident their ideas are the right ideas. Democrats want to call us all racist, that's their go-to response. It's the last play of the desperate.

Let's have a little contest. I'll donate a $1 for every insult Clinton made and you donate $.25 for every insult Trump made and we'll net the 2 and the proceeds can be donated to charity.

I don't doubt I'd lose that bet between those two.

But if you extended that bet to cover all politicians, all influential talking heads in the media, and college campuses? I'd be a trillionaire.

Paul, when Bush destroyed the democrats by implementing the Surge (which the Dems opposed, and which worked amazingly well, which made them look like idiots), that's when the democrats stopped talking like adults, and started hitting below the belt. It started with Bush Derangement Syndrome, and continued through the 2008 and 2012 elections.

The Democrats are very good at slinging mud and at yellow journalism, it propelled them to victory in 08 and 12. So it's no surprise that the GOP found someone who is quite at home fighting dirty, and who is what better at it than they are.

He is beating them, clobbering them, at their own game. And they are going berserk, because they have nothing left. If Trump woke up and said "two plus two is four", the entire media would say "the hell it is!!" That's how crazy they are.

The results speak for themselves, in terms of political victories and TV ratings. Couldn't be more clear.

Look at what liberalism has done to our state's economy. And the democrats want to raise taxes and spend more. Even in CT, people are waking up. The democrats lead in the house has decreased from 60+ seats to 7, and the senate is tied, and Malloy is a national laughingstock.

Compare that to Nashville and the Carolinas, where they literally cannot build $450,000 houses fast enough. People see it.

How many times was Ben Carson called the n-word at democrat rallies? Probably a lot.
I'd be astounded if it happened once.

I'd be astounded if it happened once.

I would lay money it happened many times at rallies during the primaries.

Not sure he can afford it even with his bigger paycheck.

Should read he comments above again, ignore for a moment exactly how big the deplorable bucket is and Clinton was exactly right.

If you want to target the worst 1% or 2%, sure. Half? Nope.

Again, take the abortion issue. It's a whole lot easier to paint me as anti-woman, or anti-choice (which is beyond absurd), than it is to look at a hi-def ultrasound, and tell me that I'm not looking ta a human being.

When you are wrong on the facts and you know it, you avoid the truth like the plague, and sling mud.

The conservative platform:
life is precious

individual freedom is sacred

individuals are almost always responsible for their actions

charity for neighbors in need

strong national defense

support the free market, and the economic upward mobility it provides, which is a gift from God

fiscal responsibility

limited government, protection of individual rights

You can't make that wrong, you just can't. So you demonize it, again and again and again, until people assume it's true, but no one can explain why. If you ask why it's evil to believe these things, the answer you get is "because shut up!"

I'd be astounded if it happened once.

I'm sure you would be.

Spence, why did your party get its azz so resoundingly kicked, at all levels, during the Obama years?

Lemme guess...racism? Hate? Or was it because people like me got tired of being slandered, tired of being painted so dishonestly?

I'm sure you would be.

Spence, why did your party get its azz so resoundingly kicked, at all levels, during the Obama years?

Lemme guess...racism? Hate? Or was it because people like me got tired of being slandered, tired of being painted so dishonestly?
You mean those years where the Democratic Party held the presidency for two terms, the Senate more than half the time and a higher number of Governors more than half the time?

Yes, resoundingly kicked in deed.

You mean those years where the Democratic Party held the presidency for two terms, the Senate more than half the time and a higher number of Governors more than half the time?

Yes, resoundingly kicked in deed.

The democrats lost almost 1,000 seats (at the national, state, and local level) during his 8 years. I see you left out state legislatures and the house of representatives, can't imagine why. I guess those don't matter...

It's quite amusing watching Jim slap around the circle jerk crew. A tired but decided beating but they lead with the chin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The democrats lost almost 1,000 seats (at the national, state, and local level) during his 8 years. I see you left out state legislatures and the house of representatives, can't imagine why. I guess those don't matter...
House was flat. As for local stuff I see you're not posting any data.

House was flat. As for local stuff I see you're not posting any data.

Dems controlled the house after the 2008 election, and had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. I have no idea what you are talking about, you're just making up jibberish now.

"I see you're not posting any data'

Even as biased as you are, I assumed you already knew this. But OK...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4063898/As-Obama-accomplished-policy-goals-party-floundered.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/27/democrats-lost-over-1000-seats-under-obama.html

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/


https://www.npr.org/2016/03/04/469052020/the-democratic-party-got-crushed-during-the-obama-presidency-heres-why

Here's a quote from the above NPR article, is that too right wing for you?

"Every president sees his party lose hundreds of positions — it's the price a party holding the White House pays — but no president has come close to Obama. During Obama's eight years in office, the Democrats have lost more House, Senate, state legislative and governors seats than under any other president.

When Obama took office, there were 60 Democratic senators; now there are 46. The number of House seats held by Democrats has shrunk from 257 to 188.

There are now nine fewer Democratic governors than in 2009. Democrats currently hold fewer elected offices nationwide than at any time since the 1920s."

Spence, you said the house seats were flat under Obama, NPR says the democrats dropped from 257 to 188. I don't know how good or bad you are at math, but in your world, does 257 = 188??


Have fun with that. And the NPR stats DON'T take into account the 2018 thumping.

Not your best showing Spence, not your best showing...

TKO🥊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

TKO🥊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

visions of Tyson putting his mouth guard in backwards after getting walloped by Buster Douglas

How many time do you think Clinton was called the C word at Trump's rallys?

"CRIMINAL"?.....probably quite often ;)

visions of Tyson putting his mouth guard in backwards after getting walloped by Buster Douglas

c'mon...Spence....don't let them push you around like this...put on your pink hat and get back out there and make a fight of it!!!!

c'mon...Spence....don't let them push you around like this...put on your pink hat and get back out there and make a fight of it!!!!
I’d rather just let Jim punch himself out. His links don’t even back up his assertion. Demographics and gerrymandering don’t reflect ideology.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’d rather just let Jim punch himself out. His links don’t even back up his assertion. Demographics and gerrymandering don’t reflect ideology.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

just tell him he's not smart enough to understand the complexities of the argument...that always works :uhuh:

I’d rather just let Jim punch himself out. His links don’t even back up his assertion. Demographics and gerrymandering don’t reflect ideology.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

First you said democrats didn't lose house seats. Now it was only because of gerrymandering. Well, which is it? Did seats stay flat, or did the democrats lose seats?

"Demographics and gerrymandering don’t reflect ideology."

The articles also talked about the fact that the democrats lost US Senate seats, and governorships. Was that because of gerrymandering? How does gerrymandering impact a statewide race, exactly? And the only reason the GOP could gerrymander, was because of the Tea Party tidal wave of the 2010 midterms. There was no ideological effect that led to the genesis of the Tea Party? No? Tell that to Rick Santorum...

NPR said that no president has come close to losing as many seats as Obama. There was something unique there. Then, we elected the biggest jerk in history, to beat the most inevitable candidate in history. How did that happen? White privilege?

"I’d rather just let Jim punch himself out"

Don't hold your breath, you have a long wait. This is just too much fun.

Well, which is it?



whack-a-mole

just tell him he's not smart enough to understand the complexities of the argument...that always works :uhuh:

Don't forget context, I took it all out of context.

First you said democrats didn't lose house seats. Now it was only because of gerrymandering. Well, which is it? Did seats stay flat, or did the democrats lose seats?
I never said they didn't lose any seats, just if you look at it across the two terms it was pretty flat. The bigger point is there's little correlation between dem losses and your vastly superior ideology. The dems did manage to hold onto a lot of significant government control under Obama and the local numbers can be accounted by a variety of means per the articles your referenced. Most of this stuff just flips back and forth every so often anyway.

I never said they didn't lose any seats, just if you look at it across the two terms it was pretty flat. The bigger point is there's little correlation between dem losses and your vastly superior ideology. The dems did manage to hold onto a lot of significant government control under Obama and the local numbers can be accounted by a variety of means per the articles your referenced. Most of this stuff just flips back and forth every so often anyway.

"I never said they didn't lose any seats, just if you look at it across the two terms it was pretty flat"

The Democrats lost 69 seats, according to NPR. That's not "pretty flat" by any sane definition.

"The bigger point is there's little correlation between dem losses and your vastly superior ideology."

Sure, sure, all those people voted for republicans specifically because they prefer liberalism to conservatism.

"Most of this stuff just flips back and forth every so often anyway"

NPR said no one comes close to Obama, in terms of losses.
You are correct, it goes back and forth. In 2008, the GOP got creamed, creamed all over the place, creamed as bad as you can get creamed.

"I never said they didn't lose any seats, just if you look at it across the two terms it was pretty flat"

The Democrats lost 69 seats, according to NPR. That's not "pretty flat" by any sane definition.
I said across his tenure, they lost the house and then it stayed pretty flat.

"The bigger point is there's little correlation between dem losses and your vastly superior ideology."

Sure, sure, all those people voted for republicans specifically because they prefer liberalism to conservatism.
The votes that actually decide the election aren't cast for highly partisan reasons. Timing, organization and demographic issues pull a lot of people left and right.