You dirty rat. Unbelievable what the Don thinks he can get away with, when it comes to influencing witnesses, juries and judges. Well what am I surprised at, he has shown no respect for our judicial system.

if he is Don Vito Corleone, then Hilary is Fredo.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if he is Don Vito Corleone, then Hilary is Fredo.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When do we take her fishing?

When do we take her fishing?

we already did, on election night 2016. we sent her on the boat with Luca Brasi.

You dirty rat. Unbelievable what the Don thinks he can get away with, when it comes to influencing witnesses, juries and judges. Well what am I surprised at, he has shown no respect for our judicial system.

Individual 1 calls someone who cooperates with our justice dept. a rat. It must make our law enforcement feel good.

Individual 1 calls someone who cooperates with our justice dept. a rat. It must make our law enforcement feel good.

Doubt it made them feel any worse than when they were called Racist, top to bottom

Doubt it made them feel any worse than when they were called Racist, top to bottom

Wow, I didn't realize a Pres. did that - which one?

Wow, I didn't realize a Pres. did that - which one?

That would be the same one who is still living in some peoples heads rent free, right next to Hillary's space.
He also said this:
"All kidding aside, obviously, we all know about your credentials and breadth of experience," he said. "For example, no, seriously, just recently in an episode of 'Celebrity Apprentice,' at the steakhouse, the men's cooking team did not impress the judges from Omaha Steaks. And there was a lot of blame to go around, but you, Mr. Trump, recognized that the real problem was a lack of leadership and so, ultimately, you didn't blame Little John or Meatloaf -- you fired Gary Busey. And these are the kinds of decisions that would keep me up at night. Well-handled, sir. Well-handled."

Wow, I didn't realize a Pres. did that - which one?

probably the one you'll end up voting for in the next election, unless you are disgusted with her and there's no way you are going to vote for her.

Then there's the one that said the police acted stupidly, but I don't want to be accused of Whatabout-isms or But, but, but......

also didn't realize that only the prez can't say nasty #^&#^&#^&#^& and be held accountable. must be a new rule, or lower standards, or you agree with her. :huh:

That would be the same one who is still living in some peoples heads rent free, right next to Hillary's space.
He also said this:
"All kidding aside, obviously, we all know about your credentials and breadth of experience," he said. "For example, no, seriously, just recently in an episode of 'Celebrity Apprentice,' at the steakhouse, the men's cooking team did not impress the judges from Omaha Steaks. And there was a lot of blame to go around, but you, Mr. Trump, recognized that the real problem was a lack of leadership and so, ultimately, you didn't blame Little John or Meatloaf -- you fired Gary Busey. And these are the kinds of decisions that would keep me up at night. Well-handled, sir. Well-handled."

That Bastard!!!!

Individual 1 calls someone who cooperates with our justice dept. a rat. It must make our law enforcement feel good.

I would think so, since it was their intention to make him a rat. Unless they thought Cohen should be admired.

Yea, remarking the police did something stupid, which they did, is the same thing as calling a cooperating federal witness a rat while defending the actions of someone who’s pleaded guilty to crimes a federal judge labeled treasonous.

Oh, and you’re potentially implicated in both cases yet you oversee the justice department.

Totally the same.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Drip, drip, drip, it’s like waiting for the sequel to the original Star Wars, when are the findings going to be released? Trump foundation shut down, to bad Donny can’t buy those new Titelist irons with the slush fund money, not that it would help that game any. Those secret service agents aren’t going to be looking to hard for Donny’s lost balls, not if they are working without pay.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Flynn’s sentencing is delayed until he is done squeeling to the FBI. I think a few Trumps and a Kushner are going to be in deep trouble soon
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea, remarking the police did something stupid, which they did, is the same thing as calling a cooperating federal witness a rat while defending the actions of someone who’s pleaded guilty to crimes a federal judge labeled treasonous.

Oh, and you’re potentially implicated in both cases yet you oversee the justice department.

Totally the same.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, no . . . Cohen is a rat, the cop was not . . . not the same.

Well, no . . . Cohen is a rat, the cop was not . . . not the same.
Can you try again? That was unusually weak for you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

probably the one you'll end up voting for in the next election, unless you are disgusted with her and there's no way you are going to vote for her.

Then there's the one that said the police acted stupidly, but I don't want to be accused of Whatabout-isms or But, but, but......

also didn't realize that only the prez can't say nasty #^&#^&#^&#^& and be held accountable. must be a new rule, or lower standards, or you agree with her. :huh:

Amy Klobuchar? As she is probably who I would vote for right now.

I guess you're saying Obama called all the cops racist. Can you pull up some quotes. Thanks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump foundation shut down, to bad Donny can’t buy those new Titelist irons with the slush fund money
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't forget individual one once gave a sick boy a ride on his plane 1982
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can you try again? That was unusually weak for you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nah, I'll stick with it. That you disapprove is a plus.

Don't forget individual one once gave a sick boy a ride on his plane 1982
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which means nothing?

Is he judged by all he does, Paul, or only the stuff that exonerates your side?

Why did you have to throw out a gesture where he stepped up to try and save a little kid's life? Your hatred runs so deep, your hatred is so deranged, that you make fun of a gesture done to save a sick little kid? You're dismissive of something that great?

And you call me a hater? I wont live long enough to say anything that vile. Ask that kid's family if the gesture was meaningless.

I brought that up because you have used that multiple times to defend him. He and his family are grifters who dishonor our country. He brags about how he is a billionaire yet has never had a reputation of being a generous man. Instead he has used his wealth and power to rip off people he has more strength than. He is a miserable human being. What is so vile about what I said?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Many of the Dons crime family are indited, sentenced and some doing time. I think he is probably more worried about the NYAG than he is about the change in congress on the first. He might need to put a horse head in the NYAG’s bed to avoid a civil case and what that will open up the family to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I brought that up because you have used that multiple times to defend him. He and his family are grifters who dishonor our country. He brags about how he is a billionaire yet has never had a reputation of being a generous man. Instead he has used his wealth and power to rip off people he has more strength than. He is a miserable human being. What is so vile about what I said?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I brought that up because you have used that multiple times to defend him"

Not to defend the awful stuff he does, I have never defended that crap, and I have pointed out my fair share. I use it to show, correctly, that there's more to him than the bad stuff.

Lots of wealthy liberals own their own jets. None of them stepped up to help this kid. Trump did. It was a beautiful gesture to me, meaningless to you. Instead of asking why so mane who could have easily helped this kid chose not to, you dismiss the fact that Trump did it.

The truth, is that there's good and bad. I think he's disgusting. But he's done some good, helped some people in ways that I can't.

"He and his family are grifters "

Grifter? All those buildings that have his name on them are an illusion?

"I brought that up because you have used that multiple times to defend him"

Not to defend the awful stuff he does, I have never defended that crap, and I have pointed out my fair share. I use it to show, correctly, that there's more to him than the bad stuff.And hitler made the trains run on time (I know you'll now say I compared Individual 1 to Hitler) but Trump has no record of being generous with all the billions he claims to have.

Lots of wealthy liberals own their own jets. None of them stepped up to help this kid. Trump did. It was a beautiful gesture to me, meaningless to youI never said it was meaningless. But for a billionaire to only be known for that isn't a strong arguement.. Instead of asking why so mane who could have easily helped this kid chose not to, you dismiss the fact that Trump did it.How do you know no one else offered to do it?

The truth, is that there's good and bad. I think he's disgusting. But he's done some good, helped some people in ways that I can't. Everyone tries to do what they can. I think he claimed he was worth $13 B yet no one knows any meaningful donations he has made and instead he used his foundation as a slush fund.

"He and his family are grifters "

Grifter? All those buildings that have his name on them are an illusion?

Still waiting to hear what was vile about what I said.

Yes, grifters (and look up the definition and think of say Trump University and tell me that word isn't what he is). Trying to make money any way they can. He has a reputation of ripping off workers and contracters in the past. I've told you before many of the buidling with his name on them are not his. He manages some and some he owns. Almost all the buildings on the Hudson river with his name on them are not owned or managed by him. When he sold the property he negotiated that his name would be on them.

He hasn't made a contribution to his foundation since like 2009. It's interesting to hear what was said about his foundation by the NY AG.

"Attorney General Barbara Underwood accused it of “a shocking pattern of illegality” that “amounted to the Trump Foundation functioning as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump’s business and political interests.”

Whatever money that remains will be disbursed under the supervision of Ms. Underwood’s office and the judge overseeing the continuing lawsuit her office filed in June, seeking $2.8 million in restitution and a ban on Mr. Trump and his three oldest children serving on the boards of other nonprofit organizations.
In a series of stories exposing the foundation’s true nature, The Washington Post found that its largest donation was to fix a fountain in front of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, which Mr. Trump owned at the time, that its funds were used to buy a portrait of Mr. Trump, and that it illegally provided political donations and paid for personal legal settlements.

All this comes just days after prosecutors announced that they believed that Mr. Trump had conspired with the owner of The National Enquirer and his fixer Michael Cohen to violate campaign finance laws by paying hush money to two women who said they had affairs with him. It’s also just been reported that prosecutors are investigating spending by the Trump inaugural committee. The president still faces lawsuits on the constitutionality of his enriching himself while in office. Meanwhile, the special counsel’s inquiry may be expanding rather than winding down. "

Still waiting to hear what was vile about what I said.

Yes, grifters (and look up the definition and think of say Trump University and tell me that word isn't what he is). Trying to make money any way they can. He has a reputation of ripping off workers and contracters in the past. I've told you before many of the buidling with his name on them are not his. He manages some and some he owns. Almost all the buildings on the Hudson river with his name on them are not owned or managed by him. When he sold the property he negotiated that his name would be on them.

He hasn't made a contribution to his foundation since like 2009. It's interesting to hear what was said about his foundation by the NY AG.

"Attorney General Barbara Underwood accused it of “a shocking pattern of illegality” that “amounted to the Trump Foundation functioning as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump’s business and political interests.”

Whatever money that remains will be disbursed under the supervision of Ms. Underwood’s office and the judge overseeing the continuing lawsuit her office filed in June, seeking $2.8 million in restitution and a ban on Mr. Trump and his three oldest children serving on the boards of other nonprofit organizations.
In a series of stories exposing the foundation’s true nature, The Washington Post found that its largest donation was to fix a fountain in front of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, which Mr. Trump owned at the time, that its funds were used to buy a portrait of Mr. Trump, and that it illegally provided political donations and paid for personal legal settlements.

All this comes just days after prosecutors announced that they believed that Mr. Trump had conspired with the owner of The National Enquirer and his fixer Michael Cohen to violate campaign finance laws by paying hush money to two women who said they had affairs with him. It’s also just been reported that prosecutors are investigating spending by the Trump inaugural committee. The president still faces lawsuits on the constitutionality of his enriching himself while in office. Meanwhile, the special counsel’s inquiry may be expanding rather than winding down. "

"And hitler made the trains run on time "

There you go. Pointing out a wonderful gesture that Trump made, to you, is analogous to complimenting Hitler.

"Trump has no record of being generous "

Tell that to the parents of the boy whose life might have been saved because Trump donated the use of his jet, he also gave away his POTUS salary. I have no doubt that I'd give far more away than he does. That doesn't mean he has no record of being generous.

"Everyone tries to do what they can"

Not on this planet they don't.

He' snot a good guy, and Trump University is a great example of that.

"And hitler made the trains run on time "

There you go. Pointing out a wonderful gesture that Trump made, to you, is analogous to complimenting Hitler.

"Trump has no record of being generous "

Tell that to the parents of the boy whose life might have been saved because Trump donated the use of his jet, he also gave away his POTUS salaryabout $400K/year and he said he has $13B. Not a high %. I have no doubt that I'd give far more away than he does. That doesn't mean he has no record of being generous.

"Everyone tries to do what they can"

Not on this planet they don't. I think the vast majority of people try to help others.

He' snot a good guy, and Trump University is a great example of that.

You seem to miss the point of the use of Hitler/Trains and the plane ride. The following is from a Univ. of Oxford ethics professor:

Well, they say of Mussolini, at least he made the trains run on time.

Actually, that’s disputed, but that’s by-the-by. While watching the telly, I was struck by a remark of Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, on the resignation of the leader of Scotland’s Roman Catholic community, Cardinal Keith O’Brien following allegation of sexual misconduct. “It would be a great pity if a lifetime of positive work was lost from comment in the circumstances of his resignation”, said Salmond.

This was a few days ago, before O’Brien admitted to ‘misbehaviour’. Even so, it seemed to me to be a premature and injudicious remark. (And Salmond praised him in other comments too). We still don’t know much about the allegations against O’Brien, not do we know whether others will come forward with additional accusations. The scale of O’Brien’s ‘misbehaviour’ is, at the time of writing, unclear…he may well be guilty of not very much.

However, I would have thought we need such information before we can weigh it in the balance against his good deeds. No life is unrelentingly bad. Just as no life is incessantly good. All lives have at least some good and some bad. In some lives, the bad massively overshadows the good. In such circumstances, we tend – quite rightly in my view – to ignore the good. We do this on grounds of taste. We would object – again quite rightly, in my view – to a person who said “well yes, but putting aside the Jews and the gays, and the torture and the invasions and the war, Adolf did build some marvellous autobahns”. And similar comments would be misplaced even for criminals on a much smaller scale…“it would be a shame if in all the allegations of rape and assault we forgot Jimmy Savile’s tremendous contribution to popular television”.

As I say, we don’t know very much about the O’Brien case. But, sometimes it is not ‘a pity’ to disregard ‘positive work’. It’s the right thing to do.

You seem to miss the point of the use of Hitler/Trains and the plane ride. The following is from a Univ. of Oxford ethics professor:

Well, they say of Mussolini, at least he made the trains run on time.

Actually, that’s disputed, but that’s by-the-by. While watching the telly, I was struck by a remark of Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, on the resignation of the leader of Scotland’s Roman Catholic community, Cardinal Keith O’Brien following allegation of sexual misconduct. “It would be a great pity if a lifetime of positive work was lost from comment in the circumstances of his resignation”, said Salmond.

This was a few days ago, before O’Brien admitted to ‘misbehaviour’. Even so, it seemed to me to be a premature and injudicious remark. (And Salmond praised him in other comments too). We still don’t know much about the allegations against O’Brien, not do we know whether others will come forward with additional accusations. The scale of O’Brien’s ‘misbehaviour’ is, at the time of writing, unclear…he may well be guilty of not very much.

However, I would have thought we need such information before we can weigh it in the balance against his good deeds. No life is unrelentingly bad. Just as no life is incessantly good. All lives have at least some good and some bad. In some lives, the bad massively overshadows the good. In such circumstances, we tend – quite rightly in my view – to ignore the good. We do this on grounds of taste. We would object – again quite rightly, in my view – to a person who said “well yes, but putting aside the Jews and the gays, and the torture and the invasions and the war, Adolf did build some marvellous autobahns”. And similar comments would be misplaced even for criminals on a much smaller scale…“it would be a shame if in all the allegations of rape and assault we forgot Jimmy Savile’s tremendous contribution to popular television”.

As I say, we don’t know very much about the O’Brien case. But, sometimes it is not ‘a pity’ to disregard ‘positive work’. It’s the right thing to do.

Is it the right thing to do in the Trump case? Is there anything he has done as President comparable to what Hitler or Mussolini did as the political leaders of their countries that outweigh the good he has done with his policies? Or are there rapes and assaults in his personal life that outweigh his contributions?

Failed businesses, extra-marital affairs, typical shady or unethical deals so common to big business and big and little politicians (including the one he ran against for President)--these are the things that outweigh his good? Do you honestly believe that if the FBI had wanted to go after Hillary for anything in her past, or even for her handling of her emails, with the same intensity and vigor as they are doing with Trump, that they couldn't have found things for which to prosecute and convict her (or just about any other powerful, successful person)? If Trump is the standard for bad rather than good or usual, then we might as well bring down the whole Washington and local government establishments. And most other highly successful and powerful people.

Is it the right thing to do in the Trump case? Is there anything he has done as President comparable to what Hitler or Mussolini did as the political leaders of their countries that outweigh the good he has done with his policies? Or are there rapes and assaults in his personal life that outweigh his contributions?

Failed businesses, extra-marital affairs, typical shady or unethical deals so common to big business and big and little politicians (including the one he ran against for President)--these are the things that outweigh his good? Do you honestly believe that if the FBI had wanted to go after Hillary for anything in her past, or even for her handling of her emails, with the same intensity and vigor as they are doing with Trump, that they couldn't have found things for which to prosecute and convict her (or just about any other powerful, successful person)? If Trump is the standard for bad rather than good or usual, then we might as well bring down the whole Washington and local government establishments. And most other highly successful and powerful people.

Quite a worldview
Not just limited to politicians,
most highly successful and powerful people would not survive an investigation?
Is this based on your life experience, facts or just your imagination?
You justify Trump by saying most people do that and therefore his behavior is normal.
I think he is far from the norm

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quite a worldview
Not just limited to politicians,
most highly successful and powerful people would not survive an investigation?
Is this based on your life experience, facts or just your imagination?
You justify Trump by saying most people do that and therefore his behavior is normal.
I think he is far from the norm

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Being a highly successful and powerful person IS far from the norm. And power does corrupt.

And yes, most politicians are basically corrupted by the necessity to pretty much having to lie and make false promises to get elected, and by needing to grant favorable legislation to big, corrupt, donors. And by getting more and more "donations" as they get more powerful by staying in office and getting re-elected through the same corrupt system.

Let me ask you, do you not think that if Mueller were to investigate HRC in the same manner and intensity as he is investigating Trump, that he would find some convictable corruption to pin on her?

Is it the right thing to do in the Trump case? Is there anything he has done as President comparable to what Hitler or Mussolini did as the political leaders of their countries that outweigh the good he has done with his policies? Or are there rapes and assaults in his personal life that outweigh his contributions?

Failed businesses, extra-marital affairs, typical shady or unethical deals so common to big business and big and little politicians (including the one he ran against for President)--these are the things that outweigh his good? Do you honestly believe that if the FBI had wanted to go after Hillary for anything in her past, or even for her handling of her emails, with the same intensity and vigor as they are doing with Trump, that they couldn't have found things for which to prosecute and convict her (or just about any other powerful, successful person)? If Trump is the standard for bad rather than good or usual, then we might as well bring down the whole Washington and local government establishments. And most other highly successful and powerful people.

You keep pointing out all the good he has done, mind spelling that all out for us dim witted individuals, because I'm pretty certain good and bad all depends on point of view. Seems like a lot of the good he claims he is doing keeps getting overruled in the higher courts, but he is keeping many states AG's busy for sure.

You keep pointing out all the good he has done, mind spelling that all out for us dim witted individuals, because I'm pretty certain good and bad all depends on point of view. Seems like a lot of the good he claims he is doing keeps getting overruled in the higher courts, but he is keeping many states AG's busy for sure.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trumps-list-289-accomplishments-in-just-20-months-relentless-promise-keeping

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trumps-list-289-accomplishments-in-just-20-months-relentless-promise-keeping

I tell you what, weed out the carryovers from the growing economy and good growth he inherited and then give me the list.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trumps-list-289-accomplishments-in-just-20-months-relentless-promise-keeping


not sure what policys were passed to amass theses accomplishments

but they sure threw out some obscure stuff

Led two National Prescription Drug Take Back Days in 2017 and 2018, collecting a record number of expired and unneeded prescription drugs each time.

OMG A 2A BAN? on his watch
New rule effectively banning bump stock sales in the United States.

U.S. oil production has achieved its highest level in American history
United States is now the largest crude oil producer in the world.

he did that?

Lifted a 15-year limit on veterans’ access to their educational

benefits only new servicemembers will see any of those changes.

I was told once

If you read enough about it you will find varying accounts

The economy is like an ocean going cargo ship, it takes miles not yards to stop or turn it. Trump inherited a robust economy, one that wasn’t going to change quickly due to momentum, yet here we are two years in, about the time that cargo ship could turn and 75% of economists are predicting a recession, the Feds concur and so does the stock market. Who was captain of the ship when this turn started to show evidence, or are we going to not take credit when things go south?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I tell you what, weed out the carryovers from the growing economy and good growth he inherited and then give me the list.

I tell you what, this carryover talking point bs is speculative and unsubstantiated. And if everything in Trump's first two years is carryover, then how can he be criticized for bad policy? The economy under Obama had a little bump then remained fairly static. It was statistically by some accounts set to get worse. It would be a big stretch to attribute the very dramatic shift upward under Trump to a mere carryover. And I posted a video in another thread that tore the carryover crap to shreds.

You asked for a list. I gave it to you.

not sure what policys were passed to amass theses accomplishments

but they sure threw out some obscure stuff

Led two National Prescription Drug Take Back Days in 2017 and 2018, collecting a record number of expired and unneeded prescription drugs each time.

OMG A 2A BAN? on his watch
New rule effectively banning bump stock sales in the United States.

U.S. oil production has achieved its highest level in American history
United States is now the largest crude oil producer in the world.

he did that?

Lifted a 15-year limit on veterans’ access to their educational

benefits only new servicemembers will see any of those changes.

I was told once

If you read enough about it you will find varying accounts

Yeah, there are varying accounts. This is one of them. You can pick and choose what account suits your purpose.

One account gives Trump credit. And lo and behold, here come the naysayers with another account which, without proof, but loaded with conjecture, says he gets no credit.

The same goes on with every President. The previous administration gets credit for the good stuff, and the current administration gets blamed for the bad.

I was asked for a list. I gave it. You can shove it up your arse for all I care.

I tell you what, this carryover talking point bs is speculative and unsubstantiated. And if everything in Trump's first two years is carryover, then how can he be criticized for bad policy? The economy under Obama had a little bump then remained fairly static. It was statistically by some accounts set to get worse. It would be a big stretch to attribute the very dramatic shift upward under Trump to a mere carryover. And I posted a video in another thread that tore the carryover crap to shreds.

You asked for a list. I gave it to you.

No you actually gave me someone else’s list, which sounds like it was written by and for the right and the sitting president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No you actually gave me someone else’s list, which sounds like it was written by and for the right and the sitting president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what?

Being a highly successful and powerful person IS far from the norm. And power does corrupt.

And yes, most politicians are basically corrupted by the necessity to pretty much having to lie and make false promises to get elected, and by needing to grant favorable legislation to big, corrupt, donors. And by getting more and more "donations" as they get more powerful by staying in office and getting re-elected through the same corrupt system.

Let me ask you, do you not think that if Mueller were to investigate HRC in the same manner and intensity as he is investigating Trump, that he would find some convictable corruption to pin on her?
Most somewhat responsible politicians look at the possible results of an action based on some analysis of available data and choose the best selling outcome, they care enough to try and not be caught in a outright lie. Trump just doubles down.
What analysis led Trump to announce that Mexico would pay for the wall, he would eliminate the debt, NAFTA2.0 would pay for the wall, illegal immigration costs amounts that vary by day, etc.
I do think there is too much money and aggregated power in politics
HRC also could or would have been investigated, but we don’t typically do investigation of losers for political retribution in this country.
2020 and sealed indictments might somewhat change that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most somewhat responsible politicians look at the possible results of an action based on some analysis of available data and choose the best selling outcome, they care enough to try and not be caught in a outright lie.

That's a polite way of describing their sneaky, lying, BS crap.

Trump just doubles down.

Yup. He doesn't hide his crap very well.

What analysis led Trump to announce that Mexico would pay for the wall, he would eliminate the debt, NAFTA2.0 would pay for the wall, illegal immigration costs amounts that vary by day, etc.

As Harry Reid might have put it referring to his BS, "She didn't win, did she?"

I do think there is too much money and aggregated power in politics
HRC also could or would have been investigated, but we don’t typically do investigation of losers for political retribution in this country.
2020 and sealed indictments might somewhat change that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently, we do investigations as political retribution for winners. And I think Mueller could have found plenty of stuff to convict HRC if he went about it with the same vigor and tactics he's using to get Trump.

Apparently, we do investigations as political retribution for winners. And I think Mueller could have found plenty of stuff to convict HRC if he went about it with the same vigor and tactics he's using to get Trump.

But that was not the job he was given, was it?
I’ve seen no credible evidence that Mueller cares about anything other than finding the truth and none in being on any other team.
Same motto as Superman, Truth, Justice and The American Way.
Trump’s biggest downfall will be that he has no idea how to recruit and grow a team, or lead one.
I’ve worked for a number of people in my life but never for a successful leader who would throw his hires under the bus. The best ones guide and keep you on the road to greatness with them.
Michael Cohen and the rest of Trump’s cronies wouldn’t be on that road or would have taken a early exit to a different path.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, there are varying accounts. This is one of them. You can pick and choose what account suits your purpose.

Thats was your list has done my examples are from your list not my own

One account gives Trump credit. And lo and behold, here come the naysayers with another account which, without proof, but loaded with conjecture, says he gets no credit.

no its base on history and past markets not sure how that is not proof in your eyes

The same goes on with every President. The previous administration gets credit for the good stuff, and the current administration gets blamed for the bad. (True but the lengths Trump fans go to claim his good deeds and ignore his misdeeds is unprecedented)

I was asked for a list. I gave it. You can shove it up your arse for all I care.Ouch


He said he will sign a crime bill ...

..

True but the lengths Trump fans go to claim his good deeds and ignore his misdeeds is unprecedented .



it might be unprecedented for republicans, trump supporters and folks on the right ...though you don't have to look far to find folks on the right harshly critical of trump and his cronies..click on that conservative bastion National Review on any given day....

it's is not unprecedented for democrats and the left however, we've seen this all before...which is why the folks that you demand share your concerns don't seem to give a crap when you complain....this appears to be a tough concept for the left and media...for decades the left and liberal media have defended all of this behavior which they now find abhorrent....you are like former smokers or recovering alcoholics...or folks who recently found God....with this holier than thou attitude because you(the left generally) have suddenly seen the light...we know it's nothing more than partisan posturing...feigned indignation

it's pretty funny....

The economy is like an ocean going cargo ship, it takes miles not yards to stop or turn it. Trump inherited a robust economy, one that wasn’t going to change quickly due to momentum, yet here we are two years in, about the time that cargo ship could turn and 75% of economists are predicting a recession, the Feds concur and so does the stock market. Who was captain of the ship when this turn started to show evidence, or are we going to not take credit when things go south?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not exactly true. the 2008 recession happened pretty damn quick. the current correction happened quick.

guys, he inherited a robust economy, and he made it a little better. most business leaders say that the confidence he provides that there’s a businessman in the white house, the regulations he did away with, and the tax cut, all helped.


What are you afraid will happen, if you admit he helped the economy? no one is saying he inherited a mess. But he did things differently from his predecessor, and they pretty much worked. the market is tumbling because of profit taking, the fed, global concerns, the sense that a recession is inevitable, and his tariff war ( the only one of these things he controls).

your total lack of ability to be objective with this guy, is something to behold. it really is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not exactly true. the 2008 recession happened pretty damn quick. the current correction happened quick.

guys, he inherited a robust economy, and he made it a little better. most business leaders say that the confidence he provides that there’s a businessman in the white house, the regulations he did away with, and the tax cut, all helped.


What are you afraid will happen, if you admit he helped the economy? no one is saying he inherited a mess. But he did things differently from his predecessor, and they pretty much worked. the market is tumbling because of profit taking, the fed, global concerns, the sense that a recession is inevitable, and his tariff war ( the only one of these things he controls).

your total lack of ability to be objective with this guy, is something to behold. it really is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Never said he didn’t help somewhat help keep the ship moving forward, but I also suspect there wouldn’t have been much difference with any other candidate, not in the first couple years. You are mistaken that the economy can turn on a dime, sure the stock market can make corrections quickly, but i wasn’t talking about the market.

While Trumps moves, primarily for corporate America and the upper class, certainly kept things going; his moves this past year seem to be having the opposite affect. If you want to make the case the market is a good barameter of the economy, how is loosing well over an entire years gains anything but negative?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Never said he didn’t help somewhat help keep the ship moving forward, but I also suspect there wouldn’t have been much difference with any other candidate, not in the first couple years. You are mistaken that the economy can turn on a dime, sure the stock market can make corrections quickly, but i wasn’t talking about the market.

While Trumps moves, primarily for corporate America and the upper class, certainly kept things going; his moves this past year seem to be having the opposite affect. If you want to make the case the market is a good barameter of the economy, how is loosing well over an entire years gains anything but negative?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"but I also suspect there wouldn’t have been much difference with any other candidate, not in the first couple years. "

Maybe. No way of knowing. There are economists who say we're overdue for a recession, and that his pro-growth policies are helping delay that. The corporate tax cut is a big deal, and that was him.

"You are mistaken that the economy can turn on a dime"

Not on a dime. But not always at the pace of a cargo ship or glacier, either. I'm also not talking just about the market.

"While Trumps moves, primarily for corporate America and the upper class"

Black unemployment lowest EVER. Every move that a POTUS makes to grow the economy in a macro sense, will help the wealthy more, because they have more to invest, therefore they benefit more from growth. Did income inequality not increase when Obama got the economy back on track? How come no one cried about income inequality when Obama was exacerbating it? Can you answer that? I never, not once, heard you guys complain about income inequality from 2009-2016, and for damn sure the market gains increased income inequality. In January 2017, income inequality became a bad thing.

"his moves this past year seem to be having the opposite affect. "

You're all over the place. First you said that the economy only changes slowly, now you're saying that the moves that Trump made this year, are hurting the economy. Also, before you said there was more to the economy than the stock market, now you are focusing on the market correction, when all other economic fundamentals are healthy and robust.

So let's summarize what you are saying:

Trump inherited a healthy economy

there is more to the economy than the stock market performance

he made some moves in 2017, but they probably didn't contribute much to the economic improvement that occurred in 2017. The economic results in 2017 (which were good), aren't a result of trump.

Now in 2018, the stock market is doing poorly, everything else (unemployment and GDP and corporate profits) are favorable. And all of a sudden, (1) all that matters is stock market performance, let's ignore GDP and unemployment, and (2) NOW that "the economy" is doing poorly, and only then, does Trump own the results.

Sounds fair.

Trump made the same mistake with tax cuts as Reagan
It cost GW Bush a second term
A more realistic tax cut would have been sustainable and could have been structured to grow the economy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump made the same mistake with tax cuts as Reagan
It cost GW Bush a second term
A more realistic tax cut would have been sustainable and could have been structured to grow the economy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"It cost GW Bush a second term"

GW Bush increased taxes when he promised not to. THAT cost him a second term.

"A more realistic tax cut would have been sustainable and could have been structured to grow the economy"

It was too much aimed at businesses, I agree. But isn't it fair to say at this point, that it is growing the economy? GDP growth Is better than it's been in a long time.

That's what your list has done, your examples are from your list not my own

They were valid examples which happened on his watch.

no it's based on history and past markets not sure how that is not proof in your eyes

You didn't point out any history or past markets.

True but the lengths Trump's fans go to claim his good deeds and ignore his misdeeds is unprecedented

Can you document that it is unprecedented? And if it were, by how much, and so what? Is there something evil about being unprecedented. Unprecedented lengths to show good deeds is bad? And why must you always throw in not pointing out the bad stuff? I wasn't asked to list bad stuff.

He said he will sign a crime bill ...

Tack on another goody.

"but I also suspect there wouldn’t have been much difference with any other candidate, not in the first couple years. "

Maybe. No way of knowing. There are economists who say we're overdue for a recession, and that his pro-growth policies are helping delay that. The corporate tax cut is a big deal, and that was him.

"You are mistaken that the economy can turn on a dime"

Not on a dime. But not always at the pace of a cargo ship or glacier, either. I'm also not talking just about the market.

"While Trumps moves, primarily for corporate America and the upper class"

Black unemployment lowest EVER. Every move that a POTUS makes to grow the economy in a macro sense, will help the wealthy more, because they have more to invest, therefore they benefit more from growth. Did income inequality not increase when Obama got the economy back on track? How come no one cried about income inequality when Obama was exacerbating it? Can you answer that? I never, not once, heard you guys complain about income inequality from 2009-2016, and for damn sure the market gains increased income inequality. In January 2017, income inequality became a bad thing.

"his moves this past year seem to be having the opposite affect. "

You're all over the place. First you said that the economy only changes slowly, now you're saying that the moves that Trump made this year, are hurting the economy. Also, before you said there was more to the economy than the stock market, now you are focusing on the market correction, when all other economic fundamentals are healthy and robust.

So let's summarize what you are saying:

Trump inherited a healthy economy

there is more to the economy than the stock market performance

he made some moves in 2017, but they probably didn't contribute much to the economic improvement that occurred in 2017. The economic results in 2017 (which were good), aren't a result of trump.

Now in 2018, the stock market is doing poorly, everything else (unemployment and GDP and corporate profits) are favorable. And all of a sudden, (1) all that matters is stock market performance, let's ignore GDP and unemployment, and (2) NOW that "the economy" is doing poorly, and only then, does Trump own the results.

Sounds fair.

No I'm actually not all over the place, but spin it however you like. Didn't say the stock market dive this year means the economy has turned on a dime, but I'll applaud your attempt to try to put words in my mouth. I don't have the time or desire to spend the time you and others find to type detailed and mind numbing at time responses to insure meaning is crystal clear. It was too nice a day to play golf. What most economists, the Fed's and this year clearly by the stock market fear; is that the economy and run might be coming to an end. But like I said earlier despite your attempt to read it otherwise, is that even that will take time. At the end of his 4 year term, assuming he even makes it, we can debate again how is policies helped or hurt the economy.

No actually not all over the place, but spin it however you like. Didn't say the stock market dive this year means the economy has turned on a dime, but I'll applaud your attempt to try to put words in my mouth. I don't have the time or desire to spend the time you and others find to type elaborate detailed responses so my meaning is crystal clear, or you probably would have understood my meaning. To nice a day to beat this up on this forum. What is clear by most economists, the Fed's and this year clearly by the stock market; is that the economy and run might be coming to an end. But like I said earlier despite your attempt to read it otherwise, is that even that will take time. At the end of his 4 year term, assuming he even makes it, we can debate again how is policies helped or hurt the economy.

Does this mean that you will stop talking about Trump's bad influence on the economy for two more years?

Does this mean that you will stop talking about Trump's bad influence on the economy for two more years?

How will you ever entertain yourselves, clearly you must be looking for someone fresh to post you links, videos and news articles to make "your" opinions known?

How will you ever entertain yourselves, clearly you must be looking for someone fresh to post you links, videos and news articles to make "your" opinions known?

When have I said that something I link is "my" opinion? Are things you link "your" opinion?

When have I said that something I link is "my" opinion? Are things you link "your" opinion?
I think the very few links I’ve posted I believe were about climate change and were posted to prove my point that the scientific community is in agreement on what is happening, why it’s happening and why it’s so important to try to slow it. That’s not a political opinion by one party or person I’m posting, much different and by volume night and day different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the very few links I’ve posted I believe were about climate change and were posted to prove my point that the scientific community is in agreement on what is happening, why it’s happening and why it’s so important to try to slow it. That’s not a political opinion by one party or person I’m posting, much different and by volume night and day different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok, your links are better than mine. Somehow, I don't care. And will continue to link in the future if I think it's appropriate. And the vast majority of my posts are not links. But if they get under your skin in some teeny way, they're probably good.

Ok, your links are better than mine. Somehow, I don't care. And will continue to link in the future if I think it's appropriate. And the vast majority of my posts are not links. But if they get under your skin in some teeny way, they're probably good.

No problem on this end, nothing gets under my skin, although the slow fore-some in front of us yesterday was getting frustrating for all four of us.

I appreciate we all are entitled to our own opinions and our forefathers fought hard to insure our freedom to express them, even thou Trump seems to feel that in doing so you are the enemy of the American people (reads ME). My only point in posting about the links, is that when I ask someone to give me their bullet list of accomplishments, I didn't want to go read someone else's view of what they were. Additionally for every link you post, if I took the time, I'm sure I can come up with an opposing and just as legitimate position.

appreciate we all are entitled to our own opinions and our forefathers fought hard to insure our freedom to express them, even thou Trump seems to feel that in doing so you are the enemy of the American people (reads ME).

[/B]


He said "fake news" is the enemy of the people. I agree that is true. I would think you would also agree, but you differ on whether the news is fake or not.

My only point in posting about the links, is that when I ask someone to give me their bullet list of accomplishments, I didn't want to go read someone else's view of what they were.

I don't know how or what you think until you express it. So I wasn't aware that you wanted me to repeat various "good" things that I and others have already pointed out many times. I certainly didn't have the energy or interest to keep beating dead horses. It was easier to, as many do on this forum (some on "your side") that do it a lot more than I do, to link what is easy to find of the good things.

Nothing I say that is "my" opinion, in my unlinked own words, as long and detailed and logical and true as it might be, has ever seemed to convince you, so I certainly didn't want to waste any more of the precious little time I have left on this earth trying to do so again. So I gave you a list, easy to find if you were really interested, and let you take it or leave it as you wished.

You chose to leave it. Fine.

Additionally for every link you post, if I took the time, I'm sure I can come up with an opposing and just as legitimate position.

But you don't.

Trump urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to change Senate rules and allow a simple majority to pass the spending bill, rather than 60 votes, a major disruption to Senate protocol known as the "nuclear option."

not sure why such behavior is not seen by Trmp fans as inappropriate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to change Senate rules and allow a simple majority to pass the spending bill, rather than 60 votes, a major disruption to Senate protocol known as the "nuclear option."

not sure why such behavior is not seen by Trmp fans as inappropriate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It has always required only 51 percent of the votes to pass a bill in the Senate. The 60 vote Senate rule is to get cloture on debate.

It's not unconstitutional. It's not illegal. It's a Senate self imposed rule that has changed over time. The nuclear option has already been invoked a couple of times, so the Senate rule and custom has already been changed. Appropriateness is in the eyes of the Senators. If 51 go with it, then only 51 votes are needed for cloture. Then the vote can be taken, and if 51 or 50 plus the Vice President vote to pass a bill, it goes to the Pres to be signed.

It becomes a sore spot to the party that is not in power, which will say things like it's inappropriate, even though they have done so in the past.

Trump urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to change Senate rules and allow a simple majority to pass the spending bill, rather than 60 votes, a major disruption to Senate protocol known as the "nuclear option."

not sure why such behavior is not seen by Trmp fans as inappropriate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

do you know who came
up with the nuclear option, and when? it wasn’t trump. harry reid started it. god almighty. what’s good for the goose...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’ve seen no credible evidence that Mueller cares about anything other than finding the truth and none in being on any other team.


Because you choose not to see it. Or are totally in an information bubble where the evidence is not allowed.

There should not have been a special Prosecutor appointed in the first place. There was no evidence of collusion or conspiracy to begin with. These prosecutors are not appointed to look for a crime, but to prosecute an identified crime.

And when phony, illegal means to spy on Americans, such as was the unverified so-called "dossier," are used to get FISA warrants, and that the document was paid for by the competing "team" (and even that was not told to the FISA judge), nor was the leader of that competing team being investigated for obvious, blatant, disregard of policy regarding emails, and who had shown favorable action toward Russia re a uranium deal which opened the spigot for huge donations to her private foundation, those are major warnings that "truth" is not the objective, and that the other "team" was being favored.

do you know who came
up with the nuclear option, and when? it wasn’t trump. harry reid started it. god almighty. what’s good for the goose...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You guys are funny he had the Senate and the House for 2 years

But now since his party lost the house he wants to change the rules I call that a sore loser

Again JIM what Harry Reid did was for judges appoints not legislation and Trump has used that change...
But once again you see them as the same

It's not unconstitutional. It's not illegal. The new conservatives rational when their party behaves unethical or TRUMP

You guys are funny he had the Senate and the House for 2 years

But now since his party lost the house he wants to change the rules I call that a sore loser

Again JIM what Harry Reid did was for judges appoints not legislation and Trump has used that change...
But once again you see them as the same

It's not unconstitutional. It's not illegal. The new conservatives rational when their party behaves unethical or TRUMP

What Harry Reid did was invoke the so-called nuclear option. Period. The idea that it can only be used for judges, is ridiculous.

Oh, this is only for judges guys. You can't use it for anything else. Really?? Well how did you get to use it for judges? How was that supposedly "appropriate" if the nuclear option for judges changed the Senate rules?

It's an option, or a precedent, which has changed the rules, not a special occasion for the benefit of Harry Reid and his party that must never be used by any other person or party because . . . because Harry and the Democrats are special. Don't you see? This must only be used for judges because Harry said so.

Nah. That's BS.

What Harry Reid did was invoke the so-called nuclear option. Period. The idea that it can only be used for judges, is ridiculous.

Oh, this is only for judges guys. You can't use it for anything else. Really?? Well how did you get to use it for judges? How was that supposedly "appropriate" if the nuclear option for judges changed the Senate rules?

It's an option, or a precedent, which has changed the rules, not a special occasion for the benefit of Harry Reid and his party that must never be used by any other person or party because . . . because Harry and the Democrats are special. Don't you see? This must only be used for judges because Harry said so.

Nah. That's BS.

No the only Bs is you don't have an issue with the POTUS attempting a power grab in the dark of night because he couldn't get it done any other way

Why wait till now to use that nuke when you had 2 years to use it .?? I'd love to hear your answer to that

No the only Bs is you don't have an issue with the POTUS attempting a power grab in the dark of night because he couldn't get it done any other way

Why wait till now to use that nuke when you had 2 years to use it .?? I'd love to hear your answer to that

This is a familiar scenario that the public got used to in the previous administrations.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No the only Bs is you don't have an issue with the POTUS attempting a power grab in the dark of night because he couldn't get it done any other way

Harry Reid did it because he couldn't get it done any other way. That's the point of the nuclear option. That's why it exists.

Why wait till now to use that nuke when you had 2 years to use it .?? I'd love to hear your answer to that

Trump does not have the power to use the nuclear option. He is not a senator. He can ask his party affiliated senators, who supposedly support the building of the wall to use it. Or else they're just a bunch of the usual political liars, like the Democrats who used to say they wanted a border fence of some kind but now they say that it is immoral.

The nuclear option genie has been let out of the bottle. It may well become the norm--become "appropriate." That was probably the intention of those who wrote the Constitution.

Trump may have waited till now because he was probably too naïve in thinking that politicians are like business dealers who do what is best for their businesses. So he tried to negotiate, cajole, media shame them, convince them that it was best for the country. Finding that political concerns are more important to politicians, and that there is one slim moment to get the job done, now was the time to go nuclear. Or maybe he's just a sexist, racist, corrupt, anti-American, self promoting, narcist, colluding traitor who thinks the wall will satisfy all his inner psychopathy, and, like Nero, watches the country burn while he plays the game of power that he ultimately always wanted.

Because you choose not to see it. Or are totally in an information bubble where the evidence is not allowed.

There should not have been a special Prosecutor appointed in the first place. There was no evidence of collusion or conspiracy to begin with. These prosecutors are not appointed to look for a crime, but to prosecute an identified crime.

And when phony, illegal means to spy on Americans, such as was the unverified so-called "dossier," are used to get FISA warrants, and that the document was paid for by the competing "team" (and even that was not told to the FISA judge), nor was the leader of that competing team being investigated for obvious, blatant, disregard of policy regarding emails, and who had shown favorable action toward Russia re a uranium deal which opened the spigot for huge donations to her private foundation, those are major warnings that "truth" is not the objective, and that the other "team" was being favored.
Everyone of your claims have been investigated and disproved
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Everyone of your claims have been investigated and disproved
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your wrong.

No the only Bs is you don't have an issue with the POTUS attempting a power grab in the dark of night because he couldn't get it done any other way

Why wait till now to use that nuke when you had 2 years to use it .?? I'd love to hear your answer to that

a lot of conservatives are upset trump waited this long. But the fact is, your side used the nuclear option when it suited them, and now the other side controls the senate. if you don’t like the use of the nuclear option, cry to Harry Reid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

a lot of conservatives are upset trump waited this long. But the fact is, your side used the nuclear option when it suited them, and now the other side controls the senate. if you don’t like the use of the nuclear option, cry to Harry Reid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim you can try to spin it anyway you want ...

1st he was willing to sign the bill w\out the wall funding his base flips and then he flips

2nd spineless ryan sends something to the senate he knows won't pass but has what Trump wants in it

3rd trump knows he is losing and will never see anything from the house again Try's to influence the senate to change the rules ... not for the country but for his self image

Face it you have said it before you dont care what he does if you get what you want ... seems this just follows that thinking

Again not even close to what happened in 2013 but once again you love to act as if they are the same



April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch

As of November 2018, a three-fifths majority vote is still required to end debates on legislation.

a lot of conservatives are upset trump waited this long. But the fact is, your side used the nuclear option when it suited them, and now the other side controls the senate. if you don’t like the use of the nuclear option, cry to Harry Reid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

whats alot?? do the outnumber those conservatives who are against it?

several Senators put out statements confirming their opposition, and confirming that there is not a majority in the conference to go down that road,”

shocking

The Don is now looking for a legal (like he really pays attention to what is or isn't) way to get rid of Jerome Powell, because his moves the Don is convinced are messing up the market. Must be that and not the trade war, the worries about the economy slowing, the Don knows what's best for the family. His window to profit over his moves is a short one, so he needs to pay attention (I know that too is a challenge) to what is happening in the financial sectors.

Jim you can try to spin it anyway you want ...

1st he was willing to sign the bill w\out the wall funding his base flips and then he flips

2nd spineless ryan sends something to the senate he knows won't pass but has what Trump wants in it

3rd trump knows he is losing and will never see anything from the house again Try's to influence the senate to change the rules ... not for the country but for his self image

Face it you have said it before you dont care what he does if you get what you want ... seems this just follows that thinking

Again not even close to what happened in 2013 but once again you love to act as if they are the same



April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch

As of November 2018, a three-fifths majority vote is still required to end debates on legislation.

i’m not spinning anything for christ’s sake, i’m stating fact. Harry Reid invemted the idea of using the nuclear option, and if he was assuming the gop would
never again control the senate and that it could
never be used against democrats, we’ll tough cookies for them.

i am tucked trump waited this long. not only am i not offended he wants to use the nuclear option, it would
be asinine for
him not to do it. Why should
o let the democrats be able to avail
themselves if this tactic?

any chance, any chance at all, you could
answer that question?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m not spinning anything for christ’s sake, i’m stating fact. Harry Reid invemted the idea of using the nuclear option, and if he was assuming the gop would
never again control the senate and that it could
never be used against democrats, we’ll tough cookies for them.

i am tucked trump waited this long. not only am i not offended he wants to use the nuclear option, it would
be asinine for
him not to do it. Why should
o let the democrats be able to avail
themselves if this tactic?

any chance, any chance at all, you could
answer that question?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They don’t have the votes to do it
Flake, Alexander and Hatch have all said no to the nuclear option

Whomp Whomp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m not spinning anything for christ’s sake, i’m stating fact. Harry Reid invemted the idea of using the nuclear option, and if he was assuming the gop would
never again control the senate and that it could
never be used against democrats, we’ll tough cookies for them.

i am tucked trump waited this long. not only am i not offended he wants to use the nuclear option, it would
be asinine for
him not to do it. (you still dont get it )

PS the GOP already used it for neil gorsuch (another theft against normal )


Why should
o let the democrats be able to avail
themselves if this tactic?

any chance, any chance at all, you could
answer that question?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again keep hiding from the real reason Trump wants them to change the rules .... and ignore the timing .... unlike you I dont operate because dems did it then the GOP did it makes it fair game. to do it whenever you dont have the votes.... it's wrong period reguardless of party!!

both parties have bitten that poison apple once

I have respect for thoses who wish not to travel down that road ..