I agree
I would never not fish or have a drink with anyone here... but someone needs to tell the POTUS and his supporters what did the call the last guy divider and chief
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It wouldn't be naive of you at all to think of me a down the middle. There really isn't a hard progressive voice on the board so the discussion if you can call it that is shifted to the right.

I'm not going to say something as patently dishonest and absurd, as claiming I'm in the middle. And neither should you. I'm much, much closer to the middle than you are, I side with liberals on some big issues, and I have bashed Trump without mercy. You side with conservatives on any big issues? Were you ever brutally critical of Obama?

Perhaps you consider your brand of commentary progressive Spence. That is fine if you truly believe it to be but it shows a complete lack of touch with reality.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I would never not fish or have a drink with anyone here"

My favorite sentence ever, in this forum, and I mean that with 100% sincerity.

"someone needs to tell the POTUS and his supporters what did the call the last guy divider and chief
"

I thought Obama was by far, the most divisive POTUS we had ever had. Trump is more overtly offensive and probably more polarizing, I don't think that can be denied.

Trump's treatment of women (not much different than Bill Clinton), the way he talks about women, and his criticism of McCain for getting shot down and captured? Horrible.

Obama's treatment of white cops? Equally horrible and offensive, in my opinion.

Again, the media, in support for the democrat party, makes it very difficult for the GOP to nominate a true gentleman, look at how they treated McCain and Romney. A Republican of character will never, ever be tread as such. So it would be political suicide to nominate someone who isn't willing, and very able, to fight back ruthlessly, and to hit below the belt when necessary. I love it when Trump puts on the brass knuckles and goes after someone who deserves it, like Maxine Waters or MSNBC. I don't like it when he does it to someone who doesn't deserve it.

If the media on both sides would agree to clean it up, there would never be a political need for Trump. The GOP tried, they tried with McCain and Romney. It didn't work.

If you want to see what I mean, watch the confirmation hearings for whoever Trump nominates for SCOTUS. It will be the ugliest political theater ever, I predict.

Maybe I'm just well read.

It seems you only read half the story. Your hubris floweth over.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama's divisiveness was largely driven by a large number of people who disliked him because he's black.

McCain would have like won if he didn't pick a running mate that was an instant SNL punching bag and tell everybody things are great when the recession was clearly coming. The Romney race was pretty close but it's hard to unseat an incumbent when things are going pretty well. But sure, blame the media, blame blame blame.

I don't think they'll be able to upstage the GOP's treatment of the FBI last week. My prediction is that it will be pretty civil.

Maybe I'm just relaying the important points.

"Obama's divisiveness was largely driven by a large number of people who disliked him because he's black. "

That crap, does more for Trump, than if you donated a million bucks to his campaign. Despite what liberals believe, it's actually possible to be both black and an azzhole. Obama was a world-class azzhole IMHO, and skin color has zip to do with why I feel that way.

"McCain would have like won if he didn't pick a running mate that was an instant SNL punching bag "

Absolutely wrong. After he picked Palin (before she imploded), he leapt ahead of Obama in the polls and stayed there until the economy crashed. After that , Lincoln could have been running with Reagan as his VP, and the GOP would have lost. You are wrong on the historical facts there

"The Romney race was pretty close but it's hard to unseat an incumbent when things are going pretty well"

True. Even harder when the media is portraying Romney as a heartless plutocrat because he's rich, and even better, a sexist because he - GASP! - kept resumes of talented women in a binder. So Bill Clinton is a feminist hero, but Mitt Romney is a sexist. That just makes all kinds of sense. And it's that "logic", that is why your party is in complete disarray right now.

A year after Obama won, the GOP obviously hated his agenda, but they had a message, a plan, and a way to communicate it (the Tea Party). And it worked spectacularly well, look at where the GOP is right now, compared to where they were on the day of Obamas inauguration. I cannot believe the comeback.

I don't see the Democrats - even with Trump's help - making that kind of comeback. If the nutjob who won the democrat house primary in NYC is the future of the democratic party, the GOP doesn't need me to send any more donations, they are all set. America likes their presidents (even jerks like Trump) to be moderate. We don't, in the aggregate, like radical liberals. Unless they are black and hip and very smooth talking and very likeable.

"But sure, blame the media, blame blame blame"

Have you seen the medias favorability ratings? I'm not making it all up.

"My prediction is that it will be pretty civil"

Tell that to Chris Matthews, who has been the Twilight Zone for a week. It can't be civil, because the liberal wing of the party is (1) growing, and (2) demanding action, and the moderates in the party can't afford to look weak in the eyes of the militant liberals. Imagine the no-win situation that moderate democrats senators are in, who are up for re-election in November, in states that Trump won big, like WV and ND. What are they supposed to do? If they support the nominee, the liberals go berserk, if they oppose the nominee, many of their state voters will go berserk. That's a pickle.

If by well read, you mean you can recite both the Communist Manifesto, and Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, I agree.

If it was "My New Order", then would you approve?

Depends, because I don't know what that is.

why because they stole the last one or #2 they are historically always ugly or 3 a little bit of both

divisive tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people. you think thats not Trump ??

"why"

Because they hate not getting their way, they really hate losing to Trump, and they are terrified (despite what both Spence and I believe) that Roe V Wade is in danger.

"they are historically always ugly "

Only in recent history. The partisan ugliness started with Bork, IMO. I can't deny that what the GOP did in 2016 wasn't partisan. But the American people gave the senate control to the Republicans, and it stands to reason they didn't do that so the GOP would let the court slant left. Given that the GOP kept the senate in the subsequent election, it would appear that the people weren't all that upset with what the GOP did.

"divisive tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people. you think thats not Trump "

Of course Trump fans those flames with his idiocy. But he didn't come close to starting it. It started when Bush won re-election, then it got really ugly when despite democrat claims that we'd be getting out of Iraq, Bush got them to support the surge, and it worked. Bush, who they claimed was an idiot, made them all look like morons, and they lost their minds (leading to the phrase 'Bush Derangement Syndrome'), and it's been ugly (on both sides) since.

It's ugly on both sides, but not equally ugly in my opinion Often, the GOP wants to discuss policy. Often, the liberals want to shut them up and demonize them.

Can't say either have ever been on my reading list. Just looked at my bookshelf and for political books it's pretty 50:50.

Democrats would be remiss in their duty to not use the issue to rally voters for the mid-terms.

There has always been some level of partisan bickering. The big divide we see today wasn't because of Bork, it was the Republican effort to create a permanent majority via the K Street project.

The issue with Bush started the moment the people realized he took our country to war in Iraq under a weak and dubious justification.

Both parties play games. What I've seen the last 20 years is the GOP favors conspiracy theories over facts. You have a FOX News party, the party of Trump.

Can I remind you if the senators who voted for that war? Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Edwards, etc...they voted to invade, based on the same intelligence bush saw.

It was when the war became unpopular, and only then, that they all blamed bush for deceiving us into war.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Remember what the "experts" in the news told us...............
and now they are crying about being called fake news?
The press may or may not be the enemy.... but they are wrong a lot.

https://youtu.be/G87UXIH8Lzo?t=156

putting money on a losing horse (making a predication) is Hardly the same as the press being accused of willfully Lying on AKA Fake news

Sorry, but I don't think I can say the same.

I am hoping Scott takes me surfcasting in Newport this year and I'm waiting for Chris to invite me out to catch some tuna!

It's not so much willful lying, it's more of a willful decision to ignore the good and focus (and exaggerate to a ridiculous degree) the bad.

If you watch MSNBC or CNN, you'd think he unilaterally declared the constitution null and void.

How much time are the networks dedicating to how healthy the economy is right now? How much air time would this economy have received, if Hilary was POTUS?

When covering the separation of families at the border, how much time was spent covering the fact that families were also separated via immigration law, when Obama was POTUS? They clearly wanted their viewers to think Trump invented this.

Saw you have a sea hunt 232, those are so awesome. Looked seriously at a 22 once, loved it.

The effectiveness of fake news framing the narrative is apparent with this business of saying Trump asserts that the "Press" is the enemy of the people. Fake news changes Trump's assertion that "Fake News" is the enemy to "the Press" is the enemy.

There are several dedicated financial networks that cover the economy. I see mainstream outlets update on the numbers good or bad all the time.

I've seen plenty of reporting about Obama era policy, mostly to draw the differences. The debacle we're seeing today is absolutely a Trump invention and it's only getting worse.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH :1poke:

Unreliable......misleading.......slanted......bias ed.....mistaken.....wrong????
Fake ....whether intentional or not....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

posting a viewed of a bunch of people predicting something (and they even used the word prediction) is not fake news.

Your use of the word wrong is the only correct word you used.

"I see mainstream outlets update on the numbers good or bad all the time."

So if a CNN host is comparing Trump to Hitler (except more of a racist and a sexist), then as long as there is a ticker going across the bottom of the screen, that's balanced. Got it.

"it's only getting worse"

For your side, I agree. Prepare yourself for the likelihood Monday, that when he announces his SCOTUS nominee, it won't be Merrick Garland or Harry Belafante or Pol Pot, or anyone else you'd have on your list.

I didn't think Trump had a prayer, either.

That's not the clip I'd show, to illustrate the bias.

His MS-13 quote is a perfect example. He clearly meant that MS13 are animals, but several media outlets couldn't wait to report that he said all Mexicans were animals.

Or when he was campaigning, and he said that Mexican immigrants "are" drug dealers and rapists. In that same speech, he said that many were very nice people, so obviously he wasn't saying that 100% of them are rapists and drug dealers. But that's how it got spun.

They can't be fair or objective, they just can't. They will do anything to make him out to be a cartoon villain.

This MS13 quote?
The previous administration enacted an open-door policy to illegal migrants from Central America. "Welcome in. Come in, please, please."

As a result, MS-13 surged into the country and scoured, and just absolutely destroyed, so much in front of it. New arrivals came in and they were all made recruits of each other, and they fought with each other, and then they fought outside of each other. And it got worse and worse, and we've turned that back.

In the three years before I took office, more than 150,000 unaccompanied alien minors arrived at the border and were released all throughout our country into United States’ communities -- at a tremendous monetary cost to local taxpayers and also a great cost to life and safety.

Nearly 4,000 from this wave were released into Suffolk County -- congratulations -- including seven who are now indicted for murder. You know about that.

In Washington, D.C. region, at least 42 alien minors from the border surge have been recently implicated in MS-13-related violence, including 19 charged in killings or attempted killings.

You say, what happened to the old days where people came into this country, they worked and they worked and they worked, and they had families, and they paid taxes, and they did all sorts of things, and their families got stronger, and they were closely knit? We don't see that.

Failure to enforce our immigration laws had predictable results: drugs, gangs and violence. But that’s all changing now.
And Mexicans
Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
Are you claiming that he is not trying to spin opinion?