Not I
Nor a large number of people I know
But Trumplicans continue to support him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They say he's a good guy? Or that he's a good president?

I would never, ever have voted for him in the primary - never. But I voted for him in the general. I think he's a disgusting human being, who is doing a good job as president. Does that make me a Trumplican? I said the same exact thing about Bill Clinton. Does that make me a diehard liberal, as well as a Trumplican?

Jim, I think by "Trumplican" Pete means someone who supports Trump. So, if you support Trump, even just as a good President, you're what he calls a Trumplican.

If he means something other than that, something sarcastic and belittling, that would be trespassing his own distaste for name calling. You know . . . like being a hypocrite.

Curious how he will respond.

Not to be confused with a Trumplethinskin. That’s like a snowflake ... but you know... hates a lot of things and has lots of guns. Probably has a 10th grade education but thinks he knows everything. :hidin:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who said we sacrificed anything with North Korea I think they gave the ultimate sacrifice was how it was used

We traded our combatant for their combatants. That’s what happen in combat .. the goal is to kill the enemy

You call them murders what do you think we are to them?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Detbuch is correct
Time will tell if it is sarcastic and belittling
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I said, I also think Bill Clinton was disgusting, who nonetheless did some good things with policy. So is there a derogatory name you assign to people who judge democratic presidents by the job they do rather than their personal behavior? Or is it acceptable to give democrats that benefit, and only a problem when we apply it to Republicans?

Pretty sure you don't understand the term snowflake. When your side hasn't gotten their way, they formed Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter. What's the republican equivalent of this? The Tea Party?

Hold on to that thought, especially when they start the whole "Give 16 year olds the right to vote" argument when they are upset at the outcome of an election. :hee:

If you read enough about it you will find varying accounts regarding the loss of troops looking for the deserter.

Congratulations 🎉, you said something nice about our President.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unfortunately it has nothing to do with democrats, but everything to do with what I believe we will learn in the coming months about Trump.

Jim, those are all far from mainstream groups that the right has tried to stain anyone in the center or center left with.
You need look no further than the White House at Stephen Miller for a far to the right of center powerful republican operative.

Fixed it for you.

"are all far from mainstream groups"

I wouldn't call them mainstream either, but not a million miles from mainstream, and almost no one on the left holds these people accountable for their actions. Because winning is what matters, not how you win.

"You need look no further than the White House at Stephen Miller for a far to the right of center powerful republican operative"

You say so. How powerful is he? I've never heard of him...

Seriously?
Let me introduce Stephen Miller
Incidentally, if you suffer from hair loss, this is what not to do.
https://youtu.be/aLnHYFTad8I

We are murderers as well. And I presume that engaging in a war with an enemy, our intention is to murder more of them then they kill of us. To enhance the enemy's ability to kill us, and not even get reciprocity in return, is an idiotic way to prosecute a war.

And the notion that the Bergdahl trade would enhance the chance that we could come to some peace agreement was an ignorant idea given the nature of the enemy. Going against the policy of not negotiating with terrorists, there was such a ridiculous rationale in the Obama administration, and its stupidity was demonstrated by the results.

As pointed out by the Daily Caller at the time"

"In direct contradiction to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s statement that the negotiations leading to Bergdahl’s release “will [maybe] be a new opening that can produce an agreement,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said that “It won’t help the peace process in any way, because we don’t believe in the peace process.”
While the exchange has been hailed by the administration as an important diplomatic step, with one senior administration official saying “U.S. efforts to facilitate reconciliation with the Taliban began in November 2010, and since May 2011 the recovery of Sgt. Bergdahl has been a central element of our reconciliation efforts,” Taliban representatives have been less irenic, The Long War Journal reports.
Emir Mullah Mohammed Omar called the return of the detainees a “great victory” and a “huge and vivid triumph,” bringing “the glad tidings of liberation of the whole country [that] reassures us that our aspirations are on the verge of fulfillment.” He also thanked “the detainers and keepers of the American prisoner ‘Bergdahl'” for their “significant role in this colossal victory.”

If you intended it to be sarcastic and belittling, time will not change your intention.

So when a right-wing person advocates for the possibility of a shutdown, he's a right wing nut?

How about the shutdown of 2013, which right-wing nutjob caused that?

White House Orders Direct Taliban Talks to Jump-Start Afghan Negotiations
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your name not mine, he and Bannon definitely authored the most extreme parts of Trumps agenda.

Time will tell how Trump and Trumplicans are viewed by history, I believe he has run one of the great cons of all time. Your opinion differs.

Time will tell,neither opinion is wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess I have to ask some aspect of this weekly.

Pls. show me some proof that "our side" - I guess you mean the Dems. "formed" Antifa.

This has nothing to do with the Bergdahl deal. What's your point?

The con being . . .

What parts were "extreme"?

you are correct if you read enough theses varying accounts they are what we call alternative facts ..

I will stick with what the Command sergeant major said in the Stars and stripes article

So the con is DON being DON?

Don the Con started his long con in the media around November 1, 1976 before most here were born. He was still Swedish then. He's no better at the truth now. And I think his fingers are still just as sticky.

if it's OK for a boy to say he is a girl, I don't see a problem with someone claiming whatever ethnicity he chooses.

So which side's political agenda was ANTIFA formed to advocate? Are they fighting for low taxes and school choice? It's a liberal advocacy group, Paul.

They're apolitical and criticized the Democrats many times
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Except perhaps Elizabeth Warren
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If it's OK for a girl to say she's a boy, it's OK for Warren to say she is whatever she says she is. Apparently it has worked out for Warren's career for her to be a Cherokee. Guess, for you, it doesn't work for Trump to be a Swede.

Ha, glad you know what fake news is. I will stick with what retired GENERAL Michael Flynn said... as well as soldiers involved in the effort to find him. Not to
Mention officers who told cnn that we suffered 8 additional casualties at combat outpost Keating due to resources dedicated to finding your hero.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So to defend your case you’re citing a man convicted of multiple felonies who just got absolutely torched by a federal judge today in court even going to far as to question his patriotism and if he was a traitor.

You don’t need to respond, it all makes sense now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That same federal judge then said in open court, as did the prosecutors, that Flynn didn't commit treason, and the same judge said explicitly, that he wasn't implying Flynn did.

But since you feel that judges saying something automatically has credibility, how about the judge striking down Obamacare? That must be just as credible, right? Or else you're a partisan hypocrite?