Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-07-2018, 11:43 AM   #31
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 17,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
A parade? You're a deficit hawk now? Or only when a Republican is spending money?
I'm guessing Trump's parade will cost a wee bit more than your town's Memorial Day parade.

That and it's just a stunt anyway.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 12:00 PM   #32
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 2,894
It's all about ratings, you know

Pete

"No one leaves home unless home is the mouth of a shark"
Warsan Shire

Time will tell
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 12:50 PM   #33
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,328
A military parade showing off weapons is a dumb idea.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 01:05 PM   #34
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 4,164
Trump feels the need to prove, not only is his button bigger, his parade is bigger too. Perfect ego trip for the Donald and boy you can just imagine the tweets after now, it was the biggest parade viewed by the largest crowd in history.
Got Stripers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 01:26 PM   #35
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,328
Neither his motivation for the parade (I don't know, exactly, what that is--he may actually want to do it for pride of country or something like that), nor his ego disturb me.

I don't like it strictly on traditional constitutional values. A powerful standing federal army, exerting or displaying its military might on American soil has always been considered a threat to American citizens.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 01:42 PM   #36
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 2,894
The USA has never shown off it's military might on its own soil and for good reason. Perhaps a little background.........


The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12

For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty. In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England. In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire. In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator. In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation. Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces. The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.

Many of the men who met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, however, had the experience of serving with the Continental Line, the army that ultimately bested the British for our independence. Founders like George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were also acutely aware of the dangers external enemies posed to the new republic. The British and Spanish were not only on the frontiers of the new nation. In many cases they were within the frontiers, allying with the Indians and attempting to induce frontier settlements to split off from the country. The recent Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts had also impelled the Framers to consider the possibility of local rebellion.

The "raise and support Armies" clause was the Framers' solution to the dilemma. The Constitutional Convention accepted the need for a standing army but sought to maintain control by the appropriations power of Congress, which the Founders viewed as the branch of government closest to the people.

The compromise, however, did not satisfy the Anti-Federalists. They largely shared the perspective of James Burgh, who, in his Political Disquisitions (1774), called a "standing army in times of peace, one of the most hurtful, and most dangerous of abuses." The Anti-Federalist paper A Democratic Federalist called a standing army "that great support of tyrants." And Brutus, the most influential series of essays opposing ratification, argued that standing armies "are dangerous to the liberties of a people...not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpation of powers, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is a great hazard, that any army will subvert the forms of government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader." During the Virginia ratifying convention, George Mason exclaimed, "What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!" The Anti-Federalists would have preferred that the defense of the nation remain entirely with the state militias.

The Federalists disagreed. For them, the power of a government to raise an army was a dictate of prudence. Thus, during the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, James Wilson argued that "the power of raising and keeping up an army, in time of peace, is essential to every government. No government can secure its citizens against dangers, internal and external, without possessing it, and sometimes carrying it into execution." In The Federalist No. 23, Hamilton argued, "These powers [of the federal government to provide for the common defense] ought to exist without limitation: because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent or variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent & variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them."

Nonetheless, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike expressed concerns about a standing army, as opposed to a navy or the militia. Accordingly, this is the only clause related to military affairs that includes a time limit on appropriations. The appropriations power of Congress is a very powerful tool, and one that the Framers saw as particularly necessary in the case of a standing army. Indeed, some individuals argued that army appropriations should be made on a yearly basis. During the Constitutional Convention, Elbridge Gerry raised precisely this point. Roger Sherman replied that the appropriations were permitted, not required, for two years. The problem, he said, was that in a time of emergency, Congress might not be in session when an annual army appropriation was needed.

Since the time of the Constitution, legal developments based on the clause have been legislatively driven, and barely the subject of judicial interpretation. With the establishment of a Department of Defense in 1947, Army appropriations have been subsumed by a single department-wide appropriation that includes the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force (established in 1947), as well as other agencies of the department. Despite periodic congressional efforts to move to a two-year appropriations cycle, the annual appropriations for the military are the rule, although not for the reasons that animated Elbridge Gerry during the Constitutional Convention. In addition, the Armed Services Committees of Congress have taken on the responsibility of authorizing almost all aspects of the defense budget as well as appropriating the funds for the services.

The character of the United States Army has changed significantly since the constitutional period in two fundamental ways. The first was its way of mobilizing. The second was its orientation and purpose.

With respect to wartime mobilization, Hamilton and later John C. Calhoun envisioned the United States Army as an "expansible" force. A small peacetime establishment would serve as the foundation for a greatly expanded force in times of emergency. The emergency ended, the citizen-soldiers would demobilize and return to their civilian occupations. With modifications, this was essentially the model for mobilization from the Mexican War through World War II. During the Cold War, the United States for the first time in its history maintained a large military establishment during peacetime. Even so, the fact that soldiers were drafted meant that citizen-soldiers continued to be the foundation of the Army. But with the end of the draft in 1973, the citizen-soldier was superseded by the long-term professional.

The draft, of course, has been a controversial issue. Although compulsory military service can be traced to the colonial and revolutionary period in America, it usually involved the states obligating service in the militia. The United States did not have a national draft until the Civil War, and did not resort to a peacetime draft until 1940. Opponents of a draft have used a number of constitutional arguments in support of their position. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that a draft is constitutional. This includes a draft during peacetime and the power to dispatch draftees overseas. Nor does a draft intrude on the state's right to maintain a militia. Selective Draft Law Cases (1918). An example of the Court's reasoning is found in Holmes v. United States (1968): "the power of Congress to raise armies and to take effective measures to preserve their efficiencies, is not limited by the Thirteenth Amendment or the absence of a military emergency." Nonetheless, the Court has, for some time now, been broadening exemptions to the draft, such as those with conscientious objections to war.

The purpose of the United States Army has not always been primarily to win the nation's wars, but to act as a constabulary. Soldiers were often used during the antebellum period to enforce the fugitive slave laws and suppress domestic violence. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 permitted federal marshals to call on the posse comitatus to aid in returning a slave to his owner, and Attorney General Caleb Cushing issued an opinion that included the Army in the posse comitatus.

In response, Congress enacted the Posse Comitatus Act (1878), which prohibited the use of the military to aid civil authorities in enforcing the law or suppressing civil disturbances unless expressly ordered to do so by the President. The Army welcomed the legislation. The use of soldiers as a posse removed them from their own chain of command and placed them in the uncomfortable position of taking orders from local authorities who had an interest in the disputes that provoked the unrest in the first place. As a result, many officers came to believe that the involvement of the Army in domestic policing was corrupting the institution.

In 1904, Secretary of War Elihu Root reoriented the Army away from constabulary duties to a mission focused on defeating the conventional forces of other states. This view has shaped United States military culture since at least World War II and continues to this day. Whether the exigencies of a modern war against terrorism once again changes the military's mission towards domestic order is yet to be seen.

Mackubin Owens

Pete

"No one leaves home unless home is the mouth of a shark"
Warsan Shire

Time will tell
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 01:50 PM   #37
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 2,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
military parades are bad? Is the Memorial Day parade in my town, now just a dog whistle for totalitarianism?

You people have come completely, and I mean completely, unglued.

We have people in harm's way. Honoring them with a parade, is an ominous sign of nationalism? I have a better idea, let's have another liberal march on The Mall where bitter losers scream the f word into megaphones and then leave the place littered with trash and cigarette butts. That's what we really need, not a parade.

Your out of touch with reality ... this has noting to do Honoring those in harms way .. 22years I served and a combat tour in Iraq I need no Honoring ,, if you don't know or can't see the difference between patriotism and Nationalism and how it works ..

let me show you

1st you attack a group

2nd you attack the
media

3rd you attack the CIA

4th you attack the DOJ

5th you attack the FBI

6 you attack the other party Un American and treasonous

7 now you use the military as a poltical prop

8 sell it to the faithful as Patriotism ....

9.. to isolate him from any criticism

10 he has 3 more years to do who knows what next
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 02:10 PM   #38
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Your out of touch with reality ... this has noting to do Honoring those in harms way .. 22years I served and a combat tour in Iraq I need no Honoring ,, if you don't know or can't see the difference between patriotism and Nationalism and how it works ..

let me show you

1st you attack a group - like H

2nd you attack the
media

3rd you attack the CIA

4th you attack the DOJ

5th you attack the FBI

6 you attack the other party Un American and treasonous

7 now you use the military as a poltical prop

8 sell it to the faithful as Patriotism ....

9.. to isolate him from any criticism

10 he has 3 more years to do who knows what next
"1st you attack a group "

Hmmm...lik Obama saying that Republicans "gotta stop just hatin' all the time? Or Hilary calling Republicans deplorable and irredeemable?

"2nd you attack the
media"

Hmmm..did Obama ever stop whining about Foxnews?

"3rd you attack the CIA, 4th you attack the DOJ, 5th you attack the FBI"

Are we attacking everyone in those institutions? Or a small number of people? I itemized a fairly long list of known, irrefutable facts about what some of those people did. I asked what items on my list were not true. Didn't hear a peep from you. In fact, you sure implied that Trey Gowdy knows what he's talking about with regards to the FISA memo.

"9.. to isolate him from any criticism"

Right, Trump doesn't get any direct criticism.

"10 he has 3 more years to do who knows what next"

More like 7 unless there's a democrat running that I'm not aware of. Neither Bernie nor Lie-awatha is likely going to beat him.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 02:36 PM   #39
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 2,894
Take this how you will, I think it applies to both sides
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

— George Washington in his farewell address, Sept. 17, 1796

Pete

"No one leaves home unless home is the mouth of a shark"
Warsan Shire

Time will tell
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 02:57 PM   #40
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
You could say that about several states, or the reverse for Trump's electoral votes.
No you cannot. The margin of victory for Clinton in California alone is way, way, way more than she needed to get the majority of the popular vote. In fact, she would have lost the popular vote by 1.4 million votes without California. And it very clearly demonstrates why Democrats do not want, at least for a few more election cycles, to restrict immigration from south of the border.

https://www.investors.com/politics/c...om-california/
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 03:10 PM   #41
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Thank God for those highly educated folks in Calif. who help fund all those red areas.
Actually, states like California and New York have had their massive overspending and high taxes, especially high property taxes, subsidized by a lot of red states who could not lower their federal taxes as much as the high tax states because their itemized property taxes were so much lower.

But, I wonder if you believe that gerrymandering is a threat to democracy, do you believe that states like California are also a danger to democracy: "There were two Democrats — and zero Republicans — running to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer. There were no Republicans on the ballot for House seats in nine of California's congressional districts.

At the state level, six districts had no Republicans running for the state senate, and 16 districts had no Republicans running for state assembly seats."
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 03:29 PM   #42
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Take this how you will, I think it applies to both sides
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

— George Washington in his farewell address, Sept. 17, 1796
And that becomes possible by parties transforming our system of government from a Constitutional Republic to an administrative state.

So very, very much, if not all, of the discussions on this political forum are about, not restricting the federal government to its constitutional limitations, but about how the federal government can solve our "problems" by asserting powers not given to it in our Constitution.

We have been led to this administrative form of government by Progressives in both parties, but mostly led by the Democrat Party.
So now, late into the transformation, Progressives are afraid that Trump will somehow be the tyrant that Washington warned us of.

That is not funny, but it is laughable. The Progressives have been tyrannically destroying and transforming our system of government for a century. Anyone who is honest and objective should be able to see that we are on the brink of the Progressive dream of making the Constitution totally irrelevant.

And most Americans have unconsciously come to accept that our government, as it is, is how it's supposed to be.

Fear of Trump is a fear of the very thing that Progressivism has created.

Ironically, Trump actually, so far, is more constitutionally oriented than the Progressives.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 03:45 PM   #43
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 17,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
No you cannot. The margin of victory for Clinton in California alone is way, way, way more than she needed to get the majority of the popular vote. In fact, she would have lost the popular vote by 1.4 million votes without California. And it very clearly demonstrates why Democrats do not want, at least for a few more election cycles, to restrict immigration from south of the border.

https://www.investors.com/politics/c...om-california/
She won by nearly 2m votes in NY as well.

So flip it around and say had she won just Texas she'd be POTUS. It was close...3 swing states and 80,000 votes.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 04:18 PM   #44
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
She won by nearly 2m votes in NY as well.

So flip it around and say had she won just Texas she'd be POTUS. It was close...3 swing states and 80,000 votes.
If only she was clever enough to know that electoral math means she didn't need to spend any time in NY or CA, and she had spent some meaningful time in places like NC and WI, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 06:27 PM   #45
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
She won by nearly 2m votes in NY as well.

So flip it around and say had she won just Texas she'd be POTUS. It was close...3 swing states and 80,000 votes.
Even if you eliminate the Texas vote along with the California vote, Trump would still have won the popular vote. The California difference is too huge to compare it with anything else.

And, the Democrats are definitely gunning for Texas. And they can depend on the California method to take Texas. California is now a majority Latino State in population. Texas is steadily moving in that direction. Perhaps, Texas has staved off being overcome by leftists because so many from the right side have moved there (from California, e.g.). But birth rate demographics will probably overcome that edge. Which means that the Republican Party will continually have to keep moving left to stay in power.

Kiss the Republic goodbye. Unless somehow Latinos, all of a sudden, realize that the Constitution is more important than cultural dominance.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 06:42 PM   #46
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,922
I wonder how small trumps Dick really is? 4” ? 5”? Maybe his military parade will make his dick seem bigger ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 06:54 PM   #47
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post

I wonder how small trumps Dick really is? 4” ? 5”?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I always appreciated the fact that you are a deep thinker
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 06:55 PM   #48
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
I always appreciated the fact that you are a deep thinker
I don’t think he can get it that deep. That’s the problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 06:59 PM   #49
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
I wonder how small trumps Dick really is? 4” ? 5”? Maybe his military parade will make his dick seem bigger ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I like what you did there, not capitalizing Trump's name and Capitalizing Dick. A fine grammatical touch.

Hey, how about solving the NK problem--publically de-pants Trump and Kim mung ungry or whatever his name his, and the biggest Dick wins!!
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 07:06 PM   #50
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
I like what you did there, not capitalizing Trump's name and Capitalizing Dick. A fine grammatical touch.

Hey, how about solving the NK problem--publically de-pants Trump and Kim mung ungry or whatever his name his, and the biggest Dick wins!!
Kim not hung is probably lacking in the inter-#^&#^&#^&#^&inental ballistic missle department as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 09:35 PM   #51
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 16,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Clinton crushed Trump in the popular vote and narrowly missed three critical swing states by just 80,000 votes. The election was very close.

The map is pretty though.
Ahhhh...the old "Popular Vote" argument.

The popular vote means nothing, zip, zilch, nada, bupkis.

It has absolutely no bearing on who gets elected in a presidential election. It's created by the media to give people something to bitch about.

Who wins the World Series? The team who scores the most runs or the team who wins the most games?

This simple concept is completely lost on the Butt hurt brigade......and Hillarys campaign managers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 10:41 PM   #52
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,930
Some of our looney lefty contributors are letting the cheese slide off of their crackers. Not sure any saw the memo about Trump WINNING the election. Let's call a truce; one side takes off their vagina hat and the other stop wondering when Hillary gets prosecuted. This time loop thing is getting tiresome. Jeff, it wasn't close at all. I understand you coming unglued initially but it's time to put on your best big boy pants and stop petting puppies in a safe space.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sea Dangles is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 10:43 PM   #53
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,922
But her emails!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 06:01 AM   #54
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 2,117
He won.. I accept that 1 vote or the 1 electoral vote .. water under the Bridge..

its his current actions From the press to the FBI to Immigrants to the DOJ EPA energy Dept the list is endless and the icing holding the Military up as a scared Cow(that can not be touched ) all intended actions to Burn the place down.. are what Disturb me. and the support from his fringe right base and others willing to bring the gas and matches to help.. who cant see today.. but are all ready predicting re election
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 06:18 AM   #55
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 2,117
I just picture him throwing out this idea to his Cabinet lets have a Military Parade .. and they all responded Dilly !!! Dilly !!!
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 07:13 AM   #56
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,175


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.

President Trump has a stronger approval rating today than media darling Barack Obama did back in 2010 on this same day.

Back on February 7, 2010 Barack Obama had an approval rating of 44% while 56% of likely voters disapproved of the far left president.
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 07:50 AM   #57
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
I just picture him throwing out this idea to his Cabinet lets have a Military Parade .. and they all responded Dilly !!! Dilly !!!
You have been critical of Trump calling his opponents treasonous. Can I ask, is it only wrong when Trump does it? Corey Booker said those who called for the release of the Nunes memo were treasonous. Howard Dean said Senator Tom Cotton was acting treasonous for criticizing the Iran nuclear deal.

So is it only a problem for you, when Republicans do it? Is it too much to ask that we have one set of rules and standards, which apply equally to all of us?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 08:05 AM   #58
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.

President Trump has a stronger approval rating today than media darling Barack Obama did back in 2010 on this same day.

Back on February 7, 2010 Barack Obama had an approval rating of 44% while 56% of likely voters disapproved of the far left president.
Turns out, people actually like it when their paychecks get bigger. Shocking but true.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 08:06 AM   #59
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
You have been critical of Trump calling his opponents treasonous. Can I ask, is it only wrong when Trump does it? Corey Booker said those who called for the release of the Nunes memo were treasonous. Howard Dean said Senator Tom Cotton was acting treasonous for criticizing the Iran nuclear deal.

So is it only a problem for you, when Republicans do it? Is it too much to ask that we have one set of rules and standards, which apply equally to all of us?
Are those 2 former Presidents? You continue to compare what 1 or 2 Dems. say or compare what Pres. Obama said 1 or 2 times to what our current President says hundreds of times and somehow you think that is the same. How is that having a set of rules when you compare what someone did one time with what someone does mulitple times?

Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. There is no comparing him to any other politician of any party.

Another Trumper will be leaving the WH today - beating his wives. I got a good laugh yesterday reading Kelly's statements about him. Kelly was supposed to be the "grownup" in the room and he is no better than the rest of this admin.
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 08:08 AM   #60
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post

Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. There is no comparing him to any other politician of any party.
pretty snarky
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com