jooksavage wrote: » There's no f***in' way he uses condoms.
everlast75 wrote: » Not to mention that Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford both said they had unprotected sex with him
WinnyThePoo wrote: » "Many balanced and even left wing Democratic commentors have baulked and how the DNC has been too quick and too often to block the oppossitions administrations efforts or force legislation through with EOs ." is there any self awareness with this line. I find it absolutely hilarious .
Carry wrote: » I like the fact that he got 60 icecreams delivered first thing. 60. For four days. Even considering that he brought a few friends. 60 icecreams. .
RIGOLO wrote: » WinnyThePoo wrote: » "Many balanced and even left wing Democratic commentors have baulked and how the DNC has been too quick and too often to block the oppossitions administrations efforts or force legislation through with EOs ." is there any self awareness with this line. I find it absolutely hilarious . self-awareness and hilarious lets take them one at a time. There was plenty self-awareness in it.. thats why I had this comment in ALL CAPS .. AND YES BOTH PARTIES ARE GUILTY OF IT. TIME magazine didnt find it hilarious. In fact the wrote an article yesterday alluding to the exact same point I made , about how they consider the actions of Democrats in 2013 are now coming back to haunt them as Trump will easily push through his SCOTUS pick. http://time.com/5324365/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-supreme-court/ Its refering to the 'go nuclear option ' Democrats with Obamas support pushed thru on filibuster reform for executive appointments and judiciary. http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/21/senate-democrats-move-to-curb-the-filibuster-nuclear-option-looms/?iid=sr-link4 I remember the debate at the time (2013) and like I said many left of centre and Democratic observers were warning Democrats of the long term impact this may have and to be careful of what they wish for. 3 Democrats oppossed the move. Granted it was in response to Republican obstructionism, but I wonder if in hindsight Dems would reconsider this move now that DT gets to wield this might sword. I wonder do you still consider it hilarious ? Do you consider this hilarious ? Trump will reset the structure of The Supreme Court Of Justice of The United States of America. All using filibuster reform Democrats and Obama introduced. The comments from Republicans in 2013 were very prophetic, and it wasnt just them there were plenty on the left who had the same concerns. [font=Georgia, serif]Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell warned that Democrats would ultimately reap what they sowed. “Some of us have been around long enough to know the shoe is sometimes on the other foot,” said the Kentucky senator [/font][font=Georgia, serif]enator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, told TIME. “This is very dangerous in terms of what it means for the Senate. What goes around comes around. And someday they’re going to be in the minority.”[/font][font=Georgia, serif]Long term people, long term, you have got to think long term. [/font]
everlast75 wrote: » Trump has pulled out of 1) the Paris Accord 2) the Iran Deal 3) the G7 4) the UN Human Rights Council and it is reported today he wants to pull out of the WTO. Former allies are now foes (Germany, UK, France, Canada) and former foes Russia and North Korea are now allies. And people say he is not beholden to Russia at all!
Christy42 wrote: » RIGOLO wrote: » WinnyThePoo wrote: » "Many balanced and even left wing Democratic commentors have baulked and how the DNC has been too quick and too often to block the oppossitions administrations efforts or force legislation through with EOs ." is there any self awareness with this line. I find it absolutely hilarious . self-awareness and hilarious lets take them one at a time. There was plenty self-awareness in it.. thats why I had this comment in ALL CAPS .. AND YES BOTH PARTIES ARE GUILTY OF IT. TIME magazine didnt find it hilarious. In fact the wrote an article yesterday alluding to the exact same point I made , about how they consider the actions of Democrats in 2013 are now coming back to haunt them as Trump will easily push through his SCOTUS pick. http://time.com/5324365/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-supreme-court/ Its refering to the 'go nuclear option ' Democrats with Obamas support pushed thru on filibuster reform for executive appointments and judiciary. http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/21/senate-democrats-move-to-curb-the-filibuster-nuclear-option-looms/?iid=sr-link4 I remember the debate at the time (2013) and like I said many left of centre and Democratic observers were warning Democrats of the long term impact this may have and to be careful of what they wish for. 3 Democrats oppossed the move. Granted it was in response to Republican obstructionism, but I wonder if in hindsight Dems would reconsider this move now that DT gets to wield this might sword. I wonder do you still consider it hilarious ? Do you consider this hilarious ? Trump will reset the structure of The Supreme Court Of Justice of The United States of America. All using filibuster reform Democrats and Obama introduced. The comments from Republicans in 2013 were very prophetic, and it wasnt just them there were plenty on the left who had the same concerns. [font=Georgia, serif]Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell warned that Democrats would ultimately reap what they sowed. “Some of us have been around long enough to know the shoe is sometimes on the other foot,” said the Kentucky senator [/font][font=Georgia, serif]enator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, told TIME. “This is very dangerous in terms of what it means for the Senate. What goes around comes around. And someday they’re going to be in the minority.”[/font][font=Georgia, serif]Long term people, long term, you have got to think long term. [/font] I like how both sides seem to believe Donald's pick will be bad. It just seems to be whether or not you want to blame Donald's actions on the Republicans for supporting him PR the Democrats for not stopping him. Can we trust the msm on this issue though? On the whole I agree that the democrats should not have removed the filibuster but it is amusing you are OK with them when they agree with you. Also removing the filibuster for the supreme court nomination is still on the Republicans. Wailing "He started it" is something people should grow out of by the time they are 10. Out of interest, is there anyone getting the blame for the fact that the administration is struggling to figure which kid belongs to which parent? I mean I would have figured people would take note of which kids they ripped away from which parents. I mean some of those could have been successful in their hearing and been allowed into the country, what was the plan then?
RIGOLO wrote: » Where in my post did you get that idea ? Its not a point I made. If your somehow saying I think Donald Trumps pick will be bad then you have done one of those mis-quote, logical (illogical) assumption, 'so what your saying is ' , things and gotten it wrong. I never said or implied that. 30 years ! With another young appointment, extending the time they sit, then Trumps influence on the makeup of SCOTUS could extend to the next 30 years. The next two most likely judges to leave are both Clinton appointments, and they may retire during Trumps second term, giving him 4 picks on the SCOTUS before he checks out and goes back to business and (more) golf. 30 years of Trump influence ! ( NB I have not said Trumps pick will be bad , anywhere in this post)
pixelburp wrote: » Who's reporting that? I mean I can already hear kind of rhetoric Trump might use to justify it ('the United States has had the worst deals with the WTO...' etc.), but surely even by Trumpian standards leaving the WTO would be particularly boneheaded? I suppose they'd become the most interesting non-member. Or is this simply more long-term planning and genius our poor lefty brains can't comprehend?
Earlier this morning, Axios reported that the president has repeatedly told top White House officials that he wants to pull the US out of the WTO. But speaking to Fox Business Network, Mr Mnuchin said the story was “not right” and “an exaggeration.”
EdgeCase wrote: » It’s a pity the judge couldn’t hold off retiring until after November.
RIGOLO wrote: » Christy42 wrote: » RIGOLO wrote: » WinnyThePoo wrote: » "Many balanced and even left wing Democratic commentors have baulked and how the DNC has been too quick and too often to block the oppossitions administrations efforts or force legislation through with EOs ." is there any self awareness with this line. I find it absolutely hilarious . self-awareness and hilarious lets take them one at a time. There was plenty self-awareness in it.. thats why I had this comment in ALL CAPS .. AND YES BOTH PARTIES ARE GUILTY OF IT. TIME magazine didnt find it hilarious. In fact the wrote an article yesterday alluding to the exact same point I made , about how they consider the actions of Democrats in 2013 are now coming back to haunt them as Trump will easily push through his SCOTUS pick. http://time.com/5324365/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-supreme-court/ Its refering to the 'go nuclear option ' Democrats with Obamas support pushed thru on filibuster reform for executive appointments and judiciary. http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/21/senate-democrats-move-to-curb-the-filibuster-nuclear-option-looms/?iid=sr-link4 I remember the debate at the time (2013) and like I said many left of centre and Democratic observers were warning Democrats of the long term impact this may have and to be careful of what they wish for. 3 Democrats oppossed the move. Granted it was in response to Republican obstructionism, but I wonder if in hindsight Dems would reconsider this move now that DT gets to wield this might sword. I wonder do you still consider it hilarious ? Do you consider this hilarious ? Trump will reset the structure of The Supreme Court Of Justice of The United States of America. All using filibuster reform Democrats and Obama introduced. The comments from Republicans in 2013 were very prophetic, and it wasnt just them there were plenty on the left who had the same concerns. [font=Georgia, serif]Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell warned that Democrats would ultimately reap what they sowed. “Some of us have been around long enough to know the shoe is sometimes on the other foot,” said the Kentucky senator [/font][font=Georgia, serif]enator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, told TIME. “This is very dangerous in terms of what it means for the Senate. What goes around comes around. And someday they’re going to be in the minority.”[/font][font=Georgia, serif]Long term people, long term, you have got to think long term. [/font] I like how both sides seem to believe Donald's pick will be bad. It just seems to be whether or not you want to blame Donald's actions on the Republicans for supporting him PR the Democrats for not stopping him. Can we trust the msm on this issue though? On the whole I agree that the democrats should not have removed the filibuster but it is amusing you are OK with them when they agree with you. Also removing the filibuster for the supreme court nomination is still on the Republicans. Wailing "He started it" is something people should grow out of by the time they are 10. Out of interest, is there anyone getting the blame for the fact that the administration is struggling to figure which kid belongs to which parent? I mean I would have figured people would take note of which kids they ripped away from which parents. I mean some of those could have been successful in their hearing and been allowed into the country, what was the plan then? Where in my post did you get that idea ? Its not a point I made. If your somehow saying I think Donald Trumps pick will be bad then you have done one of those mis-quote, logical (illogical) assumption, 'so what your saying is ' , things and gotten it wrong. I never said or implied that. 30 years ! With another young appointment, extending the time they sit, then Trumps influence on the makeup of SCOTUS could extend to the next 30 years. The next two most likely judges to leave are both Clinton appointments, and they may retire during Trumps second term, giving him 4 picks on the SCOTUS before he checks out and goes back to business and (more) golf. 30 years of Trump influence ! ( NB I have not said Trumps pick will be bad , anywhere in this post)
Danzy wrote: » He could have but he wanted to be replaced by a Republican. No guarantee that the Republicans will lose the house either, Dems have a long way to go. Trump could have two more nominees before his term is up. Ginsburg being treated for pancreatic cancer.
Nody wrote: » And Canada now says: Hello USA remember those tariffs you raised on us? Well here's our French reply of $16 billions of politically target tariffs against your swing state products; love Canada.
Christy42 wrote: » Why is French in that sentence?
rossie1977 wrote: » Ginsburg was treated for cancer in 2009.. No chance either of the two older democratic judges step down while someone like Trump is president, death is the only thing that would make them leave. And a democratic candidate should beat Trump in 2020 unless they pick a total corporate like Booker or something. Biden would sweep the rustbelt because he has lived in Michigan and was born in Pennsylvania both states Trump won by razor thin margins and ultimately won him the white house along with Wisconsin
pixelburp wrote: » Surely the very election of Trump shows that any prediction of 2020 is a fools errand; clearly there are more things at play than 'just' the economy and with an agent of chaos like Trump, anythings possible.
everlast75 wrote: » There is more than circumstantial evidence to suggest that Elliot Broidy took the fall for DT for getting a playboy bunny pregnant, make her have an abortion and then pay out 1.6m dollars. Not to mention that Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford both said they had unprotected sex with him
Danzy wrote: » True but people act as if he has no Chance. It is strange, Trump derangement syndrome, is a thing and he plays on it to his advantage, without the people who were so opposed to him, he'd never be President. He knew that they didn't like him and they despise his base, proles and Hicks and people who don't know the difference between a mocha and a cappuccino and those people know it too. The left is bad at hiding it's snobbery, the GOP learnt to his it,the Tories have gotten better start it.
pixelburp wrote: » There's no doubt there was a strong anti establishment thrust of Trumps appeal (despite being himself one of the 1%, I'll never rationalise that cognitive leap), and the Democrats shot themselves in the foot by underestimating the core that fell in with Trumps campaign, but equally there are signs of buyers / voters remorse here and there. Be it from those burned by Trumps braggadocio, or the "both candidates are as bad as each other" crowd, and so on. It's as reductionist to call Trump voters racist as it is all the liberals as urban elites too. I dunno. It's arguable Trump's holding on by dint of the more extreme base. But hey, who knows; like I said this whole cycle has kicked norms into touch and the last thing anyone should assume is how 2020 will go. Who knows what else might come out from his past, what November might bring. Hell tomorrow Mueller could come knocking with some bombshell.
Danzy wrote: » He was anti establishment and all the hectoring he got built that for him. It is easy for a billionaire to be seen as anti establishment when you are against Clinton and her wall st rollercoaster, much of the Media and righteous activists. On his own he would not have made it. That is his real cunning he knows people, he knows how to appeal to them, get them on board. The Dems are more likely to insult than bring people on board. I get your points though.
Danzy wrote: » Trump's greatest asset electorally remains his opponents who made him electable. Ultimately it is the economy. If he keeps unemployment where it is he'll walk in again.
rossie1977 wrote: » The economy was booming in 2000 and a Republican was "elected" instead of carrying on with a Democrat who had overseen huge budget surpluses and on course to wipe out the national debt completely in a decade. The economy in November 2016 was similar to right now and Trump was elected instead of following on with someone who held many of Obama's economic views. Trump didn't walk it the last time. He won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by a combined 40,000 votes. If those 40k had voted for Hillary instead she would be President now not Trump. Trump's approval rating is under-water in each of those three states right now. 2016 was Trump's wave year so he isn't winning any state in 2020 he didn't in 2016. 2020 Democrats will place all their focus on the rust belt after ignoring it in 16 and like I said unless the Dems pick a corporate their candidate should appeal to the blue-collar Pennsylvania/Wisconsin/Michigan voter than a billionaire from New York who lives in tower with his name in gold lettering. Another factor is the Republicans and right wing media don't have a candidate who they have portrayed as the embodiment of evil itself for 20 years running this time.
Deleted User wrote: » Just shows how good the Republicans are at controlling the narrative as they say. The economy was going well but the Republicans managed to get across the "Everything's Terrible!" message. Clinton was a factor but if the economy keeps going the way it is then they'll hold their nose and vote for more of the same.
WinnyThePoo wrote: » Are you not talking about Trump with that line.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
