Dem Party

1151618202131

Comments

  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,500

    Democrats would rather scream Russia Russia Russia and continually lose to Republicans.

    House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley hesitated when asked about his party’s core message to voters.

    “That message is being worked on,” the New York congressman said in an interview this past week. “We’re doing everything we can to simplify it, but at the same time provide the meat behind it as well. So that’s coming together now.”

    https://apnews.com/5e40c99aeb7c410ab3890e6ad4303e3c

    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 5,962
    edited July 17
    JC29856 said:

    Democrats would rather scream Russia Russia Russia and continually lose to Republicans.

    House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley hesitated when asked about his party’s core message to voters.

    “That message is being worked on,” the New York congressman said in an interview this past week. “We’re doing everything we can to simplify it, but at the same time provide the meat behind it as well. So that’s coming together now.”

    https://apnews.com/5e40c99aeb7c410ab3890e6ad4303e3c

    Isn't it being patriotic to keep the light on the Russia-isue? So why wouldn't they keep doing that?

    And shouldn't an adult person understand that the one thing doesn't take away from working on the other? 
    Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,500
    JC29856 said:

    Democrats would rather scream Russia Russia Russia and continually lose to Republicans.

    House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley hesitated when asked about his party’s core message to voters.

    “That message is being worked on,” the New York congressman said in an interview this past week. “We’re doing everything we can to simplify it, but at the same time provide the meat behind it as well. So that’s coming together now.”

    https://apnews.com/5e40c99aeb7c410ab3890e6ad4303e3c

    Isn't it being patriotic to keep the light on the Russia-isue? So why wouldn't they keep doing that?

    And shouldn't an adult person understand that the one thing doesn't take away from working on the other? 
    here is what I think a rational adult would think, there is an investigation into Russia involvement in the US elections, let it play out. screaming Russia Russia Russia everyday all day has zero (should have) effect on the outcome of that investigation.

    the Democratic party spent more than a year propping up a terrible wobbly candidate nobody liked, rigged the primary, cheated voters, colluded with the media and lost a presidential election to a celebrity game show host bafoon eight months ago, won't acknowledge it, let alone admit it and have no leaders and no message. After eight months absent leaders and a clear message, I as an adult am convinced one is certainly taking away from the other.
    having no message hasn't seemed to work for Hilliary or the special elections but go ahead keep working on it.
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 9,547
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:

    Democrats would rather scream Russia Russia Russia and continually lose to Republicans.

    House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley hesitated when asked about his party’s core message to voters.

    “That message is being worked on,” the New York congressman said in an interview this past week. “We’re doing everything we can to simplify it, but at the same time provide the meat behind it as well. So that’s coming together now.”

    https://apnews.com/5e40c99aeb7c410ab3890e6ad4303e3c

    Isn't it being patriotic to keep the light on the Russia-isue? So why wouldn't they keep doing that?

    And shouldn't an adult person understand that the one thing doesn't take away from working on the other? 
    here is what I think a rational adult would think, there is an investigation into Russia involvement in the US elections, let it play out. screaming Russia Russia Russia everyday all day has zero (should have) effect on the outcome of that investigation.

    the Democratic party spent more than a year propping up a terrible wobbly candidate nobody liked, rigged the primary, cheated voters, colluded with the media and lost a presidential election to a celebrity game show host bafoon eight months ago, won't acknowledge it, let alone admit it and have no leaders and no message. After eight months absent leaders and a clear message, I as an adult am convinced one is certainly taking away from the other.
    having no message hasn't seemed to work for Hilliary or the special elections but go ahead keep working on it.
    16 months before the mid-term is an eternity. Three and a half years to a presidential election is and eon. There will be a message and there will be a platform. No reason to put it out now solely for the same amount of time for it to be attacked. Plus, in that amount of time, more crusty old white people looking to the past will have moved on and more of Trump's promises will have not materialized. You must think every losing opposition party has their platform and message all figured out less than a year after losing?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,500
    the Democratic party has been around for 190 years, recently they lost 1000 seats and a slam dunk presidential election that only the one abomination of a candidate they dishonestly and unfairly anointed could lose.
    I don't think it's too much to ask for a core message at this point.
    who thinks the democrats priorities are aligned with the voting public? middle class? poor? minorities?
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 482
    JC29856 said:

    Democrats would rather scream Russia Russia Russia and continually lose to Republicans.

    House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley hesitated when asked about his party’s core message to voters.

    “That message is being worked on,” the New York congressman said in an interview this past week. “We’re doing everything we can to simplify it, but at the same time provide the meat behind it as well. So that’s coming together now.”

    https://apnews.com/5e40c99aeb7c410ab3890e6ad4303e3c

    Yep.  And the Democrats are going to get absolutely smacked around in 2018.  Maybe that'll wake us up to the fact that we do have a popular (polarizing, but popular) president.

    #onepartysystem

    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,500
    edited July 17
    JC29856 said:
    wonder if any Hamiltonians asked Harris about " "the decision her office made" not prosecuting Mnuchin, one West?

    http://pagesix.com/2017/07/15/kamala-harris-meets-with-democratic-elite-in-hamptons/amp/
    more on the story...
    I'm pretty certain that every person mentioned in this article is a horrible person, with the Hungarian American leading the way in horribleness

    http://observer.com/2017/07/donors-george-soros-steve-mnuchin-kamala-harris/amp/
    Post edited by JC29856 on
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,762
    OnWis97 said:
    JC29856 said:

    Democrats would rather scream Russia Russia Russia and continually lose to Republicans.

    House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley hesitated when asked about his party’s core message to voters.

    “That message is being worked on,” the New York congressman said in an interview this past week. “We’re doing everything we can to simplify it, but at the same time provide the meat behind it as well. So that’s coming together now.”

    https://apnews.com/5e40c99aeb7c410ab3890e6ad4303e3c

    Yep.  And the Democrats are going to get absolutely smacked around in 2018.  Maybe that'll wake us up to the fact that we do have a popular (polarizing, but popular) president.

    #onepartysystem

    Why do you think he's popular?  He is 30 some % approval.  He lost the popular vote by 3MM.  His victory was by mere basis points in three key states.  He hasn't actually accomplished anything of note.  There isn't much empirical evidence to say he's popular.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,762
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    wonder if any Hamiltonians asked Harris about " "the decision her office made" not prosecuting Mnuchin, one West?

    http://pagesix.com/2017/07/15/kamala-harris-meets-with-democratic-elite-in-hamptons/amp/
    more on the story...
    I'm pretty certain that every person mentioned in this article is a horrible person, with the Hungarian American leading the way in horribleness

    http://observer.com/2017/07/donors-george-soros-steve-mnuchin-kamala-harris/amp/
    Yes Kamala Harris... Liberal, woman, minority, Californian, prosecutor, Senator, Trump antagonizer... horrible person.  Way to prove once more that you're really a progressive.  We'll put this as the icing.  
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 482
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    JC29856 said:

    Democrats would rather scream Russia Russia Russia and continually lose to Republicans.

    House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley hesitated when asked about his party’s core message to voters.

    “That message is being worked on,” the New York congressman said in an interview this past week. “We’re doing everything we can to simplify it, but at the same time provide the meat behind it as well. So that’s coming together now.”

    https://apnews.com/5e40c99aeb7c410ab3890e6ad4303e3c

    Yep.  And the Democrats are going to get absolutely smacked around in 2018.  Maybe that'll wake us up to the fact that we do have a popular (polarizing, but popular) president.

    #onepartysystem

    Why do you think he's popular?  He is 30 some % approval.  He lost the popular vote by 3MM.  His victory was by mere basis points in three key states.  He hasn't actually accomplished anything of note.  There isn't much empirical evidence to say he's popular.  
    The left still believes polls...

    I think his supporters know that he's a jackass.  And they'll tell a pollster they don't like what he's doing.  Then they'll vote for him.  This is roughly why we were so surprised last fall.  While he has a loud and proud hard core base, he has a silent army of lovers as well. Donald Trump is President and the American People are happy about it...and you're talking to one of the few people on here that saw his win coming.

    2018's silver lining is going to be that it'll be a wake up call.  Of course, I'm not sure what the impotent Democratic Party will do about it. It's "their" country now.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,762
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    JC29856 said:

    Democrats would rather scream Russia Russia Russia and continually lose to Republicans.

    House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley hesitated when asked about his party’s core message to voters.

    “That message is being worked on,” the New York congressman said in an interview this past week. “We’re doing everything we can to simplify it, but at the same time provide the meat behind it as well. So that’s coming together now.”

    https://apnews.com/5e40c99aeb7c410ab3890e6ad4303e3c

    Yep.  And the Democrats are going to get absolutely smacked around in 2018.  Maybe that'll wake us up to the fact that we do have a popular (polarizing, but popular) president.

    #onepartysystem

    Why do you think he's popular?  He is 30 some % approval.  He lost the popular vote by 3MM.  His victory was by mere basis points in three key states.  He hasn't actually accomplished anything of note.  There isn't much empirical evidence to say he's popular.  
    The left still believes polls...

    I think his supporters know that he's a jackass.  And they'll tell a pollster they don't like what he's doing.  Then they'll vote for him.  This is roughly why we were so surprised last fall.  While he has a loud and proud hard core base, he has a silent army of lovers as well. Donald Trump is President and the American People are happy about it...and you're talking to one of the few people on here that saw his win coming.

    2018's silver lining is going to be that it'll be a wake up call.  Of course, I'm not sure what the impotent Democratic Party will do about it. It's "their" country now.
    The polls were basically correct.  The national results were in line with the MOE.  So yeah, we still believe in math, statistics and sampling. 

    National polls only measure the popular vote. Clinton did, in fact, win the national popular vote by 2.1 points. The average of the 13 final national polls had Clinton ahead by 3.1 points, which was only a point off the actual result.

    Ironically, all 12 polls that had Clinton ahead turned out to be closer to the final outcome than the poll that had Trump ahead. While that may seem crazy — since Trump, not Clinton, is headed to the White House — it's true. The poll that put Trump ahead (by 2 points) was off by 4.1 points, while polls that gave Clinton the lead were off anywhere from only one-tenth of a point to less than 4 points.

    National polling did much better in 2016 than in 2012, when the average of the final polls in the contest between President Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney was off by more than 3 points. Polls showed Obama winning the popular vote by only seven-tenths of a point, and on Election Day he captured a wider 3.9-point vote margin.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/315145-one-last-look-2016-polls-actually-got-a-lot-right

  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,500
    what I think people will remember is not a 4 way poll one week before the election but the Trump vs Clinton polls leading up to election day (remember the daily 538 polls and graphics posted here?) and specifically the chances of Trump winning percentages leading up to and including on election day.
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,762
    JC29856 said:
    what I think people will remember is not a 4 way poll one week before the election but the Trump vs Clinton polls leading up to election day (remember the daily 538 polls and graphics posted here?) and specifically the chances of Trump winning percentages leading up to and including on election day.
    That's fair, but that doesn't mean his 36% approval rating today is inaccurate.  It's even 43% on Rasmussen which heavily over samples Republicans historically.  Whatever the 538 analysis was, or the media talking points, or whatever, has nothing to do with the efficacy of the actual data.  It doesn't mean we can no longer draw assessments from the data.  
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,500
    mrussel1 said:
    JC29856 said:
    what I think people will remember is not a 4 way poll one week before the election but the Trump vs Clinton polls leading up to election day (remember the daily 538 polls and graphics posted here?) and specifically the chances of Trump winning percentages leading up to and including on election day.
    That's fair, but that doesn't mean his 36% approval rating today is inaccurate.  It's even 43% on Rasmussen which heavily over samples Republicans historically.  Whatever the 538 analysis was, or the media talking points, or whatever, has nothing to do with the efficacy of the actual data.  It doesn't mean we can no longer draw assessments from the data.  
    I don't disagree but what do approval ratings actually tell us? Do they matter? 

    I think what trump is saying is approval ratings don't really matter, although I think they do to him.

    Ws approval ratings soared
    Congress, a majority are career politicians have approval ratings just above single digits
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • fifefife Posts: 3,046
    JC29856 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JC29856 said:
    what I think people will remember is not a 4 way poll one week before the election but the Trump vs Clinton polls leading up to election day (remember the daily 538 polls and graphics posted here?) and specifically the chances of Trump winning percentages leading up to and including on election day.
    That's fair, but that doesn't mean his 36% approval rating today is inaccurate.  It's even 43% on Rasmussen which heavily over samples Republicans historically.  Whatever the 538 analysis was, or the media talking points, or whatever, has nothing to do with the efficacy of the actual data.  It doesn't mean we can no longer draw assessments from the data.  
    I don't disagree but what do approval ratings actually tell us? Do they matter? 

    I think what trump is saying is approval ratings don't really matter, although I think they do to him.

    Ws approval ratings soared
    Congress, a majority are career politicians have approval ratings just above single digits
    I would say some rating matter and some don't.  for example, i never take the polls that talk about congress approval rating seriously.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,762
    JC29856 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JC29856 said:
    what I think people will remember is not a 4 way poll one week before the election but the Trump vs Clinton polls leading up to election day (remember the daily 538 polls and graphics posted here?) and specifically the chances of Trump winning percentages leading up to and including on election day.
    That's fair, but that doesn't mean his 36% approval rating today is inaccurate.  It's even 43% on Rasmussen which heavily over samples Republicans historically.  Whatever the 538 analysis was, or the media talking points, or whatever, has nothing to do with the efficacy of the actual data.  It doesn't mean we can no longer draw assessments from the data.  
    I don't disagree but what do approval ratings actually tell us? Do they matter? 

    I think what trump is saying is approval ratings don't really matter, although I think they do to him.

    Ws approval ratings soared
    Congress, a majority are career politicians have approval ratings just above single digits
    First, they are important.  The POTUS approval rating is a direct reflection on that individual.  And when they are strong, that gives the POTUS leverage.  The congressmen/senators feel more pressure to bend to the POTUS in those situations.  The converse is true today.

    Second, you can never quote the congressional approval number.  The whole thing is a giant misnomer.  Everyone hates Congress because they always hate the other side, whatever the other side is to that person.  There's a reason that the re-election rate is so high.  People hate Congress, but like their congressman.  
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,500
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,500
    dem party plan (amt as evidence)
    1. rally cold warriors with Russia Russia Russia
    2. talk about how dumb and incompetent Trump is
    3. take another giant step to the right
    4. ahhh??? ahhh? we're working on it

    here is another powerfully worded Caitlin Johnson piece, this time about the democrats not John McCain.


    https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/dem-leaders-reiterate-that-theyll-be-changing-absolutely-nothing-561bb12f2ca3

    For the first time in my life, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer got my hopes up. He then immediately dashed them to the floor and had Nancy Pelosi pee on them for good measure.

    I know, I know — I should have known better. But what’s a girl to do? He pushed all my buttons, like a salsa dancer with a Communist Manifesto between his teeth.

    “When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things — Comey, Russia — you blame yourself,” Schumer told the Washington Post in an interview yesterday.

    Oh God. Melt. Maybe I’ve been wrong about this guy? Maybe this could work out? Maybe my whole life has been one big mistake up until this point! I’m sorry for all those times I called you “Amy Schumer’s creepy uncle,” Chuck!


    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • Whenever I hear the word Democrat I think of what Bill Clinton did with Monica and how they dismiss that wrong doing.
    Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not. Both ideas are overwhelming. AE
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,433
    Whenever I hear the word Democrat I think of what Bill Clinton did with Monica and how they dismiss that wrong doing.
    So you don't like the dismissal of a consensual adult (inappropriate) relationship but you are groovy with dismissing admitted sexual assaults?
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 8,712
    rgambs said:
    Whenever I hear the word Democrat I think of what Bill Clinton did with Monica and how they dismiss that wrong doing.
    So you don't like the dismissal of a consensual adult (inappropriate) relationship but you are groovy with dismissing admitted sexual assaults?
    Which are you ok with?

    Both seem pretty awful to me....an I personally don't think a president can have a real consensual relationship with an intern in his office. He shoulda been fired...of course the government doesn't work like the real world. 
    hippiemom = goodness
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,500
    democrats are going after big business...lmfao
    I can't wait to see when and how. Liz Wharren in 3...2...1

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1A913M

    U.S. Democrats are unveiling an economic platform on Monday that they call "A Better Deal" for working Americans by announcing plans to address unfair market competition, rising pharmaceutical costs and stagnant wages.
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,433
    rgambs said:
    Whenever I hear the word Democrat I think of what Bill Clinton did with Monica and how they dismiss that wrong doing.
    So you don't like the dismissal of a consensual adult (inappropriate) relationship but you are groovy with dismissing admitted sexual assaults?
    Which are you ok with?

    Both seem pretty awful to me....an I personally don't think a president can have a real consensual relationship with an intern in his office. He shoulda been fired...of course the government doesn't work like the real world. 
    I'm not really ok with either, but I generally prefer consensual scandals to non-consensual scandals.
    I wholeheartedly disagree that a Democratically elected leader can have consent from an intern, he's not some dictator that will execute her if she refuses.  She was a fully capable adult who made a choice, gave consent, so to speak.
    Yes, he should be shitcanned for that, but that doesn't take away consent, that's actually sort of a ridiculous notion.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 8,712
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    Whenever I hear the word Democrat I think of what Bill Clinton did with Monica and how they dismiss that wrong doing.
    So you don't like the dismissal of a consensual adult (inappropriate) relationship but you are groovy with dismissing admitted sexual assaults?
    Which are you ok with?

    Both seem pretty awful to me....an I personally don't think a president can have a real consensual relationship with an intern in his office. He shoulda been fired...of course the government doesn't work like the real world. 
    I'm not really ok with either, but I generally prefer consensual scandals to non-consensual scandals.
    I wholeheartedly disagree that a Democratically elected leader can have consent from an intern, he's not some dictator that will execute her if she refuses.  She was a fully capable adult who made a choice, gave consent, so to speak.
    Yes, he should be shitcanned for that, but that doesn't take away consent, that's actually sort of a ridiculous notion.
    My point being, a subordinate having a relationship with a boss or higher up....might not always really be consensual.  Sometimes people feel the need to do things......and putting an intern in that position is awful.

    I think both Bill and Donald's transgressions are awful and beneath the office of the president.  That's why I didn't vote for either.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,500
    JC29856 said:
    democrats are going after biig business...lmfao
    I can't wait to see when and how. Liz Wharren in 3...2...1

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1A913M

    U.S. Democrats are unveiling an economic platform on Monday that they call "A Better Deal" for working Americans by announcing plans to address unfair market competition, rising pharmaceutical costs and stagnant wages.
    Dems are going after big business with a vengeance!
    On behalf of low wage earners they plan to tax credit the hell out of big business! (no mention of raising min wage)
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 9,547
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    democrats are going after biig business...lmfao
    I can't wait to see when and how. Liz Wharren in 3...2...1

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1A913M

    U.S. Democrats are unveiling an economic platform on Monday that they call "A Better Deal" for working Americans by announcing plans to address unfair market competition, rising pharmaceutical costs and stagnant wages.
    Dems are going after big business with a vengeance!
    On behalf of low wage earners they plan to tax credit the hell out of big business! (no mention of raising min wage)
    As if you really care, right? Funny, Jared dear boy testifies to a shit boat full of lies and the 3D goes into overtime mode. I wonder if the republicans have an economic plan other than cutting taxes for the wealthy?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 482
    edited July 25
    rgambs said:
    Whenever I hear the word Democrat I think of what Bill Clinton did with Monica and how they dismiss that wrong doing.
    So you don't like the dismissal of a consensual adult (inappropriate) relationship but you are groovy with dismissing admitted sexual assaults?
    Which are you ok with?

    Both seem pretty awful to me....an I personally don't think a president can have a real consensual relationship with an intern in his office. He shoulda been fired...of course the government doesn't work like the real world. 
    Actually, that's exactly how the real world works.  Important executives be it in government or private can get away with stuff like that.

    That said, while Bill Clinton was more equipped to be President than Trump (by a lot) and while his relationship is far less wrong than an actual sexual assault, he absolutely should have been removed from office.  As should anyone in any organization that does that.  Not jailed (unlike sexual assault) but fired.  

    And yes, the left does give him a pass.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,500
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,762
    JC29856 said:
    An IT staffer getting arrested on bank fraud vindicates your vote for Trump.  Good to see a liberal like you make the right call. 
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,500
    edited July 26
    http://disobedientmedia.com/2017/06/awan-brothers-scandal-creates-fears-about-scope-of-data-leak/

    awan brothers have been paid quite well over the past 14 years or so by many democrats including wass-Schultz. they had all access passes. interesting to say the least.
    Post edited by JC29856 on
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
Sign In or Register to comment.