President Elect Trump

PJfanwillneverleave1

^^^
Not refuting just pointing out from the article “Very prestigious, coveted,” Trump said in a letter to members after the Mar-a-Lago Club received one. “Another feather in our cap.”
He is the POTUS and has had many experiences.

Halifax2TheMax

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
Not refuting just pointing out from the article “Very prestigious, coveted,” Trump said in a letter to members after the Mar-a-Lago Club received one. “Another feather in our cap.”
He is the POTUS and has had many experiences.

Yea, sure. Okay, sure. Yup, got it. Very prestigious. And um, he's not POTUS. And he's had many bowel movements. I wonder how he wipes with such small hands?

PJfanwillneverleave1

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
Not refuting just pointing out from the article “Very prestigious, coveted,” Trump said in a letter to members after the Mar-a-Lago Club received one. “Another feather in our cap.”
He is the POTUS and has had many experiences.

Yea, sure. Okay, sure. Yup, got it. Very prestigious. And um, he's not POTUS. And he's had many bowel movements. I wonder how he wipes with such small hands?

He is not POTUS? http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-electoral-college-congress-session-1.3923845

Halifax2TheMax

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
Not refuting just pointing out from the article “Very prestigious, coveted,” Trump said in a letter to members after the Mar-a-Lago Club received one. “Another feather in our cap.”
He is the POTUS and has had many experiences.

Yea, sure. Okay, sure. Yup, got it. Very prestigious. And um, he's not POTUS. And he's had many bowel movements. I wonder how he wipes with such small hands?

He is not POTUS? http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-electoral-college-congress-session-1.3923845

Not until January 20, 2017. A little premature ejaculation? You forgot the E.

PJfanwillneverleave1

^^^
No E needed.
Donald J Trump is the next POTUS.

benjs

vaggar99 said:

ledvedderman said:

No it's not. Tainted is a stretch. Russia hacked the parties and some states registration systems. There's zero evidence that even one vote anywhere was changed.
We lost this election. It's as simple of that. An imperfect messenger delivering an imperfect message lost to a total loser with a hate filled message.

we all know this election was stolen, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. T won by a handful of votes in a few states. States that were in the bag for Clinton. Yes, she took them for granted. But don't forget the Comey letter. What was her national lead before that? 12 points?

First, you need to understand something: ethics are not mandated in government, and ethical behaviour often doesn't align with the two things that politicians and businesspeople seek in a democratic capitalist society - capital, and/or political sway (and one typically begets the other). With this basic premise, you have to appreciate that behaving ethically adds friction to a person's ability to produce what society deems 'success', and most people will opt to take the path of least resistance. A populace which has encouraged their government to run on autopilot by their complacency and focus on entertainment over information is largely responsible for this.

Next - 'stolen' means unlawfully taken. Leaking private emails that revealed true intentions of the DNC is not traceable nor directly responsible for Trump's win - and an easy solution for Clinton and the DNC would've been to either not put sensitive information and/or conversation about lies to the public over email, or better yet, to just be fucking honest. As for the hacking of registration systems, as far as I've seen this is completely unvalidated and equally untraceable - it could've been a group like Anonymous, an organization whose malice goes ignored when they reveal truths that we want to hear or choose targets we dislike.

Moving onto Comey, a man who was put in a difficult position. We can only postulate about the validity of his team's information, first of all: Had Comey's letter not come out, the election results been opposite, and the hacking scandal been proven true - his department would have looked equally biased and unprofessional. The major difference would be that you wouldn't have cared since Trump didn't win, but the uncertainties and perception of bias and unprofessionalism remain the same.

On the topic of states 'in the bag' - that expression exists because of precedence, and precedence is only relevant when situations are alike. The campaign styles, focus by politicians on themselves over the nation's problems, and the fact that the nation is firmly planted in the post-truth era where entertainment supersedes information, are all ways that this election cycle was unlike any before it. To be honest, in hindsight, I don't know why more people are surprised to see that this outcome wasn't predicted.

Finally, if Clinton had won the election, and it was "stolen" in the same but opposite way - I don't believe you for a second that you'd be having this conversation. Your first post here on the topic of politicians was after Trump won, so there's no reason to suspect your attendance had the results been different.

Halifax2TheMax

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
No E needed.
Donald J Trump is the next POTUS.

Keep spanking. On January 20, 2017. You forgot "next" two posts ago. But you're learning.

PJfanwillneverleave1

^^^
No I did not forget next.
Donald Trump is the "next" President.

vaggar99

ledvedderman said:

I'm sorry, man. I think the DNC hack hurt and certainly changed some people's minds on voting for Hillary. But if that's the angle you're going at, as opposed to legit hacking of election data, the letter from Comey is where you need to look. If any outside source, other than a terrible candidate and message, sank the Clinton campaign...it's Comey.

Your argument isn't enough to give any justification to an election being tainted to the degree that it's held again.

We lost. You can't move forward while looking backward. Time to move on.

My language was vague and I have been alluding to election data hacking in past posts. I suppose the mere thought of investigating this is off limits?

My point is that it's all tied together. The DNC hack, Comey and possible data rigging. DNC hack and Comey are tied by the word 'email'. The 'emails' confused the shit out of voters. DNC hack and possible election data rigging are tied by Russian involvement. Tied together, you have a tainted election.

Anyhow, you are the only one here who has given credence to the theory of data hacking. Out of curiosity, can I ask what state you work for?

And let me ask you this...if we were to find out that voting machines were truly tampered with, would you then agree to a new election?

vaggar99

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

ledvedderman said:

No it's not. Tainted is a stretch. Russia hacked the parties and some states registration systems. There's zero evidence that even one vote anywhere was changed.
We lost this election. It's as simple of that. An imperfect messenger delivering an imperfect message lost to a total loser with a hate filled message.

we all know this election was stolen, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. T won by a handful of votes in a few states. States that were in the bag for Clinton. Yes, she took them for granted. But don't forget the Comey letter. What was her national lead before that? 12 points?

First, you need to understand something: ethics are not mandated in government, and ethical behaviour often doesn't align with the two things that politicians and businesspeople seek in a democratic capitalist society - capital, and/or political sway (and one typically begets the other). With this basic premise, you have to appreciate that behaving ethically adds friction to a person's ability to produce what society deems 'success', and most people will opt to take the path of least resistance. A populace which has encouraged their government to run on autopilot by their complacency and focus on entertainment over information is largely responsible for this.

Next - 'stolen' means unlawfully taken. Leaking private emails that revealed true intentions of the DNC is not traceable nor directly responsible for Trump's win - and an easy solution for Clinton and the DNC would've been to either not put sensitive information and/or conversation about lies to the public over email, or better yet, to just be fucking honest. As for the hacking of registration systems, as far as I've seen this is completely unvalidated and equally untraceable - it could've been a group like Anonymous, an organization whose malice goes ignored when they reveal truths that we want to hear or choose targets we dislike.

Moving onto Comey, a man who was put in a difficult position. We can only postulate about the validity of his team's information, first of all: Had Comey's letter not come out, the election results been opposite, and the hacking scandal been proven true - his department would have looked equally biased and unprofessional. The major difference would be that you wouldn't have cared since Trump didn't win, but the uncertainties and perception of bias and unprofessionalism remain the same.

On the topic of states 'in the bag' - that expression exists because of precedence, and precedence is only relevant when situations are alike. The campaign styles, focus by politicians on themselves over the nation's problems, and the fact that the nation is firmly planted in the post-truth era where entertainment supersedes information, are all ways that this election cycle was unlike any before it. To be honest, in hindsight, I don't know why more people are surprised to see that this outcome wasn't predicted.

Finally, if Clinton had won the election, and it was "stolen" in the same but opposite way - I don't believe you for a second that you'd be having this conversation. Your first post here on the topic of politicians was after Trump won, so there's no reason to suspect your attendance had the results been different.

I disagree with you on the ethics mandate. Ethics is mandated in government and the business world. That is why we things like the OGE who's sole mandate is to 'prevent and resolve conflicts of interest'. Every large company I've worked at also have similar programs, mainly to keep employees from starting side businesses.

That said, I honestly don't know if what Comey did was ethical or non ethical or just part of his job. All I know is that it did change polling data significantly. Perhaps we will find out more in terms of what factors lead to the disclosure of this info and if he pressured by anyone.

By the in the bag, I meant polling data before Oct 28 showed she had leads in PA, WI and MI that were well outside the margin of error of most every poll out there. Now, there's been some debate about the validity of polls altogether. Sure, I don't really like someone calling me and asking me who i'd vote for, but would I lie about it? no. would a trump supporter, maybe.

Honestly, I don't know my reaction had things gone the other way and Clinton won under such tainted circumstances. You are correct about my first political post HERE being after Trump won. Those who know me and are friends with me on social media know that I've been pretty outspoken in my political views for a very long time. It started for me when I was in college when I was by a dorm-mate/'friend' that the only reason i voted Clinton ('96) was because of the color of my skin. Then I was told by others that I was going to hell for not being a Christian.... viewpoints that my naive world view thought were extinguished in American society. Man was I wrong.

benjs

vaggar99 said:

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

ledvedderman said:

No it's not. Tainted is a stretch. Russia hacked the parties and some states registration systems. There's zero evidence that even one vote anywhere was changed.
We lost this election. It's as simple of that. An imperfect messenger delivering an imperfect message lost to a total loser with a hate filled message.

we all know this election was stolen, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. T won by a handful of votes in a few states. States that were in the bag for Clinton. Yes, she took them for granted. But don't forget the Comey letter. What was her national lead before that? 12 points?

First, you need to understand something: ethics are not mandated in government, and ethical behaviour often doesn't align with the two things that politicians and businesspeople seek in a democratic capitalist society - capital, and/or political sway (and one typically begets the other). With this basic premise, you have to appreciate that behaving ethically adds friction to a person's ability to produce what society deems 'success', and most people will opt to take the path of least resistance. A populace which has encouraged their government to run on autopilot by their complacency and focus on entertainment over information is largely responsible for this.

Next - 'stolen' means unlawfully taken. Leaking private emails that revealed true intentions of the DNC is not traceable nor directly responsible for Trump's win - and an easy solution for Clinton and the DNC would've been to either not put sensitive information and/or conversation about lies to the public over email, or better yet, to just be fucking honest. As for the hacking of registration systems, as far as I've seen this is completely unvalidated and equally untraceable - it could've been a group like Anonymous, an organization whose malice goes ignored when they reveal truths that we want to hear or choose targets we dislike.

Moving onto Comey, a man who was put in a difficult position. We can only postulate about the validity of his team's information, first of all: Had Comey's letter not come out, the election results been opposite, and the hacking scandal been proven true - his department would have looked equally biased and unprofessional. The major difference would be that you wouldn't have cared since Trump didn't win, but the uncertainties and perception of bias and unprofessionalism remain the same.

On the topic of states 'in the bag' - that expression exists because of precedence, and precedence is only relevant when situations are alike. The campaign styles, focus by politicians on themselves over the nation's problems, and the fact that the nation is firmly planted in the post-truth era where entertainment supersedes information, are all ways that this election cycle was unlike any before it. To be honest, in hindsight, I don't know why more people are surprised to see that this outcome wasn't predicted.

Finally, if Clinton had won the election, and it was "stolen" in the same but opposite way - I don't believe you for a second that you'd be having this conversation. Your first post here on the topic of politicians was after Trump won, so there's no reason to suspect your attendance had the results been different.

I disagree with you on the ethics mandate. Ethics is mandated in government and the business world. That is why we things like the OGE who's sole mandate is to 'prevent and resolve conflicts of interest'. Every large company I've worked at also have similar programs, mainly to keep employees from starting side businesses.

That said, I honestly don't know if what Comey did was ethical or non ethical or just part of his job. All I know is that it did change polling data significantly. Perhaps we will find out more in terms of what factors lead to the disclosure of this info and if he pressured by anyone.

By the in the bag, I meant polling data before Oct 28 showed she had leads in PA, WI and MI that were well outside the margin of error of most every poll out there. Now, there's been some debate about the validity of polls altogether. Sure, I don't really like someone calling me and asking me who i'd vote for, but would I lie about it? no. would a trump supporter, maybe.

Honestly, I don't know my reaction had things gone the other way and Clinton won under such tainted circumstances. You are correct about my first political post HERE being after Trump won. Those who know me and are friends with me on social media know that I've been pretty outspoken in my political views for a very long time. It started for me when I was in college when I was by a dorm-mate/'friend' that the only reason i voted Clinton ('96) was because of the color of my skin. Then I was told by others that I was going to hell for not being a Christian.... viewpoints that my naive world view thought were extinguished in American society. Man was I wrong.

I'm on a phone so I'll keep this succinct.

The existence of an organization like OGE certainly provides (at the very least) the illusion of concern for ethics. Human nature says to look at risk and reward and let those factors guide decisions. Since historically political 'scandals' are quite regularly revealed, and since dotted lines between political actors and blatant conflicts of interest have been well-documented, it's hard to speak positively of the efficacy of the organization. In addition, an ethics committee whose primary purpose is to ensure that employees don't start side businesses is not an ethics committee - it's a non-compete enforcement task force where ethical conduct happens to align with profits.

Comey's choices were limited to "withhold possibly false information" or "produce possibly false information". Given the public's recent desire for transparency and exclusive concern for truthiness (how plausibly truthful it sounds) of information, this suggests that Comey's reputation was far better protected with the action he took than had he withheld info. this election cycle, the Internet was supersaturated with information of true and false varieties, and this is likely to become less and less controllable. The way a populace must fight undue influence is not by discrediting and disallowing false information, but by thinking critically and encouraging and teaching others to do the same. If this doesn't happen, the concentration of power in the world is certain to become more towards those who can entertain and those who can manipulate, as this desire for entertainment grows and desire for information shrinks. This is the trajectory seen today.

Finally, surely you can see why the answer given by a Trump supporter might have been 'no' when asked about a voting direction. Trump and his supporters were demonized to such a tremendous degree, that it's quite audacious to ask for sympathy for undue influence against Clinton (regardless of the location of the actors).

The question that must be asked is whether undue influence constitutes attack. If the answer is yes, how does one enforce and reduce it? What if undue influence is seen through patriotism? How does one find an impartial group to enforce it? For these reasons and many others, I still believe that America's biggest problem isn't Trump or Clinton - it's a population which have lost their collective will to engage in politics (and life in general) in real and meaningful ways where learning and analyzing truths are valued more than being correct.

PJfanwillneverleave1

Latest tweet folks
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump
Intelligence stated very strongly there was absolutely no evidence that hacking affected the election results. Voting machines not touched!
Only reason the hacking of the poorly defended DNC is discussed is that the loss by the Dems was so big that they are totally embarrassed!
Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only "stupid" people, or fools, would think that it is bad! We have enough problems around the world without yet another one. When I am President, Russia will respect us far more than they do now....both countries will, perhaps, work together to solve some of the many great and pressing problems and issues of the WORLD!.

JC29856

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Latest tweet folks
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump
Intelligence stated very strongly there was absolutely no evidence that hacking affected the election results. Voting machines not touched!
Only reason the hacking of the poorly defended DNC is discussed is that the loss by the Dems was so big that they are totally embarrassed!
Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only "stupid" people, or fools, would think that it is bad! We have enough problems around the world without yet another one. When I am President, Russia will respect us far more than they do now.....

Delegitimize Trump storyline: Trump at odds with Intel community. This actually started weeks ago with the "Trump refuses Intel briefings" and months ago "Trump knows more than generals".

Wonder how long after Jan20th Trump and Putin meet?

dignin

JC29856 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Latest tweet folks
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump
Intelligence stated very strongly there was absolutely no evidence that hacking affected the election results. Voting machines not touched!
Only reason the hacking of the poorly defended DNC is discussed is that the loss by the Dems was so big that they are totally embarrassed!
Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only "stupid" people, or fools, would think that it is bad! We have enough problems around the world without yet another one. When I am President, Russia will respect us far more than they do now.....

Delegitimize Trump storyline: Trump at odds with Intel community. This actually started weeks ago with the "Trump refuses Intel briefings" and months ago "Trump knows more than generals".

Wonder how long after Jan20th Trump and Putin meet?

vaggar99

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

ledvedderman said:

No it's not. Tainted is a stretch. Russia hacked the parties and some states registration systems. There's zero evidence that even one vote anywhere was changed.
We lost this election. It's as simple of that. An imperfect messenger delivering an imperfect message lost to a total loser with a hate filled message.

I disagree with you on the ethics mandate. Ethics is mandated in government and the business world. That is why we things like the OGE who's sole mandate is to 'prevent and resolve conflicts of interest'. Every large company I've worked at also have similar programs, mainly to keep employees from starting side businesses.

That said, I honestly don't know if what Comey did was ethical or non ethical or just part of his job. All I know is that it did change polling data significantly. Perhaps we will find out more in terms of what factors lead to the disclosure of this info and if he pressured by anyone.

By the in the bag, I meant polling data before Oct 28 showed she had leads in PA, WI and MI that were well outside the margin of error of most every poll out there. Now, there's been some debate about the validity of polls altogether. Sure, I don't really like someone calling me and asking me who i'd vote for, but would I lie about it? no. would a trump supporter, maybe.

Honestly, I don't know my reaction had things gone the other way and Clinton won under such tainted circumstances. You are correct about my first political post HERE being after Trump won. Those who know me and are friends with me on social media know that I've been pretty outspoken in my political views for a very long time. It started for me when I was in college when I was by a dorm-mate/'friend' that the only reason i voted Clinton ('96) was because of the color of my skin. Then I was told by others that I was going to hell for not being a Christian.... viewpoints that my naive world view thought were extinguished in American society. Man was I wrong.

I'm on a phone so I'll keep this succinct.

The existence of an organization like OGE certainly provides (at the very least) the illusion of concern for ethics. Human nature says to look at risk and reward and let those factors guide decisions. Since historically political 'scandals' are quite regularly revealed, and since dotted lines between political actors and blatant conflicts of interest have been well-documented, it's hard to speak positively of the efficacy of the organization. In addition, an ethics committee whose primary purpose is to ensure that employees don't start side businesses is not an ethics committee - it's a non-compete enforcement task force where ethical conduct happens to align with profits.

Comey's choices were limited to "withhold possibly false information" or "produce possibly false information". Given the public's recent desire for transparency and exclusive concern for truthiness (how plausibly truthful it sounds) of information, this suggests that Comey's reputation was far better protected with the action he took than had he withheld info. this election cycle, the Internet was supersaturated with information of true and false varieties, and this is likely to become less and less controllable. The way a populace must fight undue influence is not by discrediting and disallowing false information, but by thinking critically and encouraging and teaching others to do the same. If this doesn't happen, the concentration of power in the world is certain to become more towards those who can entertain and those who can manipulate, as this desire for entertainment grows and desire for information shrinks. This is the trajectory seen today.

Finally, surely you can see why the answer given by a Trump supporter might have been 'no' when asked about a voting direction. Trump and his supporters were demonized to such a tremendous degree, that it's quite audacious to ask for sympathy for undue influence against Clinton (regardless of the location of the actors).

The question that must be asked is whether undue influence constitutes attack. If the answer is yes, how does one enforce and reduce it? What if undue influence is seen through patriotism? How does one find an impartial group to enforce it? For these reasons and many others, I still believe that America's biggest problem isn't Trump or Clinton - it's a population which have lost their collective will to engage in politics (and life in general) in real and meaningful ways where learning and analyzing truths are valued more than being correct.

haha...'succinct'. were you being sarcastic or are you telling me you could have written War and Peace in the same time had you had a true qwerty in front of you?

i suppose i didn't address your second paragraph previously. I do think if a foreign government is able to influence an election in the way Russia apparently has, we are well beyond the realm of ethics and into the realm of espionage. and yes, something was stolen. proprietary data. had an American done this and was caught, he/she would be in a maximum security federal lockup right now.

I'll admit that there is little direct evidence of election data tampering. and yes, if there was, it didn't have to be Putin. It could have been anyone who knows how to hack given the weak security on thousands of these machines (the ones that run Win XP particularly). Or perhaps, you just need a grand conspiracy in which votes were physically added to the system by means of fake ballots? I would say the likelihood of this is remote. Also, the more i look at exit poll data from states like Utah and Missouri, the more I am convinced that people do in fact lie to pollsters. codered2014.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016PresidentialExitPoll-VoteCountComparative.pdf

I understand the argument for transparency in regards to Comey. My main question would be the timing of it and what outside factors prompted the letter. remember the investigation was closed. all they had were more emails to look at. the same ones they already had. the only difference this time was a weiner named Weiner. Bill Maher promised to kill him for us. What would have happened to his reputation had Comey not said anything? probably nothing, because there was nothing in those emails.

I will say quite easily this was an attack. The information was stolen by Russians. Cyberattack, textbook. How to reduce, enforce? I don't know. Who would have expected an attack on DNC/RNC servers? Now that's its happened, I bet it won't happen again. I am sure there are people/groups looking for the next big score already and unless something changes, next time it might actually be a massive hack to voting machines.

Not sure what you meant 'by undue influence by patriotism'. If by that you meant, internal forces doing the same thing, i sort of answered that above. But please elaborate.

Yes, most people only care about posting pictures of their kids and food on social media. Any serious conversation is deemed a downer and most move on to what makes them feel more liked/popular. After all, how many likes is posting a serious white paper about Trump's conflicts of interest going to get vs a pic of the family having a good time? I can tell you from experience, 0 vs dozens. So this is the grand frustration of a knowledge seeker. I suppose we take solace in the knowledge that knowledge is our niche in the world.

Bentleyspop

https://youtu.be/QFmLReorTSY

benjs

Succinct was the intention, but didn't go according to plan

I find it absurd to try to draw a line in the sand on where influence may come from, or when it is defined as undue. Influence has never known boundaries, and has only been restricted by the tools we had to broadcast. With the advancements of the Internet, it's natural and inevitable that the sphere of influence is expanded to global. If you're talking about the leaked emails, it is completely unknown who leaked them. To assume it was Russia because they had a good reason to want Trump in office is illogical: how many countless other entities would be benefited by a Republican government in the USA? The answer to that also answers how many other entities could have been involved in the leak. I'll also say once again, between the act of exposing egregious behaviours and the act of performing them, I think one greatly outweighs the other, and I suspect we differ on what that answer is.

I'm glad you're conceding on the manipulation of votes. The lack of critical thought in the USA makes influence the far preferable form of achieving the desired election outcome: zero risk, fully legal, and proven to be effective.

I've said my piece on Comey. Two bad options - withhold uncertain information, share uncertain information. Comey's inaction was in itself an action, so one needed to be selected. He possessed the sapiential authority to make that choice, and ultimately the public must accept that.

As I said above, I think the American people have shown that it's so easy to manipulate their minds through influence, that Russia or nefarious actors need not ever pursue the illegal route of vote manipulation.

What I meant by undue influence through patriotism is that for years and years, governments have sold their public on the importance of nationalist pride. They have used this to justify malicious attacks, have promoted their form of government as uniquely supreme to all others, and have requested blind (and unearned) faith by their populations. This, of course, is just one form of internal undue influence, but there are countless others.

There is only one solution to the problem of increasing undue influence. It cannot be suppressed, as humans will always move in ways which generate themselves more power. The solution is to Teach America to Think Again (#TATA).

InHiding80

jeffbr said:

vaggar99 said:

yep. he did
us.blastingnews.com/showbiz-tv/2017/01/donald-trump-attacks-arnold-schwarzenegger-on-twitter-for-low-ratings-on-the-apprentice-001374261.html

vaggar99 said:

yep. he did
us.blastingnews.com/showbiz-tv/2017/01/donald-trump-attacks-arnold-schwarzenegger-on-twitter-for-low-ratings-on-the-apprentice-001374261.html

Haha, what an idiot. It looks like Arnold chimed in with a burn:

Trump:
Wow, the ratings are in and Arnold Schwarzenegger got "swamped" (or destroyed) by comparison to the ratings machine, DJT. So much for....being a movie star-and that was season 1 compared to season 14. Now compare him to my season 1. But who cares, he supported Kasich & Hillary

Arnold:
I wish you the best of luck and I hope you'll work for ALL of the American people as aggressively as you worked for your ratings.

We're getting a raw deal from Putin's red heat.

InHiding80

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
President Trump is not in the keep of no socks.
Prove it otherwise.

Translation: "He's not black and democrat so it's okay with me."

It's okay to admit you're biased. It ain't rocket science.

benjs

InHiding80 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
President Trump is not in the keep of no socks.
Prove it otherwise.

Translation: "He's not black and democrat so it's okay with me."

It's okay to admit you're biased. It ain't rocket science.

I really don't think it's fair to imply that pjfan is racist because he appears pro-Trump.