Donald Trump

Halifax2TheMax

Maybe the voters of Kentucky should watch this.

https://apple.news/AQsPw1UwESfO4Y3EEczN_iA

cincybearcat

OnWis97 said:

From the outside, looking in, none of you are coming out of this as winners.

Yup, you are probably right. Frustration builds up. Cheers!

OnWis97

Tiki said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

When does this shutdown end?

I agree that the Democrats will not buckle on this issue- they'll let McDonald hang himself because ultimately, that's what he is doing. This is an egregious act.

* And for the record... nobody is ignoring anything Trump is doing. He is not distracting anyone from the 'serious' issues because some people want to laugh at him for walking around with toilet paper on his shoes or make fun of him for his flopper flopping around on his head.

It's not only McDonald it's McConnell as well.
Put it to a VOTE.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/425414-mcconnell-blocks-house-bill-to-reopen-government-for-second-time

I really believe that Mitch McConnell's name will be the second-most-famous name (#1, of course, is Individual 1) when we look back on this time.  Depending on how much is proven regarding Trump working for Putin/Russia, "Mitch McConnell" may ring in our ears the way "Benedict Arnold" does.  He's turning his back on his country to serve Trump.  Why?  Is it simply because he comes from a red state and wants to win?  Is it because Trump has threatened to fire his wife if he doesn't?  Or does Trump and/or Putin have something on him?  He's at best a coward.  History's going to look badly upon him.

mrussel1

OnWis97 said:

Tiki said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

When does this shutdown end?

I agree that the Democrats will not buckle on this issue- they'll let McDonald hang himself because ultimately, that's what he is doing. This is an egregious act.

* And for the record... nobody is ignoring anything Trump is doing. He is not distracting anyone from the 'serious' issues because some people want to laugh at him for walking around with toilet paper on his shoes or make fun of him for his flopper flopping around on his head.

It's not only McDonald it's McConnell as well.
Put it to a VOTE.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/425414-mcconnell-blocks-house-bill-to-reopen-government-for-second-time

I really believe that Mitch McConnell's name will be the second-most-famous name (#1, of course, is Individual 1) when we look back on this time.  Depending on how much is proven regarding Trump working for Putin/Russia, "Mitch McConnell" may ring in our ears the way "Benedict Arnold" does.  He's turning his back on his country to serve Trump.  Why?  Is it simply because he comes from a red state and wants to win?  Is it because Trump has threatened to fire his wife if he doesn't?  Or does Trump and/or Putin have something on him?  He's at best a coward.  History's going to look badly upon him.

Mitch is a coward.  I think history will forget him.  That's almost worse.  Devin Nunnes is the person that will be remembered as the Great Enabler, the one who ran interference and stymied the investigation.  The one who was not involved in the crime yet inserted himself in the cover up, like a damned fool.  

Meltdown99

mrussel1

^classic..

mrussel1

EDIT - those headlines on the side are even better!  
Bears sign Kareem Hunt!!   John Gruden joke!  

Halifax2TheMax

Drain the swamp? Sure, suckers.

T-Mobile announced a merger needing Trump administration approval. The next day, 9 executives had reservations at Trump’s hotel.

Such visits raise questions about whether patronizing Trump’s private business is viewed as a way to influence public policy, critics said.

By Jonathan O'Connell, David Fahrenthold  •  Read more »

The Juggler

Hey, didn't we defeat ISIS?

So confused.

Meltdown99

mrussel1 said:

EDIT - those headlines on the side are even better!  
Bears sign Kareem Hunt!!   John Gruden joke!  

I like the bottom one, Antonio Brown out 4-6 weeks with a bruised ego.

Meltdown99

The Juggler said:

Hey, didn't we defeat ISIS?

So confused.

I guess not...

oftenreading

The Juggler said:

Hey, didn't we defeat ISIS?

So confused.

Last gasp, apparently. 

mrussel1

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

EDIT - those headlines on the side are even better!  
Bears sign Kareem Hunt!!   John Gruden joke!  

I like the bottom one, Antonio Brown out 4-6 weeks with a bruised ego.

They're all fabulous.  Kudos to the creator on that one.  

Kat

mrussel1 said:

**BREAKING NEWS** @HughFreakingDillon @cincybearcat

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/425598-michael-strahan-invites-clemson-tigers-out-for-lobster-after

I hadn't heard about this...very, very nice.

I did hear about Speaker Pelosi's alternate plan for the SOTU though. Sounds like a good plan. Maybe he'll write it up like he did with his answers to Mueller...all by himself, right?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/politics/nancy-pelosi-state-of-the-union-donald-trump/index.html

HughFreakingDillon

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

you know, just because you two have this insatiable need to be right about your own non-outrage-outrage, doesn't make it actually true. it reminds me of that other dude constantly yelling at people that the sky wasn't falling when literally no one was saying it was. 

literally no one gives two fucks about hamberders. it's a fucking joke. 

cue the next post "dude, stop being so distracted by this non-issue. it's mueller time!"

Well, based on my personal observations of some posts, it seems some posters are still sympathetic toward Team Trump Treason, perhaps willing to give a pass for this transgression or that, impatiently waiting for Team Mueller’s report, as if by this point, that’s what it’s going to take for them to realize what a treasonous piece of shit this POTUS is, all the while claiming they hate Team Trump Treason too as they complain about “tone,” or “condescension” or “snark.” Just my observation and disagree if you’d like but really? I could give two shits. 

there it is again. claiming that "some here" are sympathetic to trump in secret. it is just such a ludicrous argument. you are just creating drama for the sake of creating drama so you can argue more. why would anyone claim to hate him but "willing to give him a pass"? please point to an actual post of someone giving him a pass on anything of substance from someone who is actually a supporter. 

cincy is not a supporter. 
I am not a supporter. 

but hey, who ya gonna yell at if we aren't?

I think you give several shits. all of us do, that's why we're here. do any of us care what the others think of us personally? no. get a step ladder for that horse you're on. you might hurt yourself. 

You should get yourself an extension ladder. Quit yer sniveling. If you don’t care about what others think of you personally, why do you complain so whole heartedly when someone disagrees with you and frame it as some kind of personal attack? Hence my “stop being so sensitive.” You and Cincy love to project the personal attacks, claim condescension while doing it as well. Hypocrite much?

I have zero issue with people who disagree with me. I don't see anyone else, like ever, complaining about my "sniveling". 
I don't continually label people as the enemy because they disagree with me.
people disagree with me all the time here. I welcome it. it's called discussion.
I am often wrong. 
I learn from it. 
People are often dicks. 
I learn from that too. 

mrussel1

Kat said:

mrussel1 said:

**BREAKING NEWS** @HughFreakingDillon @cincybearcat

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/425598-michael-strahan-invites-clemson-tigers-out-for-lobster-after

I hadn't heard about this...very, very nice.

I did hear about Speaker Pelosi's alternate plan for the SOTU though. Sounds like a good plan. Maybe he'll write it up like he did with his answers to Mueller...all by himself, right?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/politics/nancy-pelosi-state-of-the-union-donald-trump/index.html

Can you imagine him trying to write an entire paragraph, let alone a speech, all by himself?  What a train wreck.  But it would be comedy gold!

mrussel1

On the AOC page, I was arguing that she was finding out quickly how strong and effective Pelosi is as a speaker.  Here's an opinion piece that hit The Atlantic today.  Curious on others' take  on it, but I think it's on point.  Pelosi plays hardball and she plays to win.  It recounts the SS battle after Bush's re-election.  Remember what THAT was the issue du jour?

Nancy Pelosi Is Winning

Democrats sometimes portray themselves as high-minded and naive—unwilling to play as rough as the GOP. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is, once again, proving that self-image wrong. She’s not only refusing Donald Trump’s demand for a border wall. She’s trying to cripple his presidency. And she may well succeed.

Pelosi’s strategy resembles the one she employed to debilitate another Republican president: George W. Bush. Bush returned to Washington after his 2004 reelection victory determined to partially privatize Social Security. “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital,” he told the press, “and I intend to spend it.” Bush’s plan contained two main elements. The first was convincing the public that there was a crisis. Social Security, he declared in his 2005 State of the Union address, “is headed toward bankruptcy.” The second was persuading Democrats to offer their own proposals for changing it.

As the journalist Matthew Yglesias pointed out not long ago, a fallacy underlay Bush’s argument. Even if you believed Social Security was going bankrupt, diverting some of the tax money that funds it into private accounts wouldn’t solve the problem. It would make the problem worse. To mask that glitch, Bush needed to lure Democrats into offering proposals that actually shored up Social Security’s finances—by cutting benefits, raising taxes, or cutting other spending—but were highly unpopular. Americans would presumably prefer Bush’s cotton candy to the Democrats’ broccoli, and thus empower Bush to fulfill the decades-old conservative goal of ending Social Security as a program of social insurance

Aiding Bush’s effort was the fact that prominent Democrats had proposed tinkering with Social Security in the past. In his State of the Union address, Bush observed, “During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former [Democratic] Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late [Democratic] Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated.” Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman had even toyed with private accounts.

But Pelosi, then House minority leader, wouldn’t take the bait. She denied that Social Security was in crisis. And she refused to offer a plan for changing it. When a member of Congress asked when Democrats would offer their own proposals, she replied, “Never. Is never good enough for you?”

Republicans called Democrats hypocrites for spurning proposals they had once supported. And centrist pundits, while admitting the problems with Bush’s proposal, criticized Democrats for not countering it. In a February 2005 editorial, The Washington Post slammed Democrats for their “silence about alternatives.” In a June editorial titled “Where Are the Democrats?” the Postacknowledged, “No doubt Democrats’ political instincts will be against engaging at this point: Why bail out Mr. Bush now, the strategists will argue, and let him claim that he led the way to putting Social Security on the path to solvency? … But there is also the little matter of what’s right for the country.”

Still, Pelosi, understanding that policy and politics are inseparable, did nothing. Irrespective of the merits of tweaking Social Security, she realized that offering Democratic proposals would divide her caucus and give Bush a political lifeline. Instead, she forced Americans to choose between Social Security as it was and Social Security privatization, maneuvering Bush into a battle that crippled his second term and laid the foundation for Democrats to retake the House in 2006. “The first thing we had to do in 2005 was take the president’s numbers down. Bush was 57 percent in early 2005,” Pelosi recently remarked to The New York Times’ Robert Draper. “His numbers came down to 38 in the fall, and that’s when the retirements [of congressional Republicans] started to happen.”

mrussel1

**Cont**

Pelosi is up to something similar today. Just as Republicans in 2005 reminded Democrats that they once supported altering Social Security, Republicans today keep reminding Democrats that they once supported a border wall. In his Oval Office address last week, Trump observed that “Senator Chuck Schumer … has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past, along with many other Democrats.” The former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen titled a recent column “Democrats Were for a Wall Before They Were Against It.”

As in 2005, high-minded centrists are urging Pelosi and the Democrats to compromise. “Rather than talk about the immorality of a wall,” The Washington Post recently urged, “Democrats could use their leverage to achieve a truly moral purpose. In return for a few billion dollars for a segment of the president’s wall … Democrats might permanently shield from deportation well over 1 million ‘dreamers.’” A recent Bloomberg editorial scolded Democrats for wanting “to deny the other [side] anything that might be portrayed as a victory,” and warned that “the only alternative to compromise, now that power in Washington is more equally divided, is paralysis.”

But Pelosi knows that the alternative to Democratic compromise isn’t necessarily paralysis. It may be Democratic triumph. Trump, like Bush, has picked a fight that is popular with conservatives but unpopular with the public at large. Most Americans don’t think there’s a border crisis, don’t support a border wall, and blame Trump for the shutdown. As a result, Republican members of Congress are under more political pressure to back down than their Democratic counterparts, and the longer the shutdown continues, the more that pressure should grow. For the time being, at least, conservative opposition has forced Trump to shelve talk of declaring a national emergency. All of which means that the most likely outcome to the current standoff is that Trump caves. And since the wall was Trump’s signature campaign promise, such a retreat could depress conservative enthusiasm and impair his chances in 2020. “If he gives in,” Lindsey Graham recently warned, “that’s probably the end of his presidency.”

That’s what Pelosi is aiming for. In pure policy terms, there’s a case for compromise. Arguably, it’s worth wasting a few billion dollars on a border wall to safeguard the “Dreamers” who are stuck in an agonizing legal limbo. But Pelosi is focused on something bigger: the emasculation of the president. For years, Democrats have wondered when their leaders would start playing tough. Turns out Pelosi has been doing so all along.

Bentleyspop

The Juggler said:

Hey, didn't we defeat ISIS?

So confused.

We?
Who the hell is we?
He defeated them all by himself 
It was the biggest most brilliant defeat in the history of defeats ever.

2-feign-reluctance