Let's go baby!

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

I think Senate rules give a precedent to impeachment, so the idea would be to initiate impeachment as a way to push back the confirmation.

She is in the House and impeachment for his Constitutional duty lol??? Whatever. It is a done deal even Mittens is on board.

33 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

buuuuut, you're voting for Biden, right?

And please stop with the WW1 fallen soldiers story.  It's been refuted by everyone who was there. 

Except for John Kelly. Who he reportedly stated the comments to. Who has specifically not refuted it, despite having come forward in the past to do so.

That says a lot, IMHO.

Just now, Diehardfan said:

She is in the House and impeachment for his Constitutional duty lol??? Whatever. It is a done deal even Mittens is on board.

He wouldn't be impeached for nominating a justice. He's committed at least a dozen impeachable offenses since the last time he was impeached. 

1 hour ago, mr_hunt said:

If liberals are so sure he is going to lose and they will stack the court why so desperate to stop it lol

10 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

The crap the Dems pulled with Kavanaugh is a hell of a point.

It's almost like you don't understand how the Senate even works. The America people didn't vote for a majority. 36 states in 2014 of which 6 were strong R states added an R seat. 13 were held and 2 were flipped but about to be flipped back to a Democrat. Dems gained two seats in 2016 and dropped two in 2018 in hard R states. The Republicans had 24M votes in 2014 to 20M for the Dems then have gotten smashed with 40M to 51M and 34M to 52M. So no idiots the "majority" of Americans did not vote for them. The majority of empty land like the Dakotas, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming voted for Rs and there is more empty land in this country.

1 minute ago, Gannan said:

He wouldn't be impeached for nominating a justice. He's committed at least a dozen impeachable offenses since the last time he was impeached. 

Lol BS. And if that was the case she should have tried again by now. Desperation baby lol 

1 minute ago, Ride the Walrus said:

It's almost like you don't understand how the Senate even works. The America people didn't vote for a majority. 36 states in 2014 of which 6 were strong R states added an R seat. 13 were held and 2 were flipped but about to be flipped back to a Democrat. Dems gained two seats in 2016 and dropped two in 2018 in hard R states. The Republicans had 24M votes in 2014 to 20M for the Dems then have gotten smashed with 40M to 51M and 34M to 52M. So no idiots the "majority" of Americans did not vote for them. The majority of empty land like the Dakotas, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming voted for Rs and there is more empty land in this 

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Lol BS. And if that was the case she should have tried again by now. Desperation baby lol 

Why should she have tried? The republicans made it abundantly clear the last time that no matter what crimes he commits they will not hold him accountable. Like he is fond of saying "I could shoot someone on 5th avenue" (hence why you are all referred to as "5th avenue Trumpbots"). Should he steal a second term and the democrats take the senate, he will surely be impeached again. 

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

He's consistently ranked around the top-5 presidents of all time by historians who run the ideological gambit.

Your "smartest man in the room" act gets old fast.

Don't even bother with him. He's one of those low level managers that everyone ishes on that thinks he is hot ish. It is quite funny reading his stuff as I know the exact type and it is humorous levels of projecting. Next he'll tell you that George Washington and Abe Lincoln were some of the worst too. I mean freeing the slaves was a total mistake right?

13 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

You are making everything into absolutes.  Does Trump ALWAYS say exactly what's on his mind, no...of course not.  Does he do it far too often?  Yes, he does.  I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with this.  

He didn't say what was on his mind when it came to protecting the lives of tens of thousands of Americans.  And his lies put American lives in danger and killed a lot of people.  So, who cares otherwise?  I mean, if he says what's on his mind when it comes to personal grudges but then holds his tongue when it comes to protecting American lives, then why in the world would anyone give him credit for saying what's on his mind?  It really shows where your priorities are.

16 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

And please spare me the drama about the WW1 comments.  I have been very critical of Trump's comments about McCain.  If the WW1 stuff turns out to be true I will openly condemn that too.  However, today, there is far more evidence that these comments weren't said that otherwise.  Kelly has shown a propensity for anti-Trumpism and assuming he the anonymous source, I'm really not sure what credibility he has. 

There's never going to be a moment when this story "turns out to be true".  It was something said behind closed doors.  You either believe a known liar who's already trashed POW's in the past, trashed a gold star family and dodged the draft or you believe John Kelly, a decorated veteran.  He has far more credibility than Trump.  We both know it. 

Point is, Trump isn't patriotic at all.  Trump's the opposite of patriotic.  He's proven it over and over again.  He hugs flags sometimes.  That's it.  Flags don't make someone patriotic.  Putting the country above yourself makes someone patriotic.  And Trump has never once in his entire life done that.  

8 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

You are making everything into absolutes.  Does Trump ALWAYS say exactly what's on his mind, no...of course not.  Does he do it far too often?  Yes, he does.  I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with this.  

And please spare me the drama about the WW1 comments.  I have been very critical of Trump's comments about McCain.  If the WW1 stuff turns out to be true I will openly condemn that too.  However, today, there is far more evidence that these comments weren't said that otherwise.  Kelly has shown a propensity for anti-Trumpism and assuming he the anonymous source, I'm really not sure what credibility he has. 

So he speaks his mind, except when he doesn't, and when his private and public comments are completely at odds we just pick the one we like? I don't get it.

To your second paragraph, so if someone is critical of Trump they are just to be dismissed as anti-Trump? Everything is personal? At what point does the long list of people who have worked for Trump and who now speak out against him, in many cases illustrating instances where Trump has behaved in a manner detrimental to the nation and at odds with his public persona, become more than just TDS and start to represent the truth? 50? 100? is there a number? Or is anyone who is critical of Trump simply coming from a place of personal hatred by definition?

Because it sounds like you're constructing a line of thinking where anyone who is critical of Trump is simply by definition not someone whose opinion you're going to count.

6 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Why should she have tried? The republicans made it abundantly clear the last time that no matter what crimes he commits they will not hold him accountable. Like he is fond of saying "I could shoot someone on 5th avenue" (hence why you are all referred to as "5th avenue Trumpbots"). Should he steal a second term and the democrats take the senate, he will surely be impeached again. 

Lol if the first coup d'état fails they keep trying 

6 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

 

Believe what you want but the system is beyond broken. One state could have 100M people and have 2 senators, but 5 states could each have 1 person and have 2 senators apiece. Empty land governing is a terrible idea and fundamentally bound to fail.

8 minutes ago, Ride the Walrus said:

 

Believe what you want but the system is beyond broken. One state could have 100M people and have 2 senators, but 5 states could each have 1 person and have 2 senators apiece. Empty land governing is a terrible idea and fundamentally bound to fail.

11 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Why do you think he "didn't even support the white working class?" 

"White working class" wages, if we're defining them as whites without a college degree (that's broad, yes, but it's the accepted proxy available to us in these stats) , along with working class wages across all races, have been diverging more and more significantly from the educated/white collar worker class since 1980. It didn't start under Obama, and nothing Obama did accelerated it (or decelerated it, from what I can see).

Separately, you talk frequently about separating Trump's rhetoric from his actions. What actions has he taken that have actually improved the situation for the white working class voter? His rhetoric lays claim to a "blue collar boom", but that is not supported by the numbers.

So he makes an assertion, his supporters rarely fact check it and take it as truth. When challenged, we have TDS. How are we to have a conversation like this?

If you want to have a real conversation, I'm all ears. I would love to have an actual debate about what's actually going on with numbers. 

They're not as rosy as Trump likes to contend. There has not been some amazing rebirth of manufacturing. Yes, it's been growing, but not in a manner particularly different from under Obama (even accounting for starting from the financial crisis):

I don't exactly spot some major boon under Trump, and it was really flat in 2019. Do you see something I do not? Because if you want to talk from the same set of facts, this is one place we have to start.

What other numbers do you want to discuss? 

Sure, I'll play the game with you again where I post a statistic and you go find another one to refute it.  How about we start with the unemployment rate at the end of 2019.

1. White People 16 and Over: 3.1%
2. Black People 16 and Over: 6.1%
3. Hispanic People 16 and Over: 3.9%
4. Asian People 16 and Over: 2.2% 
5. All People 16 and Over: 3.5%  Lowest Since 1953

*Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

it's 9/22/20

12 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Ali Wentworth says she cried for 45 minutes in the car with her daughters and husband George Stephanopolus after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died...

 

...

Her husband, Stephanopoulos, 59, was immediately summoned to report on air via his cellphone.

'George runs out, by the way, with the wallet. And me and our two [teenage] girls, Elliott and Harper, we are just sitting at this restaurant for 45 minutes, enraged that he's just left us. So then I go outside, I see George pacing on the street. I come back in. We keep going 'Daddy, Daddy.' bugging him. He's live on ABC, talking about Ruth Bader Ginsburg,' Wentworth began admitting she didn't know at the time whom he was speaking with.  

'I'm going 'Hope she's worth it, whatever woman he's seeing,' We finally get in the car. Me and the girls get into the car. We are waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting. He finally comes in. He bursts into tears. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died. My two daughters. We sat there in the parking lot, crying for 45 minutes.'       

 

 

yup...emotional children

35 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

So he speaks his mind, except when he doesn't, and when his private and public comments are completely at odds we just pick the one we like? I don't get it.

To your second paragraph, so if someone is critical of Trump they are just to be dismissed as anti-Trump? Everything is personal? At what point does the long list of people who have worked for Trump and who now speak out against him, in many cases illustrating instances where Trump has behaved in a manner detrimental to the nation and at odds with his public persona, become more than just TDS and start to represent the truth? 50? 100? is there a number? Or is anyone who is critical of Trump simply coming from a place of personal hatred by definition?

Because it sounds like you're constructing a line of thinking where anyone who is critical of Trump is simply by definition not someone whose opinion you're going to count.

You are projecting again.  I think you all have every right to be critical of Trump.  I even think some of your reasons for hating him make sense.  If I was a Democrat I would very likely feel the same way.  What I push back on is when you and others refuse accept that there are other ways to look at this last four years.  Almost half the country agrees with me, yet you dismiss them as stupid "Trumpbots" because they don't think like you do.  

The WW1 comments thing is a horrible example of anything, including TDS.  It's simply not fact based until someone goes on record.  

9 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

 

 

Don't laugh. When the big macs finally catch up to Trump, I hope you've saved up your sick days and they keep you away from sharp objects and sleeping pills. 

12 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Sure, I'll play the game with you again where I post a statistic and you go find another one to refute it.  How about we start with the unemployment rate at the end of 2019.

1. White People 16 and Over: 3.1%
2. Black People 16 and Over: 6.1%
3. Hispanic People 16 and Over: 3.9%
4. Asian People 16 and Over: 2.2% 
5. All People 16 and Over: 3.5%  Lowest Since 1953

*Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

Numbers at a point in time are not meaningful. They require context.

The above is the UE number for a decade. I'm not going to talk about the COVID era because that's obviously unfair. But look at the long term trend there.

If we take the previous three years under Obama - so Jan 2014 to Jan 2017 - it went from 6.6% -> 4.7%.  Then it went from 4.7% -> 3.6% the subsequent three years. 

For certain the lower you get the more resistance you'll see, and historically once you get UEs under around 4% you start to see wage inflation, but again I ask - if Trump represented some major change in policy that suddenly unlocked something, where is the sharp change in trajectory? 

Inevitably now we'll talk about labor participation rates. They've been trending generally downward for quite a while, and bottomed out around 2014. They've been edging up very very slightly since, then dropped off significantly with COVID but again that's extenuating circumstances and at least within these numbers were going to look bad irrespective of what Trump did so let's just not look at those.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Numbers at a point in time are not meaningful. They require context.

The above is the UE number for a decade. I'm not going to talk about the COVID era because that's obviously unfair. But look at the long term trend there.

If we take the previous three years under Obama - so Jan 2014 to Jan 2017 - it went from 6.6% -> 4.7%.  Then it went from 4.7% -> 3.6% the subsequent three years. 

For certain the lower you get the more resistance you'll see, and historically once you get UEs under around 4% you start to see wage inflation, but again I ask - if Trump represented some major change in policy that suddenly unlocked something, where is the sharp change in trajectory? 

Inevitably now we'll talk about labor participation rates. They've been trending generally downward for quite a while, and bottomed out around 2014. They've been edging up very very slightly since, then dropped off significantly with COVID but again that's extenuating circumstances and at least within these numbers were going to look bad irrespective of what Trump did so let's just not look at those.

Honestly, I can't even keep up with the hypocrisy in here.  So, Trump is responsible for no PPE left in the national reserve after Obama and Biden depleted it for H1N1 because "he's the President now".  But, Trump doesn't get credit for the lowest unemployment rates in almost 70 years because the trend happened to start under Obama?  Stop it.  

19 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

 

 

So if you're married to George Stepanapoulos, wouldn't the first thing you'd assume if he was on the phone for 45 minutes was that some big news event had just happened?  That story makes no sense.