Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 175

Handman said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Trump has managed to find a base so stupid that he can say and do anything and they’ll keep right on supporting him.

If you think 1 person has cornered the market on stupid, talk to Bernie Sanders, ask him how he feels about being cheated by his own people.

😉 (a wink in jest)

Joking or not, it’s not a valid comparison. Sanders “base” were not thrilled when he was doing things like endorsing Hillary. Trump’s base would just keep cheering him no matter what.

Just to make sure, are you insinuating Trump’s base would still cheer him if he endorsed Hillary?

They cheered him after he made of a disable reporter

They cheered him after he said he wanted to ban Muslims from coming into the country’

They cheered him after he said a judge a unqualified because he was Mexican

They cheered him after he insulted the parents of soldier whom made the ultimate sacrifice for the country

They cheered him after he said he would “grab them by the p****”

They cheered him after multiple women accused him of sexual assault/harassment.

After all of that, I am left to wonder just what would cause them to stop cheering him. I don’t think it is a stretch to say they would cheer him no matter what.

Shit, he said himself that they’d still vote for him if he shot someone in cold blood, and he’s probably not wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.

Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.

“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.

Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.

“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

The Internet is no place for such rational conclusions.

EDIT: Fo beat me to it.

Voting for Hillary was the best shot at defeating Trump.

That was me agreeing with you. Damn that sarcasm tag.

Sorry.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

The Internet is no place for such rational conclusions.

EDIT: Fo beat me to it.

Voting for Hillary was the best shot at defeating Trump.

In retrospect, perhaps it wasn’t. At least regarding the primaries.

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

The Internet is no place for such rational conclusions.

EDIT: Fo beat me to it.

Voting for Hillary was the best shot at defeating Trump.

In retrospect, perhaps it wasn’t. At least regarding the primaries.

Signs point to inconsiclusive on that front (though it seems the question will always linger).

One thing I think is probably for certain, Joe Biden would have whooped Trump’s ass. Shame.

Speaking of presidential primaries, I’m everyday more sure of the idea that we’ll see them for both parties in 2020.

Biden would be almost 80 years old at that point, he’d enter office older than when Reagan left. I’m not sure about that. I mean, 70 is pretty much the new 50 for these politicians, but 80 seems remarkably older.

Handman said:

Biden would be almost 80 years old at that point, he’d enter office older than when Reagan left. I’m not sure about that. I mean, 70 is pretty much the new 50 for these politicians, but 80 seems remarkably older.

What? I was talking about last cycle.

DominicCobb said:

I’m everyday more sure of the idea that we’ll see them for both parties in 2020.

What?

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

I’m everyday more sure of the idea that we’ll see them for both parties in 2020.

What?

Read the rest of the post. “Them” refers to presidential primaries.

I made it a separate post on purpose but alas.

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

The Internet is no place for such rational conclusions.

EDIT: Fo beat me to it.

Voting for Hillary was the best shot at defeating Trump.

In retrospect, perhaps it wasn’t. At least regarding the primaries.

1. If you will look at my original post, you will see I was talking about the general election and not the primaries. Btw, I a RINO(Repubican in name only), I didn’t vote in the Democratic Primary. In the Republican Primary(which was basically locked up before it got to my state), I voted for Kasich.

2. Considering that the President has either been Democrat or Republican since before both my parents were born, I don’t know how you could say that(especially when you consider that Hillary won the popular election). Once the Republican and Democratic nominations were locked up, it was overwhelmingly obvious that either Hillary or Trump was going to win. Therefore, if one wants to oppose Trump, best way to do that is vote for Hillary(in the general election).

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.

Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.

“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.

Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.

“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”

SilverWook said:

Trumpy is starting to lose some fans.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/health/opioid-trump-supporter-medicaid-health-care-reform/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/23/moss-former-trump-supporter-tapper-lead-intv.cnn

And I think Trumpy owes Chevy Chase a check for stealing his catch phrase.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/trump-time-interview-wiretaps-falsehoods/index.html

CNN is probably not the best source for unbiased and accurate reporting, IMO anyways.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/03/23/bob_woodward_if_obama_unmasked_trump_teams_names_it_would_be_a_gross_violation.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/house-staffers-investigation-equipment-234586

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/325443-wikileaks-publishes-cia-apple-hacking-tactics

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

The Internet is no place for such rational conclusions.

EDIT: Fo beat me to it.

Voting for Hillary was the best shot at defeating Trump.

In retrospect, perhaps it wasn’t. At least regarding the primaries.

1. If you will look at my original post, you will see I was talking about the general election and not the primaries. Btw, I a RINO(Repubican in name only), I didn’t vote in the Democratic Primary. In the Republican Primary(which was basically locked up before it got to my state), I voted for Kasich.

You live in a closed primary state?

Warbler said:

Handman said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Trump has managed to find a base so stupid that he can say and do anything and they’ll keep right on supporting him.

If you think 1 person has cornered the market on stupid, talk to Bernie Sanders, ask him how he feels about being cheated by his own people.

😉 (a wink in jest)

Joking or not, it’s not a valid comparison. Sanders “base” were not thrilled when he was doing things like endorsing Hillary. Trump’s base would just keep cheering him no matter what.

Just to make sure, are you insinuating Trump’s base would still cheer him if he endorsed Hillary?

They cheered him after he made of a disable reporter

They cheered him after he said he wanted to ban Muslims from coming into the country’

They cheered him after he said a judge a unqualified because he was Mexican

They cheered him after he insulted the parents of soldier whom made the ultimate sacrifice for the country

They cheered him after he said he would “grab them by the p****”

They cheered him after multiple women accused him of sexual assault/harassment.

After all of that, I am left to wonder just what would cause them to stop cheering him. I don’t think it is a stretch to say they would cheer him no matter what.

The only uniting factor between all Trump voters is that they all prefer him over Hillary. Him endorsing Hillary is pretty much the only thing he could do to upset his entire base at once. Trump does not have the power to make people believe things contrary to what they actually believe only, because it’s him that said it (I hope that wasn’t phrased too confusingly).

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.

Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.

“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.

Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.

“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”

SilverWook said:

Trumpy is starting to lose some fans.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/health/opioid-trump-supporter-medicaid-health-care-reform/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/23/moss-former-trump-supporter-tapper-lead-intv.cnn

And I think Trumpy owes Chevy Chase a check for stealing his catch phrase.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/trump-time-interview-wiretaps-falsehoods/index.html

CNN is probably not the best source for unbiased and accurate reporting, IMO anyways.

Feel free to point out the biased and inaccurate parts of those articles.

TV’s Frink said:

?

That’s right, I forgot, you did say no-one understands anything I say.

Jetrell Fo said:

LOL (being politely serious so as not to give anyone the idea that I’m being a jerk.)

fixed

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.

Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.

“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.

Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.

“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”

SilverWook said:

Trumpy is starting to lose some fans.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/health/opioid-trump-supporter-medicaid-health-care-reform/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/23/moss-former-trump-supporter-tapper-lead-intv.cnn

And I think Trumpy owes Chevy Chase a check for stealing his catch phrase.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/trump-time-interview-wiretaps-falsehoods/index.html

CNN is probably not the best source for unbiased and accurate reporting, IMO anyways.

Feel free to point out the biased and inaccurate parts of those articles.

It’s CNN, that says it all really. I picked a few paragraphs from the article below.

http://www.economist.com/node/21563298

CNN is good at reporting hard news, because it has lots of good reporters. It has 45 bureaus around the world—more than Fox News and MSNBC combined—and about 4,000 employees. Its ratings soar whenever there is a terrorist attack, flood or war. When American embassies were recently stormed in Libya, Yemen and Egypt, for example, CNN got a lift.

When the news is about words rather than action, however, CNN struggles. Conservative viewers like to hear Fox’s Bill O’Reilly fume about “far-left loons”. Liberals like to hear MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow condescend to conservatives. Gasbags in a studio are cheaper than camera crews in the Middle East, which may be why CNN’s profit margins (around 37%) are less than MSNBC’s (46%) and Fox’s (55%).

If the next boss chooses to differentiate CNN further from its rivals, by commissioning more global reporting and less hot air, it will cost a packet. But Mr Whitaker is bullish: “If it got our ratings up substantially, it would be worth it,” he says.

Jetrell Fo said:

LOL (being politely serious so as not to give anyone the idea that I’m being a jerk.)

I don’t get this either, but that’s fine.

Jetrell Fo said:

It’s CNN, that says it all really.

It doesn’t, but that’s fine.

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

The Internet is no place for such rational conclusions.

EDIT: Fo beat me to it.

Voting for Hillary was the best shot at defeating Trump.

In retrospect, perhaps it wasn’t. At least regarding the primaries.

1. If you will look at my original post, you will see I was talking about the general election and not the primaries. Btw, I a RINO(Repubican in name only), I didn’t vote in the Democratic Primary. In the Republican Primary(which was basically locked up before it got to my state), I voted for Kasich.

You live in a closed primary state?

You can change parties right at the polls if you want, but other than that, you vote in the primary of the party you belong to. I was unwilling to change parties(and changing to Democrat and voting in the Dem primary and then changing right back to Republican just didn’t seem right to me), so I had to vote in the Republican primary. It really didn’t matter, both contests were basically over by the time it got to my state.

btw, If I were to have voted in the Democratic primary, it wouldn’t have been for Hillary.

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

LOL (being politely serious so as not to give anyone the idea that I’m being a jerk.)

I don’t get this either, but that’s fine.

I know you don’t, but that’s fine too. 😃 (speaking politely)

Jetrell Fo said:

I picked a few paragraphs from the article below.

http://www.economist.com/node/21563298

CNN is good at reporting hard news, because it has lots of good reporters. It has 45 bureaus around the world—more than Fox News and MSNBC combined—and about 4,000 employees. Its ratings soar whenever there is a terrorist attack, flood or war. When American embassies were recently stormed in Libya, Yemen and Egypt, for example, CNN got a lift.

When the news is about words rather than action, however, CNN struggles. Conservative viewers like to hear Fox’s Bill O’Reilly fume about “far-left loons”. Liberals like to hear MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow condescend to conservatives. Gasbags in a studio are cheaper than camera crews in the Middle East, which may be why CNN’s profit margins (around 37%) are less than MSNBC’s (46%) and Fox’s (55%).

If the next boss chooses to differentiate CNN further from its rivals, by commissioning more global reporting and less hot air, it will cost a packet. But Mr Whitaker is bullish: “If it got our ratings up substantially, it would be worth it,” he says.

This is irrelevant to the articles posted. Again, please point out the bias and inaccuracies in the articles.

Lol!

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-healthcare-pass-ahca-obamacare-2017-3

President Donald Trump is giving House Republicans an ultimatum: Pass the American Health Care Act on Friday, or Obamacare stays.

Mick Mulvaney, the Office of Budget and Management director, made clear to Republicans on Thursday night that Trump wants a vote Friday and that he is done negotiating on the bill to overhaul healthcare. If it is not passed, the president will move on from the bill, reports said.