Hey hey. What party rolled over for Trump? The best and brightest (hahahahahahaha) got crushed by an orange retard. Clean your own damn house.
Johnny LA wrote: “What is the Democrat party?”
Democrat Party: (n) A fictitious organization dedicated to the destruction of America. This is to be accomplished in a variety of methods. Some of these are the taking away of your guns and giving them to gay Muslims, the putting of Fluoride in the water supply, sapping your precious bodily fluids, and the setting up of internment camps in Alaska or closed Wallmarts. The Democrat Party was created by AM radio hosts, right-wing websites, Fox news and all-caps emails from your drunk uncle. It is not to be confused with the actual Democratic Party.
You forgot the Death Panels. For shame, for shame.
Used to have a death panel truck, still would if not for the duct tape famine of '84.
Ah. So when someone says ‘Democrat Party’, they can be disregarded because they’re a mindless drone that is parroting the Party Line.
What a silly double standard.
Your post is a non-sequitur.
How is my post a ‘double standard’?
Now you’re being highly disingenuous and you know it. You’re not even trying anymore.
Do you recall the mass protests and rioting after Obama won in 2008 or 2012? No, you don’t, because it didn’t happen.
Do you recall Republicans calling for, and funding, a recount after Obama won and hoping that the recount produced a different outcome in 2008 or 2012? No, you don’t, because it didn’t happen.
Do you recall Republicans flooding the electoral college voters with phone calls, emails and death threats asking them to vote for someone other than Obama after Obama won in 2008 or 2012? No, you don’t, because it didn’t happen.
Do you recall Republicans deciding to march the day after Inauguration Day after Obama in 2008 or 2012? No, you don’t, because it didn’t happen.
:rolleyes:
“But, but, but… birthers!” isn’t a valid response. It’s nothing more than deflection, especially given the fact that was no concerted effort on the right to have Obama thrown out of office on the grounds of not being born in the US.
No. That was, as per usual, your attempt at deflection. But we’ve been on this rodeo so many times before, and I’m not keen on playing it.
What’s with you and blatant straw men? Do they not teach you have to form a coherent argument in Canadese schools? Can you find me where I ever this? Point to the post number and sentence, please. Otherwise pleas refrain from making shit up.
Which I never said you did, not that it matters to you. What I said was-- and I will quote myself with your words in brackets-- “Can you find where I said [it’s okay if Republicans do it and not okay if Democrats do it]?”
The answer is no you cannot, because you made that claim up. You pulled it out of thin air and have proceeded to argue a complete-- and nonsensical-- strawman. In other words, you’re straight up lying.
Which, again, is par for the course with you.
Which, oddly enough, no one denied (please show quote me stating otherwise). Go figure!
For those of us with calendars and who know how to count, 2009 is before 2010. Yeah, McConnell did say it was his goal to make Obama a one term president-- over a year and a half (closer to two) after Obama claimed “Elections have consequences” and “I won”, and proceeded to engage in his year long victory tour where he showed absolutely no desire to compromise with anyone.
But don’t let facts get in the way of your delusions!
When you also question the legitimacy of the new President, then its more than that.
When there is violence during the protest of the inauguration, then it is more than that.
Do you know how hard it is to defend the protests after videos of rioters smashing in windows and burning cars surfaced?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inauguration-protests-idUSKBN1540J7
People just write the whole thing off. Non-violence should be much more central to all these protests than they are. We have recently seen a lot more violence coming from the left than the right.
I know others are going to come along and try to explain away the violence and justify it somehow but those explanation will only fly in a liberal echo chamber like this board. The folks who are on the fence are getting shoved to the other side. Minimizing the effect of the violence is not doing your side any favors.
You can easily have the former without the latter and Serpico was about the latter, not the former. Your complaint is about the former.
I really think ** OMG** doesn’t see the giant crack in his political savior’s head. How could anyone possibly miss all the writing on that orange wall or pretend it never happened?
cite.
I thought I had listened to the entire Comey speech and I didn’t hear him say that the concerns about her were imaginary. In fact Comey was concerned enough to re-open the investigation when they discovered more emails.
Dimmy, you at it again?
The violence may be wrong, but the questioning has legitimacy. (And they are not always done by the same people I would feel safe in saying.) It’s fact based and contextual. And appropriate to anyone who reads.
Why should people accept donnies mental problems, business conflicts, and plutocratic schemes into their White House? He is not an emperor. And we are not an authoritarian state, yet.
You must have a short memory about the last 20 years.
So you are shot out of the water with your crypto republican swill, once again.
You simply swoon over all things donnie, don’t you?
Being a smart conservative poster is going to demand a lot from you. And you have to give up on donnie. He will bring you down. (And forget Hillary, and and all that blame shifting strategy. It’s going nowhere)
Oh, I’m trying… Anyway, by now you’ve slathered on so many layers of indignant deflection (while accusing me of being the deflector) that the point of original conflict may be lost, so I’ll quote it here:
[INDENT]“But you know as well as I do that there was no coordinated effort against Obama from the right in the way of mass protests or trying to get the election overturned”[/INDENT]
This is just blatantly, stupidly wrong. Let’s break down the clauses:
- “there was no coordinated effort against Obama from the right in the way of mass protests”
Well, I’m tired of waiting for you to define “mass”, so I’ll do it. A “mass” protest is one that attracts 5,000 protesters to a single event or, say… 20,000 protesters to a coordinated set of events (possibly in different cities) with a unified purpose over a short period of time, say… within one month. If you have other numbers or other definitions, present them. There were indeed anti-Obama and anti-governmental protests from 2010-2016, many of them related to the Tea Party. How many were “massive”, as per the above definition? At least a few, I’m sure. I don’t know offhand if all of them put together over those seven years add up to even half or a quarter of the total number of anti-Trump protesters over the last few days but… so what? Peaceable assembly and protest are constitutional rights.
- “there was no coordinated effort against Obama from the right in the way of… trying to get the election overturned”
Bullshit. The Birther movement, whether you personally participated or supported it or not, was a sustained (if quixotic) effort to challenge the legitimacy of Obama’s elections. What did you think the birthers’ end-goal was? To celebrate that a child born in Kenya could one day become President of the United States?
Now, maybe you weren’t blatantly lying. Maybe you just didn’t make the connection. Now is your chance to modify your original statement to say “there was some coordinated effort from the right to get the election overturned, i.e. birtherism”. If you absolutely will not, then the only reasonable conclusion is that you are lying by suggesting your original statement was not a mistake.
The rest of your screed is either feigned shock that Americans would protest (implying that they’re wrong to do so) or just trying to deflect attention from your mistaken “my side never does it” by stressing “the other side does it a lot”, when the correct version is ultimately “both sides do it a lot, sometimes with good motivations, sometimes not.”
What do you think the birthers actually wanted? Was their effort not “concerted”? Were they not by-and-large “on the right”?
You accuse me of semantics but haven’t mastered basic grammar.
I’ve already quoted you on this, including earlier on in this post. Nothing in my argument is made up. I’m willing to entertain different interpretations, including:
- You lied.
- You were honestly mistaken.
- You misspoke.
…but the more indignant you get, the more confident I get in option (1), or at least a combination of (1) and (2) where you were mistaken first, then are trying very hard to lie your way out of admitting your mistake.
That isn’t what you said. What you said was not “it’s okay if Republicans do it”, but that “Republicans don’t do it”. Since Republicans do, the result is that you’re just ignoring their actions or defining their actions in such a way that Republican actions don’t count. The ultimate effect is the same.
Another important thing about the vote for the authorization for the war that seems to be forgotten about is that the Bush presented it as the best way to keep the peace. I.e., “You have to vote for this authorization to convince Saddam we are serious so that he will allow inspectors in.” And, in fact, in that sense it worked…Saddam did allow the inspectors in and they were conducting very intrusive inspections. And, what the inspections showed was that the U.S. intelligence about where there was supposedly WMDs was garbage: Inspectors Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage' - CBS News
And, then Bush invaded anyway.
But now to get back to the original OP, the irony of it is getting a bit overwhelming as I just saw a clip oon CNN of today’s press briefing with Spicer where he was explaining (apparently in an attempt to justify why he could come out and lie to the press about the size of the crowds) how their feelings were hurt when, after all their excitement about the inauguration, the mean, very bad, bullying press had the gall to actually show pictures comparing the crowd to Obama’s inauguration.
Which leads me to ask: Who are the “butt-hurt snowflakes” now? [And at least we don’t use our hurt feelings as an excuse to go around spouting falsehoods like there’s no tomorrow!]
My understanding at the time, and my recollection now, is that the war powers were intended to allow Bush to go to war as a ‘last resort’. But, as you say, he used it as a first resort.
Yeah, ain’t no one got time to respond to all of that. Paraphrase, please.
You made a mistake, but are now lying when when you claim it wasn’t a mistake, mixed in with a lot of irrelevant attempts at deflection.
Exactly.
Nope, I was right, Comey never said that there were grounds to lock her up, only that she did not do things right but not felonies.
What you need to get through your thick skull is that Comey did not re-open the investigation.
And one big reason I do think that is correct is for a very pedantic reason: (Besides seeing no news that Clinton is being indicted at all) that a well seasoned lawyer like Comey resorted to that “supplement” word. Comey did before refer to politicians misinterpreting him, but I do think he was referring mostly about the Republicans. That word (like “is” for former President Clinton) clearly was his scape hatch if later (as it happened) a lot of people would wonder if he had been putting th finger in the scale. Comey not only used it in the new letter to congress, but he used it again in his “clarification”
Now, what would happen if they had come very hard on Comey for supporting the Republicans on the email issue? Simple, he would had pointed out what the word supplement means in the context: As the FBI explained: the case was never closed. only that the part dealing with if Clinton should be sent to the pokey was going to happen (answer then: no) Did Comey said anywhere that Clinton now was going to prison regarding the Weiner emails? (Answer: No)
Only that there could had been more evidence about of how irresponsible Clinton had been. Not mention at all to change the early conclusion (that Clinton was not going to go to jail for this). And as it turns out, that was the case. The “supplement” was referring to reporting a loose end, that referred to who else could have had access to the information.
I suddenly realize why you butt-hurt snowflakes are a serious threat to America.
When Obama was President and he and his wife were called apes, and jokes were made about them serving watermelons at state banquets and his daughters dressing like sluts, the First Family knew this was all just playful banter and not racist. When his enemies gave speeches (from teleprompters!) complaining that he was the Teleprompter President who thought he was Emperor Jesus, and that being made Editor of the Harvard Law Review was just a fratboy’s joke perpetrated on the dim-witted affirmative-action boy, the Obamas took it in stride. When I think of how well Barack and Michelle took the abuse that was heaped upon them, it’s no exaggeration to say they have the patience of saints.
Contrast this with Trump. Hold a simple protest sign and he encourages his goons to beat you up. Tell a joke on TV and he hangs up on his friend Vladimir to send a flurry of tweets at 4:00 in the morning.
I think you butt-hurt snowflakes better stop picking on this thin-skinned sociopath. Rile him too much and he’ll turn off the Medicare spigots in the blue states just out of spite. Attack his heterosexual values (grabbing pussy) and he’ll ban gays from the federal workforce. And, heaven forbid, impugn his virility and he may feel the need to show off his surrogate penis — an 18-meter LGM-30G Minuteman III delivered to explode in North Korea or China, just so we all know his ejaculations are yuuuuge!
You butt-hurt snowflakes better stop bad-mouthing the Brat-in-Chief. Coddle and pamper him; keep him happy!