Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Water John

Same policy Stringer. Glazed eyes, totally irrevelant nonsense.

Thepoet85

2 Scoops wrote:

Still waiting for proof of the collusion 2 years later, clickbait headlines and selective hysteria won't do it for me. In fact the majority of Americans don't believe it happened.

Are you trying to imply that engaging with a hostile foreign government to influence a presidential election isn't worthy of charges of collision?

Also, regardless of the fact that the majority of Americans don't believe it happened, the investigation will move onwards. Only facts will determine the outcome of the investigation, not conjecture.

pixelburp

StringerBell wrote: »

I'm actually amazed at this point more people don't do what I do and simply scroll past those posts, there's never actually anything there and it never engages in good faith discussion. Pointless exercise really, but sure each to their own I'm not criticising or suggesting anybody should ignore said account, just an observation that came to mind when I saw your response.

Oh I'm done too at this stage. I've tried to engage in good faith, multiple times, but it's obvious the user(s) won't or can't return the gesture. And that is a shame, because as odious and incompetent as I find Trump, there is a value to at least understanding and debating with those who did, or would, vote for the man, or defend his actions.

mcmoustache

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's the equivalent of "It's OK if the President and associates have committed multiples crimes and felonies as long as it isn't that one crime"

It's not a rational position to have. There is no excuse for that kind of irrational thinking.

It also feels like "yeah, we're 20 goals behind with 10 minutes on the clock but we can still win".

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

We've already had jail terms handed out.

Where have you been?


On RT?

Jail terms yes, for unrelated matters. No Americans have been indicted for anything to do with "Russian collusion". As for your RT snipe.

https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1040640794091237376

It is a pretty corrupt set of individuals. Takes time to prove it all.

As for the others are just as guilty, Trump has the power to start these investigations. It so happens that the administration don't think they would get very far.

Hence why Trump gives out about them on twitter instead of actually doing something about it, which he has the power to do (or China hacking the dems:p)

aloyisious

2 Scoops wrote: »

Jail terms yes, for unrelated matters. No Americans have been indicted for anything to do with "Russian collusion". As for your RT snipe.

https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1040640794091237376

Would those indicted Non-Americans have been players with the Don Trump team either before, during or after his election? What were their connections with Don and Co - business, pleasure or family?

Is your use of the term Non-Americans a way of putting a distance between the indicted and Don Trump & Co - pesky foreign aliens.

Manic Moran

I’ve been away the last few days, House-hunting in Texas, just catching up.

For whoever was wondering how it was possible for Republicans to continue to support Trump, despite the various faux pas, embarrassments and the Russia thing, it’s mainly because he’s doing substantive things which they would expect pretty much any Republican president to do: Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, for example.

He’s also been signing legislation at a pretty reasonable clip, on a par with Obama and Bush. Of course, there is no reason to believe that any Republican President would be less likely to sign things like a law to allow terminally ill patients to try drugs which haven’t yet completed FDA testing, or creating an Office of Accountability for the VA and making it easier to fire people, or the career and technical education act; and he can only sign what Congress gives him.

And, despite everything which makes the international news, the legislation he’s been signing has generally been fairly uncontroversial. See https://www.govtrack.us/events/enacted-bills for the most recent stuff.

Finally, ineffective though he has been at actually coming up with good solutions, he is still talking about things that the Republicans care about in the manner that they care about, such as the border or crime.

With respect to the “worst hurricane in decades” comment, as far as the Carolinas are concerned, it’s not wrong. The last particularly big one to hit was Fran, in 1996. (I was there for that one, oddly). The one people refer to as a baseline, Hugo, was 1989.

listermint

But trump was cutting benefits to veterans by something like 50 percent and only moved away from the plan due to out cries in his own administration. There were others in his administration that wanted to push the plan. It was ready to sign.

He also murdered the EPA to death despite what we can obviously see is a global problem particularly displayed by the huge increase in extreme weather hitting the us.

Crime and borders are not problem's they are deflectionary talking points.

The country has far right actors in its administration and I think we all know who the are. But yet is applauded. None of this would have been acceptable in republican hay days of the past. It's disgusting. It's un-american

looksee

'He's getting a few things right' is a defense of this odious character? You are easily pleased.

RIGOLO

listermint wrote: »

He also murdered the EPA to death despite what we can obviously see is a global problem particularly displayed by the huge increase in extreme weather hitting the us.

Anri-Trump posters here seem to have short attention span and dont read long and detailed reports or court filings.
Its far easier for them to trot out tired soundbites and click bait headlines that dont really bare any scrutiny.

I take it you didnt read the international Energy Agency 2017 report.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GECO2017.pdf
Carbon dioxide (CO2): Global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 1.4% in 2017, reaching a historic high of 32.5 gigatonnes (Gt), a resumption of growth after three years of global emissions remaining flat. The increase in CO2 emissions, however, was not universal. While most major economies saw a rise, some others experienced declines, including the United States, United Kingdom, Mexico and Japan. The biggest decline drop came from the United States, mainly because of higher deployment of renewables. 
The biggest decline came from the United States, where emissions dropped by 0.5%, or 25 Mt, to 4 810 Mt of CO2, marking the third consecutive year of decline.

So if your really worried about climate change and the Paris accord, why arent you upset at the EU and its member states where emisisons went UP, instead of focused on the USA where emissions went DOWN. Although the UK was among the nations that declined.

Could it be you actually dont give a crap about climate change and just use any available click bait headline to attack Trump administration. 

According to the International Energy Emissions reports 99.99% of the nations who signed the Paris accord are increasing emissions whiles the one nation who opted out is actually decreasing them. 
So wheres all the outrage at Irish Government and its lack of action on CO2 emissions, Ireland broke its binding targets and is increasing its CO2 emissions at a rate of knots.
And given its the weekend why not spend some time reading the Irish EPA emissions report . 
I doubt you will given theres nothing in there to knock Trump administration with . 
https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/air/airemissions/ghgprojections2017-2035/EPA_2018_GHG_Emissions_Projections_Summary_Report.pdf

 So its a pity Trump isnt visiting Ireland , Id love to have seen all those who care so much about the climate and CO2 emissions patting themselves on the back as they condemn the USA *where emissions are decreasing)* and congratulate themselves in a country and federalist union (EU) where emissions are increasing. Ah but we signed the Paris agreement, thats the important part .... dont mind the CO2 emissions themselves....

The anti-Trump posters bias comes thru in so many forms ,   but keep it up, its informing a generation of how inept the left is when it comes to real policy and real progress.

Rhineshark

looksee wrote: »

'He's getting a few things right' is a defense of this odious character? You are easily pleased.

It's amazing how many people will support Trump for the Supreme Court.

Never mind that the Republicans changed the rules to ensure Obama could not nominate a Justice as was his right.

Never mind that Kavanaugh's hearing has shown that the Reps have no respect for the role or Americans by refusing to allow his record to be fully analysed by those questioning him.

Never mind that most of the documents were kept hidden, including ones that had no earthly reason for it and some that did.

Never mind that there was some deviousness in how the man was nominated, his connections to the retiring Justice and that his prime reason for selection appears to be to do with his views on whether a sitting president can be indicted.

Never mind that the Reps have to support an odious and dangerous president doing a lot of damage to America's institutions and democracy. Never mind that this holding pattern of Trump defense is antithetical to traditional Republican values.

The right controlling the Supreme Court, regardless of whether they represent the country or not is all that matters. It would appear to be the price of honour that Republicans are easy about paying.

Igotadose

RIGOLO wrote: »

Carbon dioxide (CO2): Global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 1.4% in 2017, reaching a historic high of 32.5 gigatonnes (Gt), a resumption of growth after three years of global emissions remaining flat. The increase in CO2 emissions, however, was not universal. While most major economies saw a rise, some others experienced declines, including the United States, United Kingdom, Mexico and Japan. The biggest decline drop came from the United States, mainly because of higher deployment of renewables. 
The biggest decline came from the United States, where emissions dropped by 0.5%, or 25 Mt, to 4 810 Mt of CO2, marking the third consecutive year of decline.

Thanks, Obama! 3 years in a row!

Note: expected to rise in 2018:

EIA estimates that U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions declined by 861 million metric tons (14%) from 2005 to 2017. In the latest Short-Term Energy Outlook, EIA projects that CO2 emissions will rise 1.8%, from 5,143 million metric tons in 2017 to 5,237 million metric tons in 2018, then remain virtually unchanged in 2019. In 2019, energy-related CO2 emissions will be about 13% lower than 2005 levels.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34872

Gbear

listermint wrote: »

He also murdered the EPA to death despite what we can obviously see is a global problem particularly displayed by the huge increase in extreme weather hitting the us.

This is a good thing to Republicans.

The US is a somewhat unusual case in the western world where you have a solid block of scientifically illiterate doomsday cultists of varying levels of seriousness.

In a two party system they must be courted, and if you're courting them, you have to work very hard to sputter out enough propaganda to make it palatable to everyone else.

That dovetails neatly with their corporate interests. They're a millstone but they're also a resource, so long as you're not bothered about making sure the planet's biosphere doesn't collapse, and whether you think the Rapture's on the way, that God has given to man the earth for whatever use he sees fit, or you can't see as far as the end of your own nose and would rather plunder reasources today, even if it means your town is underwater tomorrow, it suits you to ignore environmental catastrophes great and small.

looksee

Oh honestly Rigolo - when you are one of the major producers of carbon dioxide in the world it is easy enough to reduce by a percentage - just the price of oil or warmer weather (!) can do that. Comparing percentages is misleading as they are easily distorted by the base line numbers.

When Manic buys his new home in Texas will he be obliged to use alternative energy to - in his case - cool his house, or does he just assume he will use oil or electricity? I am building here in Ireland and am obliged to use solar, wind or air-to-water technology for heating. And next year the requirements will be even more stringent. Even in damp old Ireland we mostly use outside air to dry laundry, in Texas they have all that lovely dry air and sunshine, is laundry dried outside by the majority? Its long been the case that European cars are smaller and fuel is a good deal more expensive - around €1.45 per liter for unleaded petrol - double what the US is paying on average.

Fool yourself by playing with figures if you wish, but you will not fool anyone else.

weisses

RIGOLO wrote: »

Anri-Trump posters here seem to have short attention span and dont read long and detailed reports or court filings.
Its far easier for them to trot out tired soundbites and click bait headlines that dont really bare any scrutiny.

I take it you didnt read the international Energy Agency 2017 report.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GECO2017.pdf
Carbon dioxide (CO2): Global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 1.4% in 2017, reaching a historic high of 32.5 gigatonnes (Gt), a resumption of growth after three years of global emissions remaining flat. The increase in CO2 emissions, however, was not universal. While most major economies saw a rise, some others experienced declines, including the United States, United Kingdom, Mexico and Japan. The biggest decline drop came from the United States, mainly because of higher deployment of renewables. 
The biggest decline came from the United States, where emissions dropped by 0.5%, or 25 Mt, to 4 810 Mt of CO2, marking the third consecutive year of decline.

So if your really worried about climate change and the Paris accord, why arent you upset at the EU and its member states where emisisons went UP, instead of focused on the USA where emissions went DOWN. Although the UK was among the nations that declined.

Could it be you actually dont give a crap about climate change and just use any available click bait headline to attack Trump administration. 

According to the International Energy Emissions reports 99.99% of the nations who signed the Paris accord are increasing emissions whiles the one nation who opted out is actually decreasing them. 
So wheres all the outrage at Irish Government and its lack of action on CO2 emissions, Ireland broke its binding targets and is increasing its CO2 emissions at a rate of knots.
And given its the weekend why not spend some time reading the Irish EPA emissions report . 
I doubt you will given theres nothing in there to knock Trump administration with . 
https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/air/airemissions/ghgprojections2017-2035/EPA_2018_GHG_Emissions_Projections_Summary_Report.pdf

 So its a pity Trump isnt visiting Ireland , Id love to have seen all those who care so much about the climate and CO2 emissions patting themselves on the back as they condemn the USA *where emissions are decreasing)* and congratulate themselves in a country and federalist union (EU) where emissions are increasing. Ah but we signed the Paris agreement, thats the important part .... dont mind the CO2 emissions themselves....

The anti-Trump posters bias comes thru in so many forms ,   but keep it up, its informing a generation of how inept the left is when it comes to real policy and real progress.

US emissions actually started to decrease under Obama as did the recovery to economic growth (fact)

EIA estimates that U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions declined by 861 million metric tons (14%) from 2005 to 2017. In the latest Short-Term Energy Outlook, EIA projects that CO2 emissions will rise 1.8%, from 5,143 million metric tons in 2017 to 5,237 million metric tons in 2018, then remain virtually unchanged in 201]

So actually under Trump figures are rising again

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

I’ve been away the last few days, House-hunting in Texas, just catching up.

For whoever was wondering how it was possible for Republicans to continue to support Trump, despite the various faux pas, embarrassments and the Russia thing, it’s mainly because he’s doing substantive things which they would expect pretty much any Republican president to do: Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, for example.

He’s also been signing legislation at a pretty reasonable clip, on a par with Obama and Bush. Of course, there is no reason to believe that any Republican President would be less likely to sign things like a law to allow terminally ill patients to try drugs which haven’t yet completed FDA testing, or creating an Office of Accountability for the VA and making it easier to fire people, or the career and technical education act; and he can only sign what Congress gives him.

And, despite everything which makes the international news, the legislation he’s been signing has generally been fairly uncontroversial. See https://www.govtrack.us/events/enacted-bills for the most recent stuff.

Finally, ineffective though he has been at actually coming up with good solutions, he is still talking about things that the Republicans care about in the manner that they care about, such as the border or crime.

With respect to the “worst hurricane in decades” comment, as far as the Carolinas are concerned, it’s not wrong. The last particularly big one to hit was Fran, in 1996. (I was there for that one, oddly). The one people refer to as a baseline, Hugo, was 1989.

1) judges
2) average legislation rate (ignoring some of the awful legislation mind you!!!!)
3) he has talking points... "talking" points

You take that above ALL of the people surrounding him charged and or pleading guilty, him lying thousands of times, being named as an un-indicted co conspirator, the awful manner in which he speaks about the intelligence community, the awful way he treats veterans (surely you believe the way he dealt with McCain's death was appaling), the awful way he treats women/ blacks/ mexicans/ puerto Ricans, the frightening snap shot in Woodward's book about his mental stability, the lowering of standards in terms of how a president conducts himself, the worsening of relations with historically friendly allies, the embarrassment on an international basis re Korea, the considerable evidence to date of russian interference, the deficit heading for a record high...


ALL of this and more is countered by your three points?

Really?

Look - one can only conclude that you see party over country. In fact, you see Trump over Republican party.

You see a dangerous president as being better than a democrat president.

And as a member of the military, who has seen DJT sh1t specifically all over the military, that's deeply worrying.

aloyisious

RIGOLO wrote: »

Anri-Trump posters here seem to have short attention span and dont read long and detailed reports or court filings.
Its far easier for them to trot out tired soundbites and click bait headlines that dont really bare any scrutiny.

I take it you didnt read the international Energy Agency 2017 report.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GECO2017.pdf
Carbon dioxide (CO2): Global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 1.4% in 2017, reaching a historic high of 32.5 gigatonnes (Gt), a resumption of growth after three years of global emissions remaining flat. The increase in CO2 emissions, however, was not universal. While most major economies saw a rise, some others experienced declines, including the United States, United Kingdom, Mexico and Japan. The biggest decline drop came from the United States, mainly because of higher deployment of renewables. 
The biggest decline came from the United States, where emissions dropped by 0.5%, or 25 Mt, to 4 810 Mt of CO2, marking the third consecutive year of decline.

So if your really worried about climate change and the Paris accord, why arent you upset at the EU and its member states where emisisons went UP, instead of focused on the USA where emissions went DOWN. Although the UK was among the nations that declined.

Could it be you actually dont give a crap about climate change and just use any available click bait headline to attack Trump administration. 

According to the International Energy Emissions reports 99.99% of the nations who signed the Paris accord are increasing emissions whiles the one nation who opted out is actually decreasing them. 
So wheres all the outrage at Irish Government and its lack of action on CO2 emissions, Ireland broke its binding targets and is increasing its CO2 emissions at a rate of knots.
And given its the weekend why not spend some time reading the Irish EPA emissions report . 
I doubt you will given theres nothing in there to knock Trump administration with . 
https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/air/airemissions/ghgprojections2017-2035/EPA_2018_GHG_Emissions_Projections_Summary_Report.pdf

 So its a pity Trump isnt visiting Ireland , Id love to have seen all those who care so much about the climate and CO2 emissions patting themselves on the back as they condemn the USA *where emissions are decreasing)* and congratulate themselves in a country and federalist union (EU) where emissions are increasing. Ah but we signed the Paris agreement, thats the important part .... dont mind the CO2 emissions themselves....

The anti-Trump posters bias comes thru in so many forms ,   but keep it up, its informing a generation of how inept the left is when it comes to real policy and real progress.

The idea has been promoted by Don's Administration that coal mining, and the subsequent use of coal, is good. It might be for a reduction in unemployment figures, something Don [like other politicians] has naturally been promoting.

That surely must lead to an increase in the pollution figures, a reversal of the present trend you mentioned. How are you in regard to that as an actuality coming down the road courtesy of the Trump administration decisions?

Re the left thingy you mentioned, you seem to have what is a US-fixation that anything done in the European style to reduce the cost of living for the average joe is socialist/leftist. To the average European joe, its common sense return of the taxation money taken from the average joe to that joe in spending on him/her and family, giving them a slice of the pie they paid for in taxation, instead of into corporation coffers giving their board members dividends they haven't earned.

Juggling future-earnings figures around to solely promote the corporation above others taxation-providers is not good for the economy. Ask yourself what your total overall taxation costs are, as against those levied on corporations and see whom is paying the higher price. Do you actually buy into the hype being promoted that the reduction in taxation for corporations is actually going straight back into the local and national US economy through spending?

The Trump administration is having to provide social medic-care costs for things like the opioid-crisis the US is facing. Even if the spending on it is labelled under another name, its the same taxation cash dollar being spent.

Igotadose

Interesting voter data from thehill.com. Turnout, especially among Democratic party voters, way up for primaries. IMO this bodes well for taking back the house and perhaps the Senate. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/406779-primary-turnout-soars-in-2018-with-dems-leading-charge

"More than 40 million Americans voted in primaries this year, a staggering increase from four years ago and a sign of virtually unprecedented voter enthusiasm ahead of the midterm elections.

Primary voter turnout was higher than in 2014 for both Democrats and Republicans in most states across the country — though Democrats have a decided advantage."

Keep it up, Trump. You're doing a good job getting the vote out, heh.

Captain Obvious

Igotadose wrote: »

Interesting voter data from thehill.com. Turnout, especially among Democratic party voters, way up for primaries. IMO this bodes well for taking back the house and perhaps the Senate. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/406779-primary-turnout-soars-in-2018-with-dems-leading-charge

"More than 40 million Americans voted in primaries this year, a staggering increase from four years ago and a sign of virtually unprecedented voter enthusiasm ahead of the midterm elections.

Primary voter turnout was higher than in 2014 for both Democrats and Republicans in most states across the country — though Democrats have a decided advantage."

Keep it up, Trump. You're doing a good job getting the vote out, heh.

Senate will be almost impossible. GOP already playing dirty. Mitch McConnell has dispensed with tradition of reducing senate business in the lead up to the elections, meaning that incumbent senators will have to choose between canvassing and attending the senate. It's no surprise that Republicans have only 9 incumbents going for re-election and Democrats are in their 20's. Add to this the voter suppression and Russian meddling, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Senate go further right, or for GOP to run some important votes when Democrats are out of town.

rossie1977

Senate will be tough for Dems but not impossible. If they pick up Nevada and Arizona they have a path to victory. Places like Montana, Missouri, Indiana and Florida have an incumbent democrat which people see as possible flips but its not easy to unseat an incumbent traditionally. Similarly in Texas, Dems see themselves in with a chance given how unpopular Ted Cruz is within his own party I just don't see it flipping...although the shockwaves that a progressive who hasn't taken pac money winning would send to everyone in Washington would be something to see.

MadYaker

I don't think they'll get the senate back but maybe congress. I think they really need to focus on getting as many people to vote as possible. If all the eligible voters actually voted the GOP wouldn't stand a chance. Thats the message that the dems need to focus on I think.

StringerBell

Purely from a numbers point of view I don't see the Senate as being realistic, the house for sure though.

RobertKK

Manic Moran wrote: »

I’ve been away the last few days, House-hunting in Texas, just catching up.

For whoever was wondering how it was possible for Republicans to continue to support Trump, despite the various faux pas, embarrassments and the Russia thing, it’s mainly because he’s doing substantive things which they would expect pretty much any Republican president to do: Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, for example.

He’s also been signing legislation at a pretty reasonable clip, on a par with Obama and Bush. Of course, there is no reason to believe that any Republican President would be less likely to sign things like a law to allow terminally ill patients to try drugs which haven’t yet completed FDA testing, or creating an Office of Accountability for the VA and making it easier to fire people, or the career and technical education act; and he can only sign what Congress gives him.

And, despite everything which makes the international news, the legislation he’s been signing has generally been fairly uncontroversial. See https://www.govtrack.us/events/enacted-bills for the most recent stuff.

Finally, ineffective though he has been at actually coming up with good solutions, he is still talking about things that the Republicans care about in the manner that they care about, such as the border or crime.

With respect to the “worst hurricane in decades” comment, as far as the Carolinas are concerned, it’s not wrong. The last particularly big one to hit was Fran, in 1996. (I was there for that one, oddly). The one people refer to as a baseline, Hugo, was 1989.

It was a campaign promise and previous presidents had opportunities to allow terminally ill people to try new drugs which were not gone through a full FDA process to clear them for safety.
In the UK, the government there cleared it so a child who had gone through every option of verified EMA cleared treatments could receive treatment from Cellectis who are developing gene therapy cancer treatments. It led to the child having a full recovery.
Trump does a lot wrong, but some of the stuff like allowing people who have run of options to save their lives by trying treatments not yet approved is good.
I remember when I first got the internet and I had a relation come to me as her son was dying, she wanted to know if I could find any experimental treatments/trials that were going on as she was desperate. It brings tears to my eyes as I remember how desperate she was, at least with allowing terminally ill people to try a drug not approved when all other routes have failed, it does leave it that everything was tried.
It's really sad when people are at that stage, but at least this is something Trump got right in my opinion.

Manic Moran

Robert, Interestingly, the Democrats were almost entirely against that one. Only a few crossed over to support. Looking at the text of the legislation, I don’t see a problem. It requires that the treatment have at least passed the first stage of FDA approval.

Everlast, you asked why Trump might still have 40% support. I answered. That is not to say I am one of the 40%, but the various charges and convictions surrounding Trump don’t have any practical effect on the running of the country. Gorsuch on the Supreme Court is going to affect US citizens for the next couple of decades. Person “X” getting convicted on a misuse of campaign finances charge or what have you, frankly, doesn’t, and if they go to jail, that’s their problem. They presumably deserve it. If you are more worried about the actual direction that policies and legislation runs than the appearance of the folks doing the running, you can see how there is still support.

As to the Texas house question, it is my intent to fairly quickly look into solar panel installation to see if it is worthwhile. Unlike my current place in California, I have no intention of leaving the Texas house for a couple of decades, which results in solar being worth considering economically. Currently rebates in San Antonio go up to $25,000 or 50%, depending on which is lower, plus the federal tax credit, so it seems to make sense to look at. There might be one or two other incentives, but since the offer to buy hasn’t been accepted yet, I haven’t looked into the specifics.

frag420

I have been reading this thread since dot, have made the odd post, can I just say that Manic Moran, you are the type pf poster we like to hate but you have the most reasoned, well thought out and mannerly replies,you debate well.

You're the type of person I love to argue with because I know at the end of the night we will both be drinking a beer and still understand where each other comes from. Unlike some posters that seem to copy and paste whatever they can find to feed their narrative and when corrected they go and find something else to muddy the waters!

May I ask the like of Rigolo et all to take a leaf out of the Book of Manic and react/debate accordingly before calling people out for not understanding your position and not getting it, whatever the fook 'IT' is!?

Rjd2

Political discourse is going to get even worse than usual in the next week.:eek:

On one side think progress grifters and the other MAGA fanatics with all there hot takes on Kavanaugh. Its going to be Paddy Jackson twitter on speed.

I won't pretend to have the wisdom :pac: of either side, but if Mitch Mc Connell is reading this thread, my advice would be to tell Kavanaugh to step aside and pick someone else they vetted. Coney Barrett would be the choice if they want to fire up the base and obviously would be another element of the culture wars that Trump loves instigating.

The worst thing they could is to ignore these allegations and nominate him as it will destroy them in the mid terms or at the very least they are going to have suspend the current hearings and investigate it.

To be fair on Trump he wasn't to know of this alleged incident, but still its another dire hire. He was never that popular with his base and only seemed to excite the neo con element of the party who are not that relevant in 2018.

I don't even think Kavanaugh would have had any interest in over turning Roe v Wade or saving Trump's arse when it comes to impeachment either tbh.

Water John

Just for those who were suggesting that there were limits on Manafort's cooperation.
The plea agreement set out how Manafort must turn over documents and brief officials about “his participation in and knowledge of all criminal activities”.

mcmoustache

Water John wrote: »

Just for those who were suggesting that there were limits on Manafort's cooperation.
The plea agreement set out how Manafort must turn over documents and brief officials about “his participation in and knowledge of all criminal activities”.

Yeah, it's fairly broad. And Manafort has been working with Russians for a long time. If there was coordination between the campaign and Russians, he knows about it.


I didn't think he'd flip, given that the sorts of people he used to hang around with and the tendency of people to jump out of windows. I'm honestly very surprised that this happened.

Manic Moran

And contract accepted. This time two months from now, I'm going to be a resident of the Lone Star State, unless some disaster happens with the financing.

I'm going very much to miss the San Francisco Bay Area, but it just makes sense to join the exodus. Even if I could handle the fact that anything under $117,000/year is considered low income, the lack of investment into infrastructure and the resultant hours to get anywhere and the stupid lack of sanitation just means a better quality of life for my family in a cheaper (Bascially anything bar Hawaii) State.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

And contract accepted. This time two months from now, I'm going to be a resident of the Lone Star State, unless some disaster happens with the financing.

I'm going very much to miss the San Francisco Bay Area, but it just makes sense to join the exodus. Even if I could handle the fact that anything under $117,000/year is considered low income, the lack of investment into infrastructure and the resultant hours to get anywhere and the stupid lack of sanitation just means a better quality of life for my family in a cheaper (Bascially anything bar Hawaii) State.

While I am happy for you I am not sure what this has to do with anything?