Jeff Sessions Increases Drug Sentencing

[ClydeR]

The Obama administration instructed federal prosecutors dealing with nonviolent drug offenders with no significant criminal history to refrain from charging those offenders with crimes that carry long mandatory minimum sentences. Sessions reversed that policy.


(CNN)Attorney General Jeff Sessions has a new directive for federal prosecutors across the country: charge suspects with the most serious offense you can prove.

More... (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/sessions-criminal-charging-memo/index.html)


The effects of Friday's decision are likely to be felt most immediately in the narcotics context where federal mandatory minimums established by Congress can be harsh for even first-time offenders because the sentences are dictated based on drug type and quantity.

[~Rocktar~]

So basically, follow the law and do what the law prescribes. You know, that shitty law that Clinton passed and people now hate and see how it is destructive.

Simple fix, change the law. Now THAT would be a conservative coup in a big way. Reform federal drug laws and then see what Dem was stupid enough to say anything.

[cwolff]

They're coming for marijuana next.

I hate that their doing shit like this. Its as if we're moving,backwards as a society. On the other hand, I struggle to have sympathy for the people who get screwed by Trump. They didn't vote. They brought this on themselves.

[drauz]

So basically, follow the law and do what the law prescribes. You know, that shitty law that Clinton passed and people now hate and see how it is destructive.

Simple fix, change the law. Now THAT would be a conservative coup in a big way. Reform federal drug laws and then see what Dem was stupid enough to say anything.

First step dont have marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, which means the government thinks it is more dangerous than meth and coke (both schedule 2).

[hello]

They're coming for marijuana next.

I hate that their doing shit like this. Its as if we're moving,backwards as a society. On the other hand, I struggle to have sympathy for the people who get screwed by Trump. They didn't vote. They brought this on themselves.

Actually, a lot of people did vote, it's just that the lines are drawn in such a fucked up way that large swathes of the voting public effectively did not get their votes counted. It's called gerrymandering. I think the Democratic leadership is just plain stupid.

[hello]

According to the United States Election Project, an average of 59.7 percent of eligible voters cast their ballots. (The turnout number is lower when you just look at voting-age Americans, but not all Americans over 18 can vote, for various reasons.) Compare that to President Barack Obama‘s re-election in 2012, when 58.6 percent of eligible voters cast ballots—or 2000’s presidential election, which saw just 54.2 percent turn out to the polls—and the 2016 results aren’t too shabby.

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/voter-turnout-2016/

[cwolff]

Hmmm.....that's interesting. I'll read that article when I get a chance.

[Androidpk]

They're coming for marijuana next.

I hate that their doing shit like this. Its as if we're moving,backwards as a society.

There is no "as if". We ARE moving backwards as a society. Not just the US, many countries around the world are stagnating and slipping backwards.

[time4fun]

They're coming for marijuana next.

I hate that their doing shit like this. Its as if we're moving,backwards as a society. On the other hand, I struggle to have sympathy for the people who get screwed by Trump. They didn't vote. They brought this on themselves.

Remember that about 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump. So people DID come out to vote in order to stop him from becoming President. And that group was larger than the group who wanted him elected.

We have to stop spinning this fantasy that Trump is in office because the US electorate really wanted him there. He's here despite the number of people who voted for him, not because of it.

[cwolff]

Remember that about 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump. So people DID come out to vote in order to stop him from becoming President. And that group was larger than the group who wanted him elected.

We have to stop spinning this fantasy that Trump is in office because the US electorate really wanted him there. He's here despite the number of people who voted for him, not because of it.

Yes, that's true. I had African American turnout on my mind. They'll bear the burden of getting tough on drugs again. That being said, it didn't cost Hillary the election either.

[Androidpk]

Remember that about 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump. So people DID come out to vote in order to stop him from becoming President. And that group was larger than the group who wanted him elected.

We have to stop spinning this fantasy that Trump is in office because the US electorate really wanted him there. He's here despite the number of people who voted for him, not because of it.

Remember that over 90 million people didn't care one way or another if Clinton or Trump won. Also remember how many millions of Democrats stayed home because they couldn't stomach the idea of voting for Shillary. Remember the millions of Dems that voted for Trump after getting burned by the DNC during the primaries.

How about you stop your fantasy spinning for once?

[Neveragain]

Remember that about 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump. So people DID come out to vote in order to stop him from becoming President. And that group was larger than the group who wanted him elected.

We have to stop spinning this fantasy that Trump is in office because the US electorate really wanted him there. He's here despite the number of people who voted for him, not because of it.

8591

[Wrathbringer]

Remember that about 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump. So people DID come out to vote in order to stop him from becoming President. And that group was larger than the group who wanted him elected.

We have to stop spinning this fantasy that Trump is in office because the US electorate really wanted him there. He's here despite the number of people who voted for him, not because of it.

You're retarded.

[time4fun]

Remember that over 90 million people didn't care one way or another if Clinton or Trump won. Also remember how many millions of Democrats stayed home because they couldn't stomach the idea of voting for Shillary. Remember the millions of Dems that voted for Trump after getting burned by the DNC during the primaries.

How about you stop your fantasy spinning for once?

Fantasy?

Was there something I said that was inaccurate? Is it untrue that Clinton got about 3 million more votes than Trump? Is it untrue that Trump is here despite the number of votes he received from the electorate?

You have this lovely Kellyanne desire to try to spin an argument into another direction with irrelevant- and often inaccurate- "information".

To point out the people who stayed home is silly- more people voted in this past election than we've had in most of the past few elections.

And the "millions of Dems who voted for Trump" had "millions of Republicans who voted for Clinton" on the other side.

And neither of your statements has any impact on the veracity or relevance of my statements that Trump is here despite, not because of, the number of people who voted for him.

I know you struggle with accuracy, but maybe you can try for relevance.

[Wrathbringer]

Remember that over 90 million people didn't care one way or another if Clinton or Trump won. Also remember how many millions of Democrats stayed home because they couldn't stomach the idea of voting for Shillary. Remember the millions of Dems that voted for Trump after getting burned by the DNC during the primaries.

How about you stop your fantasy spinning for once?

She's (if t4f is really a female; I have my doubts) a retarded troll. Not going to happen.

[hello]

She's (if t4f is really a female; I have my doubts) a retarded troll. Not going to happen.

She's female judging from her writing style, similar to yours in fact.

[Androidpk]

Fantasy?

Was there something I said that was inaccurate? Is it untrue that Clinton got about 3 million more votes than Trump? Is it untrue that Trump is here despite the number of votes he received from the electorate?

You have this lovely Kellyanne desire to try to spin an argument into another direction with irrelevant- and often inaccurate- "information".

To point out the people who stayed home is silly- more people voted in this past election than we've had in most of the past few elections.

And the "millions of Dems who voted for Trump" had "millions of Republicans who voted for Clinton" on the other side.

And neither of your statements has any impact on the veracity or relevance of my statements that Trump is here despite, not because of, the number of people who voted for him.

I know you struggle with accuracy, but maybe you can try for relevance.

It's only irrelevant to you. You keep tossing out the popular vote difference as if it means anything. 90 million people > 3 million people.

Trump is here because he won the election. Plain and simple.

[Taernath]

To point out the people who stayed home is silly- more people voted in this past election than we've had in most of the past few elections.


Obama had more total votes cast for him than Clinton did in 2012. Democratic votes were certainly down.

[Wrathbringer]

It's only irrelevant to you. You keep tossing out the popular vote difference as if it means anything. 90 million people > 3 million people.

Trump is here because he won the election. Plain and simple.

You forgot, "you lost, get over it."

[Wrathbringer]

Obama had more total votes cast for him than Clinton did in 2012. Democratic votes were certainly down.

You misogynist!

[Fallen]

To make room the Federal Government is doing away with it's policy of not housing inmates in private prisons.

[Androidpk]

Gotta get that federal money flowing again..

[Parkbandit]

Remember that about 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump. So people DID come out to vote in order to stop him from becoming President. And that group was larger than the group who wanted him elected.

We have to stop spinning this fantasy that Trump is in office because the US electorate really wanted him there. He's here despite the number of people who voted for him, not because of it.

If only you knew how the election process worked.

[Parkbandit]

You have this lovely Kellyanne desire to try to spin an argument into another direction with irrelevant- and often inaccurate- "information".

Holy shit... pot calling kettle black anyone?


To point out the people who stayed home is silly- more people voted in this past election than we've had in most of the past few elections.

Let's look at the trend over the past 3 elections:

2008 Obama total votes for: 69,498,516
2012 Obama total votes for: 65,915,795
2016 Hillary total votes for: 65,853,516

Now let's look at the opposite:

2008 McCain total votes for: 59,948,323
2012 Romney total votes for: 60,933,504
2016 Trump total votes for: 62,984,825

Weird...


And the "millions of Dems who voted for Trump"had "millions of Republicans who voted for Clinton" on the other side.

And neither of your statements has any impact on the veracity or relevance of my statements that Trump is here despite, not because of, the number of people who voted for him.

I know you struggle with accuracy, but maybe you can try for relevance.

So, tell us: How did Trump beat Hillary for the Presidency?

[time4fun]

Obama had more total votes cast for him than Clinton did in 2012. Democratic votes were certainly down.

Compared to 2012? Sure. But Clinton's vote count beat out most of the Democratic nominees in the elections since Carter. For Trump, the opposite was true.

[Wrathbringer]

Compared to 2012? Sure. But Clinton's vote count beat out most of the Democratic nominees in the elections since Carter. For Trump, the opposite was true.

You lost hahahahaha

[time4fun]

Trump is here because he won the election. Plain and simple.

Yes. Despite the number of people who voted for him, not because of it. There's nothing you're saying that at all contradicts what I said. Your "argument" (I guess?) fails the fundamental test of counterarguments- it doesn't actually contradict anything I said.

You can argue all you want that it does, or does not, matter that he is in office despite the will of the US electorate. But that's irrelevant either way. I made my argument in response to the comment about not having sympathy for people because they didn't come out to vote against Trump. My point was that more people voted against him than for him, and that the comment risks continuing to spin this misconception that somehow Trump is in office because the US electorate willed it so.

That's not why he's in office. I'm sorry that's so uncomfortable for you.

[Wrathbringer]

Yes. Despite the number of people who voted for him, not because of it. There's nothing you're saying that at all contradicts what I said. Your "argument" (I guess?) fails the fundamental test of counterarguments- it doesn't actually contradict anything I said.

You can argue all you want that it does, or does not, matter that he is in office despite the will of the US electorate. But that's irrelevant either way. I made my argument in response to the comment about not having sympathy for people because they didn't come out to vote against Trump. My point was that more people voted against him than for him, and that the comment risks continuing to spin this misconception that somehow Trump is in office because the US electorate willed it so.

That's not why he's in office. I'm sorry that's so uncomfortable for you.

Dear god you're retarded.

[Taernath]

Compared to 2012? Sure. But Clinton's vote count beat out most of the Democratic nominees in the elections since Carter. For Trump, the opposite was true.

Well yeah, the population has increased by about 100 million since then, obviously more people are going to be voting. Using that as a barometer for a candidate or platform's popularity is meaningless. I mean, Lincoln got 2.2 million votes, I guess Trump is 30x more popular.

[Neveragain]

Yes. Despite the number of people who voted for him, not because of it. There's nothing you're saying that at all contradicts what I said. Your "argument" (I guess?) fails the fundamental test of counterarguments- it doesn't actually contradict anything I said.

You can argue all you want that it does, or does not, matter that he is in office despite the will of the US electorate. But that's irrelevant either way. I made my argument in response to the comment about not having sympathy for people because they didn't come out to vote against Trump. My point was that more people voted against him than for him, and that the comment risks continuing to spin this misconception that somehow Trump is in office because the US electorate willed it so.

That's not why he's in office. I'm sorry that's so uncomfortable for you.

8592

It's really this simple.

[time4fun]

Well yeah, the population has increased by about 100 million since then, obviously more people are going to be voting. Using that as a barometer for a candidate or platform's popularity is meaningless. I mean, Lincoln got 2.2 million votes, I guess Trump is 30x more popular.

Definitely agree that we run into issues as we start looking at absolute vote counts..

Though with that trend in mind, it's even more notable that Trump's vote count was lower than most Republicans since Carter. Just as it's less impressive that Clinton's was higher than most Dem counts.

[Ashliana]

8592

It's really this simple.

I'm sure you get off on posting your deliberately misleading picture, but when viewed with the population in mind, that map looks like this (http://www.businessinsider.com/2016-election-results-maps-population-adjusted-cartogram-2016-11/#states-themselves-are-not-monolithically-blue-or-red-heres-the-projected-winner-in-each-county-in-the-us-at-first-glance-there-are-a-handful-of-blue-islands-mostly-concentrated-along-the-coasts-surrounded-by-a-sea-of-red-4):

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/582c7dd8ba6eb69a018b4902-1200/but-many-of-those-blue-counties-contain-dense-cities-resizing-counties-by-population-it-becomes-a-little-clearer-why-clinton-is-likely-to-narrowly-win-the-popular-vote-but-lose-in-the-electoral-college.jpg

[Androidpk]

Yes. Despite the number of people who voted for him, not because of it. There's nothing you're saying that at all contradicts what I said. Your "argument" (I guess?) fails the fundamental test of counterarguments- it doesn't actually contradict anything I said.

You can argue all you want that it does, or does not, matter that he is in office despite the will of the US electorate. But that's irrelevant either way. I made my argument in response to the comment about not having sympathy for people because they didn't come out to vote against Trump. My point was that more people voted against him than for him, and that the comment risks continuing to spin this misconception that somehow Trump is in office because the US electorate willed it so.

That's not why he's in office. I'm sorry that's so uncomfortable for you.

I'm not uncomfortable with it.

[time4fun]

50% of this country lives in the same 144 counties. (http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9)

Land doesn't vote- people do.

[time4fun]

I'm not uncomfortable with it.

Of course not.

You didn't launch into an attack stance the second it was pointed out or anything.

Oh wait.

[Neveragain]

I'm sure you get off on posting your deliberately misleading picture, but when viewed with the population in mind, that map looks like this (http://www.businessinsider.com/2016-election-results-maps-population-adjusted-cartogram-2016-11/#states-themselves-are-not-monolithically-blue-or-red-heres-the-projected-winner-in-each-county-in-the-us-at-first-glance-there-are-a-handful-of-blue-islands-mostly-concentrated-along-the-coasts-surrounded-by-a-sea-of-red-4):

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/582c7dd8ba6eb69a018b4902-1200/but-many-of-those-blue-counties-contain-dense-cities-resizing-counties-by-population-it-becomes-a-little-clearer-why-clinton-is-likely-to-narrowly-win-the-popular-vote-but-lose-in-the-electoral-college.jpg

Actually I tire of having to remind hacks like you and Time4fantasies that our election is not based on mob rule.

8593

[Taernath]

Definitely agree that we run into issues as we start looking at absolute vote counts..

Though with that trend in mind, it's even more notable that Trump's vote count was lower than most Republicans since Carter. Just as it's less impressive that Clinton's was higher than most Dem counts.

Absolute vote count will always trends upward due to population growth, unless a president is wildly unpopular or some other significant event interferes. Carter lost 5 million votes between 1976 and 1980. Bush I lost 9 million from 1988 - 1992. Bush II got a 12 million voter boost from 2000-2004, probably due to 9/11 patriotic fervor. That was actually the high water mark for Republicans until Trump, who currently has the highest absolute vote count out of -any- Republican.

[Androidpk]

Of course not.

You didn't launch into an attack stance the second it was pointed out or anything.

Oh wait.

pointing out the obvious isn't launching into an attack stance, sorry dear

[time4fun]

Absolute vote count will always trends upward due to population growth, unless a president is wildly unpopular or some other significant event interferes. Carter lost 5 million votes between 1976 and 1980. Bush I lost 9 million from 1988 - 1992. Bush II got a 12 million voter boost from 2000-2004, probably due to 9/11 patriotic fervor. That was actually the high water mark for Republicans until Trump, who currently has the highest absolute vote count out of -any- Republican.

Vote count yes, % of vote no.

[Taernath]

Vote count yes, % of vote no.

% of vote is an entirely different subject and can be influenced by strong 3rd part candidates, like it was in '92 and '96 with Perot. If we go back to your Carter example, Clinton only beat out Dukakis, Mondale, and Carter's second run (plus, technically, her husband's first run because of Perot). Not exactly stellar.

[hello]

I'm sure you get off on posting your deliberately misleading picture, but when viewed with the population in mind, that map looks like this (http://www.businessinsider.com/2016-election-results-maps-population-adjusted-cartogram-2016-11/#states-themselves-are-not-monolithically-blue-or-red-heres-the-projected-winner-in-each-county-in-the-us-at-first-glance-there-are-a-handful-of-blue-islands-mostly-concentrated-along-the-coasts-surrounded-by-a-sea-of-red-4):

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/582c7dd8ba6eb69a018b4902-1200/but-many-of-those-blue-counties-contain-dense-cities-resizing-counties-by-population-it-becomes-a-little-clearer-why-clinton-is-likely-to-narrowly-win-the-popular-vote-but-lose-in-the-electoral-college.jpg

THE RED AREAS

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ieex4gE7WNI/TxGx4th9NsI/AAAAAAAAB8U/eU0p1BNWMzo/s1600/bz24no-WVSafrica01.jpg
https://thoughtcatalog.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/04_kranitz.jpg?w=584&h=387
http://novorossia.today/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/coal-miners-donbass.jpe

[hello]

THE BLUE AREAS

http://robbreport.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/2016Apr/2095591//01.jpg
http://robbreport.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/2015Aug/1575271//53_million_home_malibu_2.jpg
http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article8368542.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/BarnaMAIN.jpg
http://im.rediff.com/money/2013/mar/08google-perks11.jpg


There is a very good reason why this country is so split, Washington is only reflecting (with brutal accuracy) what the reality in this country really is.

[Neveragain]

THE BLUE AREAS

http://robbreport.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/2016Apr/2095591//01.jpg
http://robbreport.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/2015Aug/1575271//53_million_home_malibu_2.jpg
http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article8368542.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/BarnaMAIN.jpg
http://im.rediff.com/money/2013/mar/08google-perks11.jpg


There is a very good reason why this country is so split, Washington is only reflecting (with brutal accuracy) what the reality in this country really is.

While I'm at work perhaps Time4lies and Ashliana will take the time to pick up a history book and make some correlations between the past, current trends, how cyclical it all really is and how it ends.

[Candor]

Of course not.

You didn't launch into an attack stance the second it was pointed out or anything.

Oh wait.

Let's be honest here - you are upset at the system only because Clinton lost. If the roles had been reversed...IE if Clinton had won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote by 3 million votes, you wouldn't be complaining about the Presidential election system at all.

[Whirlin]

Let's be honest here - you are upset at the system only because Clinton lost. If the roles had been reversed...IE if Clinton had won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote by 3 million votes, you wouldn't be complaining about the Presidential election system at all.

What bothers me is that these threads seem to just derail into the fact of who won/lost, rather than holding the individual who won accountable for his actions and discussing the actions he's performing and whether or not people believe them to be good or bad.

[Androidpk]

What bothers me is that these threads seem to just derail into the fact of who won/lost, rather than holding the individual who won accountable for his actions and discussing the actions he's performing and whether or not people believe them to be good or bad.

Both of those things are important.

[Whirlin]

Both of those things are important.
Do not disagree, just seems rather than discussing the latter point, the moment anyone speaks anything critical, or potentially negative, people just hide behind the fact that he won as a shield (just like he does), to not need to be held accountable

[hello]

Do not disagree, just seems rather than discussing the latter point, the moment anyone speaks anything critical, or potentially negative, people just hide behind the fact that he won as a shield (just like he does), to not need to be held accountable

I really just want people to give him a chance, even if Russia and Trump made some kind of deal, maybe he's going to fuck over the Russians and really make America great? Judge him on what he's going to do in Office not how he got there.

[cwolff]

From The New York Times Opinion Section: "Rather than defend President Trump’s specific actions, his conservative champions change the subject to (1) the biased “fake news” media, (2) over-the-top liberals, (3) hypocrites on the left, (4) anyone else victimizing Mr. Trump or his supporters and (5) whataboutism, as in “What about Obama?” “What about Clinton?”

[SHAFT]

From The New York Times Opinion Section: "Rather than defend President Trump’s specific actions, his conservative champions change the subject to (1) the biased “fake news” media, (2) over-the-top liberals, (3) hypocrites on the left, (4) anyone else victimizing Mr. Trump or his supporters and (5) whataboutism, as in “What about Obama?” “What about Clinton?”

It's impossible to defend trump at this point.

The people who voted for trump did so because (any combination of the following or in some cases, all) :

1. They hate liberals
2. They're racist
3. They're afraid of minorities
4. They hate Obama
5. They hate Hillary Clinton
6. They're gullible and dumb enough to believe that Donald Trump had their best interest in mind (this includes "draining the swamp" and "MAGA")
7. They'll vote Republican no matter who the nominee is/was

[tyrant-201]

It's impossible to defend trump at this point.

The people who voted for trump did so because (any combination of the following or in some cases, all) :

1. They hate liberals
2. They're racist
3. They're afraid of minorities
4. They hate Obama
5. They hate Hillary Clinton
6. They're gullible and dumb enough to believe that Donald Trump had their best interest in mind (this includes "draining the swamp" and "MAGA")
7. They'll vote Republican no matter who the nominee is/was

In B4 SNOWFLAKE AND SHE LOST GET OVER IT AND LIBERAL TEARS TASTE SO GOOD !!

[hello]

It's impossible to defend trump at this point.

The people who voted for trump did so because (any combination of the following or in some cases, all) :

1. They hate liberals
2. They're racist
3. They're afraid of minorities
4. They hate Obama
5. They hate Hillary Clinton
6. They're gullible and dumb enough to believe that Donald Trump had their best interest in mind (this includes "draining the swamp" and "MAGA")
7. They'll vote Republican no matter who the nominee is/was

Just give him a full year. One. Year.

[SHAFT]

In B4 SNOWFLAKE AND SHE LOST GET OVER IT AND LIBERAL TEARS TASTE SO GOOD !!

You forgot "you're so triggered".

If there is one thing to say about our beloved PC Trump-trolls, they are predictable.

"Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity". - Bullet-Tooth Tony

[Androidpk]

You forgot "you're so triggered".

If there is one thing to say about our beloved PC politic -trolls, they are predictable.

"Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity". - Bullet-Tooth Tony

.

[Androidpk]

It's impossible to defend trump at this point.

The people who voted for trump did so because (any combination of the following or in some cases, all) :

1. They hate liberals
2. They're racist
3. They're afraid of minorities
4. They hate Obama
5. They hate Hillary Clinton
6. They're gullible and dumb enough to believe that Donald Trump had their best interest in mind (this includes "draining the swamp" and "MAGA")
7. They'll vote Republican no matter who the nominee is/was

Millions of votes for him and these are the only reasons? Don't be daft.

[Wrathbringer]

It's impossible to defend trump at this point.

The people who voted for trump did so because (any combination of the following or in some cases, all) :

1. They hate liberals
2. They're racist
3. They're afraid of minorities
4. They hate Obama
5. They hate Hillary Clinton
6. They're gullible and dumb enough to believe that Donald Trump had their best interest in mind (this includes "draining the swamp" and "MAGA")
7. They'll vote Republican no matter who the nominee is/was

You lost get over it. America rejected your view of it. Not only the presidency, but the house and senate, emphatically renouncing the previous 8 years of retardation. Your tears are awesome though, so please, keep posting.

[Parkbandit]

It's impossible to defend trump at this point.

The people who voted for trump did so because (any combination of the following or in some cases, all) :

1. They hate liberals
2. They're racist
3. They're afraid of minorities
4. They hate Obama
5. They hate Hillary Clinton
6. They're gullible and dumb enough to believe that Donald Trump had their best interest in mind (this includes "draining the swamp" and "MAGA")
7. They'll vote Republican no matter who the nominee is/was

Still so triggered.

Sorry your girl lost :(

[Parkbandit]

You lost get over it. America rejected your view of it. Not only the presidency, but the house and senate, emphatically renouncing the previous 8 years of retardation. Your tears are awesome though, so please, keep posting.

I'm ALMOST tired of the tears.

Ok... I'm not but I feel like I should be.

[Parkbandit]

What bothers me is that these threads seem to just derail into the fact of who won/lost, rather than holding the individual who won accountable for his actions and discussing the actions he's performing and whether or not people believe them to be good or bad.

Inorite!

This forum should be a safespace where we can all criticize President Trump for the dumbest of reasons without people bringing up how dumb they are!

You're a moderator.. make it so! Last thing we want around here is hurt feelings.

[hello]

What liberals don't understand is a white person with a penis want to be part of the process too.This is the central problem they have with Trump. Because.. you know, "Racist."

[Wrathbringer]

I'm ALMOST tired of the tears.

Ok... I'm not but I feel like I should be.

I know, right? It's the sheer volume of tears, I think. I don't recall any election producing such butthurt whiny losers like this one.

[tyrant-201]

I know, right? It's the sheer volume of tears, I think. I don't recall any election producing such butthurt whiny losers like this one.

Obama 08 and 12 are pretty comparable.

[Parkbandit]

Obama 08 and 12 are pretty comparable.

Not
Even
Close

Sorry :(

[tyrant-201]

Not
Even
Close

Sorry :(

Says a guy who did nothing but cry here on the forums for the entire 8 years Obama was President.

Yeah ok buddy.

[SHAFT]

Says a guy who did nothing but cry here on the forums for the entire 8 years Obama was President.

Yeah ok buddy.

The mean black man! Someone do something!

[time4fun]

THE RED AREAS

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ieex4gE7WNI/TxGx4th9NsI/AAAAAAAAB8U/eU0p1BNWMzo/s1600/bz24no-WVSafrica01.jpg
https://thoughtcatalog.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/04_kranitz.jpg?w=584&h=387
http://novorossia.today/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/coal-miners-donbass.jpe

Yeah....

This doesn't help. I grew up dirt poor in a family where no one had even attended high school, let alone finished it. I didn't even know what grad school was until I got to college. I may not have been surrounded by educated people, but that doesn't mean they were stupid.

Liberals (rightfully) rage at Conservatives for treating poor people as though poverty was something they did to themselves, not something that happened to them. But then liberals turn around and look down on poor people in the middle of the country. (I fall for this a lot too) We want them to have healthcare and education, but we still think they're clueless fools who need to be saved from themselves instead of people who are just reasonably responding to their circumstances.

People have different relationships with the political system. Those of us in liberal metro areas see government, for example, as the thing that keeps our day-to-day functioning. Without regulations, laws, and social systems large cities would literally fall apart. So government is this thing that takes a small amount from you and then gives you so much more.


But if you live in a rural area, a lot of those critical government programs are 50 miles away in a good day. You have to figure out your own electricity, your own source of water, your own transportation, etc. Government is this thing that takes a chunk of your money and gives you a fraction in return (especially if you're in a red state that has worked to scale back the role of government in life).

Likewise, for people who live in big cities diversity isn't some liberal conspiracy- it's literally the world we live in. No one forces it on us- we just can't successfully interact with our surroundings unless we're comfortable with it.

But if you live in an area that fundamentally lacks diversity, you don't need to be comfortable with it to function. And when people require you to be comfortable with it, it feels like an imposition as opposed to a common sense survival skill.

Are rural people just stupid? Do they just not understand how critical government is? Are they just so deeply, and inherently bigoted that they simply don't understand why diversity matters?

Or, like people who live in big metro areas, do they just not understand the role government, diversity, etc. plays in places that look nothing like where they live? Do they maybe just adapt to the world around them without thinking much about someone else's world? That's hardly the province of conservative, middle America types.

[SHAFT]

I'd like to say I predicted the PB and Shart responses. Pretty typical though.

When you're job title in life is "Internet Troll", pretty easy to predict.

[SHAFT]

Tgo, serious question: how do you feel about Trump saying there may be recordings of him and Trump?

[hello]

Yeah....

This doesn't help. I grew up dirt poor in a family where no one had even attended high school, let alone finished it. I didn't even know what grad school was until I got to college. I may not have been surrounded by educated people, but that doesn't mean they were stupid.

Liberals (rightfully) rage at Conservatives for treating poor people as though poverty was something they did to themselves, not something that happened to them. But then liberals turn around and look down on poor people in the middle of the country. (I fall for this a lot too) We want them to have healthcare and education, but we still think they're clueless fools who need to be saved from themselves instead of people who are just reasonably responding to their circumstances.

People have different relationships with the political system. Those of us in liberal metro areas see government, for example, as the thing that keeps our day-to-day functioning. Without regulations, laws, and social systems large cities would literally fall apart. So government is this thing that takes a small amount from you and then gives you so much more.


But if you live in a rural area, a lot of those critical government programs are 50 miles away in a good day. You have to figure out your own electricity, your own source of water, your own transportation, etc. Government is this thing that takes a chunk of your money and gives you a fraction in return (especially if you're in a red state that has worked to scale back the role of government in life).

Likewise, for people who live in big cities diversity isn't some liberal conspiracy- it's literally the world we live in. No one forces it on us- we just can't successfully interact with our surroundings unless we're comfortable with it.

But if you live in an area that fundamentally lacks diversity, you don't need to be comfortable with it to function. And when people require you to be comfortable with it, it feels like an imposition as opposed to a common sense survival skill.

Are rural people just stupid? Do they just not understand how critical government is? Are they just so deeply, and inherently bigoted that they simply don't understand why diversity matters?

Or, like people who live in big metro areas, do they just not understand the role government, diversity, etc. plays in places that look nothing like where they live? Do they maybe just adapt to the world around them without thinking much about someone else's world? That's hardly the province of conservative, middle America types.

The thing is, Hillary Clinton is not a liberal, Barack Obama is not a liberal, Liz Warren is not a liberal. If you think these cunts gives a shit about you, you're profoundly delusional and wrong. They treat 'little people' like slaves and think you're the lowest lifeform ever conceived by God.(trust me I've seen it firsthand). They hate you and love you for what you can give them.(political power and money).

They all have agendas (like Trump no doubt) and are looking out for themselves, gullible liberals like you are merely a stepping stone.

[Wrathbringer]

I'd like to say I predicted the PB and Shart responses. Pretty typical though.

When you're job title in life is "Internet Troll", pretty easy to predict.

you lost hahahahahahahaha

[Gelston]

They're going after drugs more heavily because they are going after MS-13 more heavily. Drugs are a major part of their entire deal.

[Wrathbringer]

They're going after drugs more heavily because they are going after MS-13 more heavily. Drugs are a major part of their entire deal.

Legalizing marijuana would put gangs out of business.

[Gelston]

Legalizing marijuana would put gangs out of business.

There are a lot more illicit substances than marijuana. Cocaine is the money maker.

[Parkbandit]

Says a guy who did nothing but cry here on the forums for the entire 8 years Obama was President.

Yeah ok buddy.

You're stupidity is showing again.

If you simply stop posting.. it'll go away.

Try it.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah....

This doesn't help. I grew up dirt poor in a family where no one had even attended high school, let alone finished it. I didn't even know what grad school was until I got to college. I may not have been surrounded by educated people, but that doesn't mean they were stupid.

Liberals (rightfully) rage at Conservatives for treating poor people as though poverty was something they did to themselves, not something that happened to them. But then liberals turn around and look down on poor people in the middle of the country. (I fall for this a lot too) We want them to have healthcare and education, but we still think they're clueless fools who need to be saved from themselves instead of people who are just reasonably responding to their circumstances.

People have different relationships with the political system. Those of us in liberal metro areas see government, for example, as the thing that keeps our day-to-day functioning. Without regulations, laws, and social systems large cities would literally fall apart. So government is this thing that takes a small amount from you and then gives you so much more.


But if you live in a rural area, a lot of those critical government programs are 50 miles away in a good day. You have to figure out your own electricity, your own source of water, your own transportation, etc. Government is this thing that takes a chunk of your money and gives you a fraction in return (especially if you're in a red state that has worked to scale back the role of government in life).

Likewise, for people who live in big cities diversity isn't some liberal conspiracy- it's literally the world we live in. No one forces it on us- we just can't successfully interact with our surroundings unless we're comfortable with it.

But if you live in an area that fundamentally lacks diversity, you don't need to be comfortable with it to function. And when people require you to be comfortable with it, it feels like an imposition as opposed to a common sense survival skill.

Are rural people just stupid? Do they just not understand how critical government is? Are they just so deeply, and inherently bigoted that they simply don't understand why diversity matters?

Or, like people who live in big metro areas, do they just not understand the role government, diversity, etc. plays in places that look nothing like where they live? Do they maybe just adapt to the world around them without thinking much about someone else's world? That's hardly the province of conservative, middle America types.

LOL

[Parkbandit]

I'd like to say I predicted the PB and Shart responses. Pretty typical though.

When you're job title in life is "Internet Troll", pretty easy to predict.

You are still so upset.

Poor thing. :(

[Allereli]

There are a lot more illicit substances than marijuana. Cocaine is the money maker.


http://youtu.be/Q5ybPnY1Ehc

[tyrant-201]

You're stupidity is showing again.

If you simply stop posting.. it'll go away.

Try it.

Your*

[Parkbandit]

Your*

:(

[SHAFT]

You are still so upset.

Poor thing. :(


https://youtu.be/bdp0am6tGLY

[drauz]

Yeah....

This doesn't help. I grew up dirt poor in a family where no one had even attended high school, let alone finished it. I didn't even know what grad school was until I got to college. I may not have been surrounded by educated people, but that doesn't mean they were stupid.

Liberals (rightfully) rage at Conservatives for treating poor people as though poverty was something they did to themselves, not something that happened to them. But then liberals turn around and look down on poor people in the middle of the country. (I fall for this a lot too) We want them to have healthcare and education, but we still think they're clueless fools who need to be saved from themselves instead of people who are just reasonably responding to their circumstances.

People have different relationships with the political system. Those of us in liberal metro areas see government, for example, as the thing that keeps our day-to-day functioning. Without regulations, laws, and social systems large cities would literally fall apart. So government is this thing that takes a small amount from you and then gives you so much more.


But if you live in a rural area, a lot of those critical government programs are 50 miles away in a good day. You have to figure out your own electricity, your own source of water, your own transportation, etc. Government is this thing that takes a chunk of your money and gives you a fraction in return (especially if you're in a red state that has worked to scale back the role of government in life).

Likewise, for people who live in big cities diversity isn't some liberal conspiracy- it's literally the world we live in. No one forces it on us- we just can't successfully interact with our surroundings unless we're comfortable with it.

But if you live in an area that fundamentally lacks diversity, you don't need to be comfortable with it to function. And when people require you to be comfortable with it, it feels like an imposition as opposed to a common sense survival skill.

Are rural people just stupid? Do they just not understand how critical government is? Are they just so deeply, and inherently bigoted that they simply don't understand why diversity matters?

Or, like people who live in big metro areas, do they just not understand the role government, diversity, etc. plays in places that look nothing like where they live? Do they maybe just adapt to the world around them without thinking much about someone else's world? That's hardly the province of conservative, middle America types.

I think you're starting to get it. Now what do you think the Democrats should do to overcome this? Do you think calling these people names is the way to improve their standing? Do you think labeling them as this or that is helpful?

[Androidpk]

I think you're starting to get it. Now what do you think the Democrats should do to overcome this? Do you think calling these people names is the way to improve their standing? Do you think labeling them as this or that is helpful?

They need to get out and collect some fascist scalps!

[Neveragain]

Yeah....

This doesn't help. I grew up dirt poor in a family where no one had even attended high school, let alone finished it. I didn't even know what grad school was until I got to college. I may not have been surrounded by educated people, but that doesn't mean they were stupid.

Liberals (rightfully) rage at Conservatives for treating poor people as though poverty was something they did to themselves, not something that happened to them. But then liberals turn around and look down on poor people in the middle of the country. (I fall for this a lot too) We want them to have healthcare and education, but we still think they're clueless fools who need to be saved from themselves instead of people who are just reasonably responding to their circumstances.

People have different relationships with the political system. Those of us in liberal metro areas see government, for example, as the thing that keeps our day-to-day functioning. Without regulations, laws, and social systems large cities would literally fall apart. So government is this thing that takes a small amount from you and then gives you so much more.


But if you live in a rural area, a lot of those critical government programs are 50 miles away in a good day. You have to figure out your own electricity, your own source of water, your own transportation, etc. Government is this thing that takes a chunk of your money and gives you a fraction in return (especially if you're in a red state that has worked to scale back the role of government in life).

Likewise, for people who live in big cities diversity isn't some liberal conspiracy- it's literally the world we live in. No one forces it on us- we just can't successfully interact with our surroundings unless we're comfortable with it.

But if you live in an area that fundamentally lacks diversity, you don't need to be comfortable with it to function. And when people require you to be comfortable with it, it feels like an imposition as opposed to a common sense survival skill.

Are rural people just stupid? Do they just not understand how critical government is? Are they just so deeply, and inherently bigoted that they simply don't understand why diversity matters?

Or, like people who live in big metro areas, do they just not understand the role government, diversity, etc. plays in places that look nothing like where they live? Do they maybe just adapt to the world around them without thinking much about someone else's world? That's hardly the province of conservative, middle America types.

I'm going to be as kind as possible with this response.

First I will start off by pointing out your own personal bias which is dripping from so much of your post but I don't have the time or will to go that deeply into it. This is also not what I want the subject of my reply to be about, I prefer solutions rather than bicker.

A very large section of that red used to be democrat bread and butter, a large section of that red also voted for Obama. They did not vote democrat because of identity politics, most of these people are not racist, they are I don't give a fuckists. They care about one color and that's green. That dude digging around in the coal mine isn't there because it's fun, he's there because it's the best damn paying job he can get. Without that dude risking his life far beyond that of any actor, athlete.... pretty much any other job you could imagine, all those pretty lights, the easy access to fresh healthy food, the warm home....in those blue areas, no longer exist.

Now put yourself in their shoes for just a moment.

You just voted for Obama like the good little democrat you're told to be and then you spend 8 years listening to actors, athletes, rich elitists and politicians label you in all negative ways imaginable. Your beliefs, your heritage, your race, your patriotism completely under fire from the same Democrats you just voted for.

Then you are told to vote for this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njczesGlXaQ

Or you have the option of just not giving a fuck anymore and voting Trump, knowing full well it's going to piss off every last one of these condescending assholes you have listened to for 8 years?

Russia had NOTHING to do with this, the behavior of the Democrat party over the past 8 years and their candidate lost this election for them.

The only option Democrats have is to move to the center. They need to drop the identity politics and get back to being the blue collar party.

Personally I don't think the Democrats will recover by 2020 (man I'm getting fucking old) they need to undergo a complete transformation and there is zero signs of them doing so thus far. I'm leaning towards a Pence president in 2020 and Trump not even running.

My god...honestly with everything you just said can you not see why we have a representative republic? Can you not see why centralizing governing power is so bad?

[Neveragain]

What bothers me is that these threads seem to just derail into the fact of who won/lost, rather than holding the individual who won accountable for his actions and discussing the actions he's performing and whether or not people believe them to be good or bad.

I think it's difficult to keep the conversation like this because of the nature of the President and why he was elected, to many Trump voters it didn't matter good or bad. For many the complete chaos it has created is like a feeding frenzy, you can't deny Trump has delivered red meat off the bone.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYrBFE0rtWo

[time4fun]

I think you're starting to get it. Now what do you think the Democrats should do to overcome this? Do you think calling these people names is the way to improve their standing? Do you think labeling them as this or that is helpful?

I'm not "starting" to get anything. I grew up in a small conservative town. I get the "other side".

Here's what I think a lot of people in the Politics folder don't see: national polls give Democratic party identification a good 5-7% edge of Republicans, there were almost 3 million more votes for Clinton than for Trump, the Dems got 11% more votes in the 2016 Senate elections than Republicans, and the Dems only got 1.5% fewer House votes than Republicans (which translated into dozens of extra seats for the GOP).

For much of the last decade, the GOP has made a concerted- and sadly effective- strategy out of gerrymandering and voter suppression- particularly in the swing states. The way Congressional districts are set up right now, Democrats have to get MORE votes than Republicans just to get a 50/50 split in the House, for example. And swing states have seen the number of polling locations (especially in urban, minority heavy areas) gutted, the number of early voting days slashed, and biased, restrictive vote ID laws enacted (which, in NC's case, was found to target the African American community with "surgical precision").

It's working.

The impact of gerrymandering in swing states alone is breathtaking. Sam Wang (Princeton) (http://election.princeton.edu/2015/12/08/the-net-effect-of-gerrymandering-in-nine-states-exceeds-that-of-population-clustering-in-all-50-states/) did a great analysis on the impact of the post-2010 redistricting vs the impact of population clustering:


It is possible to quantify the effects of population clustering and partisan redistricting separately. In my SSRN paper, I estimate that population clustering was responsible for a net shift of 9-10 House seats towards Republicans. The total effect of post-2010 redistricting added a net gain of 11 additional seats for Republicans. (this combines 14 seats in seven GOP-controlled states with 3 seats in two Democrat-controlled states). In other words, partisan redistricting in just seven states created a distortion that exceeded the effects of population clustering in all 50 states combined.

Meanwhile, Chen and Cotrell (U Mich and Dartmouth) (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jowei/gerrymandering.pdf) did another great statistical analysis on the impact of gerrymandering, and guess which states had the biggest pro-GOP bias in their redistricting plans?

NC, OH, FL, OH, VA, MI, PA, NJ, and WI. (page 338)

Those states look familiar?

While I know conservatives don't like to acknowledge the effectiveness of these policy changes (and yet oddly seem to support them- which raises the question of why they support something they claim doesn't actually matter), but they have effectively stacked the deck in crucial places. The GOP is governing from the minority at this point, and it's not just population clustering. I'm tired of talking about what Dems have to do to get that 55% of the vote, or whatever, they need to actually control the Executive or Legislative Branches. I'd rather talk about why Dems need more votes to do it, and why Republicans are allowed to suppress the vote in order to win.

[time4fun]

They need to get out and collect some fascist scalps!

Remember when you threw a shit fit for months because Bill Clinton and Lynch had a quick, public chat on the tarmac? The wails and gnashing of teeth over the corruption going on?

And the dead silence over Trump firing and replacing the person investigating him, holding private dinners with the head of the FBI, asking said head of FBI for loyalty pledges, asking the heads of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees to call reporters to tell them that they should stop reporting on the Russia story because Trump was innocent of collusion, and threatening a Federal witness in a Congressional investigation over Twitter?

Yeah, you're a raging hypocrite. And it'd be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

Mahalo.

[Androidpk]

Remember when you threw a shit fit for months because Bill Clinton and Lynch had a quick, public chat on the tarmac? The wails and gnashing of teeth over the corruption going on?

And the dead silence over Trump firing and replacing the person investigating him, holding private dinners with the head of the FBI, asking said head of FBI for loyalty pledges, asking the heads of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees to call reporters to tell them that they should stop reporting on the Russia story because Trump was innocent of collusion, and threatening a Federal witness in a Congressional investigation over Twitter?

Yeah, you're a raging hypocrite. And it'd be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

Mahalo.

Was Hillary the target of the FBI investigation last year?

[Androidpk]

Was Hillary the target of the FBI investigation last year?

Hillbots self destruct when faced with the ugly truth.

[Neveragain]

I'm not "starting" to get anything. I grew up in a small conservative town. I get the "other side".

No, you don't.


Here's what I think a lot of people in the Politics folder don't see: national polls give Democratic party identification a good 5-7% edge of Republicans, there were almost 3 million more votes for Clinton than for Trump, the Dems got 11% more votes in the 2016 Senate elections than Republicans, and the Dems only got 1.5% fewer House votes than Republicans (which translated into dozens of extra seats for the GOP).

Knock it off, the people that are making the sacrifices to live in these areas so the world doesn't starve to death, your home is heated and there being reasons to have government infrastructure in the first place, deserve a say in how their stolen money (taxes) are spent.


Under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned among the states by population, as determined by the census conducted every ten years. Each state, however, is entitled to at least one Representative.


For much of the last decade, the GOP has made a concerted- and sadly effective- strategy out of gerrymandering and voter suppression- particularly in the swing states. The way Congressional districts are set up right now, Democrats have to get MORE votes than Republicans just to get a 50/50 split in the House, for example. And swing states have seen the number of polling locations (especially in urban, minority heavy areas) gutted, the number of early voting days slashed, and biased, restrictive vote ID laws enacted (which, in NC's case, was found to target the African American community with "surgical precision").


Nobody here is arguing in support of gerrymandering, you are the only one pretending that Democrats don't do it as well.


I'd rather talk about why Dems need more votes to do it

Dem's don't need more votes, 30 of the 50 states rejected a Democrat party that has gone off the deep end.


Republicans are allowed to suppress the vote in order to win.

Nobody is suppressing votes....well...except the Democrats with their super delegate primaries.

Honestly Makebelieve, you need to get over this. You need to let it go.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px-FRo1K3DE

[Parkbandit]

Remember when you threw a shit fit for months because Bill Clinton and Lynch had a quick, public chat on the tarmac? The wails and gnashing of teeth over the corruption going on?

It wasn't public. It was a private meeting between the 2 of them to discuss "grandchildren" for 20 minutes. And I couldn't hear the wails and gnashing of teeth over your justification of the event... even though your new hero Comey said it hurt the investigation and Loretta Lynch regretted it later.


And the dead silence over Trump firing and replacing the person investigating him, holding private dinners with the head of the FBI, asking said head of FBI for loyalty pledges, asking the heads of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees to call reporters to tell them that they should stop reporting on the Russia story because Trump was innocent of collusion, and threatening a Federal witness in a Congressional investigation over Twitter?

Yeah, you're a raging hypocrite. And it'd be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

Mahalo.

Holy shit... you calling ANYONE a raging hypocrite is in itself, hypocritical.

[Stolis]

Yeah....

This doesn't help. I grew up dirt poor in a family where no one had even attended high school, let alone finished it. I didn't even know what grad school was until I got to college. I may not have been surrounded by educated people, but that doesn't mean they were stupid.

Liberals (rightfully) rage at Conservatives for treating poor people as though poverty was something they did to themselves, not something that happened to them. But then liberals turn around and look down on poor people in the middle of the country. (I fall for this a lot too) We want them to have healthcare and education, but we still think they're clueless fools who need to be saved from themselves instead of people who are just reasonably responding to their circumstances.

People have different relationships with the political system. Those of us in liberal metro areas see government, for example, as the thing that keeps our day-to-day functioning. Without regulations, laws, and social systems large cities would literally fall apart. So government is this thing that takes a small amount from you and then gives you so much more.


But if you live in a rural area, a lot of those critical government programs are 50 miles away in a good day. You have to figure out your own electricity, your own source of water, your own transportation, etc. Government is this thing that takes a chunk of your money and gives you a fraction in return (especially if you're in a red state that has worked to scale back the role of government in life).

Likewise, for people who live in big cities diversity isn't some liberal conspiracy- it's literally the world we live in. No one forces it on us- we just can't successfully interact with our surroundings unless we're comfortable with it.

But if you live in an area that fundamentally lacks diversity, you don't need to be comfortable with it to function. And when people require you to be comfortable with it, it feels like an imposition as opposed to a common sense survival skill.

Are rural people just stupid? Do they just not understand how critical government is? Are they just so deeply, and inherently bigoted that they simply don't understand why diversity matters?

Or, like people who live in big metro areas, do they just not understand the role government, diversity, etc. plays in places that look nothing like where they live? Do they maybe just adapt to the world around them without thinking much about someone else's world? That's hardly the province of conservative, middle America types.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIuotFZnBtk

[time4fun]

Hillbots self destruct when faced with the ugly truth.

Seriously, you're starting to sink below even the loose sanity threshhold of "crazy conspiracy theorist Fox-watching uncle at Thanksgiving".

She was. Did she fire and replace the person investigating her or something? Did she require a loyalty pledge from that person?

[Wrathbringer]

Seriously, you're starting to sink below even the loose sanity threshhold of "crazy conspiracy theorist Fox-watching uncle at Thanksgiving".

She was. Did she fire and replace the person investigating her or something? Did she require a loyalty pledge from that person?

She went to the president and said, "call off your fucking dogs, Barack!"

[Parkbandit]

Seriously, you're starting to sink below even the loose sanity threshhold of "crazy conspiracy theorist Fox-watching uncle at Thanksgiving".

She was. Did she fire and replace the person investigating her or something? Did she require a loyalty pledge from that person?

She couldn't fire Director Comey... only THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN... and she lost :(

http://api.theweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/tw_image_9_4/public/RT_TrumpPresident_2_19_JACKIE.jpg?itok=zthvqP3t&resize=1260x560

[hello]

Although I'm giving Trump a chance, I've been noticing an uptick in division and heat between people in D.C. All anyone talks about is politics and Trump inside the beltway; even saw a scuffle and a couple of thrown punches over it. I'll give Barack this, when he was President he was much less divisive for non-polticians. I saw a lot of black and white hugs right after his inauguration.

It feels like after Trump got elected there was this, "yeah, we don't have to live together after all!" vibe. Personally, I'm not sure if this is good or bad...yet. Stay tuned.

[cwolff]

Although I'm giving Trump a chance, I've been noticing an uptick in division and heat between people in D.C. All anyone talks about is politics and Trump inside the beltway; even saw a scuffle and a couple of thrown punches over it. I'll give Barack this, when he was President he was much less divisive for non-polticians. I saw a lot of black and white hugs right after his inauguration.

It feels like after Trump got elected there was this, "yeah, we don't have to live together after all!" vibe. Personally, I'm not sure if this is good or bad...yet. Stay tuned.

Here's an article which imo addresses your point.

http://billmoyers.com/story/are-we-monsters/

[time4fun]

Although I'm giving Trump a chance, I've been noticing an uptick in division and heat between people in D.C. All anyone talks about is politics and Trump inside the beltway; even saw a scuffle and a couple of thrown punches over it. I'll give Barack this, when he was President he was much less divisive for non-polticians. I saw a lot of black and white hugs right after his inauguration.

It feels like after Trump got elected there was this, "yeah, we don't have to live together after all!" vibe. Personally, I'm not sure if this is good or bad...yet. Stay tuned.

So it doesn't bother you how often and irreverently he lies?

The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/01/president-trumps-first-100-days-the-fact-check-tally/?utm_term=.40d09524d0bb) did an aggregation of his lies and misleading statements for his first 100 days:


So here are the numbers for the president’s first 100 days.

492: The number of false or misleading claims made by the president. That’s an average of 4.9 claims a day.
10: Number of days without a single false claim. (On six of those days, the president golfed at a Trump property.)
5: Number of days with 20 or more false claims. (Feb. 16, Feb. 28, March 20, April 21 and April 29, his 100th day in office.)

It doesn't bother you how often he attacks anyone and everyone with any power over him? The Judiciary, the Press, the Intelligence Agencies, etc?

It doesn't bother you that he created a crisis situation in the House Intelligence Committee (which is investigating him) by recruiting Nunes- the head of the committee- to help spread false information about Obama wiretapping Trump Tower? I mean, Nunes had to recuse himself because of the ethics investigation into him based on what Trump asked him to do.

It doesn't bother you that he asked Burr and Nunes (heads of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees that are overseeing investigations into him) to call reporters to tell them that Trump was innocent of collusion or improper Russian connections?

It doesn't bother you that he fired and is now replacing one of the other people who was overseeing investigations into him?

And that's just a fraction of the insanity that's been going on with him.

You say you want to give him a chance, but I'm genuinely curious as to why what has happened so far is of only tangential consequence to you personally.

[Wrathbringer]

So it doesn't bother you how often and irreverently he lies?

The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/01/president-trumps-first-100-days-the-fact-check-tally/?utm_term=.40d09524d0bb) did an aggregation of his lies and misleading statements for his first 100 days:



It doesn't bother you how often he attacks anyone and everyone with any power over him? The Judiciary, the Press, the Intelligence Agencies, etc?

It doesn't bother you that he created a crisis situation in the House Intelligence Committee (which is investigating him) by recruiting Nunes- the head of the committee- to help spread false information about Obama wiretapping Trump Tower? I mean, Nunes had to recuse himself because of the ethics investigation into him based on what Trump asked him to do.

It doesn't bother you that he asked Burr and Nunes (heads of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees that are overseeing investigations into him) to call reporters to tell them that Trump was innocent of collusion or improper Russian connections?

It doesn't bother you that he fired and is now replacing one of the other people who was overseeing investigations into him?

And that's just a fraction of the insanity that's been going on with him.

You say you want to give him a chance, but I'm genuinely curious as to why what has happened so far is of only tangential consequence to you personally.

None of that bothers me. I'm more concerned about your conversing with the troll in a serious way.

[hello]

None of that bothers me. I'm more concerned about your conversing with the troll in a serious way.

It's OK, even I converse with youin a "serious way".

[time4fun]

None of that bothers me. I'm more concerned about your conversing with the troll in a serious way.

Did you.....just call someone else a troll?

[Wrathbringer]

Did you.....just call someone else a troll?

:lol:

[hello]

:lol:

You're not Wraithbringer in-game are you? Who the heck names their character Wraithbringer? It's like naming something Awesomedeathguy, or Coolestdude, or Eaglefalconpunch.. just lol.