President Donald Trump

[nots]

Honestly though, I dont think you are going to find enough people on the R side to jump ship and start voting against the President - so McConell is more than likely just not wasting people's time. They may have voted 100-0 - I just dont see them voting against the Pres and McConnell isnt going to put them in that position - apparently.

McConnell, much like Pelosi, is very good at what he does. The GOP caucus would really, really have to turn against Trump to get him to allow a vote.

[baldgriff]

Trump didn't fuck up. The people who believed him did.

Oh - so the nearly 63 million people that voted for Trump are to blame - because all 63 million of them couldnt find a better candidate to vote for. Yep all 63 million racists, bigots, misogynists, and what ever other label you want to call them. Yep they all voted Trump and its their fault.....

Or is it the fault of the:

500,000 people in Ohio that voted Trump rather than Clinton (18 electoral votes)
50,000 people in PA that voted Trump rather than Clinton (20 electoral votes)
200,000 people in WI that voted Trump rather than Clinton (10 electoral votes)
200,000 people in NC that voted Trump rather than Clinton (15 electoral votes)

Is it possible just possible - and you really need to consider this - that people voted against HRC, because she was a horrible candidate? because she is passionless and couldnt rally or get people motivated? If you look at 3 or 4 states Trump won - if she could have gotten the votes from the 3rd party candidates she would have won. All of those "wasted" votes for Johnson or Stein in states like AZ, FL, MI, PA, and WI. Yep - many of those votes very likely were votes of "No Confidence" in EITHER PARTY.

It sucks we have Trump! Im not a fan in general. I have been fine with his SCOTUS nominees and a couple other things - but I think he is an ass.

[revo]

Honestly though, I dont think you are going to find enough people on the R side to jump ship and start voting against the President - so McConell is more than likely just not wasting people's time. They may have voted 100-0 - I just dont see them voting against the Pres and McConnell isnt going to put them in that position - apparently.

136 GOPers in the House (and 11 Senators) just voted with the Dems yesterday to vote against Trump's lifting of sanctions on Russia. Cracks are starting to form. The pressure of the shutdown is starting to fall on their shoulders.

[baldgriff]

136 GOPers in the House (and 11 Senators) just voted with the Dems yesterday to vote against Trump's lifting of sanctions on Russia. Cracks are starting to form. The pressure of the shutdown is starting to fall on their shoulders.

You may end up being right in the long term. However, both parties are playing some sort of scorched earth and one of them is going to have to be willing to come to the table and get less than what they may have started asking for. In the long run, that is the party that will come out looking better.

[B-Fly]

Hillary Clinton absolutely won the most primary votes from actual primary voters, whether viewed holistically across the entire primary electorate, or state-by-state. Are there good reasons to dislike the Superdelegate component of the Democratic Primaries? Absolutely, and I'm glad they largely stripped them of their role in determining the nominee, but I think it's absurd to suggest that Clinton was not the choice of actual primary voters when she won the most primary votes by a substantial margin. (And not for nothing, but she also won the most real voters' general election votes by a wide margin. So to suggest that the DNC "picked" Clinton and not the voters, or to suggest that she was an absurd nominee because she was so unappealing to voters, when she won both the American Democratic primary voters by a large margin and the American general election voters by a large margin is pretty absurd analysis.

[DMT]

Hillary Clinton absolutely won the most primary votes from actual primary voters, whether viewed holistically across the entire primary electorate, or state-by-state. Are there good reasons to dislike the Superdelegate component of the Democratic Primaries? Absolutely, and I'm glad they largely stripped them of their role in determining the nominee, but I think it's absurd to suggest that Clinton was not the choice of actual primary voters when she won the most primary votes by a substantial margin. (And not for nothing, but she also won the most real voters' general election votes by a wide margin. So to suggest that the DNC "picked" Clinton and not the voters, or to suggest that she was an absurd nominee because she was so unappealing to voters, when she won both the American Democratic primary voters by a large margin and the American general election voters by a large margin is pretty absurd analysis.

Par for the course. Just like blaming Democrats equally for this shutdown when the culpability is so obviously and completely on Trump and McConnell.

[DMT]

Trump isn't getting another wall (there are plenty of walls along the border, an annoying lie of omission perpetrated by most of the MSM), it's just a question of what disaster will be the final straw to make Republican Senators see the iceberg.

[DMT]

BG please stop saying how much you dislike Trump and then defending him (or attacking his opponents) in the very next post.

You're of course free to continue but it really undercuts everything you write.

[nots]

BG please stop saying how much you dislike Trump and then defending him (or attacking his opponents) in the very next post.

You're of course free to continue but it really undercuts everything you write.

Attacking someone’s opponents doesn’t necessarily equate to supporting them but I guess my real question to you is ‘why are you the arbiter of what he is allowed to post’? We have chased a lot of folks away over the years—doesn’t make sense to keep doing it.

[baldgriff]

BG please stop saying how much you dislike Trump and then defending him (or attacking his opponents) in the very next post.

You're of course free to continue but it really undercuts everything you write.

Thanks for your concern..... I dont like any of them... none of them... neither of the major parties...

I will have to admit I care less for the D party than I do the R's --- but I see both as just opposite sides of the same crappy coin.

I can approve of some things that Trump has done and still not actually like the guy - its called nuance...

[DMT]

Attacking someone’s opponents doesn’t necessarily equate to supporting them but I guess my real question to you is ‘why are you the arbiter of what he is allowed to post’? We have chased a lot of folks away over the years—doesn’t make sense to keep doing it.

That's why I edited my post to add the second sentence. It's just worn out the whole "I'm an independent" shtick and both parties suck. Libertarianism is based on a mentality of "everything for me, nothing for anyone else". So stop pretending that it's such a great alternative. There's a reason it gains almost traction. It's abhorrent.

[Judge Jude]

it's true that Hillary beat Bernie even without the superdelegates thumb on the scale.

meanwhile, it's getting a little weird that no media outlets have been able to confirm the Buzzfeed story from hours ago that Cohen will testify that Trump directed him to lie to Congress. Cohen's word is useless, but the story suggests that Mueller found this out via email etc and then went to Cohen who confirmed.

I can promise you that CNN, Wa Post and NY Times in particular are having every reporter who has ever met a law enforcement official pressure their sources to get their digs into this story. and if the sources really want this to roll, they wouldn't just let Buzzfeed be the lone wolf. not enough bang for the buck.

the story is plausible, experts say, in that it dovetails with some indictments language. I'm not sure what to make of it yet.

[DMT]

Thanks for your concern..... I dont like any of them... none of them... neither of the major parties...

I will have to admit I care less for the D party than I do the R's --- but I see both as just opposite sides of the same crappy coin.

I can approve of some things that Trump has done and still not actually like the guy - its called nuance...

Funny that you claim to be 'nuanced' when the main thrust of most of your arguments is "both sides suck".

[nots]

That's why I edited my post to add the second sentence. It's just worn out the whole "I'm an independent" shtick and both parties suck. Libertarianism is based on a mentality of "everything for me, nothing for anyone else". So stop pretending that it's such a great alternative. There's a reason it gains almost traction. It's abhorrent.

Gotcha. Party of tolerance, right? How about I stop pretending Libertarianism is a great alternative, when you stop pretending liberalism is. Typical inclusive liberal—as long as my world view is the same as yours (I do respect your views on anti-militrarianism, FWIW).

[DMT]

it's true that Hillary beat Bernie even without the superdelegates thumb on the scale.

meanwhile, it's getting a little weird that no media outlets have been able to confirm the Buzzfeed story from hours ago that Cohen will testify that Trump directed him to lie to Congress. Cohen's word is useless, but the story suggests that Mueller found this out via email etc and then went to Cohen who confirmed.

I can promise you that CNN, Wa Post and NY Times in particular are having every reporter who has ever met a law enforcement official pressure their sources to get their digs into this story. and if the sources really want this to roll, they wouldn't just let Buzzfeed be the lone wolf. not enough bang for the buck.

the story is plausible, experts say, in that it dovetails with some indictments language. I'm not sure what to make of it yet.

It is bizarre but Buzzfeed would be done if this story is fabricated...I can't imagine they'd commit suicide to dominate a news cycle or two.