If you think this is normal or helps promote the safety and efficient function of our government, please tell us how exactly? This is just another one of the many reasons to get someone with some government experience back into the role of commander-in-chief.
I'm with you. I hadn't heard about Bolton until you posted this. Seeing it all laid out like this.....Wow. Just wow.
Anyone out there believe all of this turnover (and the resulting vacancies) is a good thing?
Back to normal? Why do you think Trump won? Many American's are not satisfied with what some look at a normal. Your normal may have been what many saw as status quo, failing policies, poor governing.
So environmental protections, falling unemployment, consistent job growth, booming stock market, expanded civil rights, lower deficits were examples of poor governing? All of these things were better under the last administration. Please provide some examples of things that have improved with this clown show?
So odd how I see Obama's presidency so differently? Have a great day.
Exactly. I can provide the factual numbers that back up each of those statements and how the numbers for this administration are worse. How you see it doesn't equal the reality of it.
For sure. Unemployment is way up since he took office, and employment way down. Wages have fallen and the stock market has lost 20% of the value it had when he took office. Manufacturing has left the country in droves and there are more people on food stamps than ever before.
Yep, the numbers sure are worse, aren't they?
Unemployment went from 7.7 to 4.7 over Obama's final term. From 4.7 to 3.7 under Trump. I'd say the difference favors Obama.
Stock market was better under Obama, clearly: https://fortune.com/2019/06/03/stock-ma … ma-sp-500/
As for wages, they have been rising steadily since 2012. People on food stamps had begun declining after 2013, long before Trump took office. As the unemployment rate dropped, that's just common sense that less people need SNAP assistance. Saying Trump is responsible when those trends began four years prior to his administration instituted a policy is pure ignorance.
As for manufacturing, the tax cut gave it a boost, but the Trump tariffs have since nullified any gains in that area, even decimating the agricultural industry. Not something I'd boast about if I were you.
And all that before we even begin to talk about the deficit, ballooning to over a trillion dollars with a healthy economy.
No point, Trump supporters only believe the propaganda. The way you saw the positive gains done during the Obama era in a negative light already proved it.
You put words in my mouth?
I think I answered your original question. To repeat, " Back to normal? Why do you think Trump won? Many American's are not satisfied with what some look at a normal. Your normal may have been what many saw as status quo, failing policies, poor governing."
If you call good governing Obama handling of Syria, you know turning his back on Genocide good governing? Not sure we look at good governing in the same way? When I compare how liberals complain about our current border crisis, and the way Trump is handling it, to Obama's handling of Syria. It makes me wonder what kind of people can justify how Obama handled such a travesty? I am sorry, he represented America, and this to me was one of our very lowest periods. I think it would be pointless to argue his virtues with such a stain on his presidency.
Let's go apples to apples, and not to oranges. Even Obama thinks he could have done better in Syria, so I won't try and defend him. But I don't think Obama ever sided with murderers, such as Trump has done with both Kim Jong Un in the Warmbier instance and Mohammad bin Salman in the Khashoggi killing. And let's be really clear about the second example, he believes a murderer over the intelligence services of the United States. It's going back to when he stood in Helsinki and said he believed Putin had no part in attacking the 2016 election. Time and again, he sides with the despicable. And you faulting Obama alone when he took the decision to bomb Syria to Congress and the GOP voted it down 183-12 is rather interesting. Surprised you fail to mention that little tidbit and lay all the blame on Obama.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/worl … hoggi.html
Believe me, I understood why people took a chance on an outsider. What we fail to understand is how you cannot recognize the trainwreck that has been this presidency, even when faced with the evidence.
As for the border, Obama deported more people than any president in history and targeted criminals for removal. He increased funding for border security while also looking to solve the root causes of why people were coming to the United States. And zero immigrant children died during his presidency. Seven died from January 2018 to May 2019 alone under Trump.
Why can you excuse this administration for these deaths? For siding with murderers? What's the difference?
"The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a ..." This should have been the presidents decision the moment his red line was crossed.
Not one thing you said rings true... Not one. It is important to listen to not only one part of a statement, but it is also important to hear the entire statement to understand its context. Youtube has complete videos on most of President Trump's statements. I suggest you listen to a few in total. our bias is controlling your thought process.
" trainwreck?" I think you should start to realize Trump is doing a wonderful job governing. The country has never been this prosperous, people are working, and spending again. I suggest you do some research on Trump's accomplishments I am not here to school you. It's all-out there, one only has to open their eyes wide...
The president should have bombed another country without consulting Congress? So basically, you're saying the president should start wars without consulting Congress. That's just not smart governing.
I think you're an idiot to even make the statement that I haven't done research on what Trump has said pertaining to MBS or Kim Jong Un. You're right, it's all out there and how you can defend him for covering for a murderer and a dictator clearly responsible for the death of an American is laughable.
And you think record mass shootings as he ignores basic improvements to gun control laws, dying immigrant children, an increase in hate crimes, huge deficits, lower stock market gains, and lower job growth is prosperous? Again, I'd vehemently disagree with your views based on the true data out there that I doubt you or Dan have ever bothered to look up on your own.
And you've got to love it when the EPA announces the repealing of clean water standards from within a lobbyist's headquarters.
Did Trump start a war when Syria crossed his red line, he bombed them twice... As always you take a conversation to an extreme, no in-between. Obama could have certainly called for a strike on Syria, 500 thousand civilians were murdered on his time! No excuse could sever justify America turning our back on this form of genocide. Your excuse is sad, if it were up to Congress once again they turned their backs... We needed a leader we got a do-nothing president that flew under the radar.
You have the audacity to bring up gun control... The congress walked away for their summer vacation instead of staying and doing their job. And know they pick up the ridiculous task of trying to impeach a president without a crime. It's up to Congress to present and pass laws, not the president. And once again do some research on his views about gun control. Let me repeat, it is up to Congress to pass legislation. And please don't come back at me with good old Mitch won't pass anything he is handed. Let's see the Dem's call his bluff. Congress needs to act, not play the blame game.
What does 'let's see the Dems call his bluff even mean?' Your idiocy is getting worse.
If the House passes bills, they go to the Senate. McConnell then decides what comes up for a vote. But apparently, he thinks he works for Trump since he won't bring up anything for a vote that Trump won't sign into law. Maybe he's forgotten that Congress can override a veto.
Maybe McConnell is smart enough to understand the futility of trying to override a presidential veto in this political climate.
"Let's see the Dem's call his bluff" Congress could certainly present a bill to the Senate. As I stated they saw no relevance to canceling their vacation and working on pressing problems. If Congress did what they were voted in to do, and the Senate would refuse to address and vote on what they dish up, the Senate certainly would be looked at as obstructionist. So my sentiment once again, why does Congress not call the Senates bluff... To go one step further, if a bill passed and the president vetoed the bill, would we not at this point know who did what. and the clear opinion of Congress, the Senate, and the president? We could then have a clear picture of the president's agenda. As now he is blamed for just about everything... LOL
Liberals should remember when Obama's hands were bound by Congress and Senate. It's the same game different guy in the White House.
Like I said, your seem to be unaware of many things.
In its first month, the 116th Congress introduced 33 bills primarily concerning firearms, including 21 that called for more gun control and four that supported gun buyback programs or research on firearms. That is a greater number than any other new Congress in the last 10 years, with the exception of the 113th, which first met less than a month after a gunman killed children and their teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut.
You know which bill Trump has signed? The one that makes it easier for states to use money, derived from taxes on firearms and ammunition, to expand or create new shooting ranges on public land.
Then there's the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, which shores up the existing federal background check law by closing loopholes. Studies show that states with several gun control policies working together, including a stronger background check law, seem to have fewer gun crimes involving illegal firearms. The federal background check law alone has not done well in studies. Researchers attribute this to the fact that it has so many exceptions. The Bipartisan Background Checks Act has passed the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, but hasn't yet been taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate.
A little research sometimes goes a long way.
"You know which bill Trump has signed? "
The one bill that passed both house and senate? He cannot sign into law anything that has not passed both houses, after all. And you don't like that he signed a bill that will promote gun safety - seems counterproductive for someone wanting to slow or end the carnage.
I have no problem if the bill will help safety. And considering that, according to stats by the International Hunter Education Association, fewer than 1,000 people in both the US and Canada are accidentally shot per year by hunters with fewer than 75 fatalities. Let's be sure to check back and see how much of an effect that bill has on the mortality rates in states where non-hunters are encountering hunters such as Colorado.
But it's clear that this bill does not address the senseless gun violence in America. It addresses accidental deaths, not those being committed criminally. And you could make the case that this bill even expands the resources available to the gun industry.
That's the point I was trying to make, which, as always, you clearly lack the depth to understand while trying to sadly falsify some motive that fits your warped view of liberal thinkers.
I wasn't thinking so much of hunters as of people that want to own a gun, and be able to use it properly and safely, but don't know how. Or are terrified at the very thought of a gun in the house.
If we could actually produce another million gun toting citizens that are trained in the gun's use it just might cut that senseless gun violence (although I would submit that most killings have what are good reasons to the shooter).
Apparently you lack the ability to go beyond the very top surface and look at other possibilities as well as long term results.
When I voted for Bill Clinton I caught grief for it. When I voted for Gore thank God I lost. When I voted for Bush I caught grief for it. When I voted for McCain thank God I lost. When I voted for Obama I caught grief for it. And when I voted for Trump I'm catching grief for it now. Why nothing is getting done in this country is not the fault of any politician. The blame squarely rest upon voters who cannot respect other voters . When ballots do not matter vote with a bullet.
What? Nobody is keeping you from voting for your choice of candidate. I respect your right to vote for whoever you want, but you must respect mine in the same way.
I have always suspected that the Right will resort to violence if the political outcomes they seek is not attainable through the democratic process. It will not be tolerated.
If Trump loses next November, I dread for the sake of the country how he will react to it.
I also dread how some of his supporters will react.
No. My comment is expressing dread for how Trump might react if he loses the election.
Your comment said supporters.your comment insinuates that anyone who might support Trump is a dangerous person you are pushing a false narrative
No, you also are distorting the other part of my comment. I said, "I also dread how some of his supporters will react."
Where do I say in that comment that anyone who might support Trump is a dangerous person?
If you love Trump, that's your right. But don't make up quotes that I didn't say.
If you respect someone's vote you respect the elected official
The Democratic process requires people to support the winner of an election
It requires people to ACCEPT the winner of an election, while still able to work against he or she within the boundaries of the Democratic
I do not like Trump, and while I accept the people's choice that does not mean I have to acquiesce to it. I am free within the system to use whatever tool it provides to see that he, Trump, is a one term President. Is that OK?
Accepting the winner of an election also assumes the winner was lawfully elected and won without help from a foreign government.
It is even more questionable when that foreign government and its representatives have invested $100 million in the winner's real estate properties (that we know about).
Otherwise, it is not a democratic process.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp … -property/
It appears, from your link, that these investments were in Trump-branded properties, not Trump-owned properties, and they all seemed to be pre-2013 investments, ( a couple were as late as 2016). None seem related to the Trump presidency.
That doesn't seem to fit the inference of your time-line that implies they were related to Trump winning the presidency.
From your link, I also didn't see any Russian government representatives that invested in "the winner's real estate properties." Can you point them out?
GA, please stop distorting my comments and trying to redirect the discussion in yet another defense of Trump.
The article clearly alternates between the phrases Trump properties and Trump branded properties.
Please read the entire article carefully and quit cherry picking from just the first few paragraphs. The article is quite clear that Trump makes money from all of the properties whether they are branded, owned or co-owned.
You also misrepresent my comment once again. I did not say Russians invested the money after the election.
Likewise, I and others have posted many other articles on here about Russian investments in Trump properties.
If you can't remember any of the other articles, please do your own research and try not to be so defensive about Trump that you distort my comments or misread the links.
If I distorted your comment, it was unintentional promisem.
Accepting the winner of an election also assumes the winner was lawfully elected and won without help from a foreign government.
It is even more questionable when that foreign government and its representatives have invested $100 million in the winner's real estate properties (that we know about).
Otherwise, it is not a democratic process.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp … -property/"
Was I wrong to think that your second statement was tied to that "help" mentioned in your first statement? (especially with your inclusion of "even more questionable" as a reference to the "winner's' help)
Was I wrong to think that the link you included was there to support your second statement?
That was how I read your comment. So if I was wrong about your intent, then you are right, my response was wrong.
But I don't think that qualifies as distortion, that is just how I interpreted your message. However, you need to understand that anything that challenges an anti-Trump statement is not a defense of Trump. That is a distortion of your own.
To continue, I did read your article thoroughly--a couple of times--to be sure I didn't have the dates or names wrong. As for cherry-picking, I didn't do that either, I merely picked the data that related to your claim that a foreign government and its representatives invested in the "winner's" properties as if that were a purposeful effort for purposeful gains.
As for the article making it clear Trump made money from the properties, I didn't address that. My point about the "branded" properties was only to note there were other interests besides Trump in those properties.
You think I misrepresented your comment purposely, but when your comment follows one point with a related thought, is it such a stretch to think you intended to link the two? And when you provide a link is it a stretch to consider it was intended to be supportive of your point?
That is how I read it. If that is wrong, then at least my "mistake" was unintentional.
However, under that premise, why was I wrong or intentionally distorting or misrepresenting your comment when I simply pointed out your link didn't support your statement?
Read your own link again. Find that foreign government or "its" representatives that are named as investors in that article. I looked a couple of times and didn't see those investor designations. I will freely admit my mistake if you can point it out in your linked article.
But if you can't do that, then the mea culpa belongs to someone else.
ps. (I wasn't addressing the content of any other articles presented by you or anyone else, just this one you offered to support your statement)
Yep, that's okay. Even better, that's your Right as a U.S. citizen. And even better yet, I suspect that most of the folks that disagree with you recognize and accept your Right to do what you say.
No it's not ok.. your tool is your vote. doing whatever you can to discourage people to vote for someone so that you get your way is against the law. Doing everything you can to make sure that someone fails because you don't like them personally is not okay.if your candidate wins it is not my place to do everything I can to make sure that your person cannot do their job.its not ok.ok
When your candidate preaches hateful rhetoric and racism, I will fight him with every inch of my being. Not sure why you accept those things.
That is a opinion it's not my candidate it's one of the two that were given to me to choose from
Your candidate broke multiple laws to get elected, was assisted by a hostile foreign government, and refuses to divest himself from his business interests. On top of that, he has spewed racism and hateful rhetoric. Can you not understand why people would resist him with so much doubt to his motives?
Attacking you? I'm just wondering why you would defend a man who clearly uses racist statements and whose hateful rhetoric had led to a mass shooting.
See.. I do not give a s*** who is president. I'm wondering why you think I do. If I support whoever wins an election you seem to have a problem with me for that.
When that person has made racist statements AHorseback, I do wonder why people still support him. Logically, it makes me wonder if they support racism.
We've been discussing this all week in various threads. Telling four American minorities to go back to the countries they are from is clearly racist. As much as Trump supporters try and deny this, just do a simple search with the words 'Trump tweet congresswomen.' Then do some light reading about why that was clearly considered racist.
When you say Trump supporters you are participating in bigotry
It doesn't make you wonder anything it makes u-pass hateful judgment upon people
now what you are doing here is saying that anyone who supports Donald Trump is a racist that is exactly what you are doing
What in the hell are you talking about, Aware?
Discourage and prohibit are two different things, who is keeping you from voting for the candidate of your choice?
When it comes to voter suppression, it is the Right that bears the burden of that accusation.
Trump sucks in my opinion, and I am against him but my opposition is not expressed in an unlawful way.
Yes, I am opposed to his policies, so how is my opposition keeping Trump from doing his job?
I say that is ok....
Wasn't Mitch McConnell who said that his goal was to make Obama a one term president? So if a U.S. Senator working directly with the Executive branch can say that, why can't I?
You do not stop with Trump sucks you go on to say anyone who supports him sucks or anyone who votes for him sucks. Also known as suppression intimidation
I did not say that, you say that and it is not substantiated with anything beyond your lively imagination.
Yes, I said "me too" because the I honestly fear the reactions of Trump supporters if he does not win. Ok, I am not fond of the Rightwinger nor of his or her values. But, what does that have to do with suppressing either your voting options or interfering with President Trump doing his job?
You do not have to remind me of what you said I reminded you
Your comment is disparaging people that you don't know solely on who they vote for. You damn well know your intent is to discourage people.
If one is so weak as to discouraged by the opposition intimidating the individual from the polling place, that is your problem. How is it my problem? What do you care what I think? Vote for who you want, because I will vote and support whoever I believe is closest to my values, whether rightwingers wish to intimidate me or not.
You just said that it's okay. thats all I need from you.
Bullying tactics and intimidation is not in a right wing playbook as much as it is in the left wing's.
It is a matter of public record. Bullies never look at their behavior as bullying.
A public record you can never show, only claim exists. Trump supporters are great at playing the victim even when they defend the great insulter-in-chief.
My, what a vague insult. Might I point out the left have developed wonderful denail skills? One would think they at some point would become embraces defending media propaganda and bashing a president that is clearly doing a good job. At every turn, the Dem's more ridiculous, and actually pitful. It's a true phenomena...
Is mass murder a form of bullying? In that case, we now have plenty of mass murders by the far right on public record.
I'm not defending the insulter in chief. You guys keep harassing, keep insulting, keep bullying. I'm telling you. Most of a America isn't buying the denial. You guys think just because you get validation on Twitter that means you have some type of consensus. It doesn't. It just means the left is a mean little mob.
So true, and this very forum gives solid proof of your sentiment.
Sharlee, Well said. This is what they want as normal. Corruption! DOJ watchdog submits draft report on alleged FISA abuses to Barr
The Justice Department’s inspector general told lawmakers Friday his team is nearly finished with its long-awaited review of alleged surveillance abuses by the DOJ and FBI during the Russia investigation, saying they have submitted a draft to the attorney general and are “finalizing” the report ahead of its public release.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-in … y-general.
It will be very interesting to see how the Dem's in Washington and in the general public handle the Horowitz report. His findings have already bared spoiled fruit for them... The Dem's, as a rule, turn against anyone that delivers bad news. Always sour grapes. I hope they will e reminded Horowitz was appointed by Obama...
"President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts
WASHINGTON – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/th … tion-posts
Michael E. Horowitz – Inspector General, Department of Justice"
In some cases, yes. The vacancies are a very good thing, especially James Comey who attempted nothing less than a coup de etat'. Many others, I'm sure, just moved on. The average job span of a White House Press Secretary is 18 months to 2 years. I think it's important to remember that some of those listed, General Flynn for example, were set up, harassed, and threatened by a rogue justice department. I liked Sara Sanders and John Bolton, so I am sad to see them go. Some of those listed were caretakers for the swamp and, as promised, President Trump kicked them to the curb.
Coup d'etat? You mean by starting an investigation into the attack on our elections. Protecting American democracy is attempting a coup d'etat to you? And making a documented history when the President commits obstruction of justice in asking you to back off of Flynn is fine in your eyes?
Flynn lying about his contacts with Russia to the FBI under oath was a setup? Flynn, who was a representative of a foreign government in Turkey was a setup?
It's been three years, and you still think the previous government employees are the swamp and not the ones currently there that enrich themselves and are destroying the agencies they represent?
There a whole lot of not normal going on. If the left wasn't hell bent on attacking everything about this presidency I think you'd have less unrest.
Some people just can't take being constantly harassed and move on. As to the last on the list, I'm not displeased. My understanding is Bolton was extremely hawkish and Trump appears to want to avoid military conflict, if at all possible. Those two philosophies don't play well together.
And what the left sees is a man who broke multiple laws to get elected, is using his position to enrich himself, and promotes hate. If those things don't warrant some oversight, I worry about what else you're willing to accept.
As for Bolton, I agree with you. The left isn't displeased either. But Bolton was hawkish long before Trump hired him. This was a public fact. So if those philosophies didn't play well together, why the heck was he hired in the first place? Just another example of Trump's bad appointing history, which is sort of the fact of the post.
It's not just "the left" (whatever that is) who sees the corruption and hate, and let me add "incompetence" to the list. Why do you think states are cancelling GOP primaries? They are terrified that a challenger will draw significant support.
History will not be kind to Trump or the Republican sycophants who enable this incompetent, corrupt, mentally ill liar.
Just because I don't buy into the delusion doesn't mean I accept things. I see democrats promoting more hate than Trump does. And, quite frankly, it amazes me this fact deludes those screaming about hate.
As to broken laws, when the IG report comes out I'm hoping to have enough information, finally, to make some sense of the mess.
The difference between you and I appears to be I need all of the facts, you are happy to run with what sounds good to you and are happy to ignore everything else.
Fact - Trump used his foundation funds on his campaign. Illegal, NY shuts down the Trump Foundation and bans Trump or his kids from sitting on the board of any charitable organization for ten years ( https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/embattl … d=59884847).
Fact - Cohen supplied audio tape of Trump ordering him (he actually says - pay with cash - on the tape) to make the payment to McDougal. Illegal, Cohen sentenced to jail for this crime and names Trump as co-conspirator (https://www.ajc.com/news/national/micha … gXamENVpI/)
Facts - Trump has spent nearly a third of his presidency at his own properties (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-spent-on … rt-1455319), the military is using its resources to support his Scotland Golf Course (https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 … esort.html) (https://www.yahoo.com/news/iowa-nationa … 59651.html), and in violation of the law, often makes statements to promote his own properties.
The difference between you and I is that I know what a fact is apparently. As for promoting hate, let us know when someone shoots someone based on rhetoric from a candidate. El Paso shooter quotes directly from Trump, Florida mail bomber directly targets those Trump attacks in the media. Now that's a fact.
Twisted facts, to suit your agenda, on the hate crimes. Reasonable, decent, voices on the left have called your rhetoric out for exactly what it is.
As for the rest, at least you aren't pushing the Russian collusion lie.
Scotland, under review. Love the way you don't wait for facts, just run for the tar and feathers.
Shady campaign use of funds. Is there a politician in the public eye who has never been under investigation, someone asking for an investigation or suggestions of improprieties with funds? Possibly, but many are and have been. I don't see you commenting on any other current ones.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If any break the law they should be held accountable. But, you don't get to bypass the law just because you hate someone.
All you Trump lovers claim it's hate when anyone points out the facts of the laws he has clearly broken. The office he holds prevents that accountability currently, but it's fairly obvious to see his guilt with the facts that exist and are listed above. Your deflection to these other mystery dirty politicians does not excuse his clear guilt. That was a weak attempt, in fact.
Who are these reasonable, decent voices on the left? Again, you make these vague statements to debate me, but provide very little substance. I provide you multiple links to back up my factual claims that you doubt.
Because here are some reasonable, decent voices on the left that clearly agree with me:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ … -supremacy
https://time.com/5644433/donald-trump-e … ing-words/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 767510001/
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/t … cna1039286
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … e-el-paso/
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colu … mps-racism
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/ … st-1445700
“ I like to gain some knowledge about the issues before making things up.”
Lol, so Valeant you admit you make things up! Lol
This is not worth responding to. Talk about slanted all kind of crazy...
Not sure of where you look to for polls? Although polls have been well proven to be inaccurate. Remember Trump's polls the day of the election? They reflected a landslide for Hillary. Not trying to be snarky, just saying..
I was referring to the 35% described in the quote. Did you not read it?
I was referring to Schmidt's statement the paragraph where he seems to be referring to a poll and accusing part of the population of belonging to a cult...
"This is deliberate. This is an assault on objective truth. And once you get people to surrender their sovereignty, what is true is what the leader says is true, what is true is what the leader believes is true, even though what’s true is staring you in the face. when that happens, you are no longer living in a democratic republic. 35% of this country has checked out. They have joined a cult.They are obedient. They are obedient to the leader.”
I realize his statement was an opinion, but just would like to know where he got 35 % of the country from now belong to a cult? Not sure of where he pulled this 35% from? Perhaps he should not have used any percentage without clarifying his statement? Being an opinion piece he could have just kept to his views, and just said: "people that voted for Trump". I am sure he was referring to something, a poll perhaps?
I really don't think swelling on that number is as important as the statement itself. I have never seen you condemn Dear Leader. Is there snything, anything at all, that you find abhorrent about his words, actions, policies, tweets? Anything?
I have answered this question form other here on HP. However not in awhile.
"abhorrent about his words" I find his words in some cases rude, bullying, as well as redundant. I find him on occasions abrasive, and self-centered.
I also have found him to be transparent, and uncensored, unlike many politicians.
Actions --- the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim.
I find him tireless when trying to reach or achieve anything he aims for. He just pushes past barriers or tries to go around them.
Policies --- I was a Dem from the time I could vote. The past two Dem presidents which I did vote for disappointed me. In 2016 I felt the country was going down the tubes. I voted for an agenda, I wanted someone different, someone, transparent with a business background. I was fully aware of Trump's background in business as well as his personal life. I could care less. I wanted someone to do a job, the job of fixing this America's long-time worsening problems.
His tweets at times frustrate me. Many are uncalled for, and again rude and redundant as well as narcissistic. Sometimes I applaud him for fighting back, it just depends on the battle.
To sum it up, I voted for an agenda for a man to work on problems that I felt were getting worse, I wanted transparency a president that would fight back and make every attempt to keep his promises. So, far I got what I voted for. Has their been mistakes? Yes, but his job performance so far is good. Hopefully, you will not take offense at my reply, it is honest, and you asked.
That is simply not true. Polls in the final 10 days of the election did not predict a landslide.
They predicted Clinton would win the popular vote by a margin of 3%. She won with a margin of 2%. That's well within a margin of error.
Odd - I don't recall a single poll that indicated a win, by anyone or by any amount, in the popular vote. Probably because it doesn't matter, and no one cares, but whatever the reason I did not see a single poll that indicated such a thing.
No, you are either blocking it or denying it. I have posted the link below to you before as well as to other people.
Denial is nice until it runs into facts.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll … -5952.html
A more prudent way for me to state my opinion would have been --- The polls were very much in Clinton's favor.
"Clinton also leads in state polls. If every state voted according to its RCP average, she would win with 297 electoral votes to Trump’s 241, surpassing the needed 270." Real Clear Politics November 07, 2016
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic … 32270.html
This is an article where I originally researched the polls after the 2016 election. To me at that point pols did appear to have had Hillary winning by a landslide.
https://www.thewrap.com/every-poll-that … ald-trump/
I believe the link to your entire first article supports my point showing a tiny lead for Clinton on election eve.
Polls aren't perfect. They have a margin of error.
The second link is an opinion piece that tries to undermine the credibility of national polls.
The problem with the opening graphic of staff departures is that it doesn’t touch on how this compares with the average presidential administration. Isn’t such a turnover common? Although, I must admit, I was sorry to see Jeff Sessions forced out.
by Sharlee 2 years ago
This past week Maxine Waters asked her flock to harass our presidents Cabinet and those that support Trump. Some of the media has followed up on her discriminatory words and pushed the concept of harassing American citizens for their political views. It's amazing that this form of pure...
by Sharlee 2 months ago
Please Joe say it ain't so...The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman and allowed states to refuse to...
by Don W 3 years ago
Is this just "good lawyering"? Or does it mean Flynn has something incriminating to say about himself and his former boss?(1)Apparently Flynn's request has been rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee "at this time"(2)Trump has tweeted about the request:"Mike Flynn...
by Steven Daniels 5 years ago
I know the film comes out next year, and I'm going to have to see it anyway, so i can review it on this site. However, I want to know how many of you are actually looking forward to seeing it? And why are you so happy to see it? That's what I'm curious about.
by crankalicious 6 months ago
Please post below something President Trump has said that's untrue about the Coronavirus or anything to do with it.Please provide a link to the statement.
by Mike Russo 3 years ago
Had to share. Please readDan RatherJune 9 at 1:33pm · As with many of my fellow Americans, I don't consider myself partisan politically - never have. I am a registered independent voter and have been for most of my life. With that in mind, I submit the following:Can we please get this out of the...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|