DIRECTFLT wrote:

WE WIN ! !

Win what? Having the third wife of the "family values" and "marriege is sacred" party or that her second language is English or that she had been in porn and prostitution or that her skin color is ligher than the previous First Lady?

Another "win" for the "president" and Republicans:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/27/politics/ ... index.html

Republican Senate tax plan would INCREASE the deficit. Which party was it who demanded the deficit decrease under Obama?

No surprise there, tax cuts, plus more spending in the military (not an investment in society).

seb146 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So the question is, what's next? Back to the status quo before the Trump era? Or to something better than the status quo of 2016? More inline of Sanders and the like?

The extreme left is no better than the tea party for healing the nation and bringing about compromise (an old norm sadly neglected in recent decades).

Sanders and his ilk are not compromise candidates.

So, Bob, it was great and wonderful and patriotic for righties to "make Obama a one term president" and to stall everything in the government under Obama but, suddenly it is bad and wrong and America hating for the far left to do the exact same thing you all just praised the right for doing?????

I never praised anyone, right or left, for extreme politics and refusal to come together to negotiate bipartisan solutions for the nation's problems.

I have always been a center-of-the-road person, leaning somewhat left on social issues and somewhat right on fiscal issues.

BobPatterson wrote:

Trump won. You are in denial or trying to redefine "win". Face reality.

Did people vote FOR Trump or AGAINST Clinton? There are two sides of a coin. And polls showed that more people were voting AGAINST Clinton than FOR Trump (and Bob, you are a man of age...surely you understand the difference between those two. The ballot never truly reflects it, but the person's intent is still there nonetheless).

Want an example of voting against someone? Democratic primary in West Virginia. The votes went to a candidate who promised to be tougher on coal than Clinton was. Did West Virginia Democrats vote FOR Sanders or AGAINST Clinton?

einsteinboricua wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Trump won. You are in denial or trying to redefine "win". Face reality.

Did people vote FOR Trump or AGAINST Clinton? There are two sides of a coin. And polls showed that more people were voting AGAINST Clinton than FOR Trump (and Bob, you are a man of age...surely you understand the difference between those two. The ballot never truly reflects it, but the person's intent is still there nonetheless).

I don't know what my age has to do with it.

It was possible for people to vote against both Trump and Clinton, and many did vote for other party candidates. Doing so lost Clinton several states, enough to make the difference.

If I thought there had been a snowball's chance in hell of electing someone else I would have voted for that person.

I held my nose and voted for Clinton.

seb146 wrote:

Here is the problem:

One side insists that people do not need health care, food, housing, or anything because they can afford it on their own. The other side understands that people can not afford any of that on their own so they need government to help out with things like minimum wage and rent control.

Let me start with health care. Think you can pay for your health care? Maybe if you have a few million in assets.

My wife's acute leukemia had a "list price" of OVER $750,;000 in hospital bills alone. There would be no contractual discounts that insurance plans have available to you get to pay List Price. If your bank account can handle that then get your checkbook out. BTW, that's fairly cheap as some long term treatments break $1,000,000 at List and those costs were 10+ years ago.

After that start I really shouldn't need to go any further.

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

The extreme left is no better than the tea party for healing the nation and bringing about compromise (an old norm sadly neglected in recent decades).

Sanders and his ilk are not compromise candidates.

So, Bob, it was great and wonderful and patriotic for righties to "make Obama a one term president" and to stall everything in the government under Obama but, suddenly it is bad and wrong and America hating for the far left to do the exact same thing you all just praised the right for doing?????

I never praised anyone, right or left, for extreme politics and refusal to come together to negotiate bipartisan solutions for the nation's problems.

I have always been a center-of-the-road person, leaning somewhat left on social issues and somewhat right on fiscal issues.

Every time you comment on something, you are farther to the right than center. That being said, you say that you are "somewhat right on fiscal issues" so how can you justify being for the current Republican party? Spending on international business and domestic millionaires and taking away from working class families all while adding to the deficit at an alarming rate?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

WE WIN ! !

Nah, Isabel Sarli of Israel beat the US years ago in having a porn star as an government official. And she isn't even that.

Best regards
Thomas

seb146 wrote:

....... or that she had been in porn and prostitution .......

Are you serious?

I thought liberals would have no problems with working in the adult entertainment industry....

seahawk wrote:

I thought liberals would have no problems with working in the adult entertainment industry....

They don´t, but we do have a problem is lying about having morals, when it is plain obvious that not even the tiny shred of moral does exist, even if those claimed values are rubbish.

best regards
Thomas

seahawk wrote:

I thought liberals would have no problems with working in the adult entertainment industry....

I have no problem if someone voluntarily chooses to work in that industry. In this case, it is endlessly entertaining because it exposes the hypocrisy of some Republicans, all about those Christian family values but when it comes to "their" president, nobody seems to care.

seahawk wrote:

I thought liberals would have no problems with working in the adult entertainment industry....

What "liberals" have a problem with is the standard bearer of the "family values" party making this his third wife. Sanctity of marriage and "one man, one woman" and all of that. "Liberals" do not care what consenting adults do with each other but when people start shoving their morality down everyone's throats and DEMANDING their morals be the law of the land, that is another story.

Like the "republicans" and "Christians" who hate LGBTQ to the point of making laws against them and then are caught in homosexual acts. Or "republicans" who insist that everyone follow the letter of the law of the Bible but love bacon and shrimp and hate.

So you are only liberal when it suits your agenda?

seahawk wrote:

So you are only liberal when it suits your agenda?

Unlike conservatives, liberals don't hide behind morals.

Liberals are not the ones who want to ban abortion but ask their one-night stand to get one.
Liberals are not the ones who for years cry about the deficit but then blow it up (because deficits don't matter).
Liberals are not the ones who profess family values yet are caught in scandal after scandal.
Liberals are not the ones who want to protect the sanctity of marriage while undergoing their 2nd or 3rd divorce.

Your turn.

Separate note: The War on Christmas 2017 has a new weapon: the White House is all Christmasy.

Christmas

Frankly, I'm not impressed. THIS is Christmas? Puh-lease. Seems the war is raging inside the White House. Why so few decorations and lights and baby Jesus figurines? #SAD

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

....... or that she had been in porn and prostitution .......

Are you serious?

Trump derangement syndrome at it's worst. Why I don't even read his posts anymore.

NIKV69 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

....... or that she had been in porn and prostitution .......

Are you serious?

Trump derangement syndrome at it's worst. Why I don't even read his posts anymore.

Neither of you have seen Melania's nude photo shoots? For real??

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-to ... 88632.html

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Are you serious?

Trump derangement syndrome at it's worst. Why I don't even read his posts anymore.

Neither of you have seen Melania's nude photo shoots? For real??

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-to ... 88632.html

I would assume he is refering to the prostitute part.

Best regards
Thomas

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Are you serious?

Trump derangement syndrome at it's worst. Why I don't even read his posts anymore.

Neither of you have seen Melania's nude photo shoots? For real??

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-to ... 88632.html

I do not consider photos of consensual adult nudity to be porn. Doesn't matter to me whether it is homo-, hetero-, or whatever. The world of fine art is full of it (paintings, statuary, etc.).

There is no suggestion of prostitution in that article (nor, so far as I know of, in Mrs. Trump's background).

What is being prostituted are the words that you fling about with abandon, making unsubstantiated claims or charges against people whom you dislike for one reason or another.

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Trump derangement syndrome at it's worst. Why I don't even read his posts anymore.

Neither of you have seen Melania's nude photo shoots? For real??

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-to ... 88632.html

I do not consider photos of consensual adult nudity to be porn. Doesn't matter to me whether it is homo-, hetero-, or whatever. The world of fine art is full of it (paintings, statuary, etc.).

There is no suggestion of prostitution in that article (nor, so far as I know of, in Mrs. Trump's background).

What is being prostituted are the words that you fling about with abandon, making unsubstantiated claims or charges against people whom you dislike for one reason or another.

Here is the problem:

He is the head of the "family values" and "gays will ruin this country with their wanting marriage equality party. You remember that? Marriage is sacred between one man and one woman and gays just want to send us all straight to hell? Remember all that? That is why her being a former escort and adult film performer is important. No one cares that she did it but putting his THIRD marriage ahead of Bill and Hillary's ONE or Barak and Michelle's ONE and, add to that, she was once an escort and adult entertainer just adds to the mix.

None of that answers my original question to DIRECTFLT.

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Trump derangement syndrome at it's worst. Why I don't even read his posts anymore.

Neither of you have seen Melania's nude photo shoots? For real??

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-to ... 88632.html

I do not consider photos of consensual adult nudity to be porn. Doesn't matter to me whether it is homo-, hetero-, or whatever. The world of fine art is full of it (paintings, statuary, etc.).

She got lots of art nudes, she also got plenty of softcore porn. And that modern position is just you. We can all very well remember how Michelle Obama got blasted for wearing a sleeveless dress, that showed naked arms (!) and nothing in the way of cleavage, but a Softporn starlet First lady is suddenly completely ok.

best regards
Thomas

Well done Donny retweeting Britain First.. Well done...

DIRECTFLT wrote:

BOOM! Descendant of Pocahontas is YUGE Trump Supporter — Says President Trump Will Be AMERICA’S HERO!

I have a beachfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

BTW, the stock market has reached new highs today with the DJIA jumping well over 300 points.

Here's a question: why is today's rally a sign of good things to come but all the rallies under Obama meant nothing?

I thought Trump said that Wall Street would hate him.

einsteinboricua wrote:

I thought Trump said that Wall Street would hate him.

Why would Wall Street hate them? Just look at how many in his administration worked at Wall Street.

Dutchy wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

I thought Trump said that Wall Street would hate him.

Why would Wall Street hate them? Just look at how many in his administration worked at Wall Street.

Don't you remember the campaign? He wasn't gonna bow down to Wall Street's demands. He would be working for Main Street...the forgotten people. That's why he accused of Clinton and Cruz of being in bed with Goldman Sachs and others. But not him...oh no. He would not have any entity from Wall Street dictating his every move.

That's why he has a Wallet (my term for a group of people from a bank) in his administration. How many folks are from Goldman Sachs?

Maybe Christmas will be saved?

Former Trump Adviser Michael Flynn Charged In Special Counsel’s Russia Investigation
The former national security adviser is expected to plead guilty to one count of making a false statement to FBI agents.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mi ... mg00000009

I guess you don´t get a plea bargain offered unless you can volunteer information to take someone bigger down..... how many people above the NSA?

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Maybe Christmas will be saved?

Former Trump Adviser Michael Flynn Charged In Special Counsel’s Russia Investigation
The former national security adviser is expected to plead guilty to one count of making a false statement to FBI agents.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mi ... mg00000009

I guess you don´t get a plea bargain offered unless you can volunteer information to take someone bigger down..... how many people above the NSA?

best regards
Thomas

Saved for whom?

Dutchy wrote:

Saved for whom?

just about everyone

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Saved for whom?

just about everyone

best regards
Thomas

got you

From the NYT letters responding to a "does Russia own Trump" article.



Let's do a thought experiment - what would Trump do if he WAS working in Russia's interest. He would pull out of the Paris accord. Attack the value of NATO. Work toward accommodation with Assad. Hollow out the State Department, which is the agency (not the military) that actually confronts Russia and China in dozens of countries around the world. Exacerbate racial tensions, favor Brexit, exacerbate income inequality, destroy the standing of the US around the world, unite the Iranian people who had been discordant before Trump. The thought experiment finds almost nothing in Trump's antics that do NOT serve Russia and China's interests. Oh --and leave the TPP. If Trump acts in every way as Russia would like, does it matter if he's being instructed to do so? Do we need proof, since he could actually be guilty of colluding during the election but oppose Russia now, which would be more in the interest of the US than is his current behavior? Maybe we should just forget beating bushes for an elusive proof of "collusion" that Trump will seize on and use as a tool to get his supporters MORE passionate about him. The behavior is all in plain sight; to paraphrase the Book of Matthew, "Beware of false Presidents... You will know them by their fruits."

Peter Quince Ashland, OR

And the wins keeeeeeep on coming:

[quote[Donald Trump’s 'working visit' to UK dropped as tensions with Theresa May grow over president's far-Right retweets[/quote]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11 ... n=DM597751

From a state visit - with a ride with the Queen - to working visit, to no visit.

Time not wasted on ungrateful countries, is time that can be used on making America great again. Well done by Trump. #somuchwinning

seahawk wrote:

Time not wasted on ungrateful countries, is time that can be used on making America great again. Well done by Trump. #somuchwinning

He indeed played it brilliantly, by faking eliminating May and her government, he hasn't had to do a dreadful visit to the UK.

Remember when the right was up in arms over Pelosi saying "let's pass health care and then see what is in the bill"?

http://politicaldig.com/mcconnell-no-on ... ll-passes/

Deafening silence from the right when their own people say the exact same thing.

seahawk wrote:

Time not wasted on ungrateful countries, is time that can be used on making America great again. Well done by Trump. #somuchwinning

You’re not even American, so why are you speaking for us?

jetero wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Time not wasted on ungrateful countries, is time that can be used on making America great again. Well done by Trump. #somuchwinning

You’re not even American, so why are you speaking for us?

Personally I think Trump is one of the most influential US presidents since a very, very long time. He forces Europe to rethink the basic idea of an unbreakable friendship with the USA and this forces Europe to find a way to go it alone if it should be necessary. The world will be different after him.

seahawk wrote:

He forces Europe to rethink the basic idea of an unbreakable friendship with the USA and this forces Europe to find a way to go it alone if it should be necessary.

He has made the job of the crowd of Euro bottom feeders that go for selling out Europe to the US for their own personal advantages
much more difficult.
It is endlessly more difficult presenting Trump as friend than his predecessor Obama.
Then Trump goes for much more porcelain trashed and much less of objectives achieved than Obama.

Pro US is a thin layer mostly carried by main stream media.
You will find only a lackluster reflection in the wider public here.

The world will be different after him.

Yes. There will be war.
Either global or civil in the US.

WIederling wrote:

Yes. There will be war.
Either global or civil in the US.

Where did you buy your crystal ball?

BobPatterson wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Yes. There will be war.
Either global or civil in the US.

Where did you buy your crystal ball?

Leftovers, my kids used to have a goldfish.

BobPatterson wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Yes. There will be war.
Either global or civil in the US.

Where did you buy your crystal ball?

Considering that the number of people shot every year rivals plenty of civil wars one may argue it is already fought in the streets on the USA:

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Yes. There will be war.
Either global or civil in the US.

Where did you buy your crystal ball?

Considering that the number of people shot every year rivals plenty of civil wars one may argue it is already fought in the streets on the USA:

Shooting for their freedom. completely different thing. A necessity! Tree of Freedom is a vampire. It gulps blood.

The last days were simply glorious

- tax reform - check
- immigration control - check
- making America´s natural resources available and fighting back excessive environmental protection measures - check
- making Jerusalem the capital of Israel - check

Trump simply delivers on his promises.

In addition to the glorious leader taking from the poor to give to the rich and polluting because profit is more important and banning immigration from Muslim countries and desperate for the Armageddon, dear leader wants to bring back secret police to root out his enemies

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/04/tru ... e-enemies/

All hail the great orange one!

so we can add:

Draining the swamp - check

#bestestpresidentever

seahawk wrote:

so we can add:

Draining the swamp - check

#bestestpresidentever

yup, the water was nasty, they needed to drain and refill it with Evian first.

best regards
Thomas