CSNbbs

'I think I’d take it': In exclusive interview, Trump says he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on opponents - ABC News https://abcn.ws/2WIvZef via @ABC

Hey crazy. How's your evening going?

Just following in Hillary’s footsteps

(06-13-2019 06:23 AM)okgc Wrote: [ -> ]Just following in Hillary’s footsteps

He just said he’d take foreign help and not call the FBI.

First it was adopting Russian kids. Then no collusion. Then no obstruction of finding evidence of the collusion. Now “collusion is fine”.

He also said "nobody knows" if Kim Jong Un's assassinated half-brother was a CIA informant.

"Nobody" including the CIA.

Almost as hilarious as the other day when he said members of the Federal Reserve "they're not (his) people" even though he nominated four of the five.

Trump does not even have a passing relationship with the truth. He is not just a bald-faced liar, he is deeply delusional and dangerously uninformed.

It is an embarrassment he is POTUS.

(06-13-2019 07:41 AM)MajorHoople Wrote: [ -> ]He also said "nobody knows" if Kim Jong Un's assassinated half-brother was a CIA informant.

"Nobody" including the CIA.

Almost as hilarious as the other day when he said members of the Federal Reserve "they're not (his) people" even though he nominated four of the five.

Trump does not even have a passing relationship with the truth. He is not just a bald-faced liar, he is deeply delusional and dangerously uninformed.

It is an embarrassment he is POTUS.

He represents his voters and backers just fine. That's the SCARY thing.

Trump is in the White House because the Democrats nominated possibly the worst candidate conceivable to run against him in 2016. Many-many people voted Trump, wrote-in another candidate, or did not vote at all, because they could not stomach Hillary Clinton. Our old poster Chipdip, is just one example.

And the Democrats could very well do it again.

Nominate one of the "progressive" nut-jobs (70 percent income tax, voting rights for incarcerated felons, abortion as a means of birth control at ANY time for ANY reason, no boarders or immigration policy?!?!?!) and Trump has four more years. Independents and moderates will not support the crazy Alt-Left, which is just as dangerous as the Alt-Right.

Complain and cry about Trump all you want, but it is time for the Democrat Party to get serious about actually winning.

Here's a v-e-r-y good column from today's Detroit News:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinio...366304001/

(06-13-2019 08:23 AM)GullLake Wrote: [ -> ]Nominate one of the "progressive" nut-jobs (70 percent income tax, voting rights for incarcerated felons, abortion as a means of birth control at ANY time for ANY reason, no boarders or immigration policy?!?!?!) and Trump has four more years. Independents and moderates will not support the crazy Alt-Left, which is just as dangerous as the Alt-Right.

Hillary was a centrist. On policy she was very similar to Joe Biden. Nominating a centrist like Biden would be trying the same thing as in '16, but hoping it works this time because he's a man. It might lol. But I'd much rather see someone run against Trump with actual policies like Medicare for All, tuition free public college, anti-corruption policy, Green New Deal. And to be clear, you listed four "nut-job" policies:

70 percent income tax: AOC suggested a 70% tax rate on earnings above $10m. I want that. Warren is campaigning on a 2% wealth tax on wealth over $50m. I like that too. No one wants to tax anybody in the 99% at 70%.

Voting Rights for Incarcerated Felons: This is good

Abortion as Birth Control at any time for any reason: Show me who has a plan for this (nobody)

No Borders or Immigration Policy: Show me who is saying this (nobody in elected office)

Also, the alt-left isn't shooting up schools and mosques and churches. To look at people who are fighting toward a decent standard of living for everyone as "just as dangerous as" people who fear a White Genocide and thus want to establish a white ethno-state is evidence of deep moral rot.

(06-13-2019 08:23 AM)GullLake Wrote: [ -> ]Trump is in the White House because the Democrats nominated possibly the worst candidate conceivable to run against him in 2016. Many-many people voted Trump, wrote-in another candidate, or did not vote at all, because they could not stomach Hillary Clinton. Our old poster Chipdip, is just one example.

And the Democrats could very well do it again.

Nominate one of the "progressive" nut-jobs (70 percent income tax, voting rights for incarcerated felons, abortion as a means of birth control at ANY time for ANY reason, no boarders or immigration policy?!?!?!) and Trump has four more years. Independents and moderates will not support the crazy Alt-Left, which is just as dangerous as the Alt-Right.

Complain and cry about Trump all you want, but it is time for the Democrat Party to get serious about actually winning.

Here's a v-e-r-y good column from today's Detroit News:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinio...366304001/

You repeat that mantra to ad nauseam Phil. What you're purposefully overlooking is that he beat a plethora of candidates to get the GOP nomination as well.

To that note, I don't care WHY or HOW he got there. The problem now is, he's there, and he's a NOW PROBLEM. Not a tomorrow problem, not a "let's talk about society and why they elected him" problem. He's off his nut, he's dangerous, and he's in charge of the free world.

(06-13-2019 09:05 AM)HaymondAtThe4 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-13-2019 08:23 AM)GullLake Wrote: [ -> ]Nominate one of the "progressive" nut-jobs (70 percent income tax, voting rights for incarcerated felons, abortion as a means of birth control at ANY time for ANY reason, no boarders or immigration policy?!?!?!) and Trump has four more years. Independents and moderates will not support the crazy Alt-Left, which is just as dangerous as the Alt-Right.

Hillary was a centrist. On policy she was very similar to Joe Biden. Nominating a centrist like Biden would be trying the same thing as in '16, but hoping it works this time because he's a man. It might lol. But I'd much rather see someone run against Trump with actual policies like Medicare for All, tuition free public college, anti-corruption policy, Green New Deal. And to be clear, you listed four "nut-job" policies:

70 percent income tax: AOC suggested a 70% tax rate on earnings above $10m. I want that. Warren is campaigning on a 2% wealth tax on wealth over $50m. I like that too. No one wants to tax anybody in the 99% at 70%.

Voting Rights for Incarcerated Felons: This is good

Abortion as Birth Control at any time for any reason: Show me who has a plan for this (nobody)

No Borders or Immigration Policy: Show me who is saying this (nobody in elected office)

Also, the alt-left isn't shooting up schools and mosques and churches. To look at people who are fighting toward a decent standard of living for everyone as "just as dangerous as" people who fear a White Genocide and thus want to establish a white ethno-state is evidence of deep moral rot.

It's about winning the election, not what far left policies you want to see. When I was a kid, the dems put up a candidate against Nixon who was their liberal, far left ideal. Nixon won in an epic landslide.

(06-13-2019 09:05 AM)Rasser Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-13-2019 08:23 AM)GullLake Wrote: [ -> ]Trump is in the White House because the Democrats nominated possibly the worst candidate conceivable to run against him in 2016. Many-many people voted Trump, wrote-in another candidate, or did not vote at all, because they could not stomach Hillary Clinton. Our old poster Chipdip, is just one example.

And the Democrats could very well do it again.

Nominate one of the "progressive" nut-jobs (70 percent income tax, voting rights for incarcerated felons, abortion as a means of birth control at ANY time for ANY reason, no boarders or immigration policy?!?!?!) and Trump has four more years. Independents and moderates will not support the crazy Alt-Left, which is just as dangerous as the Alt-Right.

Complain and cry about Trump all you want, but it is time for the Democrat Party to get serious about actually winning.

Here's a v-e-r-y good column from today's Detroit News:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinio...366304001/

You repeat that mantra to ad nauseam Phil. What you're purposefully overlooking is that he beat a plethora of candidates to get the GOP nomination as well.

To that note, I don't care WHY or HOW he got there. The problem now is, he's there, and he's a NOW PROBLEM. Not a tomorrow problem, not a "let's talk about society and why they elected him" problem. He's off his nut, he's dangerous, and he's in charge of the free world.

So work to nominate a legit candidate that can do something about it.

(06-13-2019 09:07 AM)Rasser Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-13-2019 09:05 AM)HaymondAtThe4 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-13-2019 08:23 AM)GullLake Wrote: [ -> ]Nominate one of the "progressive" nut-jobs (70 percent income tax, voting rights for incarcerated felons, abortion as a means of birth control at ANY time for ANY reason, no boarders or immigration policy?!?!?!) and Trump has four more years. Independents and moderates will not support the crazy Alt-Left, which is just as dangerous as the Alt-Right.

Hillary was a centrist. On policy she was very similar to Joe Biden. Nominating a centrist like Biden would be trying the same thing as in '16, but hoping it works this time because he's a man. It might lol. But I'd much rather see someone run against Trump with actual policies like Medicare for All, tuition free public college, anti-corruption policy, Green New Deal. And to be clear, you listed four "nut-job" policies:

70 percent income tax: AOC suggested a 70% tax rate on earnings above $10m. I want that. Warren is campaigning on a 2% wealth tax on wealth over $50m. I like that too. No one wants to tax anybody in the 99% at 70%.

Voting Rights for Incarcerated Felons: This is good

Abortion as Birth Control at any time for any reason: Show me who has a plan for this (nobody)

No Borders or Immigration Policy: Show me who is saying this (nobody in elected office)

Also, the alt-left isn't shooting up schools and mosques and churches. To look at people who are fighting toward a decent standard of living for everyone as "just as dangerous as" people who fear a White Genocide and thus want to establish a white ethno-state is evidence of deep moral rot.

It's about winning the election, not what far left policies you want to see. When I was a kid, the dems put up a candidate against Nixon who was their liberal, far left ideal. Nixon won in an epic landslide.

Bingo! This man gets it.

Look what happened last fall in the 6th Congressional District, which includes Kalamazoo. The Dems nominated an alt-left absolutist, Matt Longjohn, as opposed to a centrist, George Franklin (a former WMU board member and Kelloggs VP), and proceeded to get beat in the general election - in a v-e-r-y good Democrat year - by Republican Fred Upton. Franklin could have won. Longjohn had no chance from the start. Too extreme. Dems blew a golden opportunity.

Gotta win.

I don't believe there is evidence that centrist policy is more popular than left policy. I think there's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.

As for the 6th, Longjohn was definitely not an "alt-left absolutist." Can you point to one policy of his that was left of like Joe Biden? He did not run on Medicare for All or tuition-free college. He was a squishy centrist too. Franklin said in an interview that he was open to single-payer down the road. He was a former lobbyist for Kellogg. That's pretty much disqualifying for me. David Benac was the Dem nominee supported by Justice Democrats, the organization supporting AOC-ish candidates. I voted for him in the primary and Longjohn in the general.

Btw, Joe Biden took $200k to give a speech at the Economic Club of SW MI, of which Upton is a donor. In the speech Biden said Upton is "one of the finest guys I've ever worked with." Upton campaigned on that. Longjohn tried to get Biden to endorse him instead, and Biden wouldn't do it. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/us/po...upton.html

Whoever wins the Dem nomination, I will vote for. For anyone but Biden I will make phone calls and knock on doors. But I hate that Democrats right now want to tilt the primary toward a centrist because of fears about the general. We did that last time. It didn't work. I say support whoever you genuinely like in the primary. Whoever wins, support that person in the general. The number one example of a democrat winning in the Midwestern Trump territory is Tammy Baldwin. She's one of Wisconsin's senators, and she did extremely well in conservative Green Bay. She is a lesbian woman who has long supported Medicare for All. People want changes in their actual lives. They don't want people who are running on just not being Trump.

Fake news. He said he’d listen to both.

(06-13-2019 12:10 PM)Nacho Wrote: [ -> ]Fake news. He said he’d listen to both.

Nope. Listen to his interview. He even created a scenario which is against campaign election laws and said he didn't think he'd have to call the FBI, AND that his director of the FBI was wrong. Not to mention his AG who said similar in his confirmation hearings.

I get that reading the report is too much of an ask these days, but listening to the interview? Please.

BTW, I don't want medicare for all, that'd be a downgrade and I want to be able to keep my health insurance that I picked.

(06-13-2019 01:32 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...-condition

Totally! Reminds me of so many historical precedents. Like when Confederacy Derangement Syndrome did such damage to the USA in the early 1860s. Or like when so many Europeans began suffering from Nazi Derangement Syndrome and nearly destroyed Europe. Or like when Gandhi got that bad case of British Empire Derangement Syndrome. Or like when tons of people in the USA got Jim Crow Derangement Syndrome in the 50's and 60's.

It's like Christ is always saying in the Bible, "Just chill. Stuff is not that bad you guys! Don't worry about it. It's fine!"

(06-13-2019 02:19 PM)HaymondAtThe4 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-13-2019 01:32 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...-condition

Totally! Reminds me of so many historical precedents. Like when Confederacy Derangement Syndrome did such damage to the USA in the early 1860s. Or like when so many Europeans began suffering from Nazi Derangement Syndrome and nearly destroyed Europe. Or like when Gandhi got that bad case of British Empire Derangement Syndrome. Or like when tons of people in the USA got Jim Crow Derangement Syndrome in the 50's and 60's.

It's like Christ is always saying in the Bible, "Just chill. Stuff is not that bad you guys! Don't worry about it. It's fine!"

Honestly. The man said it, it's recorded, you don't even have to read a report which has proven to be too much for many these days, and if you can't put into context how serious it is, that's on the listener.

To discount it as a "derangement syndrome" is silly and condescending. It's almost like you want a dictator who is a white supremacist that flaunts the constitution.

(06-13-2019 06:23 AM)okgc Wrote: [ -> ]Just following in Hillary’s footsteps

Hillary won the popular vote by almost 4 million.

She and the Dems took the Rust Belt states, MI and WI for granted.

Don't think that will happen again.

States like West Virginia, Ohio, etc. who went for Trump last time - now that they've seen what he really is about - may not go for him this time.

Quote:It's like Christ is always saying in the Bible, "Just chill. Stuff is not that bad you guys! Don't worry about it. It's fine!"

Except he really didn't say that.

He said..."look to Caesar for whatever ails you".