Botom line: DeVos was appointed by Trump, therefore she must be incompetent. Every time she opens her mouth and says something a Democrat would not have said proves it.

(03-14-2018 06:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Botom line: DeVos was appointed by Trump, therefore she must be incompetent. Every time she opens her mouth and says something a Democrat would not have said proves it.

Disagree. Mattis isn’t incompetent. Haley isn’t. Shulkin isn’t. And look at those vote totals for confirmation. Give up this tired line that everything is tied back to Trump. A good example is Tillerson - no one thought he was incompetent, they just didn’t think he was the right choice for SOS.

(03-14-2018 07:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 06:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Botom line: DeVos was appointed by Trump, therefore she must be incompetent. Every time she opens her mouth and says something a Democrat would not have said proves it.

Disagree. Mattis isn’t incompetent. Haley isn’t. Shulkin isn’t. And look at those vote totals for confirmation. Give up this tired line that everything is tied back to Trump. A good example is Tillerson - no one thought he was incompetent, they just didn’t think he was the right choice for SOS.

Lad - you have to stop thinking that when I post generically, I am posting about you. I can see where you might take it that way, since you are debating with Owl69 on this, but I did not mean for this to be pointed at you.

Glad to hear there are some Trump appointees you deem reasonable.

Here's why she really lost:

Backwards people

"At another point in the talk, Clinton, whose campaign slogan was “Stronger Together,” said that the reasons married white women voted for Trump was due to “ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

So, so out of touch and dismissive of Middle America. hard to believe a new York billionaire resonated better with them, but he apparently did. Either that or the russians did it.

(03-14-2018 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here's why she really lost:

Backwards people

"At another point in the talk, Clinton, whose campaign slogan was “Stronger Together,” said that the reasons married white women voted for Trump was due to “ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

So, so out of touch and dismissive of Middle America. hard to believe a new York billionaire resonated better with them, but he apparently did. Either that or the russians did it.

It is stunning that she actually said those things. Then again, the Clintons ice shown time and again that they have a nearly unlimited capacity for self-delusion.

The same article quotes Hillary as saying: "I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward." There is probably no place in the Western Hemisphere that is more optimistic, diverse, dynamic and moving forward than Houston, Texas -- not that Clinton would know that.

(03-14-2018 12:22 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here's why she really lost:

Backwards people

"At another point in the talk, Clinton, whose campaign slogan was “Stronger Together,” said that the reasons married white women voted for Trump was due to “ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

So, so out of touch and dismissive of Middle America. hard to believe a new York billionaire resonated better with them, but he apparently did. Either that or the russians did it.

It is stunning that she actually said those things. Then again, the Clintons ice shown time and again that they have a nearly unlimited capacity for self-delusion.

The same article quotes Hillary as saying: "I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward." There is probably no place in the Western Hemisphere that is more optimistic, diverse, dynamic and moving forward than Houston, Texas -- not that Clinton would know that.

Not to disagree with your point, but Clinton actually did win Houston.

(03-14-2018 12:25 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 12:22 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here's why she really lost:

Backwards people

"At another point in the talk, Clinton, whose campaign slogan was “Stronger Together,” said that the reasons married white women voted for Trump was due to “ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

So, so out of touch and dismissive of Middle America. hard to believe a new York billionaire resonated better with them, but he apparently did. Either that or the russians did it.

It is stunning that she actually said those things. Then again, the Clintons ice shown time and again that they have a nearly unlimited capacity for self-delusion.

The same article quotes Hillary as saying: "I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward." There is probably no place in the Western Hemisphere that is more optimistic, diverse, dynamic and moving forward than Houston, Texas -- not that Clinton would know that.

Not to disagree with your point, but Clinton actually did win Houston.

What was made fairly clear by election result maps, was that the Clinton archipelago in red states was generally made up of the larger urban areas, like Houston.

https://www.vividmaps.com/2016/12/trumpl...elago.html

(03-14-2018 12:25 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 12:22 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here's why she really lost:

Backwards people

"At another point in the talk, Clinton, whose campaign slogan was “Stronger Together,” said that the reasons married white women voted for Trump was due to “ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

So, so out of touch and dismissive of Middle America. hard to believe a new York billionaire resonated better with them, but he apparently did. Either that or the russians did it.

It is stunning that she actually said those things. Then again, the Clintons ice shown time and again that they have a nearly unlimited capacity for self-delusion.

The same article quotes Hillary as saying: "I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward." There is probably no place in the Western Hemisphere that is more optimistic, diverse, dynamic and moving forward than Houston, Texas -- not that Clinton would know that.

Not to disagree with your point, but Clinton actually did win Houston.

True. here is how she described the people who live in places she did not win:

“And his whole campaign — ‘Make America Great Again’ — was looking backward. You know, you didn’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women, you know, getting jobs, you don’t want, you know, to see that Indian American succeeding more than you are. Whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.”

So, just reiterating the whole basket of deplorables crap.

I think she sees the working people in red states or counties as racists and misogynists, and the nice people to be the ones on Nob Hill in San Francisco, with their white wine and brie.

She has been around the moneyed elitists in her party so much and so long, she has no connection with working stiffs. I wonder when was the last time she drove herself in her own car.

In any case, it is this attitude that did more to defeat her than anything Trump, Putin, or Comey did. Nobody likes a a snooty *****.

This one was worse --- with the deporables comment she at least carved out "half of those who support him"; she didnt bother with that distinction here.

Now pardon me, but I have to take my leave for an hour or two and club my wife senseless and haul her to lunch....

(03-14-2018 12:25 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 12:22 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here's why she really lost:

Backwards people

"At another point in the talk, Clinton, whose campaign slogan was “Stronger Together,” said that the reasons married white women voted for Trump was due to “ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

So, so out of touch and dismissive of Middle America. hard to believe a new York billionaire resonated better with them, but he apparently did. Either that or the russians did it.

It is stunning that she actually said those things. Then again, the Clintons ice shown time and again that they have a nearly unlimited capacity for self-delusion.

The same article quotes Hillary as saying: "I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward." There is probably no place in the Western Hemisphere that is more optimistic, diverse, dynamic and moving forward than Houston, Texas -- not that Clinton would know that.

Not to disagree with your point, but Clinton actually did win Houston.

Oops! :)

A column in today’s Wall Street Journal has this succinct observation: “Hillary Clinton is the only presidential candidate in recent history to lose popularity after a defeat, and she seems determined to keep it that way.”

It looks more and more that “loser” was an apt description after all.

Is this also the first time in history that the presidential candidates from the two main parties were both under FBI investigation around the campaign? Crazytimes. What a system we have where no halfway honest people can even be eligible to run for President.

(03-14-2018 10:48 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  Is this also the first time in history that the presidential candidates from the two main parties were both under FBI investigation around the campaign? Crazytimes. What a system we have where no halfway honest people can even be eligible to run for President.

I think it's more a case that the only people who are interested go through the character assassination associated with running for president are either honesty-challenged, ability-challenged, or too egomaniacal to care.

(03-15-2018 07:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 10:48 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  Is this also the first time in history that the presidential candidates from the two main parties were both under FBI investigation around the campaign? Crazytimes. What a system we have where no halfway honest people can even be eligible to run for President.

I think it's more a case that the only people who are interested go through the character assassination associated with running for president are either honesty-challenged, ability-challenged, or too egomaniacal to care.

(David) Broder's Law:

Anybody that wants the presidency so bad that he'll spend two years organizing and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office.

(03-15-2018 07:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 10:48 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  Is this also the first time in history that the presidential candidates from the two main parties were both under FBI investigation around the campaign? Crazytimes. What a system we have where no halfway honest people can even be eligible to run for President.

I think it's more a case that the only people who are interested go through the character assassination associated with running for president are either honesty-challenged, ability-challenged, or too egomaniacal to care.

Either?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/lar...vi-BBKdExF

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/tru...li=BBnb7Kz

(03-15-2018 02:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/tru...li=BBnb7Kz

Good step by POTUS, especially after the nerve agent attack in England.

Hard to tell from the article - is he just imposing the sanctions that Congress passed earlier? Or are these a different set of sanctions?

Quote:The sanctions, targeting five Russian organizations and 19 individuals, will generally block them from traveling to the United States, freeze any assets in the country and bar American businesses and individuals from doing business with them. Among the organizations sanctioned were the Federal Security Service, the successor to the K.G.B. known by its Russian acronym F.S.B., and Russian military intelligence, known as G.R.U., although they, like several others, were previously penalized by Mr. Obama’s administration for the Ukraine intervention.

Egads, it’s become impossible to keep up with news in the Trump era. Besides the multiple existing threads I just sort of dropped out of, here’s a non-exhaustive list of things that have happened in the past couple days:

-Tillerson fired, with noted Islamophobe tapped to replace him.

-Cable news personality is the new chief economic advisor.

-McMaster reported to be out, with Bolton (!) set to replace him.

-Stormy Daniels lawyer says Trump and associates made physical threats toward her to keep quiet. That could actually bring down his presidency if true. But I think it’s a good rule of thumb to be skeptical of quotes from people whose occupation is “lawyer to porn star”.

-Dems win special election in district Trump won by 20.

-Mattis is implicated in huge corporate fraud scandal but Dems unlikely to press this because he is considered one of the sanest members of the Trump cabinet. Note: Sanest cabinet member is nicknamed “Mad Dog”….

-ZInke makes racist remark to congresswoman.

-Trump brags about lying to Canadian Prime Minister. Now turns out he might be lying about the lying. But tweets that the original lie wasn't a lie. Which was a lie.

I’m sure there’s more, but that’s just off the top of my head.

(03-16-2018 03:19 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  -McMaster reported to be out, with Bolton (!) set to replace him.

John or Michael?