Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[sandman]

And now we have conservatives losing their shit over Ilhan Omar's latest comments that they've taken out of context to fit their own bigoted narrative and Trump using them against her in a twitter post causing death threats.

I believe she should be criticized for her comments. they were OFFENSIVE. and i'm glad Trump exposed her.

criticizing public figures when they make offensive comments is not incitement.

So you chide the left for what you consider taking Owens comments out of context but perfectly ok with the right doing it with Omar? Typical, just what I'd expect. If you actually watch the whole thing is perfectly clear what she was saying.

I watched the whole thing. watching it made it WORSE for me. the context of her full statement didn't change anything.

she offended many with those comments. you can argue people shouldn't be so easily offended, and I would agree with you.

a month or so ago, she had to apologize for her anti Semitic remarks. there's a bit of a pattern going on here.

[sandman]

Speaking of tax day, I wrote a check for under $100 yesterday for taxes.  Last year the check was $5K.

I made more than the previous year and paid less. And do not net 6 figures so I'm far from rich. 

So I cant buy into the Trumps tax plan benefits millionaire and billionaires bullshit that the left is trying to sell.

that's awesome, man!!! Glad to hear it. 

[tim_m]

And now we have conservatives losing their shit over Ilhan Omar's latest comments that they've taken out of context to fit their own bigoted narrative and Trump using them against her in a twitter post causing death threats.

I believe she should be criticized for her comments. they were OFFENSIVE. and i'm glad Trump exposed her.

criticizing public figures when they make offensive comments is not incitement.

So you chide the left for what you consider taking Owens comments out of context but perfectly ok with the right doing it with Omar? Typical, just what I'd expect. If you actually watch the whole thing is perfectly clear what she was saying.

I watched the whole thing. watching it made it WORSE for me. the context of her full statement didn't change anything.

she offended many with those comments. you can argue people shouldn't be so easily offended, and I would agree with you.

a month or so ago, she had to apologize for her anti Semitic remarks. there's a bit of a pattern going on here.

Her words could have been better but I think we could probably agree she didn't mean to minimize what happened in anyway. She's currently a co sponsor to fund the 9/11 benefit fund. The exact name escapes me at the moment. The narrative the president is trying to create with this is ridiculous. Let's not pretend she doesn't have a valid point in how American Muslims have been treated since that day for something they had no involvement in and we're just as horrified as every other American. There were American Muslims killed in those towers too. There were mosques inside. The people do did this are not true Muslims.

[pilferk]

Her words could have been better but I think we could probably agree she didn't mean to minimize what happened in anyway. She's currently a co sponsor to fund the 9/11 benefit fund. The exact name escapes me at the moment. The narrative the president is trying to create with this is ridiculous. Let's not pretend she doesn't have a valid point in how American Muslims have been treated since that day for something they had no involvement in and we're just as horrified as every other American. There were American Muslims killed in those towers too. There were mosques inside. The people do did this are not true Muslims.

Her words could have been better chosen.  They were glib, but hardly offensive given her overarching point (which was that all muslims were being held responsible for what a very small, deranged, portion of the muslim faith had done).  This president said "Very fine people on both sides" after Charlottesville and his supporters poo poo'd it.  If they can forgive (and not be offended by) THAT comment (which was certainly more glib AND offensive)....it's hard to fathom how they could be up in arms over something so obviously syntactical as this.  With the President's Charlottesville comments, there was some room for interpretation (evidenced by his apology.....MANY days later...and then retraction of the apology and doubling down) as to what he actually meant. Here, there is none.  Her entire speech, and her reason for being there to speak, explains EXACTLY what she meant.

But remember, Tim.  This president has said far worse, and told bolder lies, about 9/11 than ANYTHING Ms. Omar has said (even accounting for bad phrasing).  And his voters flat out didn't care.

He claimed to watch people jump from the towers, from an apartment that's 4 miles away and doesn't have a clear view of the site.

He claimed he saw thousands of people (insinuating they were mostly muslims) celebrating the fall of the towers in Jersey City (on the same day he was watching people jump from the towers).

He took 150k from the New York State Recovery fund for....no reason.  No property he owned was damaged (40 Wall Street was BLOCKS away...and completely undamaged) and he didn't provide any sort of services to first responders or those doing site recovery/clean up.

He bragged that 40 Wall street, on the day the towers fell, became the tallest building in NYC.

He promised (on Howard Stern) a 10k donation to The Twin Towers Fund.   He referenced that donation over and over during his campaign.  He never made it.

He has literally tried to close down the fund that provides health care funding for those who were injured (or got sick) during the attacks, or in the aftermath (first responders and those doing site recovery/clean up, for example).

And yet....his supporters voted for him.  Despite these offensive actions and words.  And nary a condemnation of them, ever. If they can vote for, and continue to support, a president who routinely says offensive and stupid things....how can they be offended by something so obvious when it comes to intent?  It's hypocritical, at best.  And really, it's just disingenuous.

They are "offended" only when someone from the opposing party says...well...anything. It's faux outrage on their part.  They feel "offended" because Fox and their fearless leader tell them they should feel it. And the president and his cronies are simply looking for a way to play the victim, to disguise (and try to minimize) the deplorable actions they support and get called out on. And, in this case, to incite hatred...because Trump and his ilk prove their nationalist tendancies more and more every single day.

Or, alternately, the people who are "offended" are just trying to pwn the libs in their trolling attempts.

[sandman]

And now we have conservatives losing their shit over Ilhan Omar's latest comments that they've taken out of context to fit their own bigoted narrative and Trump using them against her in a twitter post causing death threats.

I believe she should be criticized for her comments. they were OFFENSIVE. and i'm glad Trump exposed her.

criticizing public figures when they make offensive comments is not incitement.

So you chide the left for what you consider taking Owens comments out of context but perfectly ok with the right doing it with Omar? Typical, just what I'd expect. If you actually watch the whole thing is perfectly clear what she was saying.

I watched the whole thing. watching it made it WORSE for me. the context of her full statement didn't change anything.

she offended many with those comments. you can argue people shouldn't be so easily offended, and I would agree with you.

a month or so ago, she had to apologize for her anti Semitic remarks. there's a bit of a pattern going on here.

Her words could have been better but I think we could probably agree she didn't mean to minimize what happened in anyway. She's currently a co sponsor to fund the 9/11 benefit fund. The exact name escapes me at the moment. The narrative the president is trying to create with this is ridiculous. Let's not pretend she doesn't have a valid point in how American Muslims have been treated since that day for something they had no involvement in and we're just as horrified as every other American. There were American Muslims killed in those towers too. There were mosques inside. The people do did this are not true Muslims.

the narrative was out there well before the president tweeted that video. he tweeted that to make liberals heads explode. and it worked. seeing Alyssa Milano and the rest of the social leaders of the dem party lose their shit was quite entertaining.

I want Omar to have the right to say these things, and I also support everyone's right to criticize them. seems like the left wants restrictions on free speech and the right to say something when offended. 

i'm starting to think Trump actually wants a second term. I thought he might choose to be one and done. especially with the financial hit he's taken, and his age. 

the dems are certainly making it possible he wins a second term. the liberal elites are crushing Biden for some reason (not liberal enough?). he was polling the best against trump, and all of a sudden, a bunch of liberal women accuse him of being inappropriate. they could have just pointed out the shady dealings with the Ukraine and his son, but painting him as a creeper is viewed as more effective for the headlines in today's culture.

Bernie is certainly liberal enough, but never truly part of the elite. they will crush him next.

Beto and Kamala are the choices of the powerful (i.e. Obama and others). although Hillary will be pushing for Terry McAuliffe (for obvious reasons if you have been paying attention). 

[tim_m]

Her words could have been better but I think we could probably agree she didn't mean to minimize what happened in anyway. She's currently a co sponsor to fund the 9/11 benefit fund. The exact name escapes me at the moment. The narrative the president is trying to create with this is ridiculous. Let's not pretend she doesn't have a valid point in how American Muslims have been treated since that day for something they had no involvement in and we're just as horrified as every other American. There were American Muslims killed in those towers too. There were mosques inside. The people do did this are not true Muslims.

Her words could have been better chosen.  They were glib, but hardly offensive given her overarching point (which was that all muslims were being held responsible for what a very small, deranged, portion of the muslim faith had done).  This president said "Very fine people on both sides" after Charlottesville and his supporters poo poo'd it.  If they can forgive (and not be offended by) THAT comment (which was certainly more glib AND offensive)....it's hard to fathom how they could be up in arms over something so obviously syntactical as this.  With the President's Charlottesville comments, there was some room for interpretation (evidenced by his apology.....MANY days later...and then retraction of the apology and doubling down) as to what he actually meant. Here, there is none.  Her entire speech, and her reason for being there to speak, explains EXACTLY what she meant.

But remember, Tim.  This president has said far worse, and told bolder lies, about 9/11 than ANYTHING Ms. Omar has said (even accounting for bad phrasing).  And his voters flat out didn't care.

He claimed to watch people jump from the towers, from an apartment that's 4 miles away and doesn't have a clear view of the site.

He claimed he saw thousands of people (insinuating they were mostly muslims) celebrating the fall of the towers in Jersey City (on the same day he was watching people jump from the towers).

He took 150k from the New York State Recovery fund for....no reason.  No property he owned was damaged (40 Wall Street was BLOCKS away...and completely undamaged) and he didn't provide any sort of services to first responders or those doing site recovery/clean up.

He bragged that 40 Wall street, on the day the towers fell, became the tallest building in NYC.

He promised (on Howard Stern) a 10k donation to The Twin Towers Fund.   He referenced that donation over and over during his campaign.  He never made it.

He has literally tried to close down the fund that provides health care funding for those who were injured (or got sick) during the attacks, or in the aftermath (first responders and those doing site recovery/clean up, for example).

And yet....his supporters voted for him.  Despite these offensive actions and words.  And nary a condemnation of them, ever. If they can vote for, and continue to support, a president who routinely says offensive and stupid things....how can they be offended by something so obvious when it comes to intent?  It's hypocritical, at best.  And really, it's just disingenuous.

They are "offended" only when someone from the opposing party says...well...anything. It's faux outrage on their part.  They feel "offended" because Fox and their fearless leader tell them they should feel it. And the president and his cronies are simply looking for a way to play the victim, to disguise (and try to minimize) the deplorable actions they support and get called out on. And, in this case, to incite hatred...because Trump and his ilk prove their nationalist tendancies more and more every single day.

Or, alternately, the people who are "offended" are just trying to pwn the libs in their trolling attempts.

Which is the same fund Senator Omar is co-sponsoring a bill to keep it being funded. No Republicans that i know of have joined as co-sponsors.

[tim_m]

And now we have conservatives losing their shit over Ilhan Omar's latest comments that they've taken out of context to fit their own bigoted narrative and Trump using them against her in a twitter post causing death threats.

I believe she should be criticized for her comments. they were OFFENSIVE. and i'm glad Trump exposed her.

criticizing public figures when they make offensive comments is not incitement.

So you chide the left for what you consider taking Owens comments out of context but perfectly ok with the right doing it with Omar? Typical, just what I'd expect. If you actually watch the whole thing is perfectly clear what she was saying.

I watched the whole thing. watching it made it WORSE for me. the context of her full statement didn't change anything.

she offended many with those comments. you can argue people shouldn't be so easily offended, and I would agree with you.

a month or so ago, she had to apologize for her anti Semitic remarks. there's a bit of a pattern going on here.

Her words could have been better but I think we could probably agree she didn't mean to minimize what happened in anyway. She's currently a co sponsor to fund the 9/11 benefit fund. The exact name escapes me at the moment. The narrative the president is trying to create with this is ridiculous. Let's not pretend she doesn't have a valid point in how American Muslims have been treated since that day for something they had no involvement in and we're just as horrified as every other American. There were American Muslims killed in those towers too. There were mosques inside. The people do did this are not true Muslims.

the narrative was out there well before the president tweeted that video. he tweeted that to make liberals heads explode. and it worked. seeing Alyssa Milano and the rest of the social leaders of the dem party lose their shit was quite entertaining.

I want Omar to have the right to say these things, and I also support everyone's right to criticize them. seems like the left wants restrictions on free speech and the right to say something when offended. 

i'm starting to think Trump actually wants a second term. I thought he might choose to be one and done. especially with the financial hit he's taken, and his age. 

the dems are certainly making it possible he wins a second term. the liberal elites are crushing Biden for some reason (not liberal enough?). he was polling the best against trump, and all of a sudden, a bunch of liberal women accuse him of being inappropriate. they could have just pointed out the shady dealings with the Ukraine and his son, but painting him as a creeper is viewed as more effective for the headlines in today's culture.

Bernie is certainly liberal enough, but never truly part of the elite. they will crush him next.

Beto and Kamala are the choices of the powerful (i.e. Obama and others). although Hillary will be pushing for Terry McAuliffe (for obvious reasons if you have been paying attention). 

So you are actually applauding Trump for trying to turn her commentsyesteraround and make then incendiary? Sure she can say anything she wants and so can anyone else I'm just against her words being twisted based on a poor choice of words. People are free to criticize her words but those who understand exactly what she meant also have the right to push back. This isn't speech against the government so anyone can disagree and say you are wrong if they think that.

I can't believe i am doing this but i am 100% with you on Biden. What some on the left are doing to him should be criminal. He has done nothing wrong. All these incidents and i use the term lightly are photographed and its clear he was just being friendly. It is just the way he is. It wasn't sexual in any way. Now i understand some people just don't like to be touched. He should be more aware of that but we're making a mountain out of a molehill with this. He is still leading in the most recent poll i saw yesterday.

Bernie i like him i really do but i don't know if he can get the moderates on both sides or the independents at least not alone. Same for Biden, i think whichever get the nomination should either have Beto or Kamala as their VP to try and get the moderates, independents and the young voters who are finally starting to give a shit. We saw record numbers of 18-30 voters in the midterms. Regardless of how they vote i am glad they are starting to care. The more involved everyone is the better off our democracy is imo.

[pilferk]

Bernie i like him i really do but i don't know if he can get the moderates on both sides or the independents at least not alone. Same for Biden, i think whichever get the nomination should either have Beto or Kamala as their VP to try and get the moderates, independents and the young voters who are finally starting to give a shit. We saw record numbers of 18-30 voters in the midterms. Regardless of how they vote i am glad they are starting to care. The more involved everyone is the better off our democracy is imo.

Bernie is not a democrat.  He's an independent.

He should run as an independent.  I find it distasteful that the only time he becomes a Dem is when he wants (aka needs) their support to run for president.

And, as evidenced by last election, he just as quickly left the party post election and became an indie again.

I don't mind some of Bernie's policies.  Some are a little too far to the left for me....or we are just flat out unable to pay for.  But, as an independent, the party flip flopping bugs me.  We need more strong indie candidates.  I understand, to some extent, why he does it...and it's not ONLY (but I think it's mostly) about money, but also about splitting the dem vote.  But still.

Right now, I find Mayor Pete the most interesting candidate...but that may change as we go down the road.  Biden is perfectly fine.

Not that my opinion on primary candidates makes any difference.  As an indie in CT, we don't get to vote in primaries unless we do what Bernie does....declare a party and then leave afterwards...which takes about 6 months "round trip". 

[tim_m]

Bernie i like him i really do but i don't know if he can get the moderates on both sides or the independents at least not alone. Same for Biden, i think whichever get the nomination should either have Beto or Kamala as their VP to try and get the moderates, independents and the young voters who are finally starting to give a shit. We saw record numbers of 18-30 voters in the midterms. Regardless of how they vote i am glad they are starting to care. The more involved everyone is the better off our democracy is imo.

Bernie is not a democrat.  He's an independent.

He should run as an independent.  I find it distasteful that the only time he becomes a Dem is when he wants (aka needs) their support to run for president.

And, as evidenced by last election, he just as quickly left the party post election and became an indie again.

I don't mind some of Bernie's policies.  Some are a little too far to the left for me....or we are just flat out unable to pay for.  But, as an independent, the party flip flopping bugs me.  We need more strong indie candidates.  I understand, to some extent, why he does it...and it's not ONLY (but I think it's mostly) about money, but also about splitting the dem vote.  But still.

Right now, I find Mayor Pete the most interesting candidate...but that may change as we go down the road.  Biden is perfectly fine.

Not that my opinion on primary candidates makes any difference.  As an indie in CT, we don't get to vote in primaries unless we do what Bernie does....declare a party and then leave afterwards...which takes about 6 months "round trip". 

I do like Buttiegeg as well. He's smart, articulate, well spoken and actually answers the question he's asked.

[sandman]

Beto gave less than 1/3 of 1% of his household income to charity. that's pathetic. absolutely pathetic. he gave $1,166 to charity on 2018 income of $370,000. 

Bernie gave 3% of his $566,000 income to charity. he's a millionaire so that is kinda low as well.

it's well known that conservatives give more to charities than liberals. studies also show that it has nothing to do with income levels either. but I still would have thought liberals at the higher income levels would donate more. I guess not. so much for helping the less fortunate.

[pilferk]

Looks like NK fired some sort of missile, conducting a weapons test after promising not to.

[pilferk]

Excuse me, friends.  I'm feeling INCREDIBLY frustrated, so I'm going to commit a couple crimes.  Given the AG's Presser, that's a completely valid defense, so I feel like I'm justified in my plans.

Have a great day!

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Trump did nothing wrong legally.  But Politically the battle isn't over.

Senate Dems cant seem to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. So far their focus has been on Trump' instead of offering some kind of agenda on how they will govern.  Lets say they slay the great orange whale, then what?

[pilferk]

Trump did nothing wrong legally.  But Politically the battle isn't over.

Senate Dems cant seem to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. So far their focus has been on Trump' instead of offering some kind of agenda on how they will govern.  Lets say they slay the great orange whale, then what?

In terms of legality...still a pending question on obstruction.  Sounds like there's a case to be made...the AG just didn't want to make it because....Trump was frustrated so those actions are excusable? Um....IDK how sound a legal theory THAT is. Guess we'll have to wait til we can read the report to see.....

SENATE Dems can't actually do anything....because McConnell won't let them.  He won't bring any legislation to the floor for votes that the House votes on. And he has said over and over he won't vote on anything that won't pass with a majority of REPUBLICAN votes unless he literally has zero choice (the veto vote on Trumps emergency declaration, for example).  So Senate Dems plan...and it seems to be working based on public opinion...is to shout from the rooftops that the Dems actually DO have an agenda that the Repubs simply won't allow through. And...quite frankly...they have the bills stacking up to prove it.  And....the Senate Repubs aren't really offering up any alternatives, especially on things like healthcare.  They don't seem to know how to actually govern.

The HOUSE Dems have been passing legislation based on their campaign points left and right.  They are walking and chewing gum and using the hoola hoop at the same time.  But, see above.  Again, that's going to be your 2020 refrain: You elected us based on these kitchen table issues.  We've passed the legislation on the House side....and the Senate simply won't take up the resolutions.

We'll see how effective that is.  Polls show it's effective right now, but....in 19 months? 

[pilferk]

Well, so far, it looks like we were mislead by Barr.

There isn't "evidence on both sides" of obstruction.

There is evidence of obstruction of justice, and Mueller punts to Congress because he doesn't think he can indict a sitting president.

And even on collusion....."exonerated" is way too strong a word.  He didn't feel he had a chargeable offense with enough admissible evidence to support a conspiracy charge....and even if he did, he would have punted it because he didn't think he could indict.  That's more than a semantic difference....and is a strong parallel to Hillary and her emails which is what got Trump his presidency.

Trump supporters aren't going to give a shit about any of this, of course.  All while engaging in "lock her up chants".

Edit: Man, the more you read of this report, the worse it sounds. My assessment was dead on. Either they were/are complete morons or they are/were criminals. There's no wiggle room in perception here.  It's absolutely one or the other.
Anyone who actually reads this thing is going to find some really icky stuff.  IDK how anyone who knew what was in this report could ever say "exoneration" or want to "spike the football".  We pretty much know that Barrs 4 page letter was a load of crap.  Ugh....... 

The only people capable of reading this report and thinking it was "winning" are homers, morons, or trolls.  Yee gods....

[sandman]

Like the old saying goes, when u have the facts and/or the law, pound the facts/law. When u don’t have the facts/law, pound the table.

Lots of libs pounding the table right now. 

The russia hoax was good for the dems. But they should move on. The cult-like followers of this scam will vote against trump no matter what. But if they keep harping on this, casual observers will be turned off. They should thank mueller for staying quiet until after the mid-terms, and start focusing on policy. And i wouldnt lead with late term abortion.

Trump and his supporters r getting another week of celebrations. What a way to kick off the weekend! Yes, winning is fun!!!

[sandman]

Trump did nothing wrong legally.  But Politically the battle isn't over.

Senate Dems cant seem to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. So far their focus has been on Trump' instead of offering some kind of agenda on how they will govern.  Lets say they slay the great orange whale, then what?

Bingo! Their biggest message has been russia russia russia.

Aside from that, they stand for abortions with no restrictions, and socialist programs we can’t afford. Neither of which poll well.

At some point, they should promote policies that appeal to moderates across the whole country.

But they won’t. Which is why trump has a great chance ton win. Again.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Trump did nothing wrong legally.  But Politically the battle isn't over.

Senate Dems cant seem to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. So far their focus has been on Trump' instead of offering some kind of agenda on how they will govern.  Lets say they slay the great orange whale, then what?

Bingo! Their biggest message has been russia russia russia.

Aside from that, they stand for abortions with no restrictions, and socialist programs we can’t afford. Neither of which poll well.

At some point, they should promote policies that appeal to moderates across the whole country.

But they won’t. Which is why trump has a great chance ton win. Again.

What have the Dems done in the house since taking power 100 some odd days ago? Not much. They have no vision or governing agenda, they are a mess. Even if they pass a bill that dies when it lands in the senate at least we'd know what they stand for. ( Other than going after Trump)

Regarding 2020 - I wouldn't refer to Biden as a socialist. Granted he isn't running yet, but he will announce at some point soon. He would be the only one of the pack that wouldn't be a complete catastrophe if he won the election .

Bernie isn't even a democrat, he just switches his party affiliation when he deems it necessary and advantageous to him.

These 2 are considered frontrunners. Who would turn 80 years old in their 1st term if elected.  Keep an eye on  Buttegeig, hes pretty much taken what wind Beta had in his sails.

So far,  looks good for Trump in 2020.

I wish someone would consider the national debt though. No one is talking about that.

[pilferk]

What have the Dems done in the house since taking power 100 some odd days ago? Not much. They have no vision or governing agenda, they are a mess. Even if they pass a bill that dies when it lands in the senate at least we'd know what they stand for. ( Other than going after Trump)

Not much?  Only if you're not paying attention.

Lets see...here's some examples:

Stronger gun background checks that eliminate the gun show loop hole.
HR1 (limiting soft money in campaigns again)
Ethics and elections bill
Anti-corruption bill
Revival of Net Neutrality bill
A plan (put out in late March) to expand health care coverage
Equality act
Voting Rights Bill
Condemnation of participation in the War in Yemen (aka Saudi).
And currently working on HR6 to protect dreamers

And a BUNCH of other stuff.  All pretty much DOA in the Senate. And, by the by, all things that poll INCREDIBLY well for them.

In short: THEY ARE doing stuff.  I'm not sure why you're not aware (I suspect, but I'm not sure) of what it is, but they are actively GOVERNING.  Or trying to. Mitch ain't gonna actually let any of those bills come to a vote...which is entirely the point.

To say they aren't, or they have no agenda, is just patently untrue.

They have probably the clearest, and most well planned, agenda that the Dems have had in 20 years (at least since the early Clinton years).

Also...just a note: The House is actually only "in session" for about 118 days in all of 2019.   Sad, but true.

[tim_m]

There's no scenario where Trump is innocent period. We know he ordered people to do things but they failed to follow orders. Just because they didn't doesn't absolve him of the crime whether it was obstruction or collusion. If I try to hire a hitman and he doesn't follow through that doesn't make me not guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.