Assholes's Speech

[Milly23]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some illegal votes cast in this past election and many elections prior to 2016. But the number is extremely small by any "valid" estimations. 3 million illegal voters??? Here are some fact checking that was done on that number:

Statement rated "False":

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...did-not-vote-/

Statement rated "Pants on Fire":

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ns-illegal-vo/

Kellyanne Conway believes voter fraud is minor to non-existent:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/tru...-fraud-claims/

No fraud found:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/politi...-popular-vote/

I could go on and on citing several more sources that state that voter fraud was minimal in the 2016 election. So I have cited several sources that state exactly that. You so far have given us NOTHING but your opinion. That all you've got? Trump was dead wrong when he says 3 million illegal voters cost him the popular vote. Live with it.

I would wager voter suppression is higher than voter fraud.

[AnimalHouse]

The bottom line is "We" the people voted Donald Trump to the office of President of the United States. If you are a citizen of this country then you are part of that "we". Like it or not "We" the people voted him into office. It is done. Get over it.

What Mr Trump has accomplished during the first 100 days......wow! let's see.....and by the way, this is happening regardless of what mainstream media reports.....and this is a short list....
*President Obama did a Federal land grab of millions of acres of public and private land, especially in California. This land was controlled by local agencies and private citizens. President Trump has already reversed that and turned the control back over to the States and the citizens.
*President Trump has already removed regulations from many industries that were stifled by Obama legislation and many were having to shut down.
*President Trump has been successful in Obamacare being shut down along with the penalties that millions of Americans were unable to pay.
*Our veterans are now allowed to see MDs outside of the VA if necessary.
*Border crossings are down by 60% in the last 3 months, law and order is being restored in neighboring countries and criminals are not getting a free pass and neither will terrorists be set free to make a deal with a country that chants "death to America".
*President Trump will not apologize to the world for the actions of America, neither will he warn our enemies of what's coming, and he will never leave our allies out to fend for themselves.
*To date, he has met with more foreign leaders, and more CEOs giving people voices instead of shutting them down by having them investigated by different agencies.
*The Federal Government will no longer sue States for enforcing laws.

Like it or not, President Trump, the man "We" voted into office is doing a hell of a job. These are the facts and can be found if one just opens their mind and searches for the truth.

[Milly23]

Originally Posted by AnimalHouse

The bottom line is "We" the people voted Donald Trump to the office of President of the United States. If you are a citizen of this country then you are part of that "we". Like it or not "We" the people voted him into office. It is done. Get over it.

What Mr Trump has accomplished during the first 100 days......wow! let's see.....and by the way, this is happening regardless of what mainstream media reports.....and this is a short list....
*President Obama did a Federal land grab of millions of acres of public and private land, especially in California. This land was controlled by local agencies and private citizens. President Trump has already reversed that and turned the control back over to the States and the citizens.
*President Trump has already removed regulations from many industries that were stifled by Obama legislation and many were having to shut down.
*President Trump has been successful in Obamacare being shut down along with the penalties that millions of Americans were unable to pay.
*Our veterans are now allowed to see MDs outside of the VA if necessary.
*Border crossings are down by 60% in the last 3 months, law and order is being restored in neighboring countries and criminals are not getting a free pass and neither will terrorists be set free to make a deal with a country that chants "death to America".
*President Trump will not apologize to the world for the actions of America, neither will he warn our enemies of what's coming, and he will never leave our allies out to fend for themselves.
*To date, he has met with more foreign leaders, and more CEOs giving people voices instead of shutting them down by having them investigated by different agencies.
*The Federal Government will no longer sue States for enforcing laws.

Like it or not, President Trump, the man "We" voted into office is doing a hell of a job. These are the facts and can be found if one just opens their mind and searches for the truth.

We the people did not elect Trump. Get out of here. There was 3 million more people in that we voting for the other person. If Trump or his supporters want the majority of the people to see him as their president. Maybe he should govern in a way that represents them too and not just his base. Otherwise no "we" didn't elect him.

Funny one of your things you try to talk about is a land grab by Obama. Yet Trump talked about building a boarder wall that would be a land grab. Because most of that land is privately owned. Which is one of the reasons Senators from most boarder states opposed the wall. But nice try there.

Regulations didn't shut down industries. Coal was shut down by natural gas. And maybe do the research. Many of the jobs being announced were planned before Trump got into office. But again nice try.

Trump hasn't been successful at all with shutting down Obamacare. The bill passed today won't be the bill the Senate sends back. They've already said they are starting from scratch with moderate and more conservatives working together. Which means the Medicaid will still be going. Which means subsides still. Which means either the debt will take a huge hit or there will be penalties. You see the reason there were penalties was because you need everyone in the game so that you can afford the expansions. The health pay for the ill, and then when those health people become the ill, someone does it for them. And so on. But without that penalty, health people won't necessarily get insured and it all collapses. But again nice try.

As for veterans, maybe read this..
http://time.com/money/4650143/trump-...ealth-care-va/

Law and order are being restored in neighboring countries? What does that even mean? Is crime down now in Mexico? Have the cartels said we are afraid of the orange man to the north, we most stop killing and kidnapping people?

Of course Trump isn't apologizing. He won't apologize to the people of our country when he lies. So I guess he didn't warn Russia (not an ally) that we were bombing that Syrian airbase. Which I mean is basically warning Syria since Russia is pro al-Assad. Maybe that's why they were using the base the next day. How do you know he will never leave our allies to fend for themselves? I mean who will be our allies? The way he's talking Russia, Turkey, Philippines is in and England, France, Germany is out.

Met with more foreign leaders? He's taken ZERO trips abroad. But has traveled to one of his properties almost every weekend since being in office. He's golfed more times than he's met with world leaders I would bet.

The federal government won't sue states for enforcing laws? What hell does that even mean? I mean because this WH is so confusing. They want to talk about the states having the right to govern but then walk that back on other things. States should decide on healthcare. But no states can't decide if they want to legalize marijuana. They are a walking joke.

Trump, the person a minority of the population voted into office is doing a below average job. And anyone with a brain could see that. He lies, he sounds dumb when talking, and he doesn't know how government works. Yeah that's the guy who's going to makes us tired of winning. I just thought about that, he wasn't talking to the minority of the people who voted for him. He was talking about us, the majority who voted against him. We won on the CR getting things like Planned Parenthood, etc. continuing funding. We are win a lot of seats come 2018 because of him. We won on travel bans. We won sanctuary cities. We made his one win (Supreme Court) look bad because the turtle man had to change the rules to get that threw. I mean you can't brag about getting a nominee confirmed in the first 100 days when everyone else did it with 60 votes and you had a lower bar. If he keeps this up, maybe I will get tired of winning. But really I won't. The people who will get tired are those working class voters who got shafted. They thought he would be for them. They were wrong. This healthcare bill was a tax cut for those rich people who were getting taxed more to pay for those working class voters healthcare. And now they will keep getting screwed. Hope they like it, since THEY voted him in.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by AnimalHouse

The bottom line is "We" the people voted Donald Trump to the office of President of the United States. If you are a citizen of this country then you are part of that "we". Like it or not "We" the people voted him into office. It is done. Get over it.

What Mr Trump has accomplished during the first 100 days......wow! let's see.....and by the way, this is happening regardless of what mainstream media reports.....and this is a short list....
*President Obama did a Federal land grab of millions of acres of public and private land, especially in California. This land was controlled by local agencies and private citizens. President Trump has already reversed that and turned the control back over to the States and the citizens.
*President Trump has already removed regulations from many industries that were stifled by Obama legislation and many were having to shut down.
*President Trump has been successful in Obamacare being shut down along with the penalties that millions of Americans were unable to pay.
*Our veterans are now allowed to see MDs outside of the VA if necessary.
*Border crossings are down by 60% in the last 3 months, law and order is being restored in neighboring countries and criminals are not getting a free pass and neither will terrorists be set free to make a deal with a country that chants "death to America".
*President Trump will not apologize to the world for the actions of America, neither will he warn our enemies of what's coming, and he will never leave our allies out to fend for themselves.
*To date, he has met with more foreign leaders, and more CEOs giving people voices instead of shutting them down by having them investigated by different agencies.
*The Federal Government will no longer sue States for enforcing laws.

Like it or not, President Trump, the man "We" voted into office is doing a hell of a job. These are the facts and can be found if one just opens their mind and searches for the truth.

Where to begin. Obamacare has not been shut down. It is still the law of the land. It is estimated 10s of millions of people will lose their health care under Trumpcare and people with pre-existing conditions will be screwed. Obamacare certainly had its problems but Trumpcare could be far worse. Odds are any health plan passed will not look like the current plan just passed by the House.

Obama started the plan in 2014 that allowed veterans to see MDs outside of the VA if necessary. Trump simply extended, temporarily, that plan.

Taxpayers are now being asked to pay for "the wall" which Trump promised several times that Mexico would pay for.

The budget that will take us to September includes nothing that Trump wanted. No money for the wall. More money for healthcare. Funding for Planned Parenthood.

In our day-to-day lives, Trump has done very little to affect them. Obamacare is still there. Proposed tax plan is absolutely ridiculous. No infrastructure plan proposed. His only important EO, that limiting immigration, failed because it was unconstitutional, and the second one disappeared. Our position with countries like North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East, etc. have gotten worse. ISIS has been unaffected since Trump took office. How effective Trump's other EOs will be is yet to be determined. And if you remember, Trump was VERY critical about Obama's use of EOs and yet it is the only way Trump has been able to accomplish anything thus far.

So I guess it depends on how each person interprets the "facts". I give him a solid "D" for his performance thus far.

I can guarantee you one thing -- the rich will benefit most from Trumpcare and the proposed tax plan. The middle class may make out okay. The poor will be screwed.

[lustylad]

Hey, I detect a pattern here. Lookee at how the libtards react to everything Trump does. When he achieves something, they scream the sky is falling, nothing good will come of it! And when they block him from achieving something, they shout out - Gotcha! he's a liar and a con artist, he isn't keeping his campaign promises!

That's why the hysterical libtards have no credibility. They are congenitally incapable of saying anything positive about Trump, on anything he does now or in the future. Can't win with these tards.

NEWSFLASH - no POTUS is wrong 100% of the time. If you think otherwise, you're just a partisan hack.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Milly23

Wait, wait, wait. Let me get in on the fun too.

That awful Comey and the FBI. They sent out a letter about a nominee under investigation. So wrong. Yeah no that's not the problem. The problem is he did a press conference making a statement, which went against the practices of the FBI/DOJ. He went against the wishes of his boss, the AG. He then, after saying there was nothing there, brings all of that back up by saying they may have new information. Days before the election. And then it turns out there was nothing new there. If that was the only thing he had done. That would still be sketchy but not an issue for a lot of people. Yet we find out that the other candidate and their campaign was also under investigation at the same time, and still is. And yet they didn't say a word about that one. That's the issue and if you weren't so blind you would admit that's kinda bad form.

You're the blind one, millsy. As in blindly hyper-partisan. But then, everyone already knows that.

If you were serious about wanting to understand why Comey acted as he did, you would have read this excellent NYT story dated April 22:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/u...election.html?

Only a fool would claim - as you do by parroting those whiny, superficial DNC talking points to “explain” why hildebeest lost – that the two FBI investigations were comparable. Here is a quote from the NYT link:

"To Mr. Comey’s allies, the two investigations were totally different. One was closed when he spoke about it. The other was continuing, highly classified and in its earliest stages. Much of the debate over Mr. Comey’s actions over the last seven months can be distilled into whether people make that same distinction."


And Comey was OBLIGATED to tell Congress when he came across potential new evidence against hildebeest 11 days before the election. Why? Because he promised Congress back in July he would inform them if anything caused him to reopen the investigation. He would have broken his very public promise if he had concealed Weiner's laptop. Honorable people, as opposed to political hacks, try to keep their promises to Congress.

Question for millsy – why don't you direct your anger at the true culprit here - Carlos Danger? After all, that dimotard pervert is the REAL reason Comey had to reopen the hildebeest probe last October 28. Are you afraid to remind voters that the hubby of hildebeest's closest aide was a sexting pervert? Isn't Anthony Weiner a suitable poster child for why you lost the election?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Milly23

Wait did they say that someone spied on Trump for a year? I'm lost because everything I've heard from hearings and directors has been that there was no spying. Some unmasking which is legal and someone (sic) people got caught up in incidental collection. But funny thing with that last one, who are they talking to that they are being recorded? It's just funny that people are crying incidental collection. They were talking to someone deemed worth (sic) of tapping. Maybe they were talking business. But they were talking to a person we decided needs to be watched. Get it (sic) over it.

Thank you, millsy, I would LOVE to get over it!

Only problem is... the one person who knows the most about this unmasking activity just said she won't testify about any of it!

Isn't it funny how the folks you dimotards want to interrogate (e.g. Roger Stone, Carter Page, Paul Manafort) are eager to tell their stories, while your girl Susan Rice is too chickenshit?

Here is how the WSJ sized things up a month ago:


Susan Rice Unmasked

Obama’s security adviser sought the name of at least one Trump official in intelligence reports.

April 3, 2017 7:27 p.m. ET

Well, what do you know. On the matter of who “unmasked” the names of Trump transition officials in U.S. intelligence reports, we now have one answer: Susan Rice, Barack Obama’s national security adviser.

A U.S. intelligence official confirms to us the bombshell news, first reported Monday by Bloomberg, that Ms. Rice requested the name of at least one Trump transition official listed in an intelligence report in the months between Election Day and Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Ms. Rice received summaries of U.S. eavesdropping either when foreign officials were discussing the Trump team, or when foreign officials were conversing with a Trump transition member. The surveillance was legally authorized, but the identities of U.S. citizens are typically masked so they cannot be known outside intelligence circles. Ms. Rice asked for and learned the identity of the Trump official, whose name hasn’t been publicly disclosed and our source declined to share.

Our source did confirm that Ms. Rice also examined dozens of other intelligence summaries that technically masked Trump official identities but were written in such a way as to make obvious who those officials were. This means that the masking was essentially meaningless. All this is highly unusual — and troubling. Unmasking does occur, but it is typically done by intelligence or law-enforcement officials engaged in antiterror or espionage investigations. Ms. Rice would have had no obvious need to unmask Trump campaign officials other than political curiosity.

We’re told by a source who has seen the unmasked documents that they included political information about the Trump transition team’s meetings and policy intentions. We are also told that none of these documents had anything to do with Russia or the FBI investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. While we don't know if Ms. Rice requested these dozens of reports, we are told that they were only distributed to a select group of recipients — conveniently including Ms. Rice.

All of this helps to explain the actions in the last week of House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, the one official in Washington who seems interested in pursuing the evidence of politicized surveillance. Mr. Nunes was roundly criticized by Democrats and the media last week for publicly revealing at least one instance of Obama White House unmasking, albeit without disclosing any names.

Now we know he is onto something. And we know that Mr. Nunes had to go to the White House to verify his information because the records containing Ms. Rice’s unmasking request are held at the National Security Council.

Where are the civil libertarians when you really need them? These columns support broad surveillance powers for national security, but executive officials need to be accountable if those powers are abused. If congressional oversight of U.S. intelligence operations is going to be worth the name, then it should include the unmasking of a political opponent by a senior official in the White House.

Democrats certainly raised a fuss during the Bush years and after Edward Snowden kicked off the debate about “metadata,” which are merely telephone numbers without names. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden went so far as to introduce a bill in 2013 to strengthen the ban on “reverse targeting” — in which intelligence agencies surveil foreigners but with the goal of capturing U.S. citizen communications.

Yet now that there’s evidence that the Obama Administration may have unmasked Trump officials, Democrats couldn’t care less. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on House Intelligence, has spent the past week denouncing Mr. Nunes for revealing that a name was unmasked and for having sources at the White House. But he hasn’t raised a peep about the unmasking itself or who was behind it.

The news about Ms. Rice’s unmasking role raises a host of questions for the Senate and House intelligence committees to pursue. What specific surveillance information did Ms. Rice seek and why? Was this information related to President Obama’s decision in January to make it possible for raw intelligence to be widely disbursed throughout the government? Was this surveillance of Trump officials “incidental” collection gathered while listening to a foreigner, or were some Trump officials directly targeted, or “reverse targeted”?

We were unable to locate Ms. Rice Monday to ask for comment, and she hasn’t addressed the unmasking as far as we know. But asked last month on the “PBS NewsHour” that Trump officials might have been surveilled, she said, “I know nothing about this” and “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today.” She certainly deserves her turn under oath on Capitol Hill.

None of this should deter investigators from looking into the Trump-Russia connection. By all means follow that evidence where it leads. But the media have been running like wildebeest after that story while ignoring how the Obama Administration might have abused domestic surveillance for its political purposes. Americans deserve to know the truth about both.

Appeared in the Apr. 04, 2017, print edition

https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-r...ked-1491262064

[Milly23]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Thank you, millsy, I would LOVE to get over it!

Only problem is... the one person who knows the most about this unmasking activity just said she won't testify about any of it!

Isn't it funny how the folks you dimotards want to interrogate (e.g. Roger Stone, Carter Page, Paul Manafort) are eager to tell their stories, while your girl Susan Rice is too chickenshit?

Here is how the WSJ sized things up a month ago:


Susan Rice Unmasked

Obama’s security adviser sought the name of at least one Trump official in intelligence reports.

April 3, 2017 7:27 p.m. ET

Well, what do you know. On the matter of who “unmasked” the names of Trump transition officials in U.S. intelligence reports, we now have one answer: Susan Rice, Barack Obama’s national security adviser.

A U.S. intelligence official confirms to us the bombshell news, first reported Monday by Bloomberg, that Ms. Rice requested the name of at least one Trump transition official listed in an intelligence report in the months between Election Day and Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Ms. Rice received summaries of U.S. eavesdropping either when foreign officials were discussing the Trump team, or when foreign officials were conversing with a Trump transition member. The surveillance was legally authorized, but the identities of U.S. citizens are typically masked so they cannot be known outside intelligence circles. Ms. Rice asked for and learned the identity of the Trump official, whose name hasn’t been publicly disclosed and our source declined to share.

Our source did confirm that Ms. Rice also examined dozens of other intelligence summaries that technically masked Trump official identities but were written in such a way as to make obvious who those officials were. This means that the masking was essentially meaningless. All this is highly unusual — and troubling. Unmasking does occur, but it is typically done by intelligence or law-enforcement officials engaged in antiterror or espionage investigations. Ms. Rice would have had no obvious need to unmask Trump campaign officials other than political curiosity.

We’re told by a source who has seen the unmasked documents that they included political information about the Trump transition team’s meetings and policy intentions. We are also told that none of these documents had anything to do with Russia or the FBI investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. While we don't know if Ms. Rice requested these dozens of reports, we are told that they were only distributed to a select group of recipients — conveniently including Ms. Rice.

All of this helps to explain the actions in the last week of House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, the one official in Washington who seems interested in pursuing the evidence of politicized surveillance. Mr. Nunes was roundly criticized by Democrats and the media last week for publicly revealing at least one instance of Obama White House unmasking, albeit without disclosing any names.

Now we know he is onto something. And we know that Mr. Nunes had to go to the White House to verify his information because the records containing Ms. Rice’s unmasking request are held at the National Security Council.

Where are the civil libertarians when you really need them? These columns support broad surveillance powers for national security, but executive officials need to be accountable if those powers are abused. If congressional oversight of U.S. intelligence operations is going to be worth the name, then it should include the unmasking of a political opponent by a senior official in the White House.

Democrats certainly raised a fuss during the Bush years and after Edward Snowden kicked off the debate about “metadata,” which are merely telephone numbers without names. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden went so far as to introduce a bill in 2013 to strengthen the ban on “reverse targeting” — in which intelligence agencies surveil foreigners but with the goal of capturing U.S. citizen communications.

Yet now that there’s evidence that the Obama Administration may have unmasked Trump officials, Democrats couldn’t care less. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on House Intelligence, has spent the past week denouncing Mr. Nunes for revealing that a name was unmasked and for having sources at the White House. But he hasn’t raised a peep about the unmasking itself or who was behind it.

The news about Ms. Rice’s unmasking role raises a host of questions for the Senate and House intelligence committees to pursue. What specific surveillance information did Ms. Rice seek and why? Was this information related to President Obama’s decision in January to make it possible for raw intelligence to be widely disbursed throughout the government? Was this surveillance of Trump officials “incidental” collection gathered while listening to a foreigner, or were some Trump officials directly targeted, or “reverse targeted”?

We were unable to locate Ms. Rice Monday to ask for comment, and she hasn’t addressed the unmasking as far as we know. But asked last month on the “PBS NewsHour” that Trump officials might have been surveilled, she said, “I know nothing about this” and “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today.” She certainly deserves her turn under oath on Capitol Hill.

None of this should deter investigators from looking into the Trump-Russia connection. By all means follow that evidence where it leads. But the media have been running like wildebeest after that story while ignoring how the Obama Administration might have abused domestic surveillance for its political purposes. Americans deserve to know the truth about both.

Appeared in the Apr. 04, 2017, print edition

1) Comey was wrong. He broke protocol speaking in the first place so all of your nonsense is pointless. He went against the wishes of his boss. The reason he had to tell Congress about evidence that he had no idea if it was pertinent to Clinton was because he spoke publicly to begin with. Which again goes against protocol. As does doing anything 60 days out from a election. Way to talk about what Comeys ALLIES think. Yes they thought it was two separate things. And cases can be different but the public should have known about both if you're talking about one. Talk about hyper partisan. You're as much of that as anyone. Well her top aide was married to a guy with questionable behaviors.... We elected a guy who has been on camera talking about some things just as bad. So stop.

2) Susan Rice declined speaking because as it was reported she was the only person coming that wasn't agreed upon by both Whitehouse and Graham. Which she saw as a partisan move. Funny, you want to hear what she has to say now. Trump and Pence dismissed her when she warned them of Flynn. I'm not going to read all that nonsense about unmasking. Nor will I waste time finding an article that will easy say the opposite because I guarantee you I could find them. She asked for them to be unmasked. It's not illegal. It's normal protocol. Get over it. She will testify. It won't prove anything wrong occurred. And then Trump will spin it and people like you will eat it like horse shit.

As for the back and forward. Stop replying to me. Hell don't even reply to what I just said. It's probably going to be hyper partisan, while you try to call others the same. And I don't care what nonsense you respond with. I told you last time I have no desire to talk to someone who believes that coal mining and policy is the same as the racial insensitivity coming from Trump. Your opinion is shit. Go on about your day when you see me post and I will do the same.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hey, I detect a pattern here. Lookee at how the libtards react to everything Trump does. When he achieves something, they scream the sky is falling, nothing good will come of it! And when they block him from achieving something, they shout out - Gotcha! he's a liar and a con artist, he isn't keeping his campaign promises!

That's why the hysterical libtards have no credibility. They are congenitally incapable of saying anything positive about Trump, on anything he does now or in the future. Can't win with these tards.

NEWSFLASH - no POTUS is wrong 100% of the time. If you think otherwise, you're just a partisan hack.

Maybe like the Conservatards did when Obama got the ACA passed. Or when he acted to end the biggest recession since the Great Depression. For 6 years Obama was blocked at every turn by a Republican congress. Trump has a Republican congress so don't blame Liberals for all the problems Trump is having.

The "libtards" did not block the first passage of the AHCA. It took several Republicans realizing how bad a plan it was and threatening to vote against it before the plan was withdrawn.

In my opinion, the only major victory for Trump thus far has been the passage of the AHCA (if that is what it is still called) and like I said, there are major flaws in it and the final version, if passed, will be quite a bit different than the version passed by the House yesterday.

Just to remind you, I participated in the Political Forum over maybe the last 2 years and I don't remember any Republican/Conservative on that forum giving Obama credit for ANYTHING. Total negativity. As you said, and I certainly agree, no POTUS is wrong 100% of the time.

Let me throw it back at you. I will give Trump credit for what seems to be a lessening of immigrants coming over the Mexico-U.S border (maybe we don't need a wall after all) in a short term. In your opinion, what has Trump done that benefits YOU personally? The ACA didn't affect me negatively so I doubt the AHCA will either help me or hurt me.

[Austin Ellen]

Wow, so if someone doesn't agree with you - their opinion is shit? Reallllllly?
Who died and left you master of the universe?
P.S. - that attitude of yours will get Trump 4 more years. So keep it up - you will lose----again.

Originally Posted by Milly23

1) Comey was wrong. He broke protocol speaking in the first place so all of your nonsense is pointless. He went against the wishes of his boss. The reason he had to tell Congress about evidence that he had no idea if it was pertinent to Clinton was because he spoke publicly to begin with. Which again goes against protocol. As does doing anything 60 days out from a election. Way to talk about what Comeys ALLIES think. Yes they thought it was two separate things. And cases can be different but the public should have known about both if you're talking about one. Talk about hyper partisan. You're as much of that as anyone. Well her top aide was married to a guy with questionable behaviors.... We elected a guy who has been on camera talking about some things just as bad. So stop.

2) Susan Rice declined speaking because as it was reported she was the only person coming that wasn't agreed upon by both Whitehouse and Graham. Which she saw as a partisan move. Funny, you want to hear what she has to say now. Trump and Pence dismissed her when she warned them of Flynn. I'm not going to read all that nonsense about unmasking. Nor will I waste time finding an article that will easy say the opposite because I guarantee you I could find them. She asked for them to be unmasked. It's not illegal. It's normal protocol. Get over it. She will testify. It won't prove anything wrong occurred. And then Trump will spin it and people like you will eat it like horse shit.

As for the back and forward. Stop replying to me. Hell don't even reply to what I just said. It's probably going to be hyper partisan, while you try to call others the same. And I don't care what nonsense you respond with. I told you last time I have no desire to talk to someone who believes that coal mining and policy is the same as the racial insensitivity coming from Trump. Your opinion is shit. Go on about your day when you see me post and I will do the same.

[Milly23]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Wow, so if someone doesn't agree with you - their opinion is shit? Reallllllly?
Who died and left you master of the universe?
P.S. - that attitude of yours will get Trump 4 more years. So keep it up - you will lose----again.

Umm I've had plenty of back and forwards about opinions with that guy. That's not the issue if you read. It's an opinion that coal mining/policy is different from racism. Sorry if you don't believe that also. But it's not. And that guy continued to talk about how they were the same. So yeah I don't want to interact with him because if that's his basis of thought, he's not worth it for me to communicate with. Guess what, it's my decision who I have conversation with.

Where am I acting like the master of the universe? Did I say don't comment on anyone's post? No. I told him to avoid my post because I want nothing to do with his comments. That's my right. You know as an American, which you said was a blessing. So do I not have that right? Or is that only reserved for certain things?

P.S. The only thing that could help Trump get four more years is a possible war. Which I'm sure he's wanting to have so bad. And yet, those on the right who are so anti-war (like Trump who "opposed" Iraq) will be ok with it. The guy has historic lows in approval, can't get legislation through when he controls the House/Senate, can't stop lying, is pushing legislation that hurts those who voted for him more than it hurts Clinton voters. Yeah you don't catch lightning in a bottle twice. He can't keep losing moderates and independents the way he is. That's what swings elections, not your base. His base will come out for him and the Democratic base will come out against him (even more than last time). You are super confident that he will win again. I'm glad.

[Rey Lengua]

Asshole's Speech ? The one where shrilLIARy detailed how it was EVERYONE else's fault for her loss ? Or the one that odummer gave for $ 400,000 to the same people he vilified while he occupied the White House with his feet on the desk of the Oval Office ? Or did Slick Willy get back out on the " talk " circuit ? Which one of those assholes is the OP referring to ?

[Milly23]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Asshole's Speech ? The one where shrilLIARy detailed how it was EVERYONE else's fault for her loss ? Or the one that odummer gave for $ 400,000 to the same people he vilified while he occupied the White House with his feet on the desk of the Oval Office ? Or did Slick Willy get back out on the " talk " circuit ? Which one of those assholes is the OP referring to ?

I don't think she blamed everyone for her loss. I mean go buy her back and let me know. Because I'm sure she knows it's on her too and she's hinted that her book will say that.

As for the guy who took $400,000 to give a speech. Well let's break that down sir so we can see. 1) Private citizen. 2) Not going to run for elected office again so it's not like he is going to effect policy taking money for a speech. 3) That guy, the nerve to take $400,000 for a speech and then donate 2 million to a community that needs it. The nerve of that guy. As for the asshole he mentioned. If you are talking about doing things while your feet are up on in the oval. That guy is making WAY more than $400,000 making decisions that could effect how much his family/company gets. And we know it and people like you are ok with it. But when the guy not in office gets money for a speech, you are up in arms? And I wish y'all would say it's because of the hypocrisy. Because the that excuse can't be used when everyday Trump supporters are hypocritical on something. Trump is essentially business partners with Erdogan. A guy who just illegally took more power. And he tweets his support to him. Yeah let's get mad at Obama for giving a speech. But let's allow Trump to do whatever.

I mean even Trump admitted he had conflicts when talking about Turkey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSvfbc-YokY

Or how about Republicans criticizing Clinton for her foundation that helps children taking money from the Saudi government. Yet he's got business there and his first foreign trip.. I mean there are key places he could go, maybe Europe with all the terrorist attacks to show our allies we are behind them (as one of his supporters here said), maybe Mexico or Canada to get us a good deal on NAFTA. Maybe Japan to get something done about North Korea. NOPE, he's going to Saudi Arabia. Of all places.

[Iforgottopullout]

Make america great again!

[Cap'n Crunch]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Wow, so if someone doesn't agree with you - their opinion is shit? Reallllllly?
Who died and left you master of the universe?
P.S. - that attitude of yours will get Trump 4 more years. So keep it up - you will lose----again.

Ellen, I think you need to read what lustyturd wrote to Milly (and writes to anyone who disagrees with him). "Wow, so if someone doesn't agree with you - their opinion is shit? Reallllllly? " equally applies to lustyturd and other likeminded people, universally dismissing anything a "libtard" says.

By the same token, "the attitudes of the Radical Right-Wing Terrorists, will get Trump removed within 4 years. So keep it up - you will lose---- Bigly."