OT - Trump

[jason bourne]

So they are progressives because they call themselves progressives? Obamacare as the sole example? Well it would be a good one if it didn't jack up the prices of healthcare to begin with.. but let's say for the sake of argument, OK, Obamacare is progressive. The rest of what you are saying is purely hypothetical. So we're basing that they are 'progressives' for one action.. that's not logical.

The DAPL proves that they are in fact not progressives. So does the TPP. So does the acceptance of NAFTA. There's far more evidence that both are not progressives than that they are.

Clinton lost because she alienated a chunk of her base and assumed that she had certain battleground states locked up. She scaled back her appearances and believed people would buy into fear-mongering and manipulation. They didn't. Her (and Obama's) relative accepting silence of the DAPL was a part of it, but because of its lack of coverage in the news, I can't imagine it's a big reason she lost.

No, I said Clinton and Obama usurped the "label." In other words, they turned it into their brand. That's what it meant for the people who voted for Clinton. She had the MSM like CNN and NYT to promote it. I think HuffPo supported Bernie Sanders (HuffPo readers are smarter). If you are #NoDAPL, which I support, then you are liberal. If you want to call it progressive and Clinton moderates, then it's fine by me. I'm just not sure that the brand will go away since Clinton lost.

It's not just Obamacare that he used his power on. Remember all the arguments about no amnesty? Then it was a bi-partisan committee to try and reach a compromise agreement that failed? Obama used an executive order to ram through his immigration policy. People were never comfortable with that. Then upheaval happens across the world and we're flooded with refugees trying to reach any shore. People aren't happy with Obama willing to let them in because no one bought into his policy. That's another huge progressive move that cost him. The final big one was his fiscal policies such as the GM bailout. Congress and people in power didn't buy into his policies so that's why they're in danger of it unraveling so easily now. Obama is a weak leader. Under Obama, we live in an oligarchy. As long as the power supported liberal policies, it was fine. Now, the opponent has seized power and the Dems are the ones who are afraid.

[jason bourne]

If you want the Trump label or brand, try Populist.

[yesh]

So they are progressives because they call themselves progressives? Obamacare as the sole example? Well it would be a good one if it didn't jack up the prices of healthcare to begin with.. but let's say for the sake of argument, OK, Obamacare is progressive. The rest of what you are saying is purely hypothetical. So we're basing that they are 'progressives' for one action.. that's not logical.

The DAPL proves that they are in fact not progressives. So does the TPP. So does the acceptance of NAFTA. There's far more evidence that both are not progressives than that they are.

Clinton lost because she alienated a chunk of her base and assumed that she had certain battleground states locked up. She scaled back her appearances and believed people would buy into fear-mongering and manipulation. They didn't. Her (and Obama's) relative accepting silence of the DAPL was a part of it, but because of its lack of coverage in the news, I can't imagine it's a big reason she lost.

No, I said Clinton and Obama usurped the "label." In other words, they turned it into their brand. That's what it meant for the people who voted for Clinton. She had the MSM like CNN and NYT to promote it. I think HuffPo supported Bernie Sanders (HuffPo readers are smarter). If you are #NoDAPL, which I support, then you are liberal. If you want to call it progressive and Clinton moderates, then it's fine by me. I'm just not sure that the brand will go away since Clinton lost.

It's not just Obamacare that he used his power on. Remember all the arguments about no amnesty? Then it was a bi-partisan committee to try and reach a compromise agreement that failed? Obama used an executive order to ram through his immigration policy. People were never comfortable with that. Then upheaval happens across the world and we're flooded with refugees trying to reach any shore. People aren't happy with Obama willing to let them in because no one bought into his policy. That's another huge progressive move that cost him. The final big one was his fiscal policies such as the GM bailout. Congress and people in power didn't buy into his policies so that's why they're in danger of it unraveling so easily now. Obama is a weak leader. Under Obama, we live in an oligarchy. As long as the power supported liberal policies, it was fine. Now, the opponent has seized power and the Dems are the ones who are afraid.

Obama ran for president on healthcare so he was entiitled to do that for starters. The fact the republicans are so insane about everything that is not tax breaks for the rich and abortions, is the reason he eventually stumped for an intitial republican healthcare solution. That's right, Obamacare was originally a heritage foundation plan, but as soon as he put his name on it, it became a socialist plot to kill your granny. A progressive healthcare plan (obama isn't a progressive) is like the NHS i have in England, not a plan that forces people to buy insurance so insurers get those benjamins!

You do realise that Obamas weak fiscal policies were a direct result as unprecedented and historical obstruction of the right wing? If Obama had suggested that the moon is at night and sun during the day, the republicans would have voted against it. it pains me as someone from the UK, that people aren't aware of exactly what the republicans have done during the last 8 years, and how they will attempt to decimate even more now they have power.

Obama is a good man, not a great president, mainly because I don't agree with much of his politics (the grand bargain etc), but Obama is only one branch of your government.

[FNQ]

So they are progressives because they call themselves progressives? Obamacare as the sole example? Well it would be a good one if it didn't jack up the prices of healthcare to begin with.. but let's say for the sake of argument, OK, Obamacare is progressive. The rest of what you are saying is purely hypothetical. So we're basing that they are 'progressives' for one action.. that's not logical.

The DAPL proves that they are in fact not progressives. So does the TPP. So does the acceptance of NAFTA. There's far more evidence that both are not progressives than that they are.

Clinton lost because she alienated a chunk of her base and assumed that she had certain battleground states locked up. She scaled back her appearances and believed people would buy into fear-mongering and manipulation. They didn't. Her (and Obama's) relative accepting silence of the DAPL was a part of it, but because of its lack of coverage in the news, I can't imagine it's a big reason she lost.

No, I said Clinton and Obama usurped the "label." In other words, they turned it into their brand. That's what it meant for the people who voted for Clinton. She had the MSM like CNN and NYT to promote it. I think HuffPo supported Bernie Sanders (HuffPo readers are smarter). If you are #NoDAPL, which I support, then you are liberal. If you want to call it progressive and Clinton moderates, then it's fine by me. I'm just not sure that the brand will go away since Clinton lost.

It's not just Obamacare that he used his power on. Remember all the arguments about no amnesty? Then it was a bi-partisan committee to try and reach a compromise agreement that failed? Obama used an executive order to ram through his immigration policy. People were never comfortable with that. Then upheaval happens across the world and we're flooded with refugees trying to reach any shore. People aren't happy with Obama willing to let them in because no one bought into his policy. That's another huge progressive move that cost him. The final big one was his fiscal policies such as the GM bailout. Congress and people in power didn't buy into his policies so that's why they're in danger of it unraveling so easily now. Obama is a weak leader. Under Obama, we live in an oligarchy. As long as the power supported liberal policies, it was fine. Now, the opponent has seized power and the Dems are the ones who are afraid.

I don't care what people call themselves. I can call myself future Warriors owner/Victoria Secret supermodel banger FNQ.. doesn't really make it so. Dare to dream, though.

You called Bernie a liberal, and you are calling the DAPL progressive?

I just have no words for that. Call them what you like, I know pretty much everyone that I worked with this election season would take incredibly great issue with that terminology.

[Franc]

I have hope...that the apparently very upset disenfranchised blue collar part of the USA got to "stick it to the man" .... and in a few months, the same IQ'less sex predator vulgar business vulture will be impeached for overtly steering the US into the side of a mountain.

I LOVE IT! That's not for your Name, but for your mail.

[DonaldSanders]

Pretty true, which is why more people are calling for transparency in politicians and lobbyists. We won't see it in Bernie's lifetime unfortunately, and the only way we'll see him in 2020 is if the DNC basically hands him the keys and admits they screwed up (should happen right around the time of a Browns/9ers Super Bowl).

But Sanders pulled back the curtain to a voting block that always been coveted between the 2 parties: the future voters. As of now, the GOP has capitalized on the situation despite the DNC having the huge advantage. If the DNC doesn't right the ship quick, there's a good chance they will lose a significant chunk of this voting block and thus lose there already tenuous grasp on political influence.

Let's start by replacing Donna Brazile with Keith Ellison.

Brazile is bad, but Ellison is a poor choice. I think he's someone who the Repub's machine could exploit -- can you imagine a Muslim with Nation of Islam ties running the democratic party? It's like writing breitbart for breitbart.

As opposed to a president endorsed by the KKK?

False dilemma.

I would, you know, pick someone without racist/hate group ties.

My entire point is that knocking Ellison because he's had previous affiliations with NOI (so what?) when a guy like Trump was just appointed president is disingenuous.

I'd just prefer no people with racist ties be in power, totally sincere!

[clyde21]

Brazile is bad, but Ellison is a poor choice. I think he's someone who the Repub's machine could exploit -- can you imagine a Muslim with Nation of Islam ties running the democratic party? It's like writing breitbart for breitbart.

As opposed to a president endorsed by the KKK?

False dilemma.

I would, you know, pick someone without racist/hate group ties.

My entire point is that knocking Ellison because he's had previous affiliations with NOI (so what?) when a guy like Trump was just appointed president is disingenuous.

I'd just prefer no people with racist ties be in power, totally sincere!

Show me an uncorrupted politician with unquestionable ties and I'll show you a flying pig smoking a blunt.

[Mylie10]

This picture is from 1986, when he wasn't considered a racist. lol


Trump had outreach to the African American community during the campaign, and I'm really hopeful he follows through with legitimate plans for jobs, infrastructure, and education within inner cities and African American communities as a whole.

He was also one of the first to show true remorse for those involved in the shooting of the gay night club.

I think Trump will be much more liberal on certain individual issues, than maybe many on the far right think. Fiscally I hope for things being run more like a business or household. Not spending like a drunken sailor with nothing but forcing the tax payers to pay for every item under the sun.

[DonaldSanders]

Show me an uncorrupted politician with unquestionable ties and I'll show you a flying pig smoking a blunt.

Being corrupt and being a racist aren't the same thing.

[clyde21]

Show me an uncorrupted politician with unquestionable ties and I'll show you a flying pig smoking a blunt.

Being corrupt and being a racist aren't the same thing.

How is Keith Ellison racist?

Genuinely asking. I haven't researched him much, but I seriously hope that you don't think he's racist just because he has ties to the Nation of Islam.

[shazam_guy]

Trump has always been racist. He was already denying black people housing back in the 1980s. And although his calling blacks lazy is a second hand quote, Trump initially agreed it was probably true, then only walked it back and denied the story two years after the fact.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/20/trump_complained_about_blacks_inherent_laziness_1991_book_says.html

[FNQ]

Show me an uncorrupted politician with unquestionable ties and I'll show you a flying pig smoking a blunt.

Being corrupt and being a racist aren't the same thing.

How is Keith Ellison racist?

Genuinely asking. I haven't researched him much, but I seriously hope that you don't think he's racist just because he has ties to the Nation of Islam.

His ties to the NOI were for 18 months helping organize the million man march. He then spoke out against their anti-Semitism.

His other big controversies were comparing Bush's Patriot Act to Hitler's grip on Germany after the Reischtag (sp?) fire, saying that both used a tragedy to hoard power over their respective peoples. I also saw that Foxnews tried to spin him asking for Cheney's impeachment (for the WMD's claim in Iraq) as something of a terrible thing. I didn't then, I don't now..

Ultimately the GOP can feel free to tee off on him, I really dont care. We're not electing him for the presidency. And most importantly, he's not corrupt (as far as we know, anyways). His goal is to reach out to the voting block the Dems lost - lower and middle class whites - in lieu of reaching out to donors. He essentially is an extension of what Bernie Sanders wanted, but from an already entrenched position in the Democratic Party. I'd greatly prefer him to someone like Dean, who flat out told voters that his superdelegate vote was his and did not need to represent his home state that initially elected him. He also warned that the DNC race between him and Ellison (btw, immediately dismissing O'Malley and Becerra) could instigate an internal DNC civil war.

Yet the establishment that failed us will proceed regardless, because let's face it - even if these political elites lose, they definitely do not feel the sting. The people do.

[jamesnamida]

This picture is from 1986, when he wasn't considered a racist. lol


Trump had outreach to the African American community during the campaign, and I'm really hopeful he follows through with legitimate plans for jobs, infrastructure, and education within inner cities and African American communities as a whole.

He was also one of the first to show true remorse for those involved in the shooting of the gay night club.

I think Trump will be much more liberal on certain individual issues, than maybe many on the far right think. Fiscally I hope for things being run more like a business or household. Not spending like a drunken sailor with nothing but forcing the tax payers to pay for every item under the sun.

I don't think trump is as conservative as he let on during the campaign at all, but the problem is that he is surrounding himself with some very strong and conservative men who know how to get things done in Washington. Mike "Conversion" Pence, Pubic Hair, Mr. Voice for the Alt Right, etc.
it's funny since economically, they will try to pull trump (who has quite progressive views except for his tax cuts) more towards the right, and his economic policies will probably end up moderately conservative.
but they will also bring his social views which are moderately conservative, far to the right.

Also unless you're pretty rich, the democrats tax cuts were actually better for the avg american. and if trump actually put large flat tariffs on mexico and china, everything will go up.


the second problem is that they will definitely influence his choices for the supreme court, which might be up to 3 justices by the time his term ends. I mean trump himself is already saying he wants someone on there that might repeal roe v wade so that abortion will go back to what each state says. And Indiana (state of Pence) will introduce a bill next year to criminalize all forms of abortion. It's not going to work since there's Roe v Wade right now...

[jason bourne]

He doesn't care for demonstrating in the streets. He wants to use the government to force the progressive agenda on the populace. Typical Popovich. In this case, being an a-hole.

Also.. every single political stance it trying to force their agenda on the populace. Be it conservative, be it liberal, be it progressive, be it libertarian. Putting your opinion out there doesn't make you an a-hole. I'd think that calling someone an a-hole for putting their political preference out there is literally the definition, actually.

I called him an a-hole because he's not someone whom I expected to hear from over politics. I had enough of the political bickering and complaining in my own life at the time. Many were looking for a respite after the election. Everyone's emotions were running at an all time high. I was angry, too, over having to choose over a known dishonest crook or an unknown n00b for POTUS. Bernie Sanders had fallen by the wayside. Then we find out Hillary Clinton got the questions in advance from Donna Brazile. Again, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. She had the election in the bag, but you still have to cheat? Then there was the oligarchy. We do not have a democracy anymore. I posted what Jimmy Carter said. Who can I trust when all of the Democrat money is flying around? After all this, we hear Bernie Sanders is supporting Hillary Clinton. What? This was just weird. Did he get paid off or something? If she didn't cheat, then I can see him supporting her, but after calling her a crook, I just couldn't see that.

I'll read what you posted below and will tell you what I didn't like. You can have the last response if you want.

Here's Pop being an a-hole:

"I live in that country where half of the people ignored all of that to elect someone," Popovich said. "That's the scariest part of the whole thing to me. It's got nothing to do with the environment and Obamacare, and all of the other stuff. We live in a country that ignored all of those values that we would hold our kids accountable for. They'd be grounded for years if they acted and said the things that have been said in that campaign by Donald Trump."

Pops first sentence out of his biased pie hole, "half the people ignored all of that."

Maybe it's not they ignored all of that. Maybe they were looking at what Obama has done over immigration, Obamacare, government bailouts and handling the deficit. Maybe they were sick and tired of Obama taking so many million dollar golf trips and vacations. Maybe they were sick of his using Air Force One and causing more "global warming." Maybe they were sick of his do as I say and not as I do. Maybe they were sick of Obama implying that illegal immigrants could vote.

Then there's Clinton. Maybe they were looking at what Hillary said and will continue to do using an executive order. Maybe they were reading the Wikileaks stuff over Servergate and what the Clinton Foundation did. Maybe they thought Hillary Clinton was bought and paid for with pay-for-play and when seeing how much money Bernie Sanders got from the unions and comparing it to what she got from the banks and the rich Democrats. The rich Democrats have much more money than the rich Republicans today from Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckenberg, Doris Fisher, the Waltons of Wal-Mart, Reed Hastings and more. Maybe the working class didn't like being called deplorables by Clinton. Now you can say it was Comey, but that was over Servergate and his conclusions were the same as July. So that is a wash. Now, what was funny was the stuff coming from the DOJ. The DOJ didn't appear to be a neutral party. They seemed to be at odds with the FBI even back in July. Maybe the public should not feel the DOJ was in Obama's hip pocket and that they were working for the public good instead of special interests. All of this right before the election. Again, I voted for Obama the first time, but not the second time. This time I didn't vote for anyone for POTUS. Figured Clinton was going to win anyway.

See how he's riled up because he feels bad for people who were targeted by hate-speech?

What an A**HOLE

I'll give you and Pops this one. I agree on the fear mongering and Trump's hateful language.

It doesn't do any good to rehash over all of it. There are new developments to discuss like Trump's cabinet. A few of those are creepy and scary.

[ChuckDurn]

So they are progressives because they call themselves progressives? Obamacare as the sole example? Well it would be a good one if it didn't jack up the prices of healthcare to begin with.. but let's say for the sake of argument, OK, Obamacare is progressive. The rest of what you are saying is purely hypothetical. So we're basing that they are 'progressives' for one action.. that's not logical.

The DAPL proves that they are in fact not progressives. So does the TPP. So does the acceptance of NAFTA. There's far more evidence that both are not progressives than that they are.

Clinton lost because she alienated a chunk of her base and assumed that she had certain battleground states locked up. She scaled back her appearances and believed people would buy into fear-mongering and manipulation. They didn't. Her (and Obama's) relative accepting silence of the DAPL was a part of it, but because of its lack of coverage in the news, I can't imagine it's a big reason she lost.

No, I said Clinton and Obama usurped the "label." In other words, they turned it into their brand. That's what it meant for the people who voted for Clinton. She had the MSM like CNN and NYT to promote it. I think HuffPo supported Bernie Sanders (HuffPo readers are smarter). If you are #NoDAPL, which I support, then you are liberal. If you want to call it progressive and Clinton moderates, then it's fine by me. I'm just not sure that the brand will go away since Clinton lost.

It's not just Obamacare that he used his power on. Remember all the arguments about no amnesty? Then it was a bi-partisan committee to try and reach a compromise agreement that failed? Obama used an executive order to ram through his immigration policy. People were never comfortable with that. Then upheaval happens across the world and we're flooded with refugees trying to reach any shore. People aren't happy with Obama willing to let them in because no one bought into his policy. That's another huge progressive move that cost him. The final big one was his fiscal policies such as the GM bailout. Congress and people in power didn't buy into his policies so that's why they're in danger of it unraveling so easily now. Obama is a weak leader. Under Obama, we live in an oligarchy. As long as the power supported liberal policies, it was fine. Now, the opponent has seized power and the Dems are the ones who are afraid.

Obama ran for president on healthcare so he was entiitled to do that for starters. The fact the republicans are so insane about everything that is not tax breaks for the rich and abortions, is the reason he eventually stumped for an intitial republican healthcare solution. That's right, Obamacare was originally a heritage foundation plan, but as soon as he put his name on it, it became a socialist plot to kill your granny. A progressive healthcare plan (obama isn't a progressive) is like the NHS i have in England, not a plan that forces people to buy insurance so insurers get those benjamins!

You do realise that Obamas weak fiscal policies were a direct result as unprecedented and historical obstruction of the right wing? If Obama had suggested that the moon is at night and sun during the day, the republicans would have voted against it. it pains me as someone from the UK, that people aren't aware of exactly what the republicans have done during the last 8 years, and how they will attempt to decimate even more now they have power.

Obama is a good man, not a great president, mainly because I don't agree with much of his politics (the grand bargain etc), but Obama is only one branch of your government.

Exactly.

The Republican Congress basically completely broke the government.... and then performed the magic act of blaming the Democratic president, and making a constituency believe that the only way to fix what they broke was to put them completely in charge......


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

[jason bourne]

No, I said Clinton and Obama usurped the "label." In other words, they turned it into their brand. That's what it meant for the people who voted for Clinton. She had the MSM like CNN and NYT to promote it. I think HuffPo supported Bernie Sanders (HuffPo readers are smarter). If you are #NoDAPL, which I support, then you are liberal. If you want to call it progressive and Clinton moderates, then it's fine by me. I'm just not sure that the brand will go away since Clinton lost.

It's not just Obamacare that he used his power on. Remember all the arguments about no amnesty? Then it was a bi-partisan committee to try and reach a compromise agreement that failed? Obama used an executive order to ram through his immigration policy. People were never comfortable with that. Then upheaval happens across the world and we're flooded with refugees trying to reach any shore. People aren't happy with Obama willing to let them in because no one bought into his policy. That's another huge progressive move that cost him. The final big one was his fiscal policies such as the GM bailout. Congress and people in power didn't buy into his policies so that's why they're in danger of it unraveling so easily now. Obama is a weak leader. Under Obama, we live in an oligarchy. As long as the power supported liberal policies, it was fine. Now, the opponent has seized power and the Dems are the ones who are afraid.

Obama ran for president on healthcare so he was entiitled to do that for starters. The fact the republicans are so insane about everything that is not tax breaks for the rich and abortions, is the reason he eventually stumped for an intitial republican healthcare solution. That's right, Obamacare was originally a heritage foundation plan, but as soon as he put his name on it, it became a socialist plot to kill your granny. A progressive healthcare plan (obama isn't a progressive) is like the NHS i have in England, not a plan that forces people to buy insurance so insurers get those benjamins!

You do realise that Obamas weak fiscal policies were a direct result as unprecedented and historical obstruction of the right wing? If Obama had suggested that the moon is at night and sun during the day, the republicans would have voted against it. it pains me as someone from the UK, that people aren't aware of exactly what the republicans have done during the last 8 years, and how they will attempt to decimate even more now they have power.

Obama is a good man, not a great president, mainly because I don't agree with much of his politics (the grand bargain etc), but Obama is only one branch of your government.

Exactly.

The Republican Congress basically completely broke the government.... and then performed the magic act of blaming the Democratic president, and making a constituency believe that the only way to fix what they broke was to put them completely in charge......


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

I agree to an extent. The Pubs ran a deficit under GW Bush when he was handed a surplus from Bill Clinton. Ok, this is more Obama bashing, but Obama ran Bush's deficit to over twice as much. Someone has to pay that. Is that not a fact?

And to address yesh, I'm okay with socialist Obamacare. I didn't know it was originally from the Pubs. Hillary talked about single payer, but I thought it will cost even more money to implement. We didn't hear much from Hillary on how it was going to work. At least, I didn't.

The complaint I had with Obamacare wasn't the cost of the program, but my having to pay ~25% more out of pocket and getting lesser benefits. The insurance seems to be oversold as there are too many people anytime I visit. One time, I had to wait in a separate line to make my co-payment and then another line to see the doctor and finally another line to get my prescription. This is Kaiser. The perception is I'm not getting better care than before. It's not that it sucks, but the wait seems longer and there are more people. I tried a different location a couple times and it wasn't any better except for x-rays.

[michaelm]

He doesn't care for demonstrating in the streets. He wants to use the government to force the progressive agenda on the populace. Typical Popovich. In this case, being an a-hole.

Also.. every single political stance it trying to force their agenda on the populace. Be it conservative, be it liberal, be it progressive, be it libertarian. Putting your opinion out there doesn't make you an a-hole. I'd think that calling someone an a-hole for putting their political preference out there is literally the definition, actually.

I called him an a-hole because he's not someone whom I expected to hear from over politics. I had enough of the political bickering and complaining in my own life at the time. Many were looking for a respite after the election. Everyone's emotions were running at an all time high. I was angry, too, over having to choose over a known dishonest crook or an unknown n00b for POTUS. Bernie Sanders had fallen by the wayside. Then we find out Hillary Clinton got the questions in advance from Donna Brazile. Again, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. She had the election in the bag, but you still have to cheat? Then there was the oligarchy. We do not have a democracy anymore. I posted what Jimmy Carter said. Who can I trust when all of the Democrat money is flying around? After all this, we hear Bernie Sanders is supporting Hillary Clinton. What? This was just weird. Did he get paid off or something? If she didn't cheat, then I can see him supporting her, but after calling her a crook, I just couldn't see that.

I'll read what you posted below and will tell you what I didn't like. You can have the last response if you want.

Here's Pop being an a-hole:

"I live in that country where half of the people ignored all of that to elect someone," Popovich said. "That's the scariest part of the whole thing to me. It's got nothing to do with the environment and Obamacare, and all of the other stuff. We live in a country that ignored all of those values that we would hold our kids accountable for. They'd be grounded for years if they acted and said the things that have been said in that campaign by Donald Trump."

Pops first sentence out of his biased pie hole, "half the people ignored all of that."

Maybe it's not they ignored all of that. Maybe they were looking at what Obama has done over immigration, Obamacare, government bailouts and handling the deficit. Maybe they were sick and tired of Obama taking so many million dollar golf trips and vacations. Maybe they were sick of his using Air Force One and causing more "global warming." Maybe they were sick of his do as I say and not as I do. Maybe they were sick of Obama implying that illegal immigrants could vote.

Then there's Clinton. Maybe they were looking at what Hillary said and will continue to do using an executive order. Maybe they were reading the Wikileaks stuff over Servergate and what the Clinton Foundation did. Maybe they thought Hillary Clinton was bought and paid for with pay-for-play and when seeing how much money Bernie Sanders got from the unions and comparing it to what she got from the banks and the rich Democrats. The rich Democrats have much more money than the rich Republicans today from Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckenberg, Doris Fisher, the Waltons of Wal-Mart, Reed Hastings and more. Maybe the working class didn't like being called deplorables by Clinton. Now you can say it was Comey, but that was over Servergate and his conclusions were the same as July. So that is a wash. Now, what was funny was the stuff coming from the DOJ. The DOJ didn't appear to be a neutral party. They seemed to be at odds with the FBI even back in July. Maybe the public should not feel the DOJ was in Obama's hip pocket and that they were working for the public good instead of special interests. All of this right before the election. Again, I voted for Obama the first time, but not the second time. This time I didn't vote for anyone for POTUS. Figured Clinton was going to win anyway.

See how he's riled up because he feels bad for people who were targeted by hate-speech?

What an A**HOLE

I'll give you and Pops this one. I agree on the fear mongering and Trump's hateful language.

It doesn't do any good to rehash over all of it. There are new developments to discuss like Trump's cabinet. A few of those are creepy and scary.

Your country, your choice, you guys can obviously vote for whomever you like.

Voting for someone who is definitely crooked because he calls his opponent "crooked Hilary" and intimates she may be crooked doesn't seem to be the most logical reason for doing so however.

[FNQ]

I called him an a-hole because he's not someone whom I expected to hear from over politics. I had enough of the political bickering and complaining in my own life at the time. Many were looking for a respite after the election.

He was asked 3 consecutive days about it. He declined to comment the first 2 times. So if you want to call someone an a-hole, how about the local reporters who kept asking?

I'll read what you posted below and will tell you what I didn't like. You can have the last response if you want.

Here's Pop being an a-hole:

"I live in that country where half of the people ignored all of that to elect someone," Popovich said. "That's the scariest part of the whole thing to me. It's got nothing to do with the environment and Obamacare, and all of the other stuff. We live in a country that ignored all of those values that we would hold our kids accountable for. They'd be grounded for years if they acted and said the things that have been said in that campaign by Donald Trump."

Pops first sentence out of his biased pie hole, "half the people ignored all of that."

Maybe it's not they ignored all of that. Maybe they were looking at what Obama has done over immigration, Obamacare, government bailouts and handling the deficit. Maybe they were sick and tired of Obama taking so many million dollar golf trips and vacations. Maybe they were sick of his using Air Force One and causing more "global warming." Maybe they were sick of his do as I say and not as I do. Maybe they were sick of Obama implying that illegal immigrants could vote.

Ok, maybe they did focus more on what Obama did or didn't do. That would mean that they *ignored* the rhetoric and hate-speech. If they placed more importance on those things that you said, it can easily be seen as ignoring the red flags of Trump. Much like anyone who voted for Clinton, it can be said that they ignored the ties to Wall Street, the flip-flopping, the superior attitude.. etc.

[color=#0080FF]I'll give you and Pops this one. I agree on the fear mongering and Trump's hateful language.

It doesn't do any good to rehash over all of it. There are new developments to discuss like Trump's cabinet. A few of those are creepy and scary.

My only issue was about calling Pop an a-hole for finally answering a question he was hounded with.

[yesh]

Obama ran for president on healthcare so he was entiitled to do that for starters. The fact the republicans are so insane about everything that is not tax breaks for the rich and abortions, is the reason he eventually stumped for an intitial republican healthcare solution. That's right, Obamacare was originally a heritage foundation plan, but as soon as he put his name on it, it became a socialist plot to kill your granny. A progressive healthcare plan (obama isn't a progressive) is like the NHS i have in England, not a plan that forces people to buy insurance so insurers get those benjamins!

You do realise that Obamas weak fiscal policies were a direct result as unprecedented and historical obstruction of the right wing? If Obama had suggested that the moon is at night and sun during the day, the republicans would have voted against it. it pains me as someone from the UK, that people aren't aware of exactly what the republicans have done during the last 8 years, and how they will attempt to decimate even more now they have power.

Obama is a good man, not a great president, mainly because I don't agree with much of his politics (the grand bargain etc), but Obama is only one branch of your government.

Exactly.

The Republican Congress basically completely broke the government.... and then performed the magic act of blaming the Democratic president, and making a constituency believe that the only way to fix what they broke was to put them completely in charge......


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

I agree to an extent. The Pubs ran a deficit under GW Bush when he was handed a surplus from Bill Clinton. Ok, this is more Obama bashing, but Obama ran Bush's deficit to over twice as much. Someone has to pay that. Is that not a fact?

And to address yesh, I'm okay with socialist Obamacare. I didn't know it was originally from the Pubs. Hillary talked about single payer, but I thought it will cost even more money to implement. We didn't hear much from Hillary on how it was going to work. At least, I didn't.

The complaint I had with Obamacare wasn't the cost of the program, but my having to pay ~25% more out of pocket and getting lesser benefits. The insurance seems to be oversold as there are too many people anytime I visit. One time, I had to wait in a separate line to make my co-payment and then another line to see the doctor and finally another line to get my prescription. This is Kaiser. The perception is I'm not getting better care than before. It's not that it sucks, but the wait seems longer and there are more people. I tried a different location a couple times and it wasn't any better except for x-rays.

The reason George Bush ran deficits was because of a massive revenue give away ti the richest people in the country, in the form of a tax cut, and a massive expansion of medicare that was not paid for. The reason Obama increased this was because he took over in the midst of a housing crisis that brought the world financial markets to their knees, and he had to put the Iraq war on the books because dubbya didn't.

Republicans refused to raise taxes on the wealthiest until Obama won a 2nd term, and then I think it was pretty much window dressing.

Now you have another rpublican in, already telling wealthy Manhattan elites he'll lower taxes for them, the estate taxes will be abolished, and so much revenue will now be taken out of the treasury, whilst at the same time increasing military spending - because that's what the right does. The only way this can begin to add up is if they find massive cuts elsewhere, and the only place they can do that is entitlements, which has been the long term goal of Paul ryan who now has complete control of the purse strings.

I'm not affected by these things because it's not my country, but I earn a decent living and my life remains fairly consistent no matter what. but I genuinely weep for the needy in America right now, because I don't think they realise what is about to happen.

[Mylie10]

How can a tax cut be a give away?

People earn and then they pay taxes on what they earn.