Discussion:
OT Trump inauguration promises to be a snoozefest
(too old to reply)
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-14 20:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Right now Trump is in a Twitter war with congressman John Lewis because the congressman does not plan to attend his inauguration. Seems no celebrities are planning to attend either. Trump got hasbeens like John Voight and Toby Keith to entertain the crowds. Last I heard the Mormon Tabernacle choir and the NY Rockettes were being forced to entertain or lose their jobs. Such nonsense will plague Trump over the years as people learn to despise him and his corruption. Funny how not a single A-list performer will play for him. As far as I know, the major players at the Trump event will be protestors.
Zob
2017-01-14 22:58:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:45:22 -0800 (PST), Patrick Finucane
Post by Patrick Finucane
Right now Trump is in a Twitter war with congressman John Lewis because the congressman does not plan to attend his inauguration. Seems no celebrities are planning to attend either. Trump got hasbeens like John Voight and Toby Keith to entertain the crowds. Last I heard the Mormon Tabernacle choir and the NY Rockettes were being forced to entertain or lose their jobs. Such nonsense will plague Trump over the years as people learn to despise him and his corruption. Funny how not a single A-list performer will play for him. As far as I know, the major players at the Trump event will be protestors.
I'm with Congressman Lewis; I sure won't be watching it. And that has
absolutely nothing to do with his party affiliation. I've watched the
Presidential inaugurations of all the Presidents since Reagan, but
this one is different. Had any other Republican candidate won their
nomination and the presidency I'd be watching. For me this is about
Trump the human being, not Trump the Republican. He's vulgar, a
compulsive liar, a con artist, a swindler, thin-skinned, a misogynist
and a racist. His voters wanted something different, well, they got
it. They got someone who is a loose cannon with no ethical compass
who will have the nuclear codes by his sides.

Four years from now I honestly -- even fervently -- hope that someone
can say to me, "See, you were wrong!"
In the meanwhile, I can in no way or shape condone this man. And sure
won't be watching his inauguration.

By the way, if anyone uses the Chrome web browser (or the Opera
browser with Chrome add-on as I do), there is an awesome extention
that I started using. It's called, "Make America Kittens Again."
After I installed it, everywhere on the web where it shows a picture
of Donald Trump , the picture is replaced with a photo of kittens! :-)
This has substantially lowered my blood pressure.
Ron C
2017-01-15 04:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zob
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:45:22 -0800 (PST), Patrick Finucane
Post by Patrick Finucane
Right now Trump is in a Twitter war with congressman John Lewis because the congressman does not plan to attend his inauguration. Seems no celebrities are planning to attend either. Trump got hasbeens like John Voight and Toby Keith to entertain the crowds. Last I heard the Mormon Tabernacle choir and the NY Rockettes were being forced to entertain or lose their jobs. Such nonsense will plague Trump over the years as people learn to despise him and his corruption. Funny how not a single A-list performer will play for him. As far as I know, the major players at the Trump event will be protestors.
I'm with Congressman Lewis; I sure won't be watching it. And that has
absolutely nothing to do with his party affiliation. I've watched the
Presidential inaugurations of all the Presidents since Reagan, but
this one is different. Had any other Republican candidate won their
nomination and the presidency I'd be watching. For me this is about
Trump the human being, not Trump the Republican. He's vulgar, a
compulsive liar, a con artist, a swindler, thin-skinned, a misogynist
and a racist. His voters wanted something different, well, they got
it. They got someone who is a loose cannon with no ethical compass
who will have the nuclear codes by his sides.
Four years from now I honestly -- even fervently -- hope that someone
can say to me, "See, you were wrong!"
In the meanwhile, I can in no way or shape condone this man. And sure
won't be watching his inauguration.
By the way, if anyone uses the Chrome web browser (or the Opera
browser with Chrome add-on as I do), there is an awesome extention
that I started using. It's called, "Make America Kittens Again."
After I installed it, everywhere on the web where it shows a picture
of Donald Trump , the picture is replaced with a photo of kittens! :-)
This has substantially lowered my blood pressure.
If the Trump presidency can kill the 'USA union', then the system
was always domed to failure.
As devised, can any ONE of the three "MAKE" America do/be
anything?
IMHO time is on our side.
[[ Reserving hope for the best.]
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--
d***@gmail.com
2017-01-15 19:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron C
If the Trump presidency can kill the 'USA union', then the system
was always doomed to failure.
I think it's clear it is -- because, for the Republican way of Making America Great Again to work, it might require something of the equivalent of that old movie as to how Soylent Green was harvested, one bulldozer at a time.
Post by Ron C
As devised, can any ONE of the three "MAKE" America do/be
anything?
I think a lot of people on the other side do not understand what was voted for in November.

Mike
Larc
2017-01-15 19:37:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:56:14 -0500, Ron C <***@verizon.net> wrote:

| If the Trump presidency can kill the 'USA union', then the system
| was always domed to failure.
| As devised, can any ONE of the three "MAKE" America do/be
| anything?
| IMHO time is on our side.
| [ Reserving hope for the best.]

It's not the union that I'm thinking will be in greatest danger of getting killed.

Larc
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-15 20:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larc
| If the Trump presidency can kill the 'USA union', then the system
| was always domed to failure.
| As devised, can any ONE of the three "MAKE" America do/be
| anything?
| IMHO time is on our side.
| [ Reserving hope for the best.]
It's not the union that I'm thinking will be in greatest danger of getting killed.
Larc
Trump will affect the entire world. What I fear most from Trump is that he'll be the 2nd US president to order the dropping of a nuclear bomb.

I'd be ironic if the Trump supporters elected a lunatic. Trump is such a petty man.

Btw, I liked Zob's take on Trump. Hopefully Zob and I won't end up in jail due to our take on Fearless Leader.
Larc
2017-01-15 20:51:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 12:01:24 -0800 (PST), Patrick Finucane
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

| On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 2:38:03 PM UTC-5, Larc wrote:
| > On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:56:14 -0500, Ron C <***@verizon.net> wrote:
| >
| > | If the Trump presidency can kill the 'USA union', then the system
| > | was always domed to failure.
| > | As devised, can any ONE of the three "MAKE" America do/be
| > | anything?
| > | IMHO time is on our side.
| > | [ Reserving hope for the best.]
| >
| > It's not the union that I'm thinking will be in greatest danger of getting killed.
| >
| > Larc
|
| Trump will affect the entire world. What I fear most from Trump is that he'll be the 2nd US president to order the dropping of a nuclear bomb.
|
| I'd be ironic if the Trump supporters elected a lunatic. Trump is such a petty man.
|
| Btw, I liked Zob's take on Trump. Hopefully Zob and I won't end up in jail due to our take on Fearless Leader.

There's no knowing what Der Führer will decide to do.

Larc
Nancy Dooley
2017-01-16 13:17:11 UTC
Permalink
The way he says one thing and then immediately retracts it, changes his mind, or says he was just
being sarcastic....there won't be any chance to retract a nuke once he orders it dropped. He
can't say "Oops, I didn't mean that." Fortunately, I think his generals might put the brakes on
before it's too late.

N.
d***@gmail.com
2017-01-16 20:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick Finucane
Trump will affect the entire world. What I fear most from Trump is that he'll be the 2nd US president to order the dropping of a nuclear bomb.
I'd be ironic if the Trump supporters elected a lunatic. Trump is such a petty man.
Btw, I liked Zob's take on Trump. Hopefully Zob and I won't end up in jail due to our take on Fearless Leader.
I've said for a while that I believe I will be dead by the end of the year in Trump-Merica.

Mike
Larc
2017-01-15 19:20:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 17:58:31 -0500, Zob <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

| On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:45:22 -0800 (PST), Patrick Finucane
| <***@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| >Right now Trump is in a Twitter war with congressman John Lewis because the congressman does not plan to attend his inauguration. Seems no celebrities are planning to attend either. Trump got hasbeens like John Voight and Toby Keith to entertain the crowds. Last I heard the Mormon Tabernacle choir and the NY Rockettes were being forced to entertain or lose their jobs. Such nonsense will plague Trump over the years as people learn to despise him and his corruption. Funny how not a single A-list performer will play for him. As far as I know, the major players at the Trump event will be protestors.
|
| I'm with Congressman Lewis; I sure won't be watching it. And that has
| absolutely nothing to do with his party affiliation. I've watched the
| Presidential inaugurations of all the Presidents since Reagan, but
| this one is different. Had any other Republican candidate won their
| nomination and the presidency I'd be watching. For me this is about
| Trump the human being, not Trump the Republican. He's vulgar, a
| compulsive liar, a con artist, a swindler, thin-skinned, a misogynist
| and a racist. His voters wanted something different, well, they got
| it. They got someone who is a loose cannon with no ethical compass
| who will have the nuclear codes by his sides.
|
| Four years from now I honestly -- even fervently -- hope that someone
| can say to me, "See, you were wrong!"
| In the meanwhile, I can in no way or shape condone this man. And sure
| won't be watching his inauguration.

+1!!!!!

Larc
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-18 13:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick Finucane
Right now Trump is in a Twitter war with congressman John Lewis because the congressman does not plan to attend his inauguration. Seems no celebrities are planning to attend either. Trump got hasbeens like John Voight and Toby Keith to entertain the crowds. Last I heard the Mormon Tabernacle choir and the NY Rockettes were being forced to entertain or lose their jobs. Such nonsense will plague Trump over the years as people learn to despise him and his corruption. Funny how not a single A-list performer will play for him. As far as I know, the major players at the Trump event will be protestors.
On today's drive to work, the DJ's on the radio were discussing the recent Twitter war between Trump and John Lewis. It seems Trump supporters, outraged at John Lewis, started sending tweets to him addressed @JohnLewis. Unfortunately, that's not his twitter account address. It's the address of some white guy in VA. He said 90% of the tweets were racist, the DJs said they couldn't repeat them they were so nasty.

I've always been curious as to what white supremacists did to be supreme. Seems they are simply a product of a sex act. They did not work to be so supreme, they did nothing special to be superior. They were just born. I guess the conclusion is that some people are sick in the head. That'd be understandable to me.

I believe Trump should be banned from Twitter. I don't know if he has the intelligence to form a thought more than 140 characters tho. These twitter wars of his are getting old...fast.
Larc
2017-01-18 18:44:26 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 05:37:52 -0800 (PST), Patrick Finucane
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

| I've always been curious as to what white supremacists did to be supreme. Seems they are simply a product of a sex act. They did not work to be so supreme, they did nothing special to be superior. They were just born. I guess the conclusion is that some people are sick in the head. That'd be understandable to me.

Most white "supremacists" rank near the bottom of the social and economic scales.
They desperately searched for somebody they could feel superior to and latched onto
racial minorities, mainly blacks. Truth is most of them are in no way up to the
level of those they look down on.

| I believe Trump should be banned from Twitter. I don't know if he has the intelligence to form a thought more than 140 characters tho. These twitter wars of his are getting old...fast.

Trump lacks the honor and integrity that would keep him from doing all that. Both
those qualities are apparently beyond his intellectual and moral grasp.

Friday, January 20, 2017: the real Black Friday

Larc
Nancy Dooley
2017-01-20 17:30:05 UTC
Permalink
I,have certainly heard Evancho in much better voice. She sounded like maybe she
had a slight cold, and was alternately sharp and flat throughout. It is too bad...she
certainly had the attention of millions....

N.
Larc
2017-01-20 18:51:53 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 09:30:05 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley <***@gmail.com> wrote:

| I,have certainly heard Evancho in much better voice. She sounded like maybe she
| had a slight cold, and was alternately sharp and flat throughout. It is too bad...she
| certainly had the attention of millions....

Jackie sang live, which is something not done in recent inaugurations. She was just
on NBC and said she was very cold when she was singing.

Larc
SLGreg
2017-01-20 20:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larc
| I,have certainly heard Evancho in much better voice. She sounded like maybe she
| had a slight cold, and was alternately sharp and flat throughout. It is too bad...she
| certainly had the attention of millions....
Jackie sang live, which is something not done in recent inaugurations. She was just
on NBC and said she was very cold when she was singing.
Larc
She sounded baaaaaaaaaad to me and looked scared shitless. Sharp, flat,
out of breath, and just flat out missing her notes, except for that
unnecessary extra money note they all throw in now, near the end.
--
greg
Nancy Dooley
2017-01-21 16:28:24 UTC
Permalink
If Trump wants to bring the country together, so to speak, he could start mending fences by
not reversing Obama's Exec. Orders on the environment, emissions, etc. in the first days in
office. And he could outline a detailed replacement health care plan before taking the first
steps to repeal the ACA...which he started yesterday, BTW. A pox on him and his
dictatorial plans AND the fist raised yesterday.

He keeps changing his mind! It is one thing not to be predictable, and quite another to
continually waffle on policies. Now that he has the nuclear codes...which the expert generals
said yesterday take only 10 minutes to activate...can you imagine what will happen if he
decides to launch a nuclear weapon against some entity that hurt his little feelings, and
then changes his mind? Sorry, too late, Donald! Nuclear disaster!

Waffling? M here is an example...as late as two weeks ago, he said he still thinks "Hillary
is guilty as hell." (Of what, I would like to know) and then yesterday immediately after he
was sworn in, he pointed Bill and Hillary out to the inner circle gathering, and thanked them
for coming, and then said he had a lot of respect for them.

Which is it, Donald? Guilty of something, or due our respect? Make up your friggin'
mind and stick to it.

N.
Zob
2017-01-22 00:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by SLGreg
Post by Larc
| I,have certainly heard Evancho in much better voice. She sounded like maybe she
| had a slight cold, and was alternately sharp and flat throughout. It is too bad...she
| certainly had the attention of millions....
Jackie sang live, which is something not done in recent inaugurations. She was just
on NBC and said she was very cold when she was singing.
Larc
She sounded baaaaaaaaaad to me and looked scared shitless. Sharp, flat,
out of breath, and just flat out missing her notes, except for that
unnecessary extra money note they all throw in now, near the end.
--
greg
I didn't watch the inauguration, but I just watched a YouTube video of
Evancho's SSB. You are so right; this pretty much sucked. It was the
worst I've heard her sing.
Nancy Dooley
2017-01-21 16:32:24 UTC
Permalink
Oh, BTW, I am generally a Democrat when I vote, but those Congressmen
and women boycotting the Inauguration is just damn petty. It is something
I equate to a little kid taking his ball home because he made a mistake in a game,
and his team lost.

I thought the so-called boycott was disgraceful, and I don't approve of those
who took part...beginning with Mr. Lewis. Both sides of the aisle need to
make an effort to work together.

N.
Larc
2017-01-21 18:49:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 08:32:24 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley <***@gmail.com> wrote:

| Oh, BTW, I am generally a Democrat when I vote, but those Congressmen
| and women boycotting the Inauguration is just damn petty. It is something
| I equate to a little kid taking his ball home because he made a mistake in a game,
| and his team lost.
|
| I thought the so-called boycott was disgraceful, and I don't approve of those
| who took part...beginning with Mr. Lewis. Both sides of the aisle need to
| make an effort to work together.

I agree there's little justification for it, but I think there would be absolutely
none if Presidents were elected by actual vote instead of the Electoral College. Most
voters wanted Clinton, not Trump. The outcome went against the will of the majority
of those who voted. A real need existed for the Electoral College when it was
originally set up, but I see it more as an obstacle to the democratic system in this
day of easy transportation and instant communication. We need a Constitutional
amendment to ensure 1 person = 1 vote in Presidential elections as in other
elections.

Larc
Cheri
2017-01-21 18:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larc
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 08:32:24 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
| Oh, BTW, I am generally a Democrat when I vote, but those Congressmen
| and women boycotting the Inauguration is just damn petty. It is something
| I equate to a little kid taking his ball home because he made a mistake in a game,
| and his team lost.
|
| I thought the so-called boycott was disgraceful, and I don't approve of those
| who took part...beginning with Mr. Lewis. Both sides of the aisle need to
| make an effort to work together.
I agree there's little justification for it, but I think there would be absolutely
none if Presidents were elected by actual vote instead of the Electoral College. Most
voters wanted Clinton, not Trump. The outcome went against the will of the majority
of those who voted. A real need existed for the Electoral College when it was
originally set up, but I see it more as an obstacle to the democratic system in this
day of easy transportation and instant communication. We need a Constitutional
amendment to ensure 1 person = 1 vote in Presidential elections as in other
elections.
Larc
So California and New York could determine who wins? I don' think so.

Cheri
Zob
2017-01-22 00:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheri
Post by Larc
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 08:32:24 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
| Oh, BTW, I am generally a Democrat when I vote, but those Congressmen
| and women boycotting the Inauguration is just damn petty. It is something
| I equate to a little kid taking his ball home because he made a mistake in a game,
| and his team lost.
|
| I thought the so-called boycott was disgraceful, and I don't approve of those
| who took part...beginning with Mr. Lewis. Both sides of the aisle need to
| make an effort to work together.
I agree there's little justification for it, but I think there would be absolutely
none if Presidents were elected by actual vote instead of the Electoral College. Most
voters wanted Clinton, not Trump. The outcome went against the will of the majority
of those who voted. A real need existed for the Electoral College when it was
originally set up, but I see it more as an obstacle to the democratic system in this
day of easy transportation and instant communication. We need a Constitutional
amendment to ensure 1 person = 1 vote in Presidential elections as in other
elections.
Larc
So California and New York could determine who wins? I don' think so.
Cheri
If more people live there, then yes. That's what a democracy is:
the majority rules. I think you miss Larc's whole point, which is
that States should no longer be a consideration one way or another in
national elections. All they are is invisible lines drawn on a map.

The days are long gone when "electors" from the colonies/states have
to ride several days on horseback to get to a convention to cast the
votes for their colony/state, since the transportation and
communication technology did not exist for a true democratic electoral
system. Now it does. The electoral college system has been outdated
for over a hundred years now. It should not matter which state one
lives in when casting a vote for a national office.

Don't forget, several mistakes were made in the election system.
Originally only white, male landowners could vote. That has been
corrected with Constitutional Amendments (although I have Republican
friends who I know would love to go back to that system). I agree
with Larc that it's time for another Amendment to make the final
correction to the system and make it truly one person, one vote.
Cheri
2017-01-22 02:05:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zob
Post by Cheri
Post by Larc
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 08:32:24 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
| Oh, BTW, I am generally a Democrat when I vote, but those Congressmen
| and women boycotting the Inauguration is just damn petty. It is something
| I equate to a little kid taking his ball home because he made a
mistake
in a game,
| and his team lost.
|
| I thought the so-called boycott was disgraceful, and I don't approve
of
those
| who took part...beginning with Mr. Lewis. Both sides of the aisle
need
to
| make an effort to work together.
I agree there's little justification for it, but I think there would be absolutely
none if Presidents were elected by actual vote instead of the Electoral College. Most
voters wanted Clinton, not Trump. The outcome went against the will of the majority
of those who voted. A real need existed for the Electoral College when
it
was
originally set up, but I see it more as an obstacle to the democratic system in this
day of easy transportation and instant communication. We need a Constitutional
amendment to ensure 1 person = 1 vote in Presidential elections as in other
elections.
Larc
So California and New York could determine who wins? I don' think so.
Cheri
the majority rules. I think you miss Larc's whole point, which is
that States should no longer be a consideration one way or another in
national elections. All they are is invisible lines drawn on a map.
If CA and NY were red states, I doubt you would be happy with them deciding
every election, I know I wouldn't be now matter which party they
represented. As for Trump, I wish him well, just as I have wished every
president since I've been able to vote, well, whether I voted for them or
not. Truthfully, not many that I've ever voted for made it, so I'm used to
losing. :)

Cheri
Susan
2017-01-24 16:15:48 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Cheri
If CA and NY were red states, I doubt you would be happy with them
deciding every election, I know I wouldn't be now matter which party
they represented. As for Trump, I wish him well, just as I have wished
every president since I've been able to vote, well, whether I vo
ed for them or not. Truthfully, not many that I've ever voted for made
it, so I'm used to losing. :)
Smaller states are grossly over represented in the congress in a way
that is really unfair to more populous states. States with very low
populations have two senators, for instance, giving them huge influence
over dollars directed there and also over all federal legislation.

One person, one vote is the only fair way to conduct elections. The
whole tyranny argument is belied by the outsized representation small
states have advocating for their needs at the expense of the states
footing the bill.

Susan
SLGreg
2017-01-24 18:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Cheri
If CA and NY were red states, I doubt you would be happy with them
deciding every election, I know I wouldn't be now matter which party
they represented. As for Trump, I wish him well, just as I have wished
every president since I've been able to vote, well, whether I vo
ed for them or not. Truthfully, not many that I've ever voted for made
it, so I'm used to losing. :)
Smaller states are grossly over represented in the congress in a way
that is really unfair to more populous states. States with very low
populations have two senators, for instance, giving them huge influence
over dollars directed there and also over all federal legislation.
One person, one vote is the only fair way to conduct elections. The
whole tyranny argument is belied by the outsized representation small
states have advocating for their needs at the expense of the states
footing the bill.
Susan
^^^^What she said^^^^
--
- greg
Zob
2017-01-25 01:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan
Smaller states are grossly over represented in the congress in a way
that is really unfair to more populous states. States with very low
populations have two senators, for instance, giving them huge influence
over dollars directed there and also over all federal legislation.
One person, one vote is the only fair way to conduct elections. The
whole tyranny argument is belied by the outsized representation small
states have advocating for their needs at the expense of the states
footing the bill.
Susan
+1
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-25 17:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan
x-no-archive: yes
Smaller states are grossly over represented in the congress in a way
that is really unfair to more populous states. States with very low
populations have two senators, for instance, giving them huge influence
over dollars directed there and also over all federal legislation.
One person, one vote is the only fair way to conduct elections. The
whole tyranny argument is belied by the outsized representation small
states have advocating for their needs at the expense of the states
footing the bill.
Susan
That could lead to mob rule, IMO. Let's say races could not intermarry because the majority thought it incorrect. Or let's say gays could not marry and should be forced to undergo conversion therapy because of some crazy part of Christianity. Then you get people forcing down their crap down peoples throats, people that don't believe your religion are forced to submit to it. Same with gov't then, the people in populous states would dictate those in the less populous. I believe under your concept the people in CA would do a very good job but that is because the people in CA are progressive. Having backwater states believing in creationism and inflicting their backwardness on progressives would be bad as well. Bottom line, I guess I am against mob rule. Mobs don't think, they react.
Nancy Dooley
2017-01-25 18:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Unfortunately, as of now, we already have mob rule...of a one-person mob...and he is
just getting started.

I don't know why he has White House advisors...he doesn't listen to any of them. Are
they all too afraid of retribution to tell him to STOP? Let someone vett your Tweets,
listen to your fellow Republicans when they say stop saying that, it isn't true. Better
yet just stop Tweeting altogether. It isn't Presidential in anyone's world. Stop
being so insecure that you have to argue unimportant nonsense. Stop making rules
that stifle government agencies (EPA, for one). Stop telling government employees
what they can't say. (Any communication from the WH is forbidden to use the term,"climate
change.")

Mr. Trump is fast becoming a dictator, and apparently no-one is willing to stand up to
him. D'ya hear that, Kellyanne?

N.
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-25 19:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nancy Dooley
Unfortunately, as of now, we already have mob rule...of a one-person mob...and he is
just getting started.
I don't know why he has White House advisors...he doesn't listen to any of them. Are
they all too afraid of retribution to tell him to STOP? Let someone vett your Tweets,
listen to your fellow Republicans when they say stop saying that, it isn't true. Better
yet just stop Tweeting altogether. It isn't Presidential in anyone's world. Stop
being so insecure that you have to argue unimportant nonsense. Stop making rules
that stifle government agencies (EPA, for one). Stop telling government employees
what they can't say. (Any communication from the WH is forbidden to use the term,"climate
change.")
Mr. Trump is fast becoming a dictator, and apparently no-one is willing to stand up to
him. D'ya hear that, Kellyanne?
N.
Trumps tweets drive me mad. I wish he'd stop, but he won't. Such as sorry sack.

Kellyanne, she is one despicable human being. She's a walking bag of vomit.
Susan
2017-01-26 02:02:10 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Patrick Finucane
That could lead to mob rule, IMO.
Majority rule.

Torch carrying villagers are what got us where we are at this moment in
history, OTOH.


Susan
Ryan
2017-01-26 02:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Patrick Finucane
That could lead to mob rule, IMO.
Majority rule.
Ever hear of tyranny by the majority? The founding fathers
deliberately set up our government to prevent such a thing. Most
people are ignorant of the fact that the United States is *not* a
democratic country but instead is a constitutional republic.

Of course after eight years of Obama, one can make the argument that
we are in a post constitutional state. We are supposed to have checks
and balances to prevent centralization of power in any of the
branches. Obama made the Congress pretty irrelevant. I fear that Trump
may take it to another level. But I am willing to give him a chance.

At least Trump is trying to undo some of the unconstitutional
executive orders. Executive branch enforces the laws. It does not make
them.

If he continues to follow the precedent set by Obama we may really be
in trouble.

Ryan

-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

2006 American Idol Bragging Rights Champion

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Ron C
2017-01-26 03:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
Post by Susan
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Patrick Finucane
That could lead to mob rule, IMO.
Majority rule.
Ever hear of tyranny by the majority? The founding fathers
deliberately set up our government to prevent such a thing. Most
people are ignorant of the fact that the United States is *not* a
democratic country but instead is a constitutional republic.
Of course after eight years of Obama, one can make the argument that
we are in a post constitutional state. We are supposed to have checks
and balances to prevent centralization of power in any of the
branches. Obama made the Congress pretty irrelevant. I fear that Trump
may take it to another level. But I am willing to give him a chance.
At least Trump is trying to undo some of the unconstitutional
executive orders. Executive branch enforces the laws. It does not make
them.
If he continues to follow the precedent set by Obama we may really be
in trouble.
Ryan
From a control systems perspective the system gain is way too high
creating very large swings. Such unstable systems continue to swing
wildly until something breaks. We need to turn down the gain or
increase the damping to return stability to the system.
Current @POTUS tweets and other responses only increase the system
gain, and thus increase the magnitude of the swings.
[Um, that (technically) about sums up your last sentence.]
==
Later...
Ron C
--
Ryan
2017-01-26 04:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron C
Post by Ryan
Post by Susan
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Patrick Finucane
That could lead to mob rule, IMO.
Majority rule.
Ever hear of tyranny by the majority? The founding fathers
deliberately set up our government to prevent such a thing. Most
people are ignorant of the fact that the United States is *not* a
democratic country but instead is a constitutional republic.
Of course after eight years of Obama, one can make the argument that
we are in a post constitutional state. We are supposed to have checks
and balances to prevent centralization of power in any of the
branches. Obama made the Congress pretty irrelevant. I fear that Trump
may take it to another level. But I am willing to give him a chance.
At least Trump is trying to undo some of the unconstitutional
executive orders. Executive branch enforces the laws. It does not make
them.
If he continues to follow the precedent set by Obama we may really be
in trouble.
Ryan
From a control systems perspective the system gain is way too high
creating very large swings. Such unstable systems continue to swing
wildly until something breaks. We need to turn down the gain or
increase the damping to return stability to the system.
gain, and thus increase the magnitude of the swings.
[Um, that (technically) about sums up your last sentence.]
I am not worried so much about his tweets as I am his behavior and
policy decisions. But I agree that the polarization needs to be tamped
down but I don't see that happening any time soon.

It is clear that his political opponents are trying to deligitimize
his presidency in various ways including but not limited to his loss
of the popular vote (which is quite irrelevant given the electoral
colleg system) which they know will irritate him resulting in his
tweet tantrums. My concern is that his political opponents are so
angry that they lost, that they will do anything to bring him down
which alas will only serve to bring our country down. We live in very
perilous times where radical Islamic terrorists want to kill all of us
heretics. It is not the time for us to be divided and yet divided we
are.

Just look at the temperature of many responses in this newsgroup. The
great irony is that those who are raising the temperature the most are
those who are the most vocal/concerned about global warming:-)

Ryan

-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

2006 American Idol Bragging Rights Champion

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Ron C
2017-01-26 05:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
Post by Ron C
Post by Ryan
Post by Susan
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Patrick Finucane
That could lead to mob rule, IMO.
Majority rule.
Ever hear of tyranny by the majority? The founding fathers
deliberately set up our government to prevent such a thing. Most
people are ignorant of the fact that the United States is *not* a
democratic country but instead is a constitutional republic.
Of course after eight years of Obama, one can make the argument that
we are in a post constitutional state. We are supposed to have checks
and balances to prevent centralization of power in any of the
branches. Obama made the Congress pretty irrelevant. I fear that Trump
may take it to another level. But I am willing to give him a chance.
At least Trump is trying to undo some of the unconstitutional
executive orders. Executive branch enforces the laws. It does not make
them.
If he continues to follow the precedent set by Obama we may really be
in trouble.
Ryan
From a control systems perspective the system gain is way too high
creating very large swings. Such unstable systems continue to swing
wildly until something breaks. We need to turn down the gain or
increase the damping to return stability to the system.
gain, and thus increase the magnitude of the swings.
[Um, that (technically) about sums up your last sentence.]
I am not worried so much about his tweets as I am his behavior and
policy decisions. But I agree that the polarization needs to be tamped
down but I don't see that happening any time soon.
It is clear that his political opponents are trying to deligitimize
his presidency in various ways including but not limited to his loss
of the popular vote (which is quite irrelevant given the electoral
colleg system) which they know will irritate him resulting in his
tweet tantrums. My concern is that his political opponents are so
angry that they lost, that they will do anything to bring him down
which alas will only serve to bring our country down. We live in very
perilous times where radical Islamic terrorists want to kill all of us
heretics. It is not the time for us to be divided and yet divided we
are.
Just look at the temperature of many responses in this newsgroup. The
great irony is that those who are raising the temperature the most are
those who are the most vocal/concerned about global warming:-)
Ryan
Depolarization is needed but [sadly] unlikely in the current
political climate. :-(
[Irony of temperature and political climate noted.]
==
Later...
Ron C
--
Larc
2017-01-26 07:15:35 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:01:54 -1000, Ryan <***@ryan.com> wrote:

| I am not worried so much about his tweets as I am his behavior and
| policy decisions. But I agree that the polarization needs to be tamped
| down but I don't see that happening any time soon.

It's not the actual tweets that concern me as much as the mentality behind them. They
aren't the disease, but a symptom of it.

Larc
Ryan
2017-01-26 08:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larc
| I am not worried so much about his tweets as I am his behavior and
| policy decisions. But I agree that the polarization needs to be tamped
| down but I don't see that happening any time soon.
It's not the actual tweets that concern me as much as the mentality behind them. They
aren't the disease, but a symptom of it.
OK, Dr. Larc, what is Trump's "mental disease"? Or were you speaking
metaphorically?

Apart from Trump being very narcissistic, I don't think that would
qualify as a "disease". Trump and our previous POTUS can give each
other a run for their money as far as narcissism goes.

If Trump is attacked, he strikes back, often out of proportion to the
original slight. Democrats appear to be trying to exploit this
vulnerability by continuing to poke the bear. Perhaps they are hoping
for a complete meltdown. Instead they will feel his wrath.

Ryan
Post by Larc
Larc
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

2006 American Idol Bragging Rights Champion

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-26 14:35:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
Post by Larc
| I am not worried so much about his tweets as I am his behavior and
| policy decisions. But I agree that the polarization needs to be tamped
| down but I don't see that happening any time soon.
It's not the actual tweets that concern me as much as the mentality behind them. They
aren't the disease, but a symptom of it.
OK, Dr. Larc, what is Trump's "mental disease"? Or were you speaking
metaphorically?
Apart from Trump being very narcissistic, I don't think that would
qualify as a "disease". Trump and our previous POTUS can give each
other a run for their money as far as narcissism goes.
If Trump is attacked, he strikes back, often out of proportion to the
original slight. Democrats appear to be trying to exploit this
vulnerability by continuing to poke the bear. Perhaps they are hoping
for a complete meltdown. Instead they will feel his wrath.
Ryan
Google says the "Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultra confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism." This describes Fearless Leader to a T. Trump is mentally unstable, IMO. His personality is irrational, not the type of person I would ever, or want to, associate with.

It'd be kind of amusing if it came out that Republicans elected a lunatic. It'd speak volumes of the Republican party. Republicans belong the party that repeatedly destroys the US financially yet Republicans view themselves as financial geniuses. The Republican party is no longer the party of Lincoln, it is the party of racists. The Republican party is infested with fraud Christians that promote Jesus down our throats while living lives the opposite of what Jesus supposedly taught.
Larc
2017-01-26 16:56:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 06:35:28 -0800 (PST), Patrick Finucane
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

| It'd be kind of amusing if it came out that Republicans elected a lunatic. It'd speak volumes of the Republican party. Republicans belong the party that repeatedly destroys the US financially yet Republicans view themselves as financial geniuses. The Republican party is no longer the party of Lincoln, it is the party of racists. The Republican party is infested with fraud Christians that promote Jesus down our throats while living lives the opposite of what Jesus supposedly taught.

I think putting all the blame for Trump's election on Republicans is overly partisan.
Neither side is blameless. Democrats should have nominated somebody less
controversial than Hillary. Many leading Republicans didn't want Trump, and many in
that party voted for somebody else. The closest friend I have who voted for Trump is
a registered Democrat who voted for Obama both times, but hates Hillary. Political
stupidity mainly put Trump in office. And that affliction is in no way bound by
party.

Larc
Ryan
2017-01-26 17:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larc
Political
stupidity mainly put Trump in office.
I agree but not in the way that you mean it. Establishment members of
both parties have exploited the public for far too long. Establishment
members have been more interested in getting reelected than they are
in serving the people. Trump got elected because people were just fed
up with status quo. They wanted things shaken up.

People were tired of voting for people who made campaign promises but
then when elected, broke those promises. The public said enough. That
is why Trump won the Republican nomination. And to his credit, he is
largely acting (quite quickly) on fulfilling his campaign promises.


And if the Democrats did not cheat, Bernie would have won the Democrat
nomination for the same reason. The Republican party tried to keep
Trump from getting the nomination but alas, they are apparently not as
devious as the Democrat party under the tutelage of Debbie Wasserman
Schultz.

Perhaps you think that Bernie Sanders was a better candidate. Would it
have been easier for you to support Bernie Sanders against Trump Larc?
Or have you, like Zob, turned in your Libertarian political card?

Ryan
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

2006 American Idol Bragging Rights Champion

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-26 18:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
Post by Larc
Political
stupidity mainly put Trump in office.
I agree but not in the way that you mean it. Establishment members of
both parties have exploited the public for far too long. Establishment
members have been more interested in getting reelected than they are
in serving the people. Trump got elected because people were just fed
up with status quo. They wanted things shaken up.
People were tired of voting for people who made campaign promises but
then when elected, broke those promises. The public said enough. That
is why Trump won the Republican nomination. And to his credit, he is
largely acting (quite quickly) on fulfilling his campaign promises.
And if the Democrats did not cheat, Bernie would have won the Democrat
nomination for the same reason. The Republican party tried to keep
Trump from getting the nomination but alas, they are apparently not as
devious as the Democrat party under the tutelage of Debbie Wasserman
Schultz.
Perhaps you think that Bernie Sanders was a better candidate. Would it
have been easier for you to support Bernie Sanders against Trump Larc?
Or have you, like Zob, turned in your Libertarian political card?
You wrote "And if the Democrats did not cheat, Bernie would have won the Democrat nomination for the same reason" Please tell us how the Democrats cheated. Sure, they worked against Bernie but I'd like to hear about the cheating. Did the Democrats get millions of illegal voters to vote for Hillary instead of Bernie? Please provide specific examples of cheating.

I can write Republicans act like assholes. And I can provide pages of examples of Republican assholes to support my contention. Do you need examples of Republican racism? Need examples of Republicans acting like American ISIS? No problem. So let's hear about your cheating claim.
Susan
2017-01-27 19:28:59 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Patrick Finucane
You wrote "And if the Democrats did not cheat, Bernie would have won the Democrat nomination for the same reason" Please tell us how the Democrats cheated. Sure, they worked against Bernie but I'd like to hear about the cheating. Did the Democrats get millions of illegal voters to vote for Hillary instead of Bernie? Please provide specific examples of cheating.
The DNC definitely chose a side, instead of leaving it to democrat
voters to do that without their interventions.


Susan
Ryan
2017-01-27 19:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Patrick Finucane
You wrote "And if the Democrats did not cheat, Bernie would have won the Democrat nomination for the same reason" Please tell us how the Democrats cheated. Sure, they worked against Bernie but I'd like to hear about the cheating. Did the Democrats get millions of illegal voters to vote for Hillary instead of Bernie? Please provide specific examples of cheating.
The DNC definitely chose a side, instead of leaving it to democrat
voters to do that without their interventions.
Susan
They did more than just "choose a side". Democratic National Committee
interim chair Donna Brazile fed Clinton debate questions. See below:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/11/02/donna-braziles-misleading-statements-on-sharing-questions-with-the-clinton-campaign/?utm_term=.8d03fec0336b

Cue Patrick Finucane to spew his puerile gratuitous insults. Apologies
for belaboring the obvious.

Ryan
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

2006 American Idol Bragging Rights Champion

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-27 23:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
Post by Susan
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Patrick Finucane
You wrote "And if the Democrats did not cheat, Bernie would have won the Democrat nomination for the same reason" Please tell us how the Democrats cheated. Sure, they worked against Bernie but I'd like to hear about the cheating. Did the Democrats get millions of illegal voters to vote for Hillary instead of Bernie? Please provide specific examples of cheating.
The DNC definitely chose a side, instead of leaving it to democrat
voters to do that without their interventions.
Susan
They did more than just "choose a side". Democratic National Committee
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/11/02/donna-braziles-misleading-statements-on-sharing-questions-with-the-clinton-campaign/?utm_term=.8d03fec0336b
Cue Patrick Finucane to spew his puerile gratuitous insults. Apologies
for belaboring the obvious.
Still waiting for the cheating examples. I don't expect a deplorable to present facts. Dweplorables like you simply have big yaps that spew feces.
Nancy Dooley
2017-01-28 14:57:56 UTC
Permalink
I just saw CNN interview of Conway...before she was a Trump puppet. She was quite
critical of his successes "built on the backs of the little people," who he later in the
campaign season purported to be fighting for....I wonder what reasoning she used
to convince Trump she had become a supporter.

In other news, 4 or 5 of his inner circle, including his son-in-law and his daughter
Tiffany, Sean Spicer and Mr. Bannion, are registered to vote in two states. There is
no evidence saying they voted twice, but still.....

N.
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-28 20:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nancy Dooley
I just saw CNN interview of Conway...before she was a Trump puppet. She was quite
critical of his successes "built on the backs of the little people," who he later in the
campaign season purported to be fighting for....I wonder what reasoning she used
to convince Trump she had become a supporter.
In other news, 4 or 5 of his inner circle, including his son-in-law and his daughter
Tiffany, Sean Spicer and Mr. Bannion, are registered to vote in two states. There is
no evidence saying they voted twice, but still.....
N.
It must suck to be Conway. Each day she wakes up and says "Oh shit, what other lie do I have to say today?" She's a miserable creature.

Interesting on how Trump wants Mexico to pay for the wall. Add another 20% tax on imports. No reason Mexico doesn't increase the prices. No reason at all Mexico doesn't decide to add a 25% tax on goods imported or exported to the US. It'd damage Mexico financially, but they are used to being poor. Increasing the cost of goods on Americans would devastate u a well, we want stuff cheap and ready. If we don't get things easily and available we'll collapse. We'll pay more, our pay will stay the same or drop, and we aren't used to living on the cheap. Trump will be the cause of our financial pain but his supporters won't blame him. It'll just be a part of life. Make America Poor Again is Trump's plan.
Nancy Dooley
2017-01-29 01:40:32 UTC
Permalink
IN another statement in the CNN interview, she was very uncompromisingly critical
of Trump because he wouldn't release his taxes. According to him and her both, now.
the only people who are interested are the media. He should be forced to accept
a poll result on the actual figures of how many Americans want him to release his
returns.

And, Mr. Pence and Mr. TRump, 64% of Americans are in favor of legalized abortion.

N.
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-29 18:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nancy Dooley
IN another statement in the CNN interview, she was very uncompromisingly critical
of Trump because he wouldn't release his taxes. According to him and her both, now.
the only people who are interested are the media. He should be forced to accept
a poll result on the actual figures of how many Americans want him to release his
returns.
And, Mr. Pence and Mr. TRump, 64% of Americans are in favor of legalized abortion.
N.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. Trump removes senior people from attending National Security Council's Principals Committee and replaced them with Steve Bannon, his white supremacist chief strategist. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence will be allowed to participate only "where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed." Make America Great Again. That phrase is obviously a joke.
Nancy Dooley
2017-01-29 22:50:24 UTC
Permalink
I like the doctored photo that shows Queen Elizabeth with the iconic red ball cap
on: "MAKE AMERICA GREAT BRITAIN AGAIN." ;-))

N.
Patrick Finucane
2017-02-04 12:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nancy Dooley
I like the doctored photo that shows Queen Elizabeth with the iconic red ball cap
on: "MAKE AMERICA GREAT BRITAIN AGAIN." ;-))
N.
The lunatics now control the asylum. In this case, Republicans.

Obama implemented a rule that banned people with marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, or diseases from owning guns. Republicans voted 235-180 to repeal that rule. This rule affects 75000 people that can't work they are so bad off. But Republicans feel these are fine upstanding citizens worthy of the right to have a gun. Let's give guns to crazy people they say. I find that insane. More dead Americans will be the result. Republicans are whore to the NRA, IMO.
Gary
2017-02-04 14:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick Finucane
The lunatics now control the asylum. In this case, Republicans.
Obama implemented a rule that banned people with marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, or diseases from owning guns. Republicans voted 235-180 to repeal that rule. This rule affects 75000 people that can't work they are so bad off. But Republicans feel these are fine upstanding citizens worthy of the right to have a gun. Let's give guns to crazy people they say. I find that insane. More dead Americans will be the result.
------------------------------

Hopefully some crazy person will shoot *you* 8 times real soon,
then the law will be changed. Good trade, imo. We need less
nut-cases, of all varieties, in this global mess.

:-D
Patrick Finucane
2017-02-04 16:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
Post by Patrick Finucane
The lunatics now control the asylum. In this case, Republicans.
Obama implemented a rule that banned people with marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, or diseases from owning guns. Republicans voted 235-180 to repeal that rule. This rule affects 75000 people that can't work they are so bad off. But Republicans feel these are fine upstanding citizens worthy of the right to have a gun. Let's give guns to crazy people they say. I find that insane. More dead Americans will be the result.
------------------------------
Hopefully some crazy person will shoot *you* 8 times real soon,
then the law will be changed. Good trade, imo. We need less
nut-cases, of all varieties, in this global mess.
:-D
I am not surprised that a gun nut like you approves of the murder of a fellow American. It's the callousness of life of gun nuts I find alarming. It's why they have guns...to kill others with. Frankly, that's very sick, IMO.
Zob
2017-02-04 17:21:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 04:07:04 -0800 (PST), Patrick Finucane
Post by Patrick Finucane
Post by Nancy Dooley
I like the doctored photo that shows Queen Elizabeth with the iconic red ball cap
on: "MAKE AMERICA GREAT BRITAIN AGAIN." ;-))
N.
The lunatics now control the asylum. In this case, Republicans.
Obama implemented a rule that banned people with marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, or diseases from owning guns. Republicans voted 235-180 to repeal that rule. This rule affects 75000 people that can't work they are so bad off. But Republicans feel these are fine upstanding citizens worthy of the right to have a gun. Let's give guns to crazy people they say. I find that insane. More dead Americans will be the result. Republicans are whore to the NRA, IMO.
\
They did it because so many Republicans are mentally impaired and they
need the votes in 2018.
Patrick Finucane
2017-02-04 17:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zob
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 04:07:04 -0800 (PST), Patrick Finucane
Post by Patrick Finucane
Post by Nancy Dooley
I like the doctored photo that shows Queen Elizabeth with the iconic red ball cap
on: "MAKE AMERICA GREAT BRITAIN AGAIN." ;-))
N.
The lunatics now control the asylum. In this case, Republicans.
Obama implemented a rule that banned people with marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, or diseases from owning guns. Republicans voted 235-180 to repeal that rule. This rule affects 75000 people that can't work they are so bad off. But Republicans feel these are fine upstanding citizens worthy of the right to have a gun. Let's give guns to crazy people they say. I find that insane. More dead Americans will be the result. Republicans are whore to the NRA, IMO.
\
They did it because so many Republicans are mentally impaired and they
need the votes in 2018.
Now that is funny, Zob.
Patrick Finucane
2017-02-09 14:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick Finucane
Post by Zob
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 04:07:04 -0800 (PST), Patrick Finucane
Post by Patrick Finucane
Post by Nancy Dooley
I like the doctored photo that shows Queen Elizabeth with the iconic red ball cap
on: "MAKE AMERICA GREAT BRITAIN AGAIN." ;-))
N.
The lunatics now control the asylum. In this case, Republicans.
Obama implemented a rule that banned people with marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, or diseases from owning guns. Republicans voted 235-180 to repeal that rule. This rule affects 75000 people that can't work they are so bad off. But Republicans feel these are fine upstanding citizens worthy of the right to have a gun. Let's give guns to crazy people they say. I find that insane. More dead Americans will be the result. Republicans are whore to the NRA, IMO.
\
They did it because so many Republicans are mentally impaired and they
need the votes in 2018.
Now that is funny, Zob.
It's kind of ironic the party of Lincoln is now the party of racists. Sessions is the latest example. Strom Thurmond, father of a black baby he denied, is happy in his grave.

WEll, if you donate 10s of thousands to Republicans, they are your bitches. That was proven when the Christian freak DeVos was approved. Give money to politicians and they'll be your whores forever. DeVos, the worst of the worst, bad for education. Republicans love dumb, uneducated people...they're the base.
Nancy Dooley
2017-02-09 23:01:56 UTC
Permalink
DeVos' confirmation just boggles the mind. I know there are Republican senators who know
she is a horrible choice, and they should have voted against her. Why they didn't is a mystery
unless Trump really as viciously vindictive as he appears. He couldn't possibly have blackmail
material on all of them.


N.
Zob
2017-02-10 00:59:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:01:56 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
Post by Nancy Dooley
DeVos' confirmation just boggles the mind. I know there are Republican senators who know
she is a horrible choice, and they should have voted against her. Why they didn't is a mystery
unless Trump really as viciously vindictive as he appears. He couldn't possibly have blackmail
material on all of them.
I believe it's simply that Republican politics has become so corrupt
that they are all doing whatever they have to to cater to their
wealthy contributors rather than what is right for America. Every one
of them. It's that simple.
Larc
2017-02-10 14:40:47 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:59:51 -0500, Zob <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

| On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:01:56 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
| <***@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| >DeVos' confirmation just boggles the mind. I know there are Republican senators who know
| >she is a horrible choice, and they should have voted against her. Why they didn't is a mystery
| >unless Trump really as viciously vindictive as he appears. He couldn't possibly have blackmail
| >material on all of them.
|
| I believe it's simply that Republican politics has become so corrupt
| that they are all doing whatever they have to to cater to their
| wealthy contributors rather than what is right for America. Every one
| of them. It's that simple.

I think the last election process was a case of the inmates taking over the asylum.
There's no way the Republican hierarchy wanted Trump to be their nominee. Trouble is
too many of them are going along with him now. I hope voters aren't stupid enough to
keep the status quo in the next Congressional election, but their intelligence
shouldn't be overestimated.

Larc
Patrick Finucane
2017-02-10 14:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larc
| On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:01:56 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
|
| >DeVos' confirmation just boggles the mind. I know there are Republican senators who know
| >she is a horrible choice, and they should have voted against her. Why they didn't is a mystery
| >unless Trump really as viciously vindictive as he appears. He couldn't possibly have blackmail
| >material on all of them.
|
| I believe it's simply that Republican politics has become so corrupt
| that they are all doing whatever they have to to cater to their
| wealthy contributors rather than what is right for America. Every one
| of them. It's that simple.
I think the last election process was a case of the inmates taking over the asylum.
There's no way the Republican hierarchy wanted Trump to be their nominee. Trouble is
too many of them are going along with him now. I hope voters aren't stupid enough to
keep the status quo in the next Congressional election, but their intelligence
shouldn't be overestimated.
Larc
Republicans voted in GWB 2 times then howled about Obama. My respect for American intelligence fell as I realized ho stupid millions in this country are. You hope voters aren't stupid enough to keep the status quo but based on history I believe your hope in unfounded as voters will vote for people that work actively against themselves.
Patrick Finucane
2017-02-11 15:25:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick Finucane
Post by Larc
| On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:01:56 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
|
| >DeVos' confirmation just boggles the mind. I know there are Republican senators who know
| >she is a horrible choice, and they should have voted against her. Why they didn't is a mystery
| >unless Trump really as viciously vindictive as he appears. He couldn't possibly have blackmail
| >material on all of them.
|
| I believe it's simply that Republican politics has become so corrupt
| that they are all doing whatever they have to to cater to their
| wealthy contributors rather than what is right for America. Every one
| of them. It's that simple.
I think the last election process was a case of the inmates taking over the asylum.
There's no way the Republican hierarchy wanted Trump to be their nominee. Trouble is
too many of them are going along with him now. I hope voters aren't stupid enough to
keep the status quo in the next Congressional election, but their intelligence
shouldn't be overestimated.
Larc
Republicans voted in GWB 2 times then howled about Obama. My respect for American intelligence fell as I realized ho stupid millions in this country are. You hope voters aren't stupid enough to keep the status quo but based on history I believe your hope in unfounded as voters will vote for people that work actively against themselves.
I'd like to thank all Republicans for electing a lunatic as president of the US. Interestingly enough, a polling outfit just came out with a poll that 51% of Trump voters believe that Trump is right on the Muslim ban after the Bowling Green massacre. This shows me how in tune Republicans are with reality.

Trump got into a twitter rant and railed against Nordstum for dropping his daughters sale line. He urged people to cut up their Nordstrum cards and boycott the store. That's Trump making America great. Fighting against a store that hires 85,000 people. Trump is a Chump. So petty. I can imagine how Fox News would have reacted if Obama acted childlike like Trump.
Larc
2017-02-11 17:35:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 07:25:39 -0800 (PST), Patrick Finucane
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

| I'd like to thank all Republicans for electing a lunatic as president of the US. Interestingly enough, a polling outfit just came out with a poll that 51% of Trump voters believe that Trump is right on the Muslim ban after the Bowling Green massacre. This shows me how in tune Republicans are with reality.

It wasn't just Republicans who elected Trump. There are more Democrats (31%) than
Republicans (29%) registered to vote in the US. Nine states with more voters
registered as Democrat than Republican (as of 2014) went for Trump (FL, KY, LA, MI,
NC, OK, PA, WV, WI), amounting to 118 electoral votes. But the Unaffiliated (38%)
had a controlling hand in it, as more of them lean Republican according to a recent
Gallup Poll.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

Larc
Patrick Finucane
2017-02-11 21:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larc
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 07:25:39 -0800 (PST), Patrick Finucane
| I'd like to thank all Republicans for electing a lunatic as president of the US. Interestingly enough, a polling outfit just came out with a poll that 51% of Trump voters believe that Trump is right on the Muslim ban after the Bowling Green massacre. This shows me how in tune Republicans are with reality.
It wasn't just Republicans who elected Trump. There are more Democrats (31%) than
Republicans (29%) registered to vote in the US. Nine states with more voters
registered as Democrat than Republican (as of 2014) went for Trump (FL, KY, LA, MI,
NC, OK, PA, WV, WI), amounting to 118 electoral votes. But the Unaffiliated (38%)
had a controlling hand in it, as more of them lean Republican according to a recent
Gallup Poll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states
Larc
Larc, in FL over 160,000 people voted for somebody irrelevant...like Thor and Mickey Mouse. The 3 states that put Trump over the top amounted to 78,000.. Enough to fill a football stadium. There was no mandate for Trump.

Republicans presented Americans with a horrible cast of politicians. Hillary was not acceptable to many either. She represented the establishment. Democrats would have been better off with Bernie Sanders. So people voted for fake candidates instead. And we ended up with a lunatic, ready for St Elizabeth's in DC to be our president. And Republicans put him there, regardless your stats. People wanted a change. So did I. I did not want a lunatic tho. Republicans were for a crazy man by and large. A conman. A birther nutcase. A petty tyrant. A person unfit for the job.
Larc
2017-02-12 04:59:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:46:02 -0800 (PST), Patrick Finucane
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

| Republicans presented Americans with a horrible cast of politicians. Hillary was not acceptable to many either. She represented the establishment. Democrats would have been better off with Bernie Sanders. So people voted for fake candidates instead. And we ended up with a lunatic, ready for St Elizabeth's in DC to be our president. And Republicans put him there, regardless your stats. People wanted a change. So did I. I did not want a lunatic tho. Republicans were for a crazy man by and large. A conman. A birther nutcase. A petty tyrant. A person unfit for the job.

I agree with everything you say. Neither party did a good job choosing a candidate,
IMO. I voted for Hillary, but can't imagine many scenarios other than her running
against Trump that would have caused me to do it. I thought Bill Clinton did a
crummy job as President and don't think she would have been much better. I've about
come to the conclusion that the voting public isn't very good at picking nominees in
either party. We tended to get better candidates when choosing was done at the
conventions rather than by the primary route. Seasoned politicos in smoke-filled
back rooms knew more about picking good candidates than the public has demonstrated
it does. Those old timers weren't so gullible.

Larc
Ryan
2017-02-12 05:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larc
I voted for Hillary, but can't imagine many scenarios other than her running
against Trump that would have caused me to do it.
Would you have voted for Ted Cruz (the candidate with the second most
primary votes) if he ran against Hillary? If so, would it be an easy
choice?

Cue Larc to dodge this question as he dodged the EXACT SAME question
when I asked it previously. And the reason that Larc will dodge the
question is that he wants to ingratiate himself to the group and knows
that picking Cruz will alienate him from the group and expose him to
the pathological wrath of Patrick Finacune.

And if not Ted Cruz, how about if Hillary ran against Jeb Bush, Scott
Walker, or John Kasich?
After all Larc, you NEVER voted for a Democrat for President in your
life until you voted for HIllary ;-)

Ryan
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

2006 American Idol Bragging Rights Champion

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Patrick Finucane
2017-02-12 14:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
Post by Larc
I voted for Hillary, but can't imagine many scenarios other than her running
against Trump that would have caused me to do it.
Would you have voted for Ted Cruz (the candidate with the second most
primary votes) if he ran against Hillary? If so, would it be an easy
choice?
Cue Larc to dodge this question as he dodged the EXACT SAME question
when I asked it previously. And the reason that Larc will dodge the
question is that he wants to ingratiate himself to the group and knows
that picking Cruz will alienate him from the group and expose him to
the pathological wrath of Patrick Finacune.
And if not Ted Cruz, how about if Hillary ran against Jeb Bush, Scott
Walker, or John Kasich?
After all Larc, you NEVER voted for a Democrat for President in your
life until you voted for HIllary ;-)
Ryan
.
I can't imagine a Christian voting for Trump unless the Christian loves the devil. So I will assume you aren't a Christian.

Maybe you are a racist. Trump was a big birther. He wanted innocent men to get the death penalty on a fake crime. That'd make sense.

Maybe you are a bully and like the bully attitude. Trump urging folks to cut up their Nordstum cards due to a slight to Ivanka is not a worthy presidential action.

Actually, I think your life must be a shithole. Trump's life is a nightmare, such a mess. He says so. That'd make sense, the appeal he gave to people like you that live lives of misery and lack quality.

I don't subscribve to Trump's Make America Hate Again motto. You do. Because you life is filled with hate for others. As Trump would say...sad,
Ryan
2017-02-12 15:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
And the reason that Larc will dodge the
question is that he wants to ingratiate himself to the group and knows
that picking Cruz will alienate him from the group and expose him to
the pathological wrath of Patrick Finacune.
And the right on cue:





On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 06:13:40 -0800 (PST), Patrick Finucane
Post by Ryan
I can't imagine a Christian voting for Trump unless the Christian loves the devil. So I will assume you aren't a Christian.
Maybe you are a racist. Trump was a big birther. He wanted innocent men to get the death penalty on a fake crime. That'd make sense.
Maybe you are a bully and like the bully attitude. Trump urging folks to cut up their Nordstum cards due to a slight to Ivanka is not a worthy presidential action.
Actually, I think your life must be a shithole. Trump's life is a nightmare, such a mess. He says so. That'd make sense, the appeal he gave to people like you that live lives of misery and lack quality.
I don't subscribve to Trump's Make America Hate Again motto. You do. Because you life is filled with hate for others. As Trump would say...sad,
Some things are so predictable.

Note that Patrick completely ignores (as does and will Larc) my
question about whether Larc would vote for Cruz if he ran against
Hillary. After all Larc claims that the ONLY reason why he voted for
Hillary is because she was running against Trump. After all Larc NEVER
in his life voted for a Democrat for President before voting for
Hillary.

Also note, that if you read every post I made about the candidates,
that I NEVER said I supported Trump. I DID say that BOTH candidates
were bad. I challenge anyone to find a post where I said that I
supported Trump. And yet Patrick goes postal when I make a post
criticizing Hillary or not attacking Trump.

Perhaps we should all be grateful that Patrick is spending his time
expressing his wrath on his keyboard instead of joining the other
nutcases/anarchists who are rioting instead of peacefully protesting.
OTOH maybe he is doing both:-(

Ryan


-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

2006 American Idol Bragging Rights Champion

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Larc
2017-02-12 19:23:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:28:49 -1000, Ryan <***@ryan.com> wrote:

| On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 23:59:58 -0500, Larc <***@notmyaddress.com>
| wrote:
|
| >I voted for Hillary, but can't imagine many scenarios other than her running
| >against Trump that would have caused me to do it.
|
| Would you have voted for Ted Cruz (the candidate with the second most
| primary votes) if he ran against Hillary? If so, would it be an easy
| choice?
|
| Cue Larc to dodge this question as he dodged the EXACT SAME question
| when I asked it previously. And the reason that Larc will dodge the
| question is that he wants to ingratiate himself to the group and knows
| that picking Cruz will alienate him from the group and expose him to
| the pathological wrath of Patrick Finacune.

That's because your questions are too often clearly baiting. "Questions" like that
don't deserve answers from anybody.

| And if not Ted Cruz, how about if Hillary ran against Jeb Bush, Scott
| Walker, or John Kasich?
| After all Larc, you NEVER voted for a Democrat for President in your
| life until you voted for HIllary ;-)

It's of no value to say who I would have voted for *if* that person had been a
candidate because only reality actually matters. I will tell you who I voted for in
the primary: Marco Rubio. As a registered Unaffiliated voter, I can choose the
Democrat, Republican or Libertarian ballot in any primary. I've gone back and forth
between the first two in past elections depending on who was running and whether I
especially liked a certain Presidential candidate or specifically wanted to vote
against one.

I thought Democratic, Republican and Libertarian candidates were all poor choices in
the last election. But I thought only one of those 3 was outright despicable.
Unfortunately, voters were gullible and/or stupid enough to elect him. It's a
decision I'm afraid most of them will have cause to regret deeply.

Larc
Ryan
2017-02-13 00:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larc
That's because your questions are too often clearly baiting. "Questions" like that
don't deserve answers from anybody.
So you are saying that asking if you would vote for Ted Cruz against
Hillary Clinton is *clearly* baiting? How is it baiting?

Questions like "Would you vote for Cruz if he ran against Clinton?"
don't deserve to be answered by anyone?

What if I asked "Would you vote for Rubio if he ran against Clinton"?
Would THAT question deserve to be answered? If so please explain the
difference.

You said that in every Presidential election you either voted
Republican or Libertarian (also dodged when I asked which Libertarian
candidates you voted for....guess you thought that question was
baiting and not deserving to be answered by anyone). It is reasonable
to infer that you are have Libertarian leanings. Rand Paul is the most
Libertarian of the group in the primary. The person closest in
political ideology to Rand Paul according to Rand Paul is Ted Cruz.
That is why I asked you the question.

But thanks for confirming that you would dodge answering the question.
The question is quite simple. Your refusal to answer speaks volumes.

Ryan



Ryan
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

2006 American Idol Bragging Rights Champion

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Ron C
2017-02-13 02:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
Post by Larc
That's because your questions are too often clearly baiting. "Questions" like that
don't deserve answers from anybody.
So you are saying that asking if you would vote for Ted Cruz against
Hillary Clinton is *clearly* baiting? How is it baiting?
Questions like "Would you vote for Cruz if he ran against Clinton?"
don't deserve to be answered by anyone?
What if I asked "Would you vote for Rubio if he ran against Clinton"?
Would THAT question deserve to be answered? If so please explain the
difference.
You said that in every Presidential election you either voted
Republican or Libertarian (also dodged when I asked which Libertarian
candidates you voted for....guess you thought that question was
baiting and not deserving to be answered by anyone). It is reasonable
to infer that you are have Libertarian leanings. Rand Paul is the most
Libertarian of the group in the primary. The person closest in
political ideology to Rand Paul according to Rand Paul is Ted Cruz.
That is why I asked you the question.
But thanks for confirming that you would dodge answering the question.
The question is quite simple. Your refusal to answer speaks volumes.
Ryan
Objection! Badgering the witness!

==
Later...
Ron C <<< cynic-in-training >>>
--
Ryan
2017-02-13 02:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron C
Post by Ryan
Post by Larc
That's because your questions are too often clearly baiting. "Questions" like that
don't deserve answers from anybody.
So you are saying that asking if you would vote for Ted Cruz against
Hillary Clinton is *clearly* baiting? How is it baiting?
Questions like "Would you vote for Cruz if he ran against Clinton?"
don't deserve to be answered by anyone?
What if I asked "Would you vote for Rubio if he ran against Clinton"?
Would THAT question deserve to be answered? If so please explain the
difference.
You said that in every Presidential election you either voted
Republican or Libertarian (also dodged when I asked which Libertarian
candidates you voted for....guess you thought that question was
baiting and not deserving to be answered by anyone). It is reasonable
to infer that you are have Libertarian leanings. Rand Paul is the most
Libertarian of the group in the primary. The person closest in
political ideology to Rand Paul according to Rand Paul is Ted Cruz.
That is why I asked you the question.
But thanks for confirming that you would dodge answering the question.
The question is quite simple. Your refusal to answer speaks volumes.
Ryan
Objection! Badgering the witness!
Overruled! The witness IS a badger!

After all a badger is in the weasel family and Larc is clearly trying
to weasel out of answering reasonable questions:-)


Ryan

-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

2006 American Idol Bragging Rights Champion

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Lesmond
2017-02-13 03:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
Post by Ron C
Post by Ryan
Post by Larc
That's because your questions are too often clearly baiting. "Questions" like that
don't deserve answers from anybody.
So you are saying that asking if you would vote for Ted Cruz against
Hillary Clinton is *clearly* baiting? How is it baiting?
Questions like "Would you vote for Cruz if he ran against Clinton?"
don't deserve to be answered by anyone?
What if I asked "Would you vote for Rubio if he ran against Clinton"?
Would THAT question deserve to be answered? If so please explain the
difference.
You said that in every Presidential election you either voted
Republican or Libertarian (also dodged when I asked which Libertarian
candidates you voted for....guess you thought that question was
baiting and not deserving to be answered by anyone). It is reasonable
to infer that you are have Libertarian leanings. Rand Paul is the most
Libertarian of the group in the primary. The person closest in
political ideology to Rand Paul according to Rand Paul is Ted Cruz.
That is why I asked you the question.
But thanks for confirming that you would dodge answering the question.
The question is quite simple. Your refusal to answer speaks volumes.
Ryan
Objection! Badgering the witness!
Overruled! The witness IS a badger!
After all a badger is in the weasel family and Larc is clearly trying
to weasel out of answering reasonable questions:-)
Who did you vote for and why?
--
She may contain the urge to run away
But hold her down with soggy clothes and breeze blocks
Patrick Finucane
2017-02-10 14:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zob
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:01:56 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
Post by Nancy Dooley
DeVos' confirmation just boggles the mind. I know there are Republican senators who know
she is a horrible choice, and they should have voted against her. Why they didn't is a mystery
unless Trump really as viciously vindictive as he appears. He couldn't possibly have blackmail
material on all of them.
I believe it's simply that Republican politics has become so corrupt
that they are all doing whatever they have to to cater to their
wealthy contributors rather than what is right for America. Every one
of them. It's that simple.
It is corruption of obvious, in-your-face fact. Republicans would sell their country down the river (as slave owners did in the past) for a few bucks. Since Republicans are all Christians (they own Jesus with their fake Christianity), I guess the message from Jesus was greed is good. When I hear a Republican professing his patriotism with tears in his eyes and hand over heart I immediately check my wallet to see if it has been purloined.
Patrick Finucane
2017-02-10 14:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nancy Dooley
DeVos' confirmation just boggles the mind. I know there are Republican senators who know
she is a horrible choice, and they should have voted against her. Why they didn't is a mystery
unless Trump really as viciously vindictive as he appears. He couldn't possibly have blackmail
material on all of them.
N.
The DeVos family has donated over 200 million to the Republicans. Republican senators that voted to approve DeVos received between $40,000 and $100,000 dollars in campaign contributions from DeVos. IOW, Corruption. Why would Republicans votes against a person that pays for their meal ticket? These fraud politicians should not have been allowed to vote for or against the person that gives them money. But we are talking about Republicans...people without ethics. Like I said before, political whores that take bribes.

One thing I do know, Obama never went out of his way to hire incompetents like Trump.

You can just feel the Trump failures in the past 20 days. Trump even making crap for Nordstrums over his daughters clothing line failure...Trump is a Chump.
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-28 20:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nancy Dooley
I just saw CNN interview of Conway...before she was a Trump puppet. She was quite
critical of his successes "built on the backs of the little people," who he later in the
campaign season purported to be fighting for....I wonder what reasoning she used
to convince Trump she had become a supporter.
In other news, 4 or 5 of his inner circle, including his son-in-law and his daughter
Tiffany, Sean Spicer and Mr. Bannion, are registered to vote in two states. There is
no evidence saying they voted twice, but still.....
N.
I think it's time to dissemble the Statue of Liberty in NY and send it back to France. The words "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me" are so fake and a lie spoken worldwide. We are not the country of the past, we are now a shithole with no past. 30% of Trump supporters in South Carolina are against the Emancipation Proclamation, I wonder when Trump will reinstate slavery. Southerners used the bible to as a source of approval for having slaves so it's possible the Christians would accept slavery in the US once again.
Susan
2017-01-27 19:27:37 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Larc
Political
stupidity mainly put Trump in office. And that affliction is in no way bound by
party.
+1

But if you look at voting stats by party, the GOP wears the stupidity
crown an the tiara.

Susan
Larc
2017-01-26 16:05:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:34:00 -1000, Ryan <***@ryan.com> wrote:

| On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 02:15:35 -0500, Larc <***@notmyaddress.com>
| wrote:
|
| >On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:01:54 -1000, Ryan <***@ryan.com> wrote:
| >
| >| I am not worried so much about his tweets as I am his behavior and
| >| policy decisions. But I agree that the polarization needs to be tamped
| >| down but I don't see that happening any time soon.
| >
| >It's not the actual tweets that concern me as much as the mentality behind them. They
| >aren't the disease, but a symptom of it.
|
| OK, Dr. Larc, what is Trump's "mental disease"? Or were you speaking
| metaphorically?
|
| Apart from Trump being very narcissistic, I don't think that would
| qualify as a "disease". Trump and our previous POTUS can give each
| other a run for their money as far as narcissism goes.
|
| If Trump is attacked, he strikes back, often out of proportion to the
| original slight. Democrats appear to be trying to exploit this
| vulnerability by continuing to poke the bear. Perhaps they are hoping
| for a complete meltdown. Instead they will feel his wrath.

A POTUS taking time out of what should be a very busy schedule involving serious
matters to tweet schoolyard responses to real and perceived slights by people whose
opinions shouldn't really matter much to him in the overall scheme of things? Where
are his priorities? You're damn right I think there's something mentally off with
Trump. Criticism comes with the political territory. A psychologically mature adult
would be used to it by now. Otherwise, as Harry Truman said, if he can't stand the
heat he should get out of the kitchen.

Larc
Nancy Dooley
2017-01-26 17:04:50 UTC
Permalink
It appears Conway is a good sidekick for Trump:

http://www.avclub.com/article/kellyanne-conways-stand-comedy-routine-has-been-un-249016

No sense of humor in evidence.


N.
Ryan
2017-01-26 19:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larc
|
| >
| >| I am not worried so much about his tweets as I am his behavior and
| >| policy decisions. But I agree that the polarization needs to be tamped
| >| down but I don't see that happening any time soon.
| >
| >It's not the actual tweets that concern me as much as the mentality behind them. They
| >aren't the disease, but a symptom of it.
|
| OK, Dr. Larc, what is Trump's "mental disease"? Or were you speaking
| metaphorically?
|
| Apart from Trump being very narcissistic, I don't think that would
| qualify as a "disease". Trump and our previous POTUS can give each
| other a run for their money as far as narcissism goes.
|
| If Trump is attacked, he strikes back, often out of proportion to the
| original slight. Democrats appear to be trying to exploit this
| vulnerability by continuing to poke the bear. Perhaps they are hoping
| for a complete meltdown. Instead they will feel his wrath.
A POTUS taking time out of what should be a very busy schedule involving serious
matters to tweet schoolyard responses to real and perceived slights by people whose
opinions shouldn't really matter much to him in the overall scheme of things?
I agree that his tweets are unnecessary but I really am not obsessing
about them. Perhaps he can tweet as well as take his job involving
serious matters seriously. Just because you are tweeting does not mean
you are slacking off at your job. How long does it take to send a
tweet? Five seconds?
Post by Larc
Where
are his priorities?
Where are yours?

I don't recall you expressing outrage over Obama being informed about
the Benghazi attack and then, never reaching out to the defense
secretary Panetta nor General Dempsey to find out what was happening
all fucking night while for several hours, brave men were fighting for
their lives and no one was sent to help them.
And then the next day he goes to a fund raiser in Las Vegas while
spinning the lie about the attack not being due to terrorism but a you
tube video. Now THAT is something to get upset about....not a tweet.
So before you ask about Trump's priorities, I suggest maybe you take a
look at your own.
Post by Larc
You're damn right I think there's something mentally off with
Trump.
You seem very angry about Trump's choosing to tweet. Maybe you need to
look at your own mental health. Sounds like you may have Trump
Derangement Syndrome. Just sayin.......
Post by Larc
Criticism comes with the political territory. A psychologically mature adult
would be used to it by now. Otherwise, as Harry Truman said, if he can't stand the
heat he should get out of the kitchen.
Trump is an accomplished and successful businessman. I doubt that he
would be as successful if he was as mentally unfit as you are
implying.

As much as I don't care for his tweeting, I consider it minor if he
is otherwise taking his job as POTUS seriously. He has only been in
the job for a couple weeks after all.

Ryan

-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

2006 American Idol Bragging Rights Champion

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-26 21:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
Post by Larc
|
| >
| >| I am not worried so much about his tweets as I am his behavior and
| >| policy decisions. But I agree that the polarization needs to be tamped
| >| down but I don't see that happening any time soon.
| >
| >It's not the actual tweets that concern me as much as the mentality behind them. They
| >aren't the disease, but a symptom of it.
|
| OK, Dr. Larc, what is Trump's "mental disease"? Or were you speaking
| metaphorically?
|
| Apart from Trump being very narcissistic, I don't think that would
| qualify as a "disease". Trump and our previous POTUS can give each
| other a run for their money as far as narcissism goes.
|
| If Trump is attacked, he strikes back, often out of proportion to the
| original slight. Democrats appear to be trying to exploit this
| vulnerability by continuing to poke the bear. Perhaps they are hoping
| for a complete meltdown. Instead they will feel his wrath.
A POTUS taking time out of what should be a very busy schedule involving serious
matters to tweet schoolyard responses to real and perceived slights by people whose
opinions shouldn't really matter much to him in the overall scheme of things?
I agree that his tweets are unnecessary but I really am not obsessing
about them. Perhaps he can tweet as well as take his job involving
serious matters seriously. Just because you are tweeting does not mean
you are slacking off at your job. How long does it take to send a
tweet? Five seconds?
Post by Larc
Where
are his priorities?
Where are yours?
I don't recall you expressing outrage over Obama being informed about
the Benghazi attack and then, never reaching out to the defense
secretary Panetta nor General Dempsey to find out what was happening
all fucking night while for several hours, brave men were fighting for
their lives and no one was sent to help them.
And then the next day he goes to a fund raiser in Las Vegas while
spinning the lie about the attack not being due to terrorism but a you
tube video. Now THAT is something to get upset about....not a tweet.
So before you ask about Trump's priorities, I suggest maybe you take a
look at your own.
Post by Larc
You're damn right I think there's something mentally off with
Trump.
You seem very angry about Trump's choosing to tweet. Maybe you need to
look at your own mental health. Sounds like you may have Trump
Derangement Syndrome. Just sayin.......
Post by Larc
Criticism comes with the political territory. A psychologically mature adult
would be used to it by now. Otherwise, as Harry Truman said, if he can't stand the
heat he should get out of the kitchen.
Trump is an accomplished and successful businessman. I doubt that he
would be as successful if he was as mentally unfit as you are
implying.
As much as I don't care for his tweeting, I consider it minor if he
is otherwise taking his job as POTUS seriously. He has only been in
the job for a couple weeks after all.
Ryan, if nobody has ever told you that you are an ignorant clod, consider yourself informed. Do you reach up your ass to provide us with your nuggets of wisdom?
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-26 16:42:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
If Trump is attacked, he strikes back, often out of proportion to the
original slight. Democrats appear to be trying to exploit this
vulnerability by continuing to poke the bear. Perhaps they are hoping
for a complete meltdown. Instead they will feel his wrath.
One thing the Democrats should do is NEVER vote for or approve a Supreme Court justice while Trump is in office. Never. Ever. IF other justices die or retire, no replacements would ever be approved by Democrats. No federal judges should be approved either as that is what Republicans did to Obama. It's time the Democrats marched lockstep like Republicans do and fight Trump at every turn. Make Trump rule by executive orders instead of laws.

Trump never smiles. That's because he eats mounds of turds for breakfast. IF I were a Democrat I'd do everything possible to make sure Trump eats even more turds in his daily diet.

If I were a news organization, I'd roast Trump and his lies. If he doesn't want to give me access to him, fine...I'll just write even more trash about him. He wants to fight the media, let him sink in his swamp filled with swamp things.
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-26 14:24:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
Post by Ron C
Post by Ryan
Post by Susan
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Patrick Finucane
That could lead to mob rule, IMO.
Majority rule.
Ever hear of tyranny by the majority? The founding fathers
deliberately set up our government to prevent such a thing. Most
people are ignorant of the fact that the United States is *not* a
democratic country but instead is a constitutional republic.
Of course after eight years of Obama, one can make the argument that
we are in a post constitutional state. We are supposed to have checks
and balances to prevent centralization of power in any of the
branches. Obama made the Congress pretty irrelevant. I fear that Trump
may take it to another level. But I am willing to give him a chance.
At least Trump is trying to undo some of the unconstitutional
executive orders. Executive branch enforces the laws. It does not make
them.
If he continues to follow the precedent set by Obama we may really be
in trouble.
Ryan
From a control systems perspective the system gain is way too high
creating very large swings. Such unstable systems continue to swing
wildly until something breaks. We need to turn down the gain or
increase the damping to return stability to the system.
gain, and thus increase the magnitude of the swings.
[Um, that (technically) about sums up your last sentence.]
I am not worried so much about his tweets as I am his behavior and
policy decisions. But I agree that the polarization needs to be tamped
down but I don't see that happening any time soon.
It is clear that his political opponents are trying to deligitimize
his presidency in various ways including but not limited to his loss
of the popular vote (which is quite irrelevant given the electoral
colleg system) which they know will irritate him resulting in his
tweet tantrums. My concern is that his political opponents are so
angry that they lost, that they will do anything to bring him down
which alas will only serve to bring our country down. We live in very
perilous times where radical Islamic terrorists want to kill all of us
heretics. It is not the time for us to be divided and yet divided we
are.
Just look at the temperature of many responses in this newsgroup. The
great irony is that those who are raising the temperature the most are
those who are the most vocal/concerned about global warming:-)
I wonder if you had any concern about the utter disrespect given to Obama by Republicans. I wager you didn't, and approved.

People like you, worried about Islamic terrorists half way around the world from us, make me sick. I consider them Fox News panty wetters. You are far more likely to die from an American gun nut than some guy thousands of miles away. I doubt you have much concern about gun deaths in the US or American terrorists...because they are Christian and that makes it OK.

Trump is making it illegal to discuss climate change. Scientists are banned from doing so. Trump has too much money invested in the polluters to want to hear what science says. His beliefs matter more than facts. Take his election fraud scam. He'll use his scam to further limit the right to vote. Republicans hate democracy.

Trump's tweeting is a sign of Trump's mental instability. Maybe what we need to do as a country is simply admit we elected a buffoon and get on with our lives.
Lesmond
2017-01-26 15:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Cheri
If CA and NY were red states, I doubt you would be happy with them
deciding every election, I know I wouldn't be now matter which party
they represented. As for Trump, I wish him well, just as I have wished
every president since I've been able to vote, well, whether I vo
ed for them or not. Truthfully, not many that I've ever voted for made
it, so I'm used to losing. :)
Smaller states are grossly over represented in the congress in a way
that is really unfair to more populous states. States with very low
populations have two senators, for instance, giving them huge influence
over dollars directed there and also over all federal legislation.
One person, one vote is the only fair way to conduct elections. The
whole tyranny argument is belied by the outsized representation small
states have advocating for their needs at the expense of the states
footing the bill.
Thank you, Susan.
--
She may contain the urge to run away
But hold her down with soggy clothes and breeze blocks
Cheri
2017-01-21 18:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nancy Dooley
Oh, BTW, I am generally a Democrat when I vote, but those Congressmen
and women boycotting the Inauguration is just damn petty. It is something
I equate to a little kid taking his ball home because he made a mistake in a game,
and his team lost.
I thought the so-called boycott was disgraceful, and I don't approve of those
who took part...beginning with Mr. Lewis. Both sides of the aisle need to
make an effort to work together.
N.
Totally agree, one can only hope.

Cheri
Zob
2017-01-22 00:28:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 08:32:24 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
Both sides of the aisle need to make an effort to work together.
N.
Oh, yes. The Democrats should now show President Trump the exact same
measure of courtesy, respect and cooperation that the Republicans have
shown President Obama for the past eight years. They set the example
of how the opposing party should behave.
Nancy Dooley
2017-01-22 02:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Zob, I hate to say it, but getting even accomplishes nothing. Weren't you ever told
that two wrongs don't make a right? Cooperation should be given a chance.

N.
Zob
2017-01-22 03:47:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:00:17 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
Post by Nancy Dooley
Zob, I hate to say it, but getting even accomplishes nothing. Weren't you ever told
that two wrongs don't make a right? Cooperation should be given a chance.
N.
How do you cooperate with someone who has promised to tear down
everything that you value? And I'm not just talking about Trump, I'm
mainly talking about Congress. I will not ever stop fighting against
people who have vowed to end health care for 20 million Americans, who
have vowed to turn my Medicare into bidding from private insurance
companies, who have vowed to cut back Social Security rather than pay
back the money that they stole from the SS fund to pay for George
Bush's nation-building wars, who have vowed to make it harder for
people to vote in fair elections, who have vowed to eliminate vital
services to poor people like food stamps, Medicaid and welfare, who
have vowed to remove all EPA regulations giving the big oil
corporations free reign to drill and cause earthquakes and build leaky
pipelines wherever they want, who have vowed to roll back air quality
and other climate change regulations, who have vowed to eliminate all
Wall Street regulations and allow the giant financial corporations to
once more fleece the public to the point of national bankruptcy while
enriching the multbillionaires further. Who have vowed to use public
funds to give vouchers to already wealthy people to send their
children to private schools. And so much more.

No thanks. I'd be a hypocrite if I cooperated with any of that. :-/

Hey, maybe if somebody can convincingly explain to me which of those
things is good for the country, good for our citizens, and good for
me and the people I love -- maybe then I could think about
cooperating.

I'm especially disgusted with the right-wing Christians -- especially
those in office -- who claim to love Jesus but don't act like it when
it comes to taking care of His creation and His people. As House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi so aptly put it yesterday on Morning Joe:
"They pray on Sunday, and prey on people the rest of the week."
I can't cooperate with that, sorry.
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-22 12:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zob
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:00:17 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
Post by Nancy Dooley
Zob, I hate to say it, but getting even accomplishes nothing. Weren't you ever told
that two wrongs don't make a right? Cooperation should be given a chance.
N.
How do you cooperate with someone who has promised to tear down
everything that you value? And I'm not just talking about Trump, I'm
mainly talking about Congress. I will not ever stop fighting against
people who have vowed to end health care for 20 million Americans, who
have vowed to turn my Medicare into bidding from private insurance
companies, who have vowed to cut back Social Security rather than pay
back the money that they stole from the SS fund to pay for George
Bush's nation-building wars, who have vowed to make it harder for
people to vote in fair elections, who have vowed to eliminate vital
services to poor people like food stamps, Medicaid and welfare, who
have vowed to remove all EPA regulations giving the big oil
corporations free reign to drill and cause earthquakes and build leaky
pipelines wherever they want, who have vowed to roll back air quality
and other climate change regulations, who have vowed to eliminate all
Wall Street regulations and allow the giant financial corporations to
once more fleece the public to the point of national bankruptcy while
enriching the multbillionaires further. Who have vowed to use public
funds to give vouchers to already wealthy people to send their
children to private schools. And so much more.
No thanks. I'd be a hypocrite if I cooperated with any of that. :-/
Hey, maybe if somebody can convincingly explain to me which of those
things is good for the country, good for our citizens, and good for
me and the people I love -- maybe then I could think about
cooperating.
I'm especially disgusted with the right-wing Christians -- especially
those in office -- who claim to love Jesus but don't act like it when
it comes to taking care of His creation and His people. As House
"They pray on Sunday, and prey on people the rest of the week."
I can't cooperate with that, sorry.
I feel your love for their actions. Regarding the environment, I have wondered at what alien planet Republicans came from. I figure one where they breath poisonous air and drink poisonous water so poisoning earth is a goal.

I do now wet my pants like right wingers regarding socialism. We are a society. For that reason I support medicare from birth to death for all Americans.

I don't believe Republicans are Christian. Just because you say you are a Christian doesn't make you one. I saw the horns on Huckabee's head. He said he was a Christian. Just because he said so did not make that a truth. Too bad Republicans spend all their time reading the Old, not New, Testament. Jesus was not a moneychanger like Repubican think he was. I too wish they worked for the people and not their donors.
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-22 12:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zob
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:00:17 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
Post by Nancy Dooley
Zob, I hate to say it, but getting even accomplishes nothing. Weren't you ever told
that two wrongs don't make a right? Cooperation should be given a chance.
N.
How do you cooperate with someone who has promised to tear down
everything that you value? And I'm not just talking about Trump, I'm
mainly talking about Congress. I will not ever stop fighting against
people who have vowed to end health care for 20 million Americans, who
have vowed to turn my Medicare into bidding from private insurance
companies, who have vowed to cut back Social Security rather than pay
back the money that they stole from the SS fund to pay for George
Bush's nation-building wars, who have vowed to make it harder for
people to vote in fair elections, who have vowed to eliminate vital
services to poor people like food stamps, Medicaid and welfare, who
have vowed to remove all EPA regulations giving the big oil
corporations free reign to drill and cause earthquakes and build leaky
pipelines wherever they want, who have vowed to roll back air quality
and other climate change regulations, who have vowed to eliminate all
Wall Street regulations and allow the giant financial corporations to
once more fleece the public to the point of national bankruptcy while
enriching the multbillionaires further. Who have vowed to use public
funds to give vouchers to already wealthy people to send their
children to private schools. And so much more.
No thanks. I'd be a hypocrite if I cooperated with any of that. :-/
Hey, maybe if somebody can convincingly explain to me which of those
things is good for the country, good for our citizens, and good for
me and the people I love -- maybe then I could think about
cooperating.
I'm especially disgusted with the right-wing Christians -- especially
those in office -- who claim to love Jesus but don't act like it when
it comes to taking care of His creation and His people. As House
"They pray on Sunday, and prey on people the rest of the week."
I can't cooperate with that, sorry.
It was interesting that millions of people protested Trump. Not just here in the US but world wide...from the South Pacific to Europe. People do not want to go backwards and they look to the US to be a positive place.
Nancy Dooley
2017-01-22 13:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Well, he has already banned the term "climate change" from any White House communication,
but also has already said he will leave Medicare alone. Who knows, he changes his mind so
often, he truly is unpredictable.

N.
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-22 22:43:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nancy Dooley
Well, he has already banned the term "climate change" from any White House communication,
but also has already said he will leave Medicare alone. Who knows, he changes his mind so
often, he truly is unpredictable.
N.
Sadly, I fear Republicans elected a lunatic.

Trump is a person that love to dish it out but would somebody please dry his panties out? He bitches and moans about petty things. Now the war is with the media reporting the crowds were lower than other inaugurations. Not everybody adores Trump like he adore himself.

A sane leader might wonder why so many people in the US and the world detest him. With some inter-inspection he might change his ways. A sane person would. I feel sad for the US. It had a deplorable leader leading it and deplorable people that support him. We haven't hit bottom yet.
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-22 23:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick Finucane
Post by Nancy Dooley
Well, he has already banned the term "climate change" from any White House communication,
but also has already said he will leave Medicare alone. Who knows, he changes his mind so
often, he truly is unpredictable.
N.
Sadly, I fear Republicans elected a lunatic.
Trump is a person that love to dish it out but would somebody please dry his panties out? He bitches and moans about petty things. Now the war is with the media reporting the crowds were lower than other inaugurations. Not everybody adores Trump like he adore himself.
A sane leader might wonder why so many people in the US and the world detest him. With some inter-inspection he might change his ways. A sane person would. I feel sad for the US. It had a deplorable leader leading it and deplorable people that support him. We haven't hit bottom yet.
I'm trying to remember the last time people got teargassed at a presidential inauguration besides Trump's. I couldn't recall one.

On a lighter note, this vid may make you LOL out load.

Zob
2017-01-23 07:32:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:33:19 -0800 (PST), Patrick Finucane
Post by Patrick Finucane
On a lighter note, this vid may make you LOL out load. http://youtu.be/sE3MPHBJkcQ
Hilarious!
Lesmond
2017-01-26 15:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zob
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:33:19 -0800 (PST), Patrick Finucane
Post by Patrick Finucane
On a lighter note, this vid may make you LOL out load. http://youtu.be/sE3MPHBJkcQ
Hilarious!
I have been in love with Lewis Black for so long.
--
She may contain the urge to run away
But hold her down with soggy clothes and breeze blocks
Zob
2017-01-23 07:29:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 05:12:47 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
Post by Nancy Dooley
Well, he has already banned the term "climate change" from any White House communication,
but also has already said he will leave Medicare alone. Who knows, he changes his mind so
often, he truly is unpredictable.
And as I said, it's not just him. It's the foxes that just got put in
total control of the chicken coop of Congress. Paul Ryan and his
cronies plan on "privatizing" Medicare, meaning that the elderly and
disabled will have to bid on private insurance companies. The most
vulnerable Americans, the people who need the healthcare most, and the
lease equipped to deal with more confusing hoops to jump through. Not
to mention the millions living on their Social Security checks (that
they earned, not an "entitlement") who will be unable to compete in a
"privatized" market. Basically Paul Ryan will take this nation back
to his Ayn Rand roots if he gets his way; leaving the wealthy to
flourish and the sick and elderly to be sick and die. And that is not
overly dramatic; that is the end result of what he and his cohorts are
proposing.
The big question mark is Trump. Yes, he has said that he will not
change Medicare. But when the legislative bill hits his desk voted on
by every Republican in Congress, will he refuse to sign it? I doubt
it. Who knows, maybe he'll surprise us and turn on the hand that
feeds him. But I doubt it.
Ryan
2017-01-23 15:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zob
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:00:17 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
Post by Nancy Dooley
Zob, I hate to say it, but getting even accomplishes nothing. Weren't you ever told
that two wrongs don't make a right? Cooperation should be given a chance.
N.
How do you cooperate with someone who has promised to tear down
everything that you value? And I'm not just talking about Trump, I'm
mainly talking about Congress. I will not ever stop fighting against
people who have vowed to end health care for 20 million Americans, who
have vowed to turn my Medicare into bidding from private insurance
companies, who have vowed to cut back Social Security rather than pay
back the money that they stole from the SS fund to pay for George
Bush's nation-building wars, who have vowed to make it harder for
people to vote in fair elections, who have vowed to eliminate vital
services to poor people like food stamps, Medicaid and welfare, who
have vowed to remove all EPA regulations giving the big oil
corporations free reign to drill and cause earthquakes and build leaky
pipelines wherever they want, who have vowed to roll back air quality
and other climate change regulations, who have vowed to eliminate all
Wall Street regulations and allow the giant financial corporations to
once more fleece the public to the point of national bankruptcy while
enriching the multbillionaires further. Who have vowed to use public
funds to give vouchers to already wealthy people to send their
children to private schools. And so much more.
No thanks. I'd be a hypocrite if I cooperated with any of that. :-/
You *are* a fucking hypocrite. When Zob was gainfully employed in
January 2008, he hated the Democrats who took his hard earned money
and gave it through taxation to those who did not deserve it. But I
Post by Zob
Post by Nancy Dooley
To be fair, one party is as bad as the other. The Democrats want to
give my money to other people, the Republicans want to give it to
corporations and families with kids who will vote for them. Democrats
take my money out in the open with up front taxes, Republicans take it
behind my back with hidden fees and a tax penalty for being single.
I'm speaking of on the State and Local level as well as Federal, of
course. One party is just as bad as the other when wanting to get at
my hard-earned paycheck and give it to someone else.
That's why I'm voting libertarian this year, futile as it may be.
There are far too many special interests on both sides for a true
constitutionalist to ever be elected.
---
Zob
Zob got his ass fired from his job weeks after he made that post. Zob
is not a libertarian any more. He no longer gives a shit about the
constitution. He is all about redistributing wealth from those who
work to those who don't including leeches like himself.

Zob makes you think he is looking out for the little guy. In truth Zob
is looking out for himself.

And as far as Zob's lie about Republicans wanting to steal health care
from 20 million people, "ObamaCare" is not health care. It is health
insurance that is really a redistribution of income. Insurance is not
health care. And when hard working middle class have to pay exorbitant
costs with very high deductibles that keep rising in an uncontrolled
way because the plan was voted on without anyone reading it and
understanding that it could not possibly work. It was designed to make
the young people subsidize the old and sick. But young people don't
need full coverage. They don't have the choice with ObamaCare, to buy
catastrophic coverage which is what is appropriate for them.

Those with Obama Care are realizing that it was all a lie. Many were
unable to keep their doctors when they were promised they could. Many
could not keep their hospitals when they were promised they could.
Many could not keep their old insurance plans when they were promised
they could. If someone in the private sector made those promises that
were lies, they would be charged and convicted of fraud and spend many
years in prison. And the promise that premiums will come down was
also a lie.

It is true that there are some who appear to benefit from ObamaCare.
Those are the people who got kicked into Medicaid as it was expanded
to cover more people and people who get subsidies.
Many doctors don't take Medicaid however and they will find it harder
and harder to find a doctor to give them health care. Once again,
health insurance is not health care especially when doctors won't
accept it. Of course the government can force doctors to provide free
health care to everyone and tell doctors how much they can make since
health care is a "right". There are unintended consequences for
having government in charge of health care. The government is in
charge of Veteran health care. How is that working out? Veteran must
wait for long periods of time to get this health care and many die
waiting for it.





Ryan
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

2006 American Idol Bragging Rights Champion

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-23 18:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
Post by Zob
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:00:17 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
Post by Nancy Dooley
Zob, I hate to say it, but getting even accomplishes nothing. Weren't you ever told
that two wrongs don't make a right? Cooperation should be given a chance.
N.
How do you cooperate with someone who has promised to tear down
everything that you value? And I'm not just talking about Trump, I'm
mainly talking about Congress. I will not ever stop fighting against
people who have vowed to end health care for 20 million Americans, who
have vowed to turn my Medicare into bidding from private insurance
companies, who have vowed to cut back Social Security rather than pay
back the money that they stole from the SS fund to pay for George
Bush's nation-building wars, who have vowed to make it harder for
people to vote in fair elections, who have vowed to eliminate vital
services to poor people like food stamps, Medicaid and welfare, who
have vowed to remove all EPA regulations giving the big oil
corporations free reign to drill and cause earthquakes and build leaky
pipelines wherever they want, who have vowed to roll back air quality
and other climate change regulations, who have vowed to eliminate all
Wall Street regulations and allow the giant financial corporations to
once more fleece the public to the point of national bankruptcy while
enriching the multbillionaires further. Who have vowed to use public
funds to give vouchers to already wealthy people to send their
children to private schools. And so much more.
No thanks. I'd be a hypocrite if I cooperated with any of that. :-/
You *are* a fucking hypocrite. When Zob was gainfully employed in
January 2008, he hated the Democrats who took his hard earned money
and gave it through taxation to those who did not deserve it. But I
Post by Zob
Post by Nancy Dooley
To be fair, one party is as bad as the other. The Democrats want to
give my money to other people, the Republicans want to give it to
corporations and families with kids who will vote for them. Democrats
take my money out in the open with up front taxes, Republicans take it
behind my back with hidden fees and a tax penalty for being single.
I'm speaking of on the State and Local level as well as Federal, of
course. One party is just as bad as the other when wanting to get at
my hard-earned paycheck and give it to someone else.
That's why I'm voting libertarian this year, futile as it may be.
There are far too many special interests on both sides for a true
constitutionalist to ever be elected.
---
Zob
Zob got his ass fired from his job weeks after he made that post. Zob
is not a libertarian any more. He no longer gives a shit about the
constitution. He is all about redistributing wealth from those who
work to those who don't including leeches like himself.
Zob makes you think he is looking out for the little guy. In truth Zob
is looking out for himself.
And as far as Zob's lie about Republicans wanting to steal health care
from 20 million people, "ObamaCare" is not health care. It is health
insurance that is really a redistribution of income. Insurance is not
health care. And when hard working middle class have to pay exorbitant
costs with very high deductibles that keep rising in an uncontrolled
way because the plan was voted on without anyone reading it and
understanding that it could not possibly work. It was designed to make
the young people subsidize the old and sick. But young people don't
need full coverage. They don't have the choice with ObamaCare, to buy
catastrophic coverage which is what is appropriate for them.
Those with Obama Care are realizing that it was all a lie. Many were
unable to keep their doctors when they were promised they could. Many
could not keep their hospitals when they were promised they could.
Many could not keep their old insurance plans when they were promised
they could. If someone in the private sector made those promises that
were lies, they would be charged and convicted of fraud and spend many
years in prison. And the promise that premiums will come down was
also a lie.
It is true that there are some who appear to benefit from ObamaCare.
Those are the people who got kicked into Medicaid as it was expanded
to cover more people and people who get subsidies.
Many doctors don't take Medicaid however and they will find it harder
and harder to find a doctor to give them health care. Once again,
health insurance is not health care especially when doctors won't
accept it. Of course the government can force doctors to provide free
health care to everyone and tell doctors how much they can make since
health care is a "right". There are unintended consequences for
having government in charge of health care. The government is in
charge of Veteran health care. How is that working out? Veteran must
wait for long periods of time to get this health care and many die
waiting for it.
Ryan
The difference between you and Zob are clear. Zob changed his viewpoint, per your post. You are such a sad sack you'd never change. The bile you have is bile you live with.

You talk about wealth distribution like a clown. You are really an ignorant person, the type Trump likes...the stupid ones.

Explain to us, the unlightened ones in your universe, why you are against healthcare for Americans. i'll also assume you are a vet and getting shitty treatment at the VA...because you are such an expert in the matter.

I see you as a fraud. An ugly person. The worst of the worst. A lowlife that can't raise yourself out of the slime.
Lesmond
2017-01-26 15:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
Those with Obama Care are realizing that it was all a lie. Many were
unable to keep their doctors when they were promised they could. Many
could not keep their hospitals when they were promised they could.
Many could not keep their old insurance plans when they were promised
they could. If someone in the private sector made those promises that
were lies, they would be charged and convicted of fraud and spend many
years in prison. And the promise that premiums will come down was
also a lie.
And many have insurance that they never had before. But it doesn't help
stupid.

My cleaning lady was here yesterday - no, I'm not rich, she's a friend who
needs the money and I'm lazy. She voted for Trump. But she's not worried
about Obamacare going away. Why? Because she signed up for ACA.

I'll just leave that there.
--
She may contain the urge to run away
But hold her down with soggy clothes and breeze blocks
Susan
2017-01-27 19:30:02 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Lesmond
My cleaning lady was here yesterday - no, I'm not rich, she's a friend who
needs the money and I'm lazy. She voted for Trump. But she's not worried
about Obamacare going away. Why? Because she signed up for ACA.
I'll just leave that there.
Same with the WV miners worried about their black lung benefits.

Susan
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-22 12:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larc
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 08:32:24 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
Both sides of the aisle need to make an effort to work together.
N.
Oh, yes. The Democrats should now show President Trump the exact same
measure of courtesy, respect and cooperation that the Republicans have
shown President Obama for the past eight years. They set the example
of how the opposing party should behave.
Like yelling to Trump "You Lie!" at the state of the union. Or be like Mitch “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Work together like the Republicans did with Obama.
Zob
2017-01-23 07:37:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 04:21:45 -0800 (PST), Patrick Finucane
Post by Larc
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 08:32:24 -0800 (PST), Nancy Dooley
Both sides of the aisle need to make an effort to work together.
N.
Oh, yes. The Democrats should now show President Trump the exact same
measure of courtesy, respect and cooperation that the Republicans have
shown President Obama for the past eight years. They set the example
of how the opposing party should behave.
Like yelling to Trump "You Lie!" at the state of the union. Or be like Mitch “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Work together like the Republicans did with Obama.
Yeah, I was obviously being facetious, lol.

Speaking of one-term Presidents, the 2020 election just got a whole
lot more interesting:
http://addictinginfo.org/2017/01/22/caroline-kennedy-is-eyeing-a-white-house-bid/
Nancy Dooley
2017-01-23 13:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Caroline has three things going for her: she is younger than Clinton, she has no damning emails
or other skeletons in her closet (that I can imagine anyway), and she is a Kennedy. I think
the time is over-ripe...go for it, Caroline! (OTOH, why would she want to take on such a
pig sty that is current D.C.)

N.
Patrick Finucane
2017-01-22 22:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick Finucane
Right now Trump is in a Twitter war with congressman John Lewis because the congressman does not plan to attend his inauguration. Seems no celebrities are planning to attend either. Trump got hasbeens like John Voight and Toby Keith to entertain the crowds. Last I heard the Mormon Tabernacle choir and the NY Rockettes were being forced to entertain or lose their jobs. Such nonsense will plague Trump over the years as people learn to despise him and his corruption. Funny how not a single A-list performer will play for him. As far as I know, the major players at the Trump event will be protestors.
Loading...