Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[kiidcarter8]

I like how Trump claims he's bringing US troops home, when the 1000 US soldiers in Syria were shifted to Iraq.


Yeah, I like it too

[kiidcarter8]

I'd say that clause is on solid footing.  Clearly stated, with a very clear reason for being.


You should trust the courts then, if you are so sure.

[facilitatorn]

I like how Trump claims he's bringing US troops home, when the 1000 US soldiers in Syria were shifted to Iraq.


Yeah, I like it too

What would we have done without this dipshit’s opinion?

[kiidcarter8]

Latest from Daniel and Tara

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/politics/fact-check-trump-cabinet-meeting-20-false/index.html

[josh]

Also kind of amazing that he can claim that he would have been giving everything away at Doral for "free" but in the next breath say its all in a trust and he isn't in charge of it.

Not amazing at all.

He has no shame and no consciousness.

[josh]

I like how Trump claims he's bringing US troops home, when the 1000 US soldiers in Syria were shifted to Iraq.


Yeah, I like it too

You would.

[josh]

I'd say that clause is on solid footing.  Clearly stated, with a very clear reason for being.


You should trust the courts then, if you are so sure.

I trust most of the lower courts.

I don't trust this SCOTUS to be non-political, but it is possible that even that will support the constitution and the country against this "president."

[kiidcarter8]

Re:  Doral

Other side would never agree to what "at cost" means.

Sad.

Now Mulvaney says it will cost more and the other side will find a way to complain about the new destination anyway.

Do you agree?

[kiidcarter8]

I don't trust this SCOTUS to be non-political, but it is possible that even that will support the constitution and the country against this "president."


heh

[kiidcarter8]

I like how Trump claims he's bringing US troops home, when the 1000 US soldiers in Syria were shifted to Iraq.


Yeah, I like it too

You would.

I thought you were concerned about an ISIS resurgence

[josh]

https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1186417580652814337?s=19&fbclid=IwAR3oBc_s8Idub8xpeYpEsV7H6w2NVq7RGcS-LwlyhrCAXN3BCIl_idpZ9XY

It will be said of House Republicans,

When they found they lacked the courage to confront the most dangerous and unethical president in American history,

They consoled themselves by attacking those who did.

[josh]

I like how Trump claims he's bringing US troops home, when the 1000 US soldiers in Syria were shifted to Iraq.


Yeah, I like it too

You would.

I thought you were concerned about an ISIS resurgence

The resurgence isn't where the troops have been sent.

And...
I prefer that (a) the person in the office of the president be honest with the public or (b) if he can't be honest for sake of our troops, then I would prefer he not say anything.

And...
I would have preferred that he not move them out of where they were to begin with.

So, take your fake question and stuff it.

[josh]

Re:  Doral

Other side would never agree to what "at cost" means.

Sad.

Now Mulvaney says it will cost more and the other side will find a way to complain about the new destination anyway.

Do you agree?

No.
1) The "other side" never had a voice in what "at cost" would be because that was never on the table until after Trump reversed his initial self-serving decision.

2) Of course Mulvaney says that. What else could he say? And why would anybody believe anything Mick "Oh, the deficit is too large!" Mulvaney says about anything important, Kid?

[kiidcarter8]

I would have preferred that he not move them out of where they were to begin with.


Sorry - you weren't elected

Let it play out - then you can say Trump got lucky

[NeedsAdjustments]

Re:  Doral

Other side would never agree to what "at cost" means.

Sad.

Now Mulvaney says it will cost more and the other side will find a way to complain about the new destination anyway.

Do you agree?

Trump didn’t cancel the Doral G7 because of the “other side.” He canceled it because his side was saying they wouldn’t defend it.  Because it cannot be defended.  A President, even a “president,” can not grant himself a huge government contract.  In this case one that also happened to present huge emolument violations.   There is bipartisan agreement on this. 

What does “at cost” mean when we are talking about a resort that is losing money, holding an event at the least popular time of the year?  “At cost” is a windfall.  And It is in no way “sad” it didn’t happen.  Why is it so important to you that it be held at a Trump property?

“Now Mulvaney says…”

Lol.