"Make America Great Again"the F'dup Chapters in American History (The Trump Years)

[Matt]

On Monday, Trumps first official day in office

a conflict of interest lawsuit will be filed

By whom? I am curious as to who will have standing to bring such a suit. I don't think your average citizen can bring it. I think it'll have to come from a Congressionally appointed special prosecutor and I just don't see that happening.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Anyone thinking Trump will be impeached is dreaming. Republicans don't have some Machiavellian scheme. They couldn't even beat Trump with 15 candidates.

He's going to get his 4 years. You don't like what he's doing, don't sit around at midterms and let the same people who thought this was a good idea vote uncontested for more of it.

Donate to the causes that he wants to defund. Don't let his team go around with alternative facts that get us involved in disasters like Iraq.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

With all due respect to an Australian, you may not be the best authority on this. Two presidents have been impeached in US history. Clinton should not have been removed from office, so he wasn't. The system worked. The only two who should have been removed from office are Nixon and Johnson. Nixon left office before he could be impeached and subsequently removed, but he most definitely would have been if he did not. And Andrew Johnson, who was impeached, dodged removal by one vote.

My point is, in American history there are only two examples of presidents who ought to have been removed (and Johnson is even iffy, while a terrible president, he probably didn't violate the law, based on subsequent SCOTUS rulings). Of the two, one happened in the Civil War era, in which there was no mass media or public scrutiny as there is today. Further, he dodged removal by one SENATE vot. This was in the 1860s. That matters because the Senate were appointed until 1910. Therefore there was little public accountability. So yes, one of the two who should've been impeached dodged it. But he only did so by one vote in a non-elected body with no public scrutiny. His impeachment vote was won 126-47, so the House of Congress that had public accountability voted for impeachment by a huge margin.

The other of the two resigned because he knew in the age of national news and elected senators, there was no chance in hell he wouldn't be removed.

The only other impeachment was not removed from office because he ought not have been.

My point is, there is no precedent that we don't impeach. It simply doesn't happen often because there have only been two occasions where it would've been warranted, based on the law (remember, you can only be removed for a violation of the law). The one time in the modern era that this happened, the president left office. So I'd say that the process generally works and if Trump does not abide by the laws of the office, Congress will act.

Harding probably would have been impeached as well but he died first.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

You keep on criticizing Sanders, but you do think makes alternative?

You have guys like Corey Booker and he is just another empty suit, who takes a ton of money from the pharmaceutical industry and cares more about them then the people, that is why he didn't vote for a bill that would allow Americans to import cheaper Canadian pharmaceuticals.

You don't need someone as left wing as Sanders, but you need someone more substantive then Booker or Clinton.

Sanders is too old, but this third way Clinton machine has outlived its usefulness.

There is 4 years before the next presidential election. Just how almost nobody saw Trump taking the lead with the GOP, I'm willing to bet there will be someone nobody is thinking of right now that is quietly taking notes and will become apparent closer to the election. God help the Dems if they don't learn from the mistakes Hillary made forcing a candidate on us because "it's their turn".

He's not banned, it's just the user title he chose for himself.

Manifest destiny?

Not really, which is why I think some are being overly alarmist. John Roberts is not about to allow his Court to become partisan. He showed that with Obamacare. Remember, in the ACA case, the government did not even argue that it was a tax. Roberts made that argument for them in his opinion. Why? Legacy. He does not want the Roberts Court to be remembered as the one that politicized the Supreme Court. So he jumped through all kinds of logical hoops and made arguments the government did not even set forth (which is not common practice for a judge) to uphold the opposition President's key piece of legislation. Roberts is very very legacy driven. He is not going to rubber stamp acts by this administration that are in violation of the Constitution. Nor will Kenndedy. Even if a liberal member of the Court passes away in the next four years. Roberts will vote with the libera sect if it means preserving cases like Roe, as will Kennedy. Roberts is not a partisan hack. He is a fair and decent jurist and will not be Trump's puppet. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he were harsher on Trump policies than he was Obama. It will give his court legitimacy, showing that it broke partisan lines in a very partisan era. That type of legacy will actually appeal to Roberts quite a bit, I think.

Further, for all of his gum flapping, Donald Trump will not control the legislative agenda. Paul Ryan will. And Paul Ryan knows that Trump already has a negative approval rating and won without a mandate. He also knows he is in a fickle position because he is up for reelection every 2 years. The House cannot afford to rubber stamp Trump, no matter how gerrymandered it is. And the Senate especially cannot. Congress is giving Trump PR victories to avoid turning Trump's uneducated masses on Republican leadership, but they are not so naive to think that they can exist without moderate and independent voters. That will limit Congress.

Plus, even pragmatically, Congress recognizes that a certain degree of regulation and bureaucracy is needed to maintain the Republic. They will not allow Trump to dismantle the foundation of their own power.

For those reasons, the idea that Trump gets a rubber stamp is a bit melodramatic, in my eyes.

I know you know more about politics than just about anyone on here Matt and I pray this is the way things pan out.

I'm wondering if they will keep their majority. The anti GOP sentiment right now is pretty high.

Always is when the ruling party loses. Where was all this anger in getting out the vote to stop it? Hindsight is 20/20 of course but you can look at American history and see when any party has the presidency for both terms they almost always lose it. Complacency sets in. It's just human nature and one of the ways our system was designed to hopefully keep a semblance of balance for a nation as large as ours.

By whom? I am curious as to who will have standing to bring such a suit. I don't think your average citizen can bring it. I think it'll have to come from a Congressionally appointed special prosecutor and I just don't see that happening.

I read an article that Trump deleted a tweet on the official @POTUS Twitter account which may in fact be illegal since that is considered an official record. It seems the constitutional lawyers of this great nation are in for a fun 4-years.

 

[summerteeth]

So in 2007, what percentage of Americans with pre existing conditions had coverage?

Except wishy washy, third way, don't rock the boat, do nothing substantial method did nothing to help Hilliary Clinton win did it?

I also find a lot of industries treat a college or university degree like they used treat a high school degree, it is the price of admission. Look at all the unemployed people who only have high school degrees who voted for Trump, these guys would not be unhappy if they were managing to get good jobs with just a high school degree.

Trump tried to protray the bi partisan support for free trade policy

Also how is Booker blocking the importing of cheaper drugs from Canada, helping any average Americans.

The US political spectrum is really out of whack, if the Republicans turn into itself into the National Front and that is okay, but the Democrats moving an inch from the center is considered unacceptable.

Again the Dems do not someone as left wing Sanders, but why would another third way Democrat succeed if Hillary Clinton was dragged through the mud by the GOP and Trump beat her by running to left on her on trade?

Shouldn't the Dems have someone who substantive against GOP to provide an good ideological contrast to the GOP rather then another wishy washy third way Democrat?

I'm curious, What do you think the percentage was of those with pre-existing conditions without healthcare before the ACA exchanges were set up?

Hillary Clinton adopted the tuition free platform and was for a public option and she lost.

I don't agree with that statement about the Republican Party as a whole. Many leaders in the party have spoken out against Trump's extreme rhetoric and policies.

I do think it is good to have ideological contrasts. I don't think it is necessarily to have such a wide gulf between them though. I just look at the past decade and the more progressive the Democratic Party has become the more they have hemorrhaged representation. It's about having a platform that has broad appeal and could have broad support.

Edit: 13.8% of people with preexisting conditions were without coverage in 2010 in 2014 once the exchanges were up and running it fell to 10.7%. A lot of people who have pre-existing conditions receive coverage through their employer's plan.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

All good points Matt. I really think people need to keep in mind that the House is up for election in two years and they don't want to do something too extreme. 2018 is going to be a major showdown and how Republicans act now is going to decide their fate then.

Trump has more support nationwide than Ryan ever did.

He'll be under immense pressure to rubber stamp everything Trump wants.

The only thing Trump is getting obstructed on is things that require higher spending like his glorious wall.

 

[summerteeth]

Isn't that the problem the ACA was addressing? More and more people were losing healthcare.

To say, "healthcare is good. Too bad you can't get any or lost it" Is the kind of divisions that are driving a wedge in the country.



The first time I remember the idea of free college/reduced tuition wasn't for millenials. I was to help older Americans who were going to lose their jobs get retrained for "21st Century jobs." This was in the late 90s/early 2000s. So because many of these people voted down the attempt, they now are losing their jobs/healthcare cause they didn't want to pay for something.


You call them Coastal Democrats but anytime they seem to try and do something that helps the middle American Reps/Dems, they're met with a barrier of enjoying complaining about being forgotten.

Yes, The ACA was trying to address that issue and while it is noble to do so in the end the mechanisms in which they attempted to achieve those goals caused problems in the marketplace. My point was that if people who have private insurance like it, why blow up the system? Why get rid of it (Sanders' plan) or upend it (ACA)? Why not just target those who cannot get coverage and subsidize them. Instead they disrupted the whole marketplace and healthy, young people just entering the workforce were expected to subsidize those with pre-existing conditions and were faced with higher premiums.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Honestly, I think January 1, 2019 is going to begin the showdown between Trump and the GOP. Republican leadership is quietly acquiescing and giving Trump enough rope to hang himself. But they do not want their party's long term future ties to this man. Hell, they basically ran a campaign against him this past election.

Come 2019, after his supporters have sealed up a Republican House majority, I wouldn't be surprised for the smoking gun to "suddenly" come out. Maybe it'll have something to do with his business interests. Maybe it will be Russia related. Maybe none of the above. But the Republican leadership will prosecute it as Trump's own personal Watergate. Republicans will oust Trump.

They will then claim moral superiority and say how they are willing to take on their own Party's President if he is harming America. And that sort of cynical, manipulative "non-partisan" leadership will form the basis for Ryan's 2020 bid.

Mark my words, the only way this doesn't happen is if the Democrats and media find something so damning that they take Trump and the whole GOP down first.

Didn't this Supreme Court uphold corporate personhood.

With a couple Trump appointments it's not hard to imagine an even more business friendly SC.

It's not extreme to say that the majority who voted for Hillary have little power within the three branches of government.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Yes, The ACA was trying to address that issue and while it is noble to do so in the end the mechanisms in which they attempted to achieve those goals caused problems in the marketplace. My point was that if people who have private insurance like it, why blow up the system? Why get rid of it (Sanders' plan) or upend it (ACA)? Why not just target those who cannot get coverage and subsidize them. Instead they disrupted the whole marketplace and healthy, young people just entering the workforce were expected to subsidize those with pre-existing conditions and were faced with higher premiums.

Wasn't that what the public option was for? But the Dems/insurance industry/Republicans stopped it.

 

[summerteeth]

Wasn't that the public option was for? But the Dems/insurance industry/Republicans stopped it.

Well no because anybody could opt into the public option not just those with pre-existing conditions.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Well no because anybody could opt into the public option not just those with pre-existing conditions.

Which is why insurance companies hate the idea.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Well no because anybody could opt into the public option not just those with pre-existing conditions.

But the public option was to address the problem. The insurance industry( outside of your situation personally) wasn't working for most Americans.

That's why it was a threat to the insurance industry. More Americans were without insurance than those with it because of the industry practices. No one can go 80 years on Earth without yourself (or your family member) getting seriously ill. Having insurance is a responsible thing to do. You can get around without a car and avoid penalties for not having car insurance.

 

[The Overlord]

I'm curious, What do you think the percentage was of those with pre-existing conditions without healthcare before the ACA exchanges were set up?

You are answering my question with a question. You can answer my question first please.

Hillary Clinton adopted the tuition free platform and was for a public option and she lost.

How often did Trump criticize her for that? Because it seemed like he criticized her mostly for her stance on free trade and being "owned" by Goldman Sachs.

Again Trump won by running to left of Hillary on trade, if any progressive stand is out of bounds in US discourse, how did Trump win with that platform?

I don't agree with that statement about the Republican Party as a whole. Many leaders in the party have spoken out against Trump's extreme rhetoric and policies.

And how many Republicans oppose him now? How did Trump win the primary if the GOP did not have extreme elements within it? He hosted Marie La Penn at Trump Towers and has Steve Bannon as one of his advisers, the only way a Clinton administration would be as left wing as Trump's is right wing, is if she made Noam Chomsky an advisory.

Trump and his minions wield the real power in the GOP at the moment, you can't just ignore that because its inconvenient.

Its naive to think the GOP is just some center right party that want to cut taxes and make reasonable government cuts, its a far right anti immigration party, similar to the extreme parties we see in Europe. That is how far right the GOP is allowed to go, but the Dems take a step away from the center and they are unacceptable.

I do think it is good to have ideological contrasts. I don't think it is necessarily to have such a wide gulf between them though. I just look at the past decade and the more progressive the Democratic Party has become the more they have hemorrhaged representation. It's about having a platform that has broad appeal and could have broad support.

So the Dems should just go with another empty suit like Corey Booker and Trump can run the same campaign against him (criticizing him for being owned by corporations and pro free trade)?

No offense, but you seem to label any non Republican solution to problems is an elitist position.

How is a billionaire who makes his products in China, never pays taxes, thinks he knows better then anyone else, not an elitist?

This whole thing of Republicans naming anyone they don't like as elitist comes as just a political smear, that is elitism is okay as long as its Republican elitism and it smacks of anti intellectualism rather then real concern for the common man.

Why did Trump criticize Clinton for being an eleist for being too close to Goldman Sachs and most Republicans agreed with him and then he hired a bunch of people from Goldman Sachs to work in his administration? Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

[TheCommissioner]

Pre-existing conditions is how insurance companies get and stay rich

Only insuring "healthy" people that only do their yearly physical and maybe have a scrip or two means they don't have to spend any money and can bank all that $$$

get someone with a pre-existing condition, or millions of someones, who need regular doctor visits, specialized scrips, medical procedures and they are losing money

 

[summerteeth]

But the public option was to address the problem. The insurance industry( outside of your situation personally) wasn't working for most Americans.

That's why it was a threat to the insurance industry. More Americans were without insurance than those with it because of the industry practices. No one can go 80 years on Earth without yourself (or your family member) getting seriously ill. Having insurance is a responsible thing to do. You can get around without a car and avoid penalties for not having car insurance.

But it was working for most Americans that's why it had such high percentages of approval. The issue was that there was still a large percentage that it wasn't working for and how to address that.

You are answering my question with my question. You can answer my question first please.


How often did Trump criticize her for that? Because it seemed like he criticized her mostly for her stance on free trade and being "owned" by Goldman Sachs.

Again Trump won by running to left of Hillary on trade, if any progressive stand is out of bounds in US discourse, how did Trump win with that platform?

And how many Republicans oppose him now? How did Trump win the primary if the GOP did not have extreme elements within it? He hosted Marie La Penn at Trump Towers and has Steve Bannon as one of his advisers, the only way a Clinton administration would be as left wing as Trump's is right wing, is if she made Noam Chomsky an advisory.

Trump and his minions wield the real power in the GOP at the moment, you can't just ignore that because its inconvenient.

Its naive to think the GOP is just some center right party that want to cut taxes and make reasonable government cuts, its a far right anti immigration party, similar to the extreme parties we see in Europe. That is how far right the GOP is allowed to go, but the Dems take a step away from the center and they are unacceptable.



So the Dems should just go with another empty suit like Corey Booker and Trump can run the same campaign against him (criticizing him for being owned by corporations and pro free trade)?

No offense, but you seem to label any non Republican solution to problems is an elitist position.

How is a billionaire who makes his products in China, never pays taxes, thinks he knows better then anyone else, not an elitist?

This whole thing of Republicans naming anyone they don't like as elitist comes as just a political smear, that is elitism is okay as long as its Republican elitism and it smacks of anti intellectualism rather then real concern for the common man.

A. I was just curious what you thought it was is all. It was 13.8% of preexisting conditions didn't have insurance.

B. Paul Ryan and McConnell have come out against some of his proposals. They aren't going to rubber stamp everything for him. They will work with him sure, but they will oppose a deportation force and his stance on free trade. There are elements that are anti-immigration, but the most just want secure borders and have more control over immigration.

C. I mean generally all politicians are elites in that sense. I agree, I want the best and most talented making decisions. I mean, I voted for Romney in '12. I just think about my grandfather who immigrated from Mexico when he was in his 30's and didn't have a high school education and didn't speak English. How does free college help someone like that? How does it help a person who struggled in high school and isn't college bound? Obama's Community College proposal makes more sense. I really do feel that the free tuition is an elitist position for the most part. I don't feel that way about the healthcare proposals, I just don't agree with them.

 

[wobbly]

"Alternative facts".

Hitler has you beat by more than 70 years, Mr President.

 

[The Overlord]

A. I was just curious what you thought it was is all. It was 13.8% of preexisting conditions didn't have insurance.

Alright sorry, I thought you were deflecting. That is still a lot of people though.

B. Paul Ryan and McConnell have come out against some of his proposals. They aren't going to rubber stamp everything for him. They will work with him sure, but they will oppose a deportation force and his stance on free trade. There are elements that are anti-immigration, but the most just want secure borders and have more control over immigration.

I think its naive to think Ryan and McConnell won't give into a lot of what Trump wants, I think they are afraid of Trump's base and frankly I don't think they are very principled. You can't drain the swamp with a Swamp Thing like McConnel around.

Also are any Republicans complaining about the Sean Spicer/Kellyanne Conway war on facts? If Republicans think Trump and his minions making stuff up and getting into petty feuds is okay, then how much do they really oppose him? Are the GOP just going to let Trump ignore facts he doesn't like, then they are setting up the country for a bad time, you don't want a leader who thinks he is perfect and everything that contradicts him is wrong, that goes beyond ideology into the realm of common sense.

C. I mean generally all politicians are elites in that sense. I agree, I want the best and most talented making decisions. I mean, I voted for Romney in '12. I just think about my grandfather who immigrated from Mexico when he was in his 40's and didn't have a high school education and didn't speak English. How does free college help someone like that? How does it help a person who struggled in high school and isn't college bound? Obama's Community College proposal makes more sense. I really do feel that the free tuition is an elitist position for the most part. I don't feel that way about the healthcare proposals, I just don't agree with them.

I said the Dems do not have to be as left wing as Sanders, but they do have to be more substantive then Hillary was, there is a big middle ground there.

Maybe instead of getting rid of tuition, maybe explore ways to lower it. Tuition is really high in the US, why does say Canada have a lower tuition rate?

Just saying everyone can become a plumber is not a real solution and assuming students who seek higher education are all millionaires is false, some industries do require a higher learning degree just to get an interview. I think you can't just ignore student debt as a problem or assume students who think tuition is too high is You have to realize that different industries have different requirements and I don't think a high school diploma gets you as much as it did in the past, otherwise we wouldn't see a bunch of angry unemployed people with just a high school diploma who voted for Trump.

My problem is the Republicans use working class terminology to hide an elitist agenda.

For example they enact upper class tax cuts without factoring in how they will be paid for and those add to the debt, which means everyone has to pay for them or complain about poor people on welfare, but have no problem with corporate welfare.

 

[summerteeth]

Alright sorry, I thought you were deflecting. That is still a lot of people though.

Thing is, it is still a lot of people. it's now 10.8% last I checked.

I think its naive to think Ryan and McConnell won't give into a lot of what Trump wants, I think they are afraid of Trump's base and frankly I don't think they are very principled. You can't drain the swamp with a Swamp Thing like McConnel around.

Also are any Republicans complaining about the Sean Spicer/Kellyanne Conway war on facts? If Republicans think Trump and his minions making stuff up and getting into petty feuds is okay, then how much do they really oppose him? Are the GOP just going to let Trump ignore facts he doesn't like, then they are setting up the country for a bad time, you don't want a leader who thinks he is perfect and everything that contradicts him is wrong, that goes beyond ideology into the realm of common sense.

I think they are both more policy focused. They will let the Dems and the media police the other stuff and pick their battles on policy.

I said the Dems do not have to be as left wing as Sanders, but they do have to be more substantive then Hillary was, there is a big middle ground there.

Maybe instead of getting rid of tuition, maybe explore ways to lower it. Tuition is really high in the US, why does say Canada have a lower tuition rate?

Just saying everyone can become a plumber is not a real solution and assuming students who seek higher education are all millionaires is false, some industries do require a higher learning degree just to get an interview. I think you can't just ignore student debt as a problem or assume students who think tuition is too high is You have to realize that different industries have different requirements and I don't think a high school diploma gets you as much as it did in the past, otherwise we wouldn't see a bunch of angry unemployed people with just a high school diploma who voted for Trump.

Well, I would argue that wouldn't be a progressive platform. I mean that's what Rubio and Jeb ran on to find ways to lower tuition costs. I do realize that a college degree is a requirement for most careers and a high school diploma by itself is better than nothing but not going to take you very far. Certificated programs at technical schools and community colleges can get you a decent salary though and they are a good option for those who aren't four year college bound because quite frankly not everyone is cut out for that. I would also argue that these are probably better options than being I dunno a creative writing major or something.

My problem is the Republicans use working class terminology to hide an elitist agenda.

For example they enact upper class tax cuts without factoring in how they will be paid for and those add to the debt, which means everyone has to pay for them or complain about poor people on welfare, but have no problem with corporate welfare.

I mean every tax cut to my knowledge has included a tax cut to the middle class and lately the progressives have been passing laws and proposing laws that would increase taxes on the middle class or passing costs onto the middle class to pay. See ACA, minimum wage increases, etc. On minimum wage, San Diego recently saw increases and as a result many restaurants are adding a 3% surcharge on the bill to cover the added labor costs.

 

[Thundercrack85]

People always act like taxes are just money being thrown away. Raising taxes on the middle (and upper) class usually benefits said class.

 

[The Overlord]

Thing is, it is still a lot of people. it's now 10.8% last I checked.

No one was saying ACA was perfect, but was the system doing to address uninsured people in 2007?

And are all the parts of the ACA unpopular now? Are you sure there not some popular parts to it?

Heck, even Trump is hedging his bets and saying everyone will get insurance. Why would say that, if the Health Care system was fine back in 2007?

Also its not like the US has the best health care system in the world:

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadia...zations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

http://gazettereview.com/2016/04/countries-with-the-best-health-care/

I think they are both more policy focused. They will let the Dems and the media police the other stuff and pick their battles on policy.

And if Republicans thinks Trump ignoring facts is okay, then their policy positions mean squat. If the GOP has no problem with Trump lying about crowd sizes to feed his ego, what if he comes up with an economic plan that is not working, but he decides is working, because he is always right and everything else is fake news. Your policy wonk guys won't able to do anything about that, if they allow Trump's ego to trump the truth, over the little things.

The fact is the GOP choose him to be their party's nominee and so I think he is a reflection of the GOP's base and their desires and he is the face of the party for the next 4 fours. You can't just ignore this monster your party helped create. No offense but it seems like you are trying to down play the role your party had in creating the Trump effect.

Well, I would argue that wouldn't be a progressive platform. I mean that's what Rubio and Jeb ran on to find ways to lower tuition costs. I do realize that a college degree is a requirement for most careers and a high school diploma by itself is better than nothing but not going to take you very far. Certificated programs at technical schools and community colleges can get you a decent salary though and they are a good option for those who aren't four year college bound because quite frankly not everyone is cut out for that. I would also argue that these are probably better options than being I dunno a creative writing major or something.

Progressive doesn't have to be inflexible, there can be middle ground two positions, as long as you have two willing parties discussing.

I see no problem asking for the moon as a starting point and then willing to settle for something less at the end, that is negotiating 101.

You know the big problem I have with the GOP now is they oppose things for purely partisan reasons. They say no to an infrastructure project under Obama, but say yes to one under Trump. The freedom caucus demands Obama account for every cent for every program and then they say its okay if Trump only accounts for 50% of the costs for his proposals. Ted Cruz acts like a total obstructionist under Obama and then "fears" the Democrats will become obstructionists.

I mean every tax cut to my knowledge has included a tax cut to the middle class and lately the progressives have been passing laws and proposing laws that would increase taxes on the middle class or passing costs onto the middle class to pay. See ACA, minimum wage increases, etc. On minimum wage, San Diego recently saw increases and as a result many restaurants are adding a 3% surcharge on the bill to cover the added labor costs.

Are you sure about that? What about what is going in Kansas:

http://hppr.org/post/brownback-prop...-cigarette-taxes-cover-state-budget-shortfall

Kansas had a surplus, the governor cut taxes for the upper class and now they have a shortfall and now the governor is finding ways to raise taxes on others to cover the short fall. He cut taxes for the rich and now everyone has to pay for them. How is that not elitist?

You also ignored my point about the Republicans complaining poor people on welfare, but having no problem with corporate welfare.

And that's not getting into elitist Republicans who think religion or values make them better then other people.

The Republicans have no basis to call anyone else an elitist.

 

[hellified]

 

[Hotwire]

Question for you Trump complainers - if he does a really good job in the next four years, are you going to jump on the bandwagon ??

It depends on what we would define as "a good job".

 

[Sithborg]

So, Flynn is under investigation by Counter Intelligence, due to contact with Russia.

Because of course.

 

[Schlosser85]

Well.....shocking. ::sarcasm::

 

[Thundercrack85]

Okay, at what point does this become serious? Is this whole cabinet just full of people on the Kremlin's payroll?