Some numbers on tonight.

Democrats currently have 9 million more votes and a 12.4% advantage in popular vote of Senators. That number should actually grow since California is not close to being done reporting.

Democrats will lose 3 seats.

That should explain the Senate to our foreign members.

That was due to the non-slave states not wanting the slave states to have too much power. The original 3/5 proportional representation of slaves was voted down. The south then proposed full representation, which the north voted down. The 3/5 proportional representation of slaves was then agreed upon.

Checking the Census of 1790, the largest state by free white population was Virginia, followed by Pennsylvania. New York was a distant third (by over 20%). Also, Virginia had the largest reserve of land due to the west and northwest land grants they had (which had not been resolved). Southern states expected to grow faster due to having access to more land. MA, RI, NJ, DE, and CT, were all locked out of any claims in the western territories due to their geography and original charters. This was resolved by placing the reserved and disputed areas into the Northwest Territory.

Other southern states gave up their westward land claims as well. NC, SC, and GA all gave up claims that extended west to the Mississippi River.

Just looking at the difference in the "official" (i.e. Sec of State) totals in GA vs the NYT numbers

State showed 299 precincts still to come in, Kemp +115k
NYT showed 98 precincts still to come in, Kemp +114k

The difference in those tends to be NYT will run with anything they get (stringers, poll workers, campaign workers) before it's submitted & processed by the state. (which is totally legit, it's typically coming from boots on the ground/in the room)

Neither good nor bad nor even partisan, just noting the differences in the two with results (which tends to grow as the night grows later & later )

This matters why? The Senate is all about the states having equal say. If the larger population states have their elections (and most of these large states tend to be Democrat strongholds), it is obviously going to skew that way. The smaller states, where the Democrats lost seats are in Republican strongholds.

On that I agree. Michigan passed a ballot proposal to have an independent commission of voters handle redistricting, which I was glad to have an opportunity to vote for, and I'm pleased it passed. I'd support a constitutional amendment requiring such a system.

Of course, I never argued that things were proportional; I pointed out that the House has not, in fact, been controlled by a minority party in the past Congress. That is simply a fact. Similarly, the rest of your post addressed itself almost completely to arguments I never made, so I'll let my original statements stand, except to say that the reason for the Senate's composition is what Warhammer said, not slavery as you falsely claim. Vis a vis the Missouri Compromise, absolutely. But not on having a Senate that represented the states instead of the people.

GA-6 fits into the vein of "every vote counts"

302,623 votes counted so far. (mailed absentees still to go apparently)

The gap between the candidates? 57 votes

The eventual winner can't exactly claim a mandate on that one lol

And, re: the occasional differences that arise between official counts & perhaps the leading edge of the other sources the NYT.

The Sec of State has more total votes in their total than the NYT
The Sec of State also lists 200 more precincts still outstanding than NYT.

The difference? It appears to me to be how mailed-in absentee votes are considered (and that the SOS site isn't updating that figure as they're added in), i.e. they're counting the votes but because they're kinda "precincts" but not exactly "precincts" the precinct count isn't ticking upward.

Scott Walker has been defeated! The funny thing is he signed a law after 2016 requiring the margin to be 1% or less for a recount. He should fall right outside that margin.

I'll go with "Dead Red Redemption" as the headline here

Ironically, the federal system of representation was deemed so fundamentally unfair that it's unconstitutional to enact on a state level. (i.e. giving counties equal voting power regardless of population).

And if the 0.9% vote tally for the (L) forces voters in Georgia to endure 3 more weeks of campaign ads for a runoff, I'd advise the eliminated candidate to keep a low profile. He'll be about as popular as a dose of the clap.

You're right it wasn't the last election. Although you don't have to go back far (2012) to find this take place. One party won the popular vote by 1.2% yet ended up with a 7.6% disadvantage in the House. This of course came right after redistricting.

My point has been that our federal government is rather undemocratic.


It's not my claim, it's that of James Madison.

If you haven't read the Federalist Papers, you should. They explicitly tell you why the Senate is necessary. The famous quote which discussed protecting the "minority of the opulent" sums it up well. They specifically mention landowners and their property.

The House was for the peasants. The Senate was a firewall to make sure that those peasants didn't do something that could hurt that upper class. Like abolish slavery.

Someone posted this earlier showing that he was leading with 69% of the vote.

So what happens when a dead person wins the election? Also, it must really suck to lose an election someone who is dead.

Doubtful any result could be more disappointing than 2016, and I'm very glad at least the House flipped because I will take a divided federal government all day, but these results so far seem to be exactly what polling has showed since the Kavanaugh hearings. Certain media outlets were either dumb or playing dumb/editorializing with their Dem support and the idea the Senate was a true toss up. The biggest problem for the Dems is that Trump is not nearly as unpopular, and borderline fence people they need to swing don't care nearly as much about the corruption as the echo chambers do.
Yes, and the last big change was a constitutional amendment in the 1910's(?) that took the power to appoint Senators away from "the states" (Governors/state legislatures) and gave it to "the people" (popular vote), due to a perception the appointment system favored political and societal elites.

Canada's senate system has some merits when adults are in power, but it would not work here with our current politicians, and even as a proud elitist I find the implication that letting people vote for their senators to be bullshit to be quite weird. Regardless of that I also think the imbalance between, say, British Colombia and the Atlantic provinces is egregious enough I don't understand how a Canadian could call our system bullshit and imply theirs doesn't have it's own massive faults. (That aren't quite as exacerbated because B.C. hasn't had enough time to grow it's population like a California.)
Strongly disagree here, especially with how elongated election races have become. I really don't mind having politicians who have some breathing room and aren't actively running for the next term 6 months after they gain office.
Idk why you keep saying this, because unlike other parts of the constitution like the 3/5 compromise or the compromise of 1808 it had nothing to slavery and overt racism. These days the majority of states with small population do trend Republican, but that wasn't the case in 1783, and certainly not when Vermont was admitted in 1791.
I still believe we are a great country that offers freedom of expression, the opportunity to create your own destiny (albeit now there are more limitations on the starting point than there should be), the easiest opportunity in the developed world to assimilate if you want to, and while I acknowledge there are several countries that are on the same level as us I wouldn't trade being and growing up a US citizen for any other one. We have our faults, but I think we're much more open and willing to talk about our faults than any other large economic country, and I'll happily reflexively punch back against weird potshots like that that don't offer any supporting context.

They have an interesting process (detailed in the article I think, or in one I saw somewhere).

The district covers three counties, so those county commissioners will meet & each will nominate a replacement. Then those three will be considered by a joint session of those counties & they will choose one of the three, with weight given to the counties based on the number of precincts in the district for each.

But you can be confident they'll try to anyway.

In GA-6, McBath has now gone ahead of Handel by less than 1,000 votes.

Close, but that's not quite the whole story.

The law he signed in 2016 required that the candidate requesting the recount has to be within 1% or less of the lead.

So if you have a 48.6-48.4-3 race, the dude with 3% can't request a recount (basically what Jill Stein did after Trump carried Wisconsin, although obviously the numbers were different).

It was kind of a roundabout way of trying to prevent third party candidates from agitating for a recount without phrasing the law in such a way as to run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause.

So basically, because local Republicans were annoyed at Jill Stein pulling a look-at-me publicity stunt that changed nothing (and which she had to pay for, since Trump's margin of victory exceeded 0.5%), they passed a law that could have the effect of preventing Scott Walker from seeking a recount.

It's kinda glorious, in a ready-fire-aim sort of way.

NC-9 (the weird gerrymandered one I live in) is still not officially being called, but seems the Republican Harris will hold on.

The good news in state is that Dems were able to break the GOP super majority in the state house and the two egregious ballot initiatives failed. (A very vague Voter ID law did pass, but if the GOP overreaches it'll probably be slapped down by the judiciary again now.)

Similar to Scott Walker being potentially hurt by a law he passed (though I feel none of the recounts with more than even a 100 vote margin has ever been overturned) it was nice to see the Dems (or at least one guy on his own) pull a dirty trick out of his sleeve. After the last judicial election where party affiliations weren't listed and the Dem candidate had better name recognition the Republicans rammed through a bill saying you should print the party on the ballot... and a no name Democratic lawyer flipped his registration to Republican the day before the filing deadline and helped split the Republican vote against the one Democrat who ran, so now Dems have a 5-2 majority on the state supreme court.

So does anyone take anything from the exit polling that was done yesterday?

I am still trying to process whether they have meaning or not.

On the federal government being undemocratic -- I think it would more accurately be stated that it isn't entirely democratic. It is certainly more democratic than undemocratic, but just not as much so as some(presumably yourself included would prefer).

On this statement above, I think it's proof that people can read whatever they want into what they read. I agree that the Federalist Papers make an explicit case for the Senate. I don't understand how anyone with a basic comprehension of the language can rationally think you have accurately assessed that case. Among other things, Madison argued that:

** The Senate preserved a force in favor of the sovereignty of the states
** Made the exact point I have in this thread about 'mob rule', though of course that's not the term he used and it's merely a shorthand way of conveying the concept.
** Clearly described it as a compromise body between the small and large states(not slave and free states). As has been noted, it's not as if all the small states were in the South. Delaware, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine were all small in terms of population.
** Made the exact argument that Scalia did in the video I linked; that the Senate is a check on excessive legislation, which Madison and other framers viewed as the chief flaw in contemporary governments.

I must simply conclude, with all due respect(seriously, with no sarcasm intended), that your conclusions come from a different version of the Federalist Papers, or else a perspective that exists in a much different reality than the facts of history compel me to exist in.

FWIW, I think we have multiple uses of the word "democratic".

The US is a representative democracy and not a direct democracy (e.g. proportional by population). Never meant to be.

Re: the Senate. Sure a purpose was to protect the interest of the "opulent" (landowners, slaveowners etc.) but its misleading to say that was the only/primary reason.

Re: preference for direct democracy - when in recent history has there been a successful/good direct democracy?


.

I'm so happy for Lucy. She's truly one of the good people out there and her positivity is contagious.

Would the GOP prefer to be living in this timeline?

Clinton is stuck at around 45% approval and can't move any meaningful legislation through a GOP controlled congress.

The economy is good, but there are warning signs of a recession on the horizon.

The elections yesterday added to both the House and Senate GOP majorities.

2020 looks very good for the GOP. There's already talk of a Senate supermajority to go along with a GOP presidency.

Nice

Trump is popular in states that will probably decide 2020 and R did better in OH, GA and FL than expected. I think that’s the big takeaway.

Thing is, unless Clinton won a squeaker - which wasn't projected as the most likely variety of Clinton victory - she'd have had sufficient coattails to carry a modest Senate majority with her (which she'd almost certainly have lost yesterday; the math on yesterday's Senate races looked bad for Democrats even in August '16).

So, yeah, the Senate probably flips to GOP control yesterday regardless, but Clinton would have been able to nominate Garland (or somebody more liberal) to SCOTUS, and maybe Kennedy retires in '18 no matter who was President.

I think the outcome of those two SCOTUS seats might color which universe conservatives would prefer to live in: the one where they got two SCOTUS seats and a breathtaking number of appellate judges in the first two years, or one where they'd be looking at the possibility of unified control in two years, but with Clinton having been able to undo all of McConnell's efforts to stymie the appointment of moderate-to-liberal judges.

R did better in Georgia than expected? I don't know about that. I agree with the other 2.

I would say also that D did better than expected in TX, in governor's races and in House races in solid R districts.

I don't know that there was one big takeaway. There were lots of little, confusing ones.

dems basically got 70% of their christmas list to santa, and 20% of that 30% santa didn’t bring them was shit like “a flying bike” and “a tv that does my homework”

— Kilgore Trout (@KT_So_It_Goes) November 7, 2018

And yet from the Dems I am hearing like last night was a bloodbath. This was pretty much within expectations and still pretty great for the out party in a booming economy.

After that debate, I'm shocked as many as that voted for Metz.

I was fairly happy. We got the most important thing - control of the House. Yes, the blue wave didn't totally pan out as one might have hoped, but we have a solid check on Trump and his policies now.

It looks like there are going to be recounts in both statewide Florida races. Recounts and Florida, name a more iconic duo.

Saw this from one of my Florida friends...

We had one that wasn't weird on its face but was super-convoluted. Whether to permit historical horse racing in Idaho. You bet on a horse race that already happened, and then a video of the race plays - so it's just a gambling.

But, without the revenue from historical horse racing, regular horse racing can't exist in Idaho, apparently. Or at least, the horsetrack closed down once the historical racing was banned a few years ago.

The main force behind the ban was the the Native American tribes. They have generally exclusive rights to host gambling venues in the state so they come after any non-reservation gambling hard. Our Democrat gubernatorial candidate, a Native American woman, had some relationship with a tribal PAC that was seemingly behind to political push against historical racing. A bunch of her staff quit one day and sent these vague letters to the local newspaper about her relationship with the PAC - it was speculated that her long-shot campaign may have been all about pushing money and attention to tribal issues including this horseracing thing. Her campaign, which was getting some national attention at the time, kind of sputtered after that and she lost handily.

So where you stood on all that could have impacted your vote on that proposition, or, others just saw the measure as something that could bring more money to the state, something that would promote an immoral activity, or, something that was cruel to animals. So, the ads were all over the place. It failed

I'd never heard of historical horse racing, so I had to look this up.

Kind of feels like real-world betting on sports sims!

#in

I rejoice with the Wisconsonites on this board that the Walker nightmare is finally over and done it by his own recount law must be doubly delicious. Sadly this won't be the end of him because I'm sure he will be joining the Trump administration shortly.



And Dana Rohrbacker too-he hasn't conceded last I saw, but was behind. Unfortunately the likes of Devin Nunes and Steve King somehow still won, and it appears that ethics or even criminal charges (Duncan Hunter, Chris Carter, Menendez) against them are not nearly important enough in the minds of voters as they should be.



And Donald Trump is acting like he's not scared of the Dems taking the House in his usual bullying ways:


If the Democrats think they are going to waste Taxpayer Money investigating us at the House level, then we will likewise be forced to consider investigating them for all of the leaks of Classified Information, and much else, at the Senate level. Two can play that game!


He also this morning has come out in support of Pelosi for Speaker, and a NBC poll that shows there's now a larger number that disapprove of the Mueller investigation than approve.

It makes sense that people would lose enthusiasm for the Mueller investigation the longer it goes on without any more activity.

Though apparently Donald Jr. expects to be indicted soon

I sent that election contest Larry posted to some people in the liberal wing and every single one had Sinema, McCaskill, Heitkamp and O'Rourke winning and the Dems gaining control of the Senate. That outcome seemed extremely slim to me based off post Kavanaugh polling, and I think a couple knew they were going with their heart, but it seems that echo chamber convinced themselves a 51-49 Dem Senate was a likely scenario and not an absolute best case one.

Yep don't disagree with you there Molson.


Also there was a bit of blue wave here in SC-unexpectedly. Last I looked, the Republican candidate who beat Mark Sanford in the primary was comfortably ahead of the Democrat. This morning though it appears he has beaten her. Looks like I have to move to the district south of me if I want to get any Democratic power in the state.

I'll be honest, this press conference makes my blood boil.

From your keyboard to God's ear. There isn't any figure I can think of that I've wanted to see in the cabinet from day one more than Walker.

Secretary of Labor would be my choice.

Easy Senate solution is every state gets one Dem and one Republic Senator period! Also, the VP, Senate majority leader, the Easter Bunny etc breaking ties stops. That way we make ALL these assholes do their job and find ways to work together for all Americans well being.

How about "feel the Burn" folks?

Yeah good point. But we have a two party system. I am not saying that is right but if we give every party representation we are not any better off. The Dems need to find a way to incorporate that far left side of the party as they need to with the more moderate side as well. I think the R's have done a better job of doing that with the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus though I am not sure they haven't submitted to those elements the party.
Regardless the Bernies peeps are free to run for the Dem seat. The platforms for the two parties is at this point we oppose the otherside and that really is it regardless of what they say they about it is all bullshit.

That would require some agreement on the definition of "well being"

That's so scarce that legislation would be limited to a lukewarm endorsement of puppies & kittens (and I'm not at all sure that would pass either)

Tester has been declared the winner in MT much to my surprise.

No I'm sure no one would have a problem with that Jon :D

On a much more local side note, I don't think I've ever known an eventual state representative before they had a driver's license ... but I do now.

Those of you who remember/followed my adventure's with my son's high school sports webcast crew have known about this young man for a long while now. The super-talented play-by-play kid on that crew is now State Representative-Elect from GA-117.

I'm pretty sure this cements my status as being dead-old.

Apparently, Bill Nelson has not yet conceded and NYT has still not called the race. The margin is down to 30,000 votes.

And now the loser is blaming Mark Sanford and his supporters rather than herself or Trump. Good riddance.

We are pleased to announce that Matthew G. Whitaker, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions at the Department of Justice, will become our new Acting Attorney General of the United States. He will serve our Country well....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2018

Uh oh... I wonder who Trump is going to put up for the job.

wow he sure moved quick

And twitter is going crazy over how Jim Acosta assaulted the aide who tried to take the mic from him. When to me all it looked like was he put his arm in to block her from doing so.

I think he'll be fine with Whitaker keeping it for a good long time:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/06/opini...ion/index.html

Fox reporting Rosenstein on his way to the White House

This is a mature way to handle losing:

This whole thing looks like a very calculated play on his part. The timing of it just after the election, a lame duck control of the house, possible indictment of Jr. The strategist in me says that a new acting attorney general is going to assume control over the investigation and basically freeze the FBI out of it and try and force Mueller on an island of public opinion. He won't shut the investigation down, but he will force it to limp along in the public, then shoot it when it's lost its relevance and power. I don't know if any of that is a possibility, but it smells like enough of an "I'm not shutting it down" kind of thing, while still effectively putting a homer in charge of it, who will fill the president in on the entire thing.

But that's much harder to do when the Dem Judiciary Committee takes power in January and will surely fire everything up.

Fun drinking game: "Banana republic or the United States of America ?"

The new acting AG is on record as saying one of the worst Supreme Court decisions was Marbury v. Madison.

I think (hope) Mueller was ready for this-I mean Trump has made no bones about his dislike of the investigation. He's probably got sealed indictments ready to go. And its being reported now that Rosenstein no longer in charge of the Mueller investigation.

Rod Rosenstein no longer overseeing Russia probe


Nailed that and fast.

Rosenstein has been expected to be fired for months now. A source I know heard him say that directly in January. So I've no doubt Mueller was prepared for this to happen.

I don't know how you can read them and not feel that it was set up in part to protect wealthy landowners (or the status quo). Federalist number 10 is entirely devoted to this. The argument is clear that the wealthy landowners must be protected from the commoners.

Elsewhere, Madison specifically says what the Senates purpose is. To protect the wealthy landholders from the people.



There are many, many more of his and others writings that talk about this.

Now you may agree with his stance, just as many others do. But I don't know how you could think this was anything other than a protection of economic interests of a certain class. These were primarily wealthy individuals who wanted to protect themselves while giving the facade of being a free country.

You'll also notice in all these writings about the dangers of minority rule, that it almost exclusively focuses on economics. There is no fear of racial or ethnic minorities being oppressed by the tyranny of the majority. There is no talk of a dominant religion such as the Baptists using their majority to impose adultery laws for instance on the minority.

It's almost if the "tyranny of the majority" was only a concern when it came to certain landholders.

If he's trying to obstruct (which he likely is), he's a bit late. The investigation is split between other investigative bodies that include states.

The House can also just fund Mueller for their own investigation. Have them turn over all the documents of the investigation. Even hold televised hearings where Mueller can describe what evidence he had before he was shut down.

This feels more like a temper tantrum after a rough day at the polls. Maybe the realization that indictments are on the way for some people and a House with subpoena power.

Move On et al are organizing protests tomorrow in response to the Sessions firing. I'd protest the hell out of a Mueller firing, but I've got no interest in appearing to defend Jeff Sessions.

I’m pretty sure they changed their website recently that a Sessions firing wasn’t a protest level event. Which I thought was funny because it was last time there was rumors about Sessions getting fired.

Let me know if I am wrong.

THE ELECTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED

Now Wisconsin's State Assembly Leader Robin Vos is talking about taking away some of the governor's powers in a lame duck session before Tony Evers takes over for Scott Walker.

What a bunch of slimy fucking losers.

I’ve just been denied entrance to the WH. Secret Service just informed me I cannot enter the WH grounds for my 8pm hit

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) November 8, 2018

Sarah Sanders on Twitter: "President Trump believes in a free press and expects and welcomes tough questions of him and his Administration. We will, however, never tolerate a reporter placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern..."


And here is the start of a thread of lies

wow good luck on that war against the free press Sarah.

When I was talking about gerrymandering earlier, here is the district I used to live in.

An analysis as to what the mid-terms (may) mean for healthcare reform.

Midterms put the brakes on Republicans’ health-care agenda — so what’s next? - MarketWatch

He literally applauded that Congressman who bodyslammed a reporter a couple weeks ago.

He would have applauded if that intern had bodyslammed Acosta.

It's pretty obvious on the video, unless someone wants to parse the difference between "putting hands on" and "chopping with the arm.

CNN should not have WH credentials, plain & simple. Should have been pulled ages ago frankly.

Ya, the popular retiring Idaho Republican governor endorsed the medicaid expansion and it was approved easily. This is a state that shot down a small vehicle registration fee increase and a levy for community college funding. "Medicaid" is not a dirty word I guess.

The difference in those 2 things is that one involves me in your space and the other is you in mine.

lol

I never expected you to turn snowflake. Enjoy your safe space!

I said it years ago and only believe it more now, the whole press corps should boycott the WH events and just report stories. Any time they have a briefing it's for propaganda purposes, so deny them the oxygen. They'll cave pretty quickly if they aren't getting airtime.

New AG was part of one of those invention patent scam companies.

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

This is not what I would have thought but surveys don't lie ...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243860/...ult%2520Rifles

I still don't understand why any legitimate news organization would want to cover a WH press briefing. You might as well just listen to Alex Jones.

Guy spent the day moving further toward obstructing a federal investigation by setting up a kangaroo justice system and people are more concerned about whether Jim Acosta has a press pass.

Amy Klobuchar a legitimate Democratic presidential hopeful? She seems to be a better option than Elizabeth Qarren vs Trump.

She's the kind of person I hope, but don't expect, Democrats to nominate. Just a solid, relatively 'boring' politician who won't a lot of negatives to attack, relatively speaking.

You can't do that, it just feeds into the narrative of being an "enemy".

Nah, some of us are looking at the clinic Brian Kemp is putting on in the GA governor race.

The key words here are 'in part'. I don't argue that this wasn't a factor. My point is that it was just that - a factor, among many given and among many logical ones as well, both for and against. Your previous posts said it was the reason, not a reason, and twice later in the most recent post I'm quoting here you reverted to that as well, such as:


How about because, as I already referenced, the framer you specifically chose(Madison) gave many other reasons for the Senate in the source you specifically chose (the Federalist Papers). That'd seem as compelling a reason as anything could be, would it not?


As noted before, populations indicate there were actually somewhat more small states in the North than in the South.



It's worth noting that there are many well-known writings by other framers making this exact same argument, among them Hamilton.


There are the four arguments I referenced. You seem to be laboring under the idea that I made them up or something. How could I think it was anything other than a protection of economics? Because Madison and others were constantly saying it was, such as above. I don't in any way deny that motivation played into it as well - but if one is going to characterize it generally that way you have to believe they are just lying here - and if you're going to do that, they have no value as a source and we might as well just pick a reason out of a hat and go with that.

It's not about, for me at least, arguing in favor of the idea of a Senate though I'm very willing to do that and I think the concept of a single-chamber legislature, or two of them elected the same way which is no better, is excessively bad. My argument is simply that the reasons for it were varied and I completely stand by the idea that your assessment was not accurate, inasmuch as you claimed the minority of the opulent quote summed it up and have continued to basically do so. It does not at all, given the above arguments that were put forward.

The older I get the more I want "medicare for all". I'm not sure what's the best plan/option but Option #1 is Bernie's plan with est. $32T and that is too much (assuming that is correct). No estimates for the costs for Options #2 & #3 in the article but assumption is it will be lower.

Either way, it can't just be give access/provide coverage for "all". It really needs to address the cost side also and people's expectations.

Best we can hope for is the Dems lay the groundwork now and then it really begins in 2020 with some sort of grand compromise that moves the dial towards "all" with somewhat reasonable costs and tax hike.

Democrats Have Won The House. What Will They Do About Medicare For All?

At this point, I can only assume Jon is just trolling the board, since he's repeatedly pointed out he's the only true conservative around here, to make sure his comments embody the absolute extremes of what a Trump supporter sounds like in an effort to roil this board.

I mean, look, "free press" does not mean you get to ask questions until you are satisfied with the answers, and he should have handed over the mic, but the idea that he put his hands on her is ridiculous, as was Trump's non-response to the question that it's fake news. He pulled the mic away as she attempted to take it from him.

The unfortunate part of getting to ask Trump questions is that you have to put up with his answers. Their job is to ask the questions, but they aren't going to get real answers to tough questions. It's just giving him more ammo to shout down his detractors. This was the perfect example of turning the press's tough questions into an attack on Trump.

trump is the most immature president I've ever seen. He's the great whiner in chief. He will not answer questions if he doesn't like it. None of the questions are unfair, they are philosophical questions, based on his own words, that he has no conceptual understanding of and only hears challenges to his authority that he responds to with anger and name calling.

fixed

Less so, I think, than participating in the public flogging sessions these briefings have become.

Hey,

what happened to that immigrant caravan that was going to kill us all? Funny how coverage just stopped the day after the election.

He wants the questions to stop and to face no scrutiny. Stop attending the press conferences and that's what he gets.