It is profoundly disturbing that 40% agreed with what he said. At the same time, what is and is not racist shouldn't be a matter of minority or any other kind of opinion. Something is either racist, or it isn't much like gravity either is or isn't a law of physics. Blurring the lines between 'racist' and 'insensitive/offense/stuff I just don't like or agree with' is not helpful.

Independents tend to lean right.

40-42% matches what has consistently been his approval ratings so it's not a surprise at all. The troubling part for trump is he continues to distance himself from voters he's going to need next November.

The GOP base is the easiest base to rally. It really doesn't take much effort and they're going to vote whether or not Trump continues to divide people. Yes, those 40-42% love him and he's going to kill it in red states but at some point he has to do something to expand his voting base though.

I disagree, if we don't have a agreed definition of something, we'll go talking past each other or in circles. Always good IMO to level set.

Its like the definition of "Hot" :)

Just one data point. If you take 13 / (13 + 17) = 32.5% so it seems Trumps tweet is supported by more Independents (42%) than would be expected.

Political Independents: Who They Are, What They Think | Pew Research Center

And what you decided to do about it was vote third party when we had one candidate clearly demonstrating through the entirety of the fucking campaign that he gave not one single solitary good goddamn about "defending our institutions" and then moaned and whined about it afterward.

You can say what you want about Hillary Clinton, but the reality was, she was never going to be in a position to have both houses of Congress falling over themselves to normalize whatever outrageous bullshit she might have tried to pull as President.

Donald Trump was never, in 2016, going to lose the House, and he ended up keeping the Senate, also.

Your third party vote was a direct revelation of just how much of a flaming bag of dog shit you gave about "defending our institutions."

"Yeah, he's mocking reporters and assaulting the integrity of judges on the basis of their skin color and bragging about sexual assault without consequences, but, I mean, Hillary Clinton. Just as bad. I dunno. Vote third party!"


It really is.


You gave them that absolution at the ballot box in 2016. You and every other "but her emails" turdblossom who ignored Donald Trump showing you exactly who he was and was going to continue to be voting for a third party because...what? Did you think Clinton was a shoo-in to win and you could safely cast a 'make myself feel superior to everybody else' protest vote? Did you just not give a single shit about what Trump would do with the power of the Presidency?


And the pressure STILL won't be on them after the House engages in their masturbatory political exercise you so desperately want them to, because McConnell has already indicated that he'll dispose of any impeachment trial as quickly and quietly as possible. The Senate map tilts toward Republican country in 2020, and Texas, Mississippi, et al are going to be sympathetic to the idea that any impeachment, no matter how deserved, is purely a political temper tantrum on the Democrats' part, and Republicans won't pay a political price for voting to acquit.

Exactly how committed to "both-sides-ism" does one have to be to conclude that the growth in the deficit is a two-party outcome? For virtually all the time period being discussed, one party has held the executive branch, the Senate, and the House. And the only meaningful fiscal decision they have made in that time was a party-line tax cut acknowledged and understood to blow a monstrous hole in our revenue stream, adding massively to the deficit.

Very fine people on both sides, I guess, right?

Fair enough. Lets do debt growth and go back to Reagan? Trump didn't get to $22T all by himself.

Didn't the deficit get reduced to zero during the Clinton administration? I remember there used to be this big digital billboard counting growth of the deficit in dollars in real time, and they had to take it down during the Clinton administration because the deficit went away.

Nope, only the bank hater Andrew Jackson has ever paid off the debt.

According to below, no deficit but debt grew. Read in another article that the debt in these nos. may not include SS as there is "political math" going on. So ultimately, worse than actually indicated below.

(We truly are screwed)

https://www.debtconsolidation.com/us-debt-presidents/

Yes, but keep in mind that there was also a huge amount being paid into social security at the time.

Debt and deficit are two different terms.

I've already addressed the first part. I didn't say Hillary was just as bad. I do think she was close. And by the way, a family member of mine who voted Hillary and never thought twice about it also felt she was almost as bad as Trump. Someone who's been a solid D voter for decades. So it's not like I'm alone in thinking this.


I gave them no absolution whatsoever. And now we've entered blatant lie territory, since my decision not to vote Hillary far predated the email controversy. I'm amused by the 'turdblossom' moniker though - never seen that turn of phrase there. I give you points for creativity!

Back to the point … giving them absolution would only make sense if I voted FOR them. I voted for nobody that to my knowledge supported the stonewall. I don't base my vote on who might control another branch of government, and I don't vote against candidates by throwing my support to the opposition. I vote for the best candidate I can find. I'll take a major-party one if a palatable option exists, but I don't even consider those other implications. That's tantamount to letting other people determine my vote, and I'm not going to do that.

I didn't at all ignore Trump's demonstrations, that's why I could never consider voting for him. What's implied here - I don't know if it's really what you mean but it seems to be - is that voting third party means I'm ok with Trump. And no, it doesn't mean that. It means that, as I said, both Trump and Clinton were utterly unqualified for the office in my opinion and I wasn't, and am not, willing to compromise on basic qualifications. Comparing the two never really entered much into who I would vote for, because neither reached the minimum bar.


McConnell having to deal with the trial at all is the pressure being on them in the only real way it can be. When you term basic constitutional responsibilities as 'mastubatory political exercise', it's pretty clear where the difference in our thinking is and I doubt very much we'll resolve that difference here.

I do admire the principle but, given our first-past-the-post voting system, you have effectively decided not to vote and let other people determine the winner.

Im pretty sure that Cortez and Cruz are either cut from the same cloth or two sides of the same coin.

There were budget surpluses during the Clinton years. Booming economy plus higher taxes on the wealthy. More money was coming in than going out, which resulted in the national debt actually going down relative to the GDP. That's the only time that's ever happened since the 60s (and the surplus was pretty minuscule back then, relatively to the 90s). The overall DEBT though, that's insurmountable. That will be there until the country ends or until we pull a Zimbabwe and just print the money or drop off some of the zeroes off of the debt by official decree.

When someone says they're looking at voting democrat this election, spending many lengthy posts to attack every action and position they've taken to the point of attacking their character seems at the very least counterproductive.

It feels like you're demanding contrition that every political action they've ever taken was wrong and finally they see the light and 100% agree with you, and if they can't do that then they should fuck off and just go vote Trump.


You're not going to win everyone over. Take the small victories, welcome those who are frustrated with the horribleness that is trump even if there are many many things that you'll still disagree on.

No, I'm yelling at him for insisting that Democrats HAVE to impeach Trump despite the fact that the only reason to do it is public masturbation.

Republicans have shown us who THEY are for the last three years, and who they are is "willing to hug an unindicted co-conspirator as closely as possible in the name of survival politics, no matter what he's done."

Insisting that this is somehow the Democratic Party's cross to bear, while ignoring the Republican intransigence that means Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not suffer the consequences, is asinine.

The Democrats' ability to put any kind of leash on Trump in the event of his re-election is dependent on their keeping control of the House, or flipping the Senate.

Impeachment, while richly deserved, is a doomed exercise. Republicans have spent months telling their base that it's all a great big nothingburger and Trump hasn't done a single teensy tiny thing wrong and if Democrats impeach it's just a giant temper tantrum because they stand by their President.

They've laid the foundation to attack any such effort as a nakedly political exercise, and if the House somehow does send articles of impeachment to the Senate, that will be the basis for McConnell sweeping it under the rug. It does precisely as much to "defend our institutions," given that state of affairs, as impeaching Clinton for lying under oath about a blowjob.

The Union wasn't any more secure for having wagged that finger at Clinton than it would be for McConnell saying "nothing to see here; who's next on the judicial nominations docket?"

But that's a hill Brian wants to die on. "The Democrats need to show they have a spine in a way that's certainly useless and potentially poisonous to their ability to leash Trump if he manages to get re-elected!"

And I'm supposed to give a shit that somebody who can't see that is thinking about voting Democratic when three years ago, he looked at Donald Trump telling us exactly who he was and would continue to be, and said "meh, I'm gonna vote third party"?

That's rich.

That's on a level with "if we just give the wealthiest a trillion dollar tax cut, poverty will disappear!"

This is not directed toward any one event. Just something I'm seeing more and more.

As a Democrat, I'm getting tired of moderate conservatives, having lost the GOP to the MAGAs, telling the Democratic party to become a moderate conservative party so that they will have a place to feel comfortable.

I would much rather moderate conservatives focus their energy on expelling the MAGAs and turning the GOP back into a moderate conservative party.

Lots of democrats believe that too. I've thought that the discussion on the pros and cons of impeachment here over the last week or so has been good, with people on the left and right all having different opinions, its not a party line thing at all, and that's made the conversation pretty fascinating for me. I get that you have strong opinions on your reasoning for feeling the way you do. And it would be frustrating to see someone who strongly dislikes trump choose to not vote for a democrat over, well pretty much anything.

But what's the end result that you want here? Knowing that you are right and have told the world you are right, damn the consequences? Or in taking any action you can take so that Donald Trump doesn't win re-election? Because what you're doing right now is aggressive as hell and might severely alienate many against all of your passionate beliefs.

There's a ton of common ground to be found. Making a case for you believe in it certainly important, but you've done that. Is this really the line you want to draw for making such strong judgement about someone else to the point that if you are partially responsible for someone not voting Democrat despite all of their frustration with trump - well that's ok because fuck them?

Or Hell, do as the British did and start their own centrist party (Liberal Democrats won't work as party name here though ;)).

This thread reminds me that SackAttack is a very eloquent and intelligent poster, with well-defined arguments.

It also reminds me that he can be a tremendous turdblossom at times.

I would love to do exactly that. Unfortunately, our system always ends up coming down to two parties with the way it is set up.

The British set up is also first past the post, with similar issues. The UK is a Parliamentary system, but that's why you set up coalitions (as the Lib Dems did a few years back - which kind of hurt them in the end though)

Healthcare has to be fixed. It is ridiculous that the USA is the wealthiest nation in the world and has a terrible healthcare system that, I say, is fiscally punitive. We spend x amount of dollars throughout our entire working lives only to be hammered by out of control costs because medicare doesnt do what it should do.
The price of medications is stupid. Life saving medications are out of reach for to many. Profits are more important than health.

I am very worried about retiring due to our health care system. Our weak politicians are more concerned about PR than real fixes.

Obamacare did not go near far enough. Fix it Trump or whomever is next up.

So the mystery surrounding Pence's removal from Air Force Two before a trip to NH has finally been revealed: He was going to meet with people fighting the opioid epidemic in NH, the only problem? One of the people he was there to meet was about to be busted by the DEA for you guessed it, opioid interstate distribution:


Behind Pence’s Air Force Two cancellation: A drug dealer - POLITICO

Trump says he could end the 18 year long afghan war in 10 days, wipe Afghanistan off the map and kill 10,000,000 but he doesn't want to go that route. How fortunate for us.

We deserve a president who could wipe Afghanistan off the map in 9 days or less.

It warms my cockles that both parties can agree one one thing: Spend moar money.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/22/us-d...s-source.html/

Dear God Dems will never learn. They are agreeing to let Trump get to the election without any debt limit problems and also agreeing that in the first year of a Dem presidency the GOP will be able to hold the economy hostage again.

And if that weren't enough, Blumenthal is talking about reinstating the blue slip rule the next time Dems control the senate. The same rule that the GOP has eliminated the last two times they controlled the senate.

dola

Great day when India calls out the US President for being a liar.

At least the world respects us now something something...

Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to elect a geriatric compulsive liar after all.

They are putting country over party, as so many people seem to think will be their salvation.

Of course, they will get no credit for doing this. And soon everyone will again note somberly that "both sides" are to blame for our dysfunction.

IMO, the price for agreeing to pass the extension should be to eliminate the stupid debt limit votes forever. Setting yourselves up for a repeat of the Obama years is naive and/or stupid.

TRUMP: "Then I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president."

(Article 2 does not in fact empower the president to do whatever they want.) pic.twitter.com/qIFP1AbHw6

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 23, 2019

Same thread. I'd say this is much worse:


Aaron Rupar on Twitter: "Wow. Trump alleges, without evidence, that electoral victories for Democrats in “California and numerous other states� are “rigged� because undocumented immigrants vote “many times — not just twice.�… https://t.co/izAl62TLtM"

Wow.

If you don't think illegal immigrants are voting for president, think again | TheHill



eventually leads to....



...but I'm sure that's not what anybody who reads such an article takes away. sigh.

I man, if we're grading on a curve... I guess points to him that he was able to commit "Article 2" to memory.

#hangshead

Trump couldn't get SNAP cuts passed by congress, so now he's proposing a rule to cut benefits for three million. He can do whatever he wants.

And the Dems won't do anything because what if that were to poll badly?

Sub Illegals for Jews and see how that song and dance plays.

Joni Ernst: "It’s just like Thanksgiving dinner. You make Thanksgiving dinner for your family, maybe 10 people, but a thousand show up at your door expecting Thanksgiving dinner. What do you do? You’ve only got two legs, come on. It is a crisis.”https://t.co/9JY9JUUqto

— Iowa Starting Line (@IAStartingLine) July 23, 2019

Thanksgiving may not have been the best comparison.

Here we go

Everything in Muellers body language during Collins opening remarks say he thinks Collins is full of shit.

Literally the first thing Nadler asks- "did your investigation say it exonerated Trump"

Mueller- " no"

Trumpers- FAKE NEWS!!!

I feel like this article makes a good point regarding the Democrats tactics.

Sure it forecloses on brinksmanship during the first year of the next Presidency, but haven't we proven that said brinksmanship does not fly? The Republicans scorched earth tactics have fallen pretty much flat each time.

Democrats Should Stop Complaining About the Budget. They Just Won. - POLITICO Magazine

The GOP is shockingly comfortable with the idea that the President can't be indicted and, therefore, can't be investigated. Their whole argument is based on the idea that the President is beyond the law.

So it’s pretty obvious the republicans are trying to show Mueller and members of his team had an axe to grind with Trump.

So... uh, I'm watching this from the Philippines, and just noticed... are all Republican politicians basically middle-aged/old white men?

Pretty much.