Discussion:
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
(too old to reply)
docufo
2018-07-11 22:09:10 UTC
Permalink


I'd bet my money on it! LolOlol~!

It seems more than just an expression of social nicety or normal
friendliness of a hetero boy. Look at the boy's facial expressions,
especially his eyes. His careful smooth body motions. He's in love with
Donald so much he's transfixed and speechless.

If he ain't gay, I'll be JTEM's monkey uncle! A real cute YouTube gem
among countless derivative Trump viral videos. This one from obviously a
Trump fan and the comments seem to miss identifying the boy's behavior
as "likely not hetero."

Gee, Donald's a bi-sexual magnet for everyone from gay kids to hardcore
hetero pornstars to far right-wing snide males, like Steven Douglas.

^Y^
O wow!
Incredibly lucky JTEM
2018-07-11 22:21:14 UTC
Permalink
I want my left back, the one that didn't think
homophobia was okay, the one that wanted to see
an end to north Korea's brutal hereditary
dictatorship i.e. monarchy.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/175791722713
docufo
2018-07-11 22:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incredibly lucky JTEM
I want my left back, the one that didn't think
homophobia was okay, the one that wanted to see
an end to north Korea's brutal hereditary
dictatorship i.e. monarchy.
It doesn't think homophobia is okay. It's the same Left I joined in the
60s.
I'm not expressing fear or loathing of homosexuality at all, but irony
of the fact no one has even mentioned the possibility that the boy's
behavior is decidedly gay, and he's enamored with Donald, who, BTW, has
a similar facial profile.
You see, Donald's the perfect storm for the times we're in. Ever since
9-11, the nation's been socially, morally deteriorating faster. It's
getting increasingly fanatical, narcissistic, stupid and delusional.
If Donald had never come along, it'd still be grinding downward anyway,
but he's accelerated the devolving.
We're heading for a crackup of unprecedented proportions in the history
of civilizations.
I can already see you've long ago cracked up, and fly around like a
rabid bat banging his head into the bell in the belfry.
Dong! Dong! Ding! Ding!
^Y^
V
Steven Douglas
2018-07-12 21:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.

It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
docufo
2018-07-13 00:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.
It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
I didn't say he was gay because I don't know. I said that his behavior,
his unusual calmness, careful body movements and soulful gazes at
Donald, would make me believe he's likely gay. It is not, as batty JTEM
suggested, that I'm putting down gays as potential pedophiles, or that
they are more prone to such perversion than heteros (which they are
not), but that stereotypical or not, the little tyke's behavior is
unusual when compared to many other little boys that have interacted
with Donald.

Decidedly unusual "loving' behavior that has no sexual connotation to it
since the age of the child is too young. Nor am I suggesting Donald
likes to diddle around with gay children or any children. Unless, of
course, a young Ivanka was an exception. LOLol!

Children have crushes on adults that, at that very young age, have no
sexual expression or feeling, but simply a great attraction,
compatibility, idolizing and friendly warmth in their "love" for the adult.

The innocent "love" is sometimes exploited by morally wayward adults,
manipulating the obsessed child into a sexual relationship that more
often benefits the adult than the child.
^Y^
o
Steven Douglas
2018-07-13 17:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.
It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
I didn't say he was gay because I don't know.
At his age I doubt he knows, either. It's ridiculous that
you brought this up at all. That video is about Trump's
reaction to a little boy. You have completely ignored
that so you could make it about something that is truly
irrelevant.
docufo
2018-07-13 19:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.
It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
I didn't say he was gay because I don't know.
At his age I doubt he knows, either. It's ridiculous that
you brought this up at all. That video is about Trump's
reaction to a little boy. You have completely ignored
that so you could make it about something that is truly
irrelevant.
It's relevant to the news of our times since a cute boy gives Donald a
warm hug Donald visibly appreciates, while little boys, most not white
and blonde, from south of our border, along with little girls, have been
unable to be with their parents and hug them.

While Donald hugs and kisses the colored children at rallies, separated
illegal migrants' traumatized children have been crying for their parents.

No, it's fucking relevant, alright.

^Y^
v
Steven Douglas
2018-07-14 17:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.
It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
I didn't say he was gay because I don't know.
At his age I doubt he knows, either. It's ridiculous that
you brought this up at all. That video is about Trump's
reaction to a little boy. You have completely ignored
that so you could make it about something that is truly
irrelevant.
It's relevant to the news of our times since a cute boy gives Donald a
warm hug Donald visibly appreciates, while little boys, most not white
and blonde, from south of our border, along with little girls, have been
unable to be with their parents and hug them.
Why didn't you care about children from south of our border
before Trump became president?
docufo
2018-07-14 22:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.
It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
I didn't say he was gay because I don't know.
At his age I doubt he knows, either. It's ridiculous that
you brought this up at all. That video is about Trump's
reaction to a little boy. You have completely ignored
that so you could make it about something that is truly
irrelevant.
It's relevant to the news of our times since a cute boy gives Donald a
warm hug Donald visibly appreciates, while little boys, most not white
and blonde, from south of our border, along with little girls, have been
unable to be with their parents and hug them.
Why didn't you care about children from south of our border
before Trump became president?
And...what evidence do you offer you had any real humanitarian concern
about them back then?

I've repeatedly stated my concern that illegal migrants were being
exploited by business owners here, and were being regarded as social
pariahs threatening to the native-born. And that their children were
being exploited by criminals such as prostitution and child pornography.

Obviously, you can't bring yourself to show any empathy or sympathy for
their plight now that Donald's policy change caused. Whatever
immigration injustices were done before, the situation was clearly made
worse under Trump. He's changed that part of the policy only because his
own party, a majority of citizens, human rights groups, and the UN put
the heat on him.

I'd say the evidence is compelling you fucking don't care about anything
other than ramrodding your far-right ultra-nationalistic ideology
through the SC and Congress, with little regard for the human suffering
it will cause.

^Y^
O ops!hypocrisydetected!
Steven Douglas
2018-07-15 17:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.
It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
I didn't say he was gay because I don't know.
At his age I doubt he knows, either. It's ridiculous that
you brought this up at all. That video is about Trump's
reaction to a little boy. You have completely ignored
that so you could make it about something that is truly
irrelevant.
It's relevant to the news of our times since a cute boy gives Donald a
warm hug Donald visibly appreciates, while little boys, most not white
and blonde, from south of our border, along with little girls, have been
unable to be with their parents and hug them.
Why didn't you care about children from south of our border
before Trump became president?
And...what evidence do you offer you had any real humanitarian concern
about them back then?
I said exactly what you said about it back then. What is
different now is that you've suddenly decided to become
outraged about something that did NOT outrage you while
Obama was president. That's why you're a hypocrite.
Post by docufo
I've repeatedly stated my concern that illegal migrants were being
exploited by business owners here,
I've said that, too. I've mentioned on several occasions
that there is a growing sub-class of laborers who will
work for dirt-cheap wages. This sub-class of laborers
is encouraged by liberals, who want those people here
so that they will have babies who grow up to vote for
Democrats.

If we'd been enforcing our border for all these years,
maybe the word would have spread south of the border
that it's not a good idea to drag your children across
the desert and try to illegally sneak across the border.
Maybe they'd have some respect for our country and
report to a port-of-entry and ask for asylum there.
docufo
2018-07-16 01:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.
It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
I didn't say he was gay because I don't know.
At his age I doubt he knows, either. It's ridiculous that
you brought this up at all. That video is about Trump's
reaction to a little boy. You have completely ignored
that so you could make it about something that is truly
irrelevant.
It's relevant to the news of our times since a cute boy gives Donald a
warm hug Donald visibly appreciates, while little boys, most not white
and blonde, from south of our border, along with little girls, have been
unable to be with their parents and hug them.
Why didn't you care about children from south of our border
before Trump became president?
And...what evidence do you offer you had any real humanitarian concern
about them back then?
I said exactly what you said about it back then. What is
different now is that you've suddenly decided to become
outraged about something that did NOT outrage you while
Obama was president. That's why you're a hypocrite.
Post by docufo
I've repeatedly stated my concern that illegal migrants were being
exploited by business owners here,
I've said that, too. I've mentioned on several occasions
that there is a growing sub-class of laborers who will
work for dirt-cheap wages. This sub-class of laborers
is encouraged by liberals, who want those people here
so that they will have babies who grow up to vote for
Democrats.
If we'd been enforcing our border for all these years,
maybe the word would have spread south of the border
that it's not a good idea to drag your children across
the desert and try to illegally sneak across the border.
Maybe they'd have some respect for our country and
report to a port-of-entry and ask for asylum there.
Would that possibly be the same level of "respect" the U.S. government,
print media and public gave Native Americans from colonial times through
the 1970s?

How long did it take for the US government to apologize for Wounded Knee?

Respect has to be earned, junior. Have we a history of showing respect
to hundreds of Indian nations?

Terrorism was one of the tactics used by the white US government and
predominately white populace against indigenous peoples. Mass murders,
rapes, tortures, mutilations, assaults by the US Cavalry and vigilantes
on innocent Native Americans, their children and babies are well
documented.

Donald's Great Wall is a symbol of racial and ethnic prejudice and
hatred by white people shown to the peoples of Mexico, Central and South
America. Polls all across those nations show a large majority think
Donald Trump's a racist.

"Pocahontas"-obsessed Donald trashed an annual Native American war vet
ceremony, compelled them to un-invite him for future ceremonies.
Pocahontas is widely considered a racial slur when used in the manner
Donald did. Aside from childish name-calling of his opponents, Donald
has no shame in demeaning an entire race/ethnic group to pettily attack
a vocal opponent.

Days of deliriums and dementia with Donald.

^Y^
~


^|^
~
Steven Douglas
2018-07-17 06:50:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.
It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
I didn't say he was gay because I don't know.
At his age I doubt he knows, either. It's ridiculous that
you brought this up at all. That video is about Trump's
reaction to a little boy. You have completely ignored
that so you could make it about something that is truly
irrelevant.
It's relevant to the news of our times since a cute boy gives Donald a
warm hug Donald visibly appreciates, while little boys, most not white
and blonde, from south of our border, along with little girls, have been
unable to be with their parents and hug them.
Why didn't you care about children from south of our border
before Trump became president?
And...what evidence do you offer you had any real humanitarian concern
about them back then?
I said exactly what you said about it back then. What is
different now is that you've suddenly decided to become
outraged about something that did NOT outrage you while
Obama was president. That's why you're a hypocrite.
Post by docufo
I've repeatedly stated my concern that illegal migrants were being
exploited by business owners here,
I've said that, too. I've mentioned on several occasions
that there is a growing sub-class of laborers who will
work for dirt-cheap wages. This sub-class of laborers
is encouraged by liberals, who want those people here
so that they will have babies who grow up to vote for
Democrats.
If we'd been enforcing our border for all these years,
maybe the word would have spread south of the border
that it's not a good idea to drag your children across
the desert and try to illegally sneak across the border.
Maybe they'd have some respect for our country and
report to a port-of-entry and ask for asylum there.
Would that possibly be the same level of "respect" the U.S. government,
print media and public gave Native Americans from colonial times through
the 1970s?
Do you know how Native North Americans are treated in Mexico?
Do you care? Why is it that leftists like you seem to think
that the U.S. government is the only government in the entire
history of the world that has ever mistreated indigenous people?

Did you know that Canada once had indigenous natives who lived
on that land? How about all the countries to the south of our
border, all the way down to the southern tip of South America?
What happened to all the indigenous people of those countries?

Last I checked, the countries of North, Central, and South
America have all made European languages their official
languages. Not one of those governments uses a Native
American language.

Yet your entire focus is on the United States, as if we have
no right to have a border. Yet Mexico has a border to their
south, and they enforce their border with strict laws. Then
there is Canada, which also has a border and immigration
laws.

So tell me, why is the United States the only country in
our hemisphere that is not allowed (in your mind) to have
a border and enforce it?
docufo
2018-07-17 19:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.
It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
I didn't say he was gay because I don't know.
At his age I doubt he knows, either. It's ridiculous that
you brought this up at all. That video is about Trump's
reaction to a little boy. You have completely ignored
that so you could make it about something that is truly
irrelevant.
It's relevant to the news of our times since a cute boy gives Donald a
warm hug Donald visibly appreciates, while little boys, most not white
and blonde, from south of our border, along with little girls, have been
unable to be with their parents and hug them.
Why didn't you care about children from south of our border
before Trump became president?
And...what evidence do you offer you had any real humanitarian concern
about them back then?
I said exactly what you said about it back then. What is
different now is that you've suddenly decided to become
outraged about something that did NOT outrage you while
Obama was president. That's why you're a hypocrite.
Post by docufo
I've repeatedly stated my concern that illegal migrants were being
exploited by business owners here,
I've said that, too. I've mentioned on several occasions
that there is a growing sub-class of laborers who will
work for dirt-cheap wages. This sub-class of laborers
is encouraged by liberals, who want those people here
so that they will have babies who grow up to vote for
Democrats.
If we'd been enforcing our border for all these years,
maybe the word would have spread south of the border
that it's not a good idea to drag your children across
the desert and try to illegally sneak across the border.
Maybe they'd have some respect for our country and
report to a port-of-entry and ask for asylum there.
Would that possibly be the same level of "respect" the U.S. government,
print media and public gave Native Americans from colonial times through
the 1970s?
Do you know how Native North Americans are treated in Mexico?
Do you care? Why is it that leftists like you seem to think
that the U.S. government is the only government in the entire
history of the world that has ever mistreated indigenous people?
Did you know that Canada once had indigenous natives who lived
on that land? How about all the countries to the south of our
border, all the way down to the southern tip of South America?
What happened to all the indigenous people of those countries?
Last I checked, the countries of North, Central, and South
America have all made European languages their official
languages. Not one of those governments uses a Native
American language.
Yet your entire focus is on the United States, as if we have
no right to have a border. Yet Mexico has a border to their
south, and they enforce their border with strict laws. Then
there is Canada, which also has a border and immigration
laws.
So tell me, why is the United States the only country in
our hemisphere that is not allowed (in your mind) to have
a border and enforce it?
You overstate my position immensely, as usual. Every nation has a right
to have a protected, screened border system, but it's the manner in
which that is accomplished that is the focal point of contention over
Donald's 0-tolerance policy. He has since backed off on that point of
contention, a point not reached by either Bush or Obama. They had the
natural moral objection to exploiting children as a deterrence by
separating them from their parents. That expectant moral constraint in a
leader was shockingly not in Donald's policy.

I'm pointing out by historical example of how fervently we believe that
Indian nations' lands we stole from them are somehow now our "sacred
hunting grounds" where, obviously, the popular prey are ourselves.

What was it, now, 58 innocent people killed by a Las Vegas mass shooter
last year? One of many every year, and increasing.

We've got more to fear from ourselves than from a tiny minority of bad
apples in the migrant bunches.

We got bad and even rotten apples on the vine all over our society and
government these "bad harvest" days where Farmer Don's already radically
plowing the global economic soil, prompting the IMF, among many others,
to issue a warning of a global recession triggered by a trade war.

Oh, not to worry, that's just part of the genius's great plan!

^Y^
O
Steven Douglas
2018-07-19 05:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.
It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
I didn't say he was gay because I don't know.
At his age I doubt he knows, either. It's ridiculous that
you brought this up at all. That video is about Trump's
reaction to a little boy. You have completely ignored
that so you could make it about something that is truly
irrelevant.
It's relevant to the news of our times since a cute boy gives Donald a
warm hug Donald visibly appreciates, while little boys, most not white
and blonde, from south of our border, along with little girls, have been
unable to be with their parents and hug them.
Why didn't you care about children from south of our border
before Trump became president?
And...what evidence do you offer you had any real humanitarian concern
about them back then?
I said exactly what you said about it back then. What is
different now is that you've suddenly decided to become
outraged about something that did NOT outrage you while
Obama was president. That's why you're a hypocrite.
Post by docufo
I've repeatedly stated my concern that illegal migrants were being
exploited by business owners here,
I've said that, too. I've mentioned on several occasions
that there is a growing sub-class of laborers who will
work for dirt-cheap wages. This sub-class of laborers
is encouraged by liberals, who want those people here
so that they will have babies who grow up to vote for
Democrats.
If we'd been enforcing our border for all these years,
maybe the word would have spread south of the border
that it's not a good idea to drag your children across
the desert and try to illegally sneak across the border.
Maybe they'd have some respect for our country and
report to a port-of-entry and ask for asylum there.
Would that possibly be the same level of "respect" the U.S. government,
print media and public gave Native Americans from colonial times through
the 1970s?
Do you know how Native North Americans are treated in Mexico?
Do you care? Why is it that leftists like you seem to think
that the U.S. government is the only government in the entire
history of the world that has ever mistreated indigenous people?
Did you know that Canada once had indigenous natives who lived
on that land? How about all the countries to the south of our
border, all the way down to the southern tip of South America?
What happened to all the indigenous people of those countries?
Last I checked, the countries of North, Central, and South
America have all made European languages their official
languages. Not one of those governments uses a Native
American language.
Yet your entire focus is on the United States, as if we have
no right to have a border. Yet Mexico has a border to their
south, and they enforce their border with strict laws. Then
there is Canada, which also has a border and immigration
laws.
So tell me, why is the United States the only country in
our hemisphere that is not allowed (in your mind) to have
a border and enforce it?
You overstate my position immensely, as usual. Every nation has a right
to have a protected, screened border system, but it's the manner in
which that is accomplished that is the focal point of contention over
Donald's 0-tolerance policy. He has since backed off on that point of
contention, a point not reached by either Bush or Obama. They had the
natural moral objection to exploiting children as a deterrence by
separating them from their parents.
No matter how many examples I give you of Obama separating
children from parents, you plod along as if it never
happened. I'm through discussing this with you. It's like
talking to a brick wall.
a***@yahoo.com
2018-07-19 05:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.
It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
I didn't say he was gay because I don't know.
At his age I doubt he knows, either. It's ridiculous that
you brought this up at all. That video is about Trump's
reaction to a little boy. You have completely ignored
that so you could make it about something that is truly
irrelevant.
It's relevant to the news of our times since a cute boy gives Donald a
warm hug Donald visibly appreciates, while little boys, most not white
and blonde, from south of our border, along with little girls, have been
unable to be with their parents and hug them.
Why didn't you care about children from south of our border
before Trump became president?
And...what evidence do you offer you had any real humanitarian concern
about them back then?
I said exactly what you said about it back then. What is
different now is that you've suddenly decided to become
outraged about something that did NOT outrage you while
Obama was president. That's why you're a hypocrite.
Post by docufo
I've repeatedly stated my concern that illegal migrants were being
exploited by business owners here,
I've said that, too. I've mentioned on several occasions
that there is a growing sub-class of laborers who will
work for dirt-cheap wages. This sub-class of laborers
is encouraged by liberals, who want those people here
so that they will have babies who grow up to vote for
Democrats.
If we'd been enforcing our border for all these years,
maybe the word would have spread south of the border
that it's not a good idea to drag your children across
the desert and try to illegally sneak across the border.
Maybe they'd have some respect for our country and
report to a port-of-entry and ask for asylum there.
Would that possibly be the same level of "respect" the U.S. government,
print media and public gave Native Americans from colonial times through
the 1970s?
Do you know how Native North Americans are treated in Mexico?
Do you care? Why is it that leftists like you seem to think
that the U.S. government is the only government in the entire
history of the world that has ever mistreated indigenous people?
Did you know that Canada once had indigenous natives who lived
on that land? How about all the countries to the south of our
border, all the way down to the southern tip of South America?
What happened to all the indigenous people of those countries?
Last I checked, the countries of North, Central, and South
America have all made European languages their official
languages. Not one of those governments uses a Native
American language.
Yet your entire focus is on the United States, as if we have
no right to have a border. Yet Mexico has a border to their
south, and they enforce their border with strict laws. Then
there is Canada, which also has a border and immigration
laws.
So tell me, why is the United States the only country in
our hemisphere that is not allowed (in your mind) to have
a border and enforce it?
You overstate my position immensely, as usual. Every nation has a right
to have a protected, screened border system, but it's the manner in
which that is accomplished that is the focal point of contention over
Donald's 0-tolerance policy. He has since backed off on that point of
contention, a point not reached by either Bush or Obama. They had the
natural moral objection to exploiting children as a deterrence by
separating them from their parents.
No matter how many examples I give you of Obama separating
children from parents, you plod along as if it never
happened.
#win
Post by Steven Douglas
I'm through discussing this with you. It's like
talking to a brick wall.
docufo
2018-07-19 13:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.
It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
I didn't say he was gay because I don't know.
At his age I doubt he knows, either. It's ridiculous that
you brought this up at all. That video is about Trump's
reaction to a little boy. You have completely ignored
that so you could make it about something that is truly
irrelevant.
It's relevant to the news of our times since a cute boy gives Donald a
warm hug Donald visibly appreciates, while little boys, most not white
and blonde, from south of our border, along with little girls, have been
unable to be with their parents and hug them.
Why didn't you care about children from south of our border
before Trump became president?
And...what evidence do you offer you had any real humanitarian concern
about them back then?
I said exactly what you said about it back then. What is
different now is that you've suddenly decided to become
outraged about something that did NOT outrage you while
Obama was president. That's why you're a hypocrite.
Post by docufo
I've repeatedly stated my concern that illegal migrants were being
exploited by business owners here,
I've said that, too. I've mentioned on several occasions
that there is a growing sub-class of laborers who will
work for dirt-cheap wages. This sub-class of laborers
is encouraged by liberals, who want those people here
so that they will have babies who grow up to vote for
Democrats.
If we'd been enforcing our border for all these years,
maybe the word would have spread south of the border
that it's not a good idea to drag your children across
the desert and try to illegally sneak across the border.
Maybe they'd have some respect for our country and
report to a port-of-entry and ask for asylum there.
Would that possibly be the same level of "respect" the U.S. government,
print media and public gave Native Americans from colonial times through
the 1970s?
Do you know how Native North Americans are treated in Mexico?
Do you care? Why is it that leftists like you seem to think
that the U.S. government is the only government in the entire
history of the world that has ever mistreated indigenous people?
Did you know that Canada once had indigenous natives who lived
on that land? How about all the countries to the south of our
border, all the way down to the southern tip of South America?
What happened to all the indigenous people of those countries?
Last I checked, the countries of North, Central, and South
America have all made European languages their official
languages. Not one of those governments uses a Native
American language.
Yet your entire focus is on the United States, as if we have
no right to have a border. Yet Mexico has a border to their
south, and they enforce their border with strict laws. Then
there is Canada, which also has a border and immigration
laws.
So tell me, why is the United States the only country in
our hemisphere that is not allowed (in your mind) to have
a border and enforce it?
You overstate my position immensely, as usual. Every nation has a right
to have a protected, screened border system, but it's the manner in
which that is accomplished that is the focal point of contention over
Donald's 0-tolerance policy. He has since backed off on that point of
contention, a point not reached by either Bush or Obama. They had the
natural moral objection to exploiting children as a deterrence by
separating them from their parents.
No matter how many examples I give you of Obama separating
children from parents, you plod along as if it never
happened.
#win
Post by Steven Douglas
I'm through discussing this with you. It's like
talking to a brick wall.
The examples Stevie gave have nothing to do with the Trump immigration
policy change that put migrants whose only crime was illegal entry into
a cruel situation of being regarded as regular criminals by taking their
children away.

No matter how you attempt to compare the immigration process under GW
Bush and Obama as immoral or extreme, they didn't go the immoral extra
distance Donald went.

We can control illegal immigration without resorting to the lowest
common denominator in moral behavior. Exploiting children as a
deterrence is really just another exercise in shameless racist spite.

If your hatred of an ethnic/racial group is so bad you feel a need to
traumatize kids even further than Obama or Bush did as policy, then
Donald's your bitter cup of tea. Not mine or anyone's - who still know
what right and wrong are, and haven't sunken to the moral depths you and
Stevie have. JTEM, as well.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves as adults. You are adults,
aren't you?

^Y^
V
Steven Douglas
2018-07-19 15:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
The examples Stevie gave have nothing to do with
I gave examples that showed children being separated from
parents, and those examples were from the time that Obama
was president. Two of the threads I started on the topic
are still in the mix here. The subject lines of the two
threads point to children being separated from parents
while Obama was president, and you have consistently
ignored or denied that it ever happened.
docufo
2018-07-21 00:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
The examples Stevie gave have nothing to do with
I gave examples that showed children being separated from
parents, and those examples were from the time that Obama
was president. Two of the threads I started on the topic
are still in the mix here. The subject lines of the two
threads point to children being separated from parents
while Obama was president, and you have consistently
ignored or denied that it ever happened.
I acknowledged at least twice there were separations of children from
parents under Obama (and Bush) but were limited to children of those
parents convicted of a crime other than crossing the border.

Other separations may well have been due to local managers going too
far, as we know local administrators of laws sometimes go morally awry.
Those reports have never been investigated probably because they never
happened or were mischaracterized.

What you stubbornly can't acknowledge is the undeniable fact of policy
change, and the fact that most of the public, media and even many
congressional members have morally objected to it. And that's why it was
changed. Had not the Left begun a massive protest against it, kids would
still be taken from their parents now, further criminalizing the parents
so that the action would have legal validation. It was a moral
transgression of the lowest order by Donald - do you like innocent
children cruelly used as ideological pawns of cold-ass extremists that
quote Paul for moral justification??

Well, do you??

^Y^
v
Steven Douglas
2018-07-21 19:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
The examples Stevie gave have nothing to do with
I gave examples that showed children being separated from
parents, and those examples were from the time that Obama
was president. Two of the threads I started on the topic
are still in the mix here. The subject lines of the two
threads point to children being separated from parents
while Obama was president, and you have consistently
ignored or denied that it ever happened.
I acknowledged at least twice there were separations of children from
parents under Obama (and Bush) but were limited to children of those
parents convicted of a crime other than crossing the border.
That's just not true! You can keep repeating the same lie as
long as you please, but it won't change the truth.
Post by docufo
Other separations may well have been due to local managers going too
far, as we know local administrators of laws sometimes go morally awry.
Show me a source that says that. You made that up, and you
keep repeating it as if it's fact, when it's clear that you
really have no idea what you're talking about.
a***@yahoo.com
2018-07-21 19:44:35 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 12:22:56 PM UTC-7, Steven Douglas wrot
Post by Steven Douglas
Mikeufo =
Show me a source that says that. You made that up, and you
keep repeating it as if it's fact,
Liar . CukUFO = Liar .
docufo
2018-07-23 04:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
The examples Stevie gave have nothing to do with
I gave examples that showed children being separated from
parents, and those examples were from the time that Obama
was president. Two of the threads I started on the topic
are still in the mix here. The subject lines of the two
threads point to children being separated from parents
while Obama was president, and you have consistently
ignored or denied that it ever happened.
I acknowledged at least twice there were separations of children from
parents under Obama (and Bush) but were limited to children of those
parents convicted of a crime other than crossing the border.
That's just not true! You can keep repeating the same lie as
long as you please, but it won't change the truth.
Post by docufo
Other separations may well have been due to local managers going too
far, as we know local administrators of laws sometimes go morally awry.
Show me a source that says that. You made that up, and you
keep repeating it as if it's fact, when it's clear that you
really have no idea what you're talking about.
The incidents of cold-storage units housing migrant children, where
reportedly children weren't blanketed and the temperature was well below
the standard of 70 degrees at detention centers, were never investigated
by the UN or any independent agency. Migrant advocacy groups made the
claims. I don't know one one news agency, be it Fox or MSNBC, ever
investigated the reports. If you do, refer me to the URL.

You need to stop denying the undeniable, junior. Donald went too far
with his Zero Tolerance Policy. Children were already being separated
from those parents charged or convicted of a crime (other than solely
crossing the border). This is is synch when any person commits a crime
on foreign soil, or had a record of such a crime outside our border.

Donald double-downed on the families by extending the legal definition
of a criminal migrant by including those who'd simply crossed the border
illegally - and had no prior criminal charge or conviction, inside the
nation or outside.

Needless to repeat, it was met with a good majority rejecting it and
forcing Donald to back off further punishing children for their
guardians' misbehavior, or exploiting them for political policies.

It's amazing how this subject has seen those who claim to care so very
much for children abused or even killed in some Islamic nations by
radical Muslims, or kids gassed to death or disabled by Assad, now
strongly argue the stripes off a zebra against the hard reality that the
President unnecessarily, coldly okayed traumatizing Latino children.
Children are not guilty when their parents decide to cross the border.
They are not be used as punishment against parents' decisions, or
satisfy racial spitefulness or hatred.

This nation today morally sickens me to a degree that I now better
understand what it must've felt like to 1930s Germany's people, or at
least those less conforming, and being more aware and smarter about
propaganda and the sinister development of authoritarianism.

You cannot see it in America presently, except to see it as something
manifesting from the Left. I'm telling you dead on, junior, this
authoritarianism isn't evolving from the Left. It's coming from Donald,
the demagogue, and far-rightists -- and you and his horde of wildly
spinning cultists. Like tiny tornadoes out there, swirling with racism,
religious bigotry and fanatical nationalism, spouting biblical text.

Rod Serling wouldn't have written a Twilight Zone story any better. Nor
would Alfred Hitchcock do no better, either. Obama called this era
"strange and uncertain times" a few days ago, and made it clear he was
referring to Trump.

Barack's perhaps one of the most under-appreciated Presidents, but that
will likely change. LOL!

^Y^
V
Steven Douglas
2018-07-23 16:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
The examples Stevie gave have nothing to do with
I gave examples that showed children being separated from
parents, and those examples were from the time that Obama
was president. Two of the threads I started on the topic
are still in the mix here. The subject lines of the two
threads point to children being separated from parents
while Obama was president, and you have consistently
ignored or denied that it ever happened.
I acknowledged at least twice there were separations of children from
parents under Obama (and Bush) but were limited to children of those
parents convicted of a crime other than crossing the border.
That's just not true! You can keep repeating the same lie as
long as you please, but it won't change the truth.
Post by docufo
Other separations may well have been due to local managers going too
far, as we know local administrators of laws sometimes go morally awry.
Show me a source that says that. You made that up, and you
keep repeating it as if it's fact, when it's clear that you
really have no idea what you're talking about.
The incidents of cold-storage units housing migrant children, where
reportedly children weren't blanketed and the temperature was well below
the standard of 70 degrees at detention centers, were never investigated
by the UN or any independent agency. Migrant advocacy groups made the
claims. I don't know one one news agency, be it Fox or MSNBC, ever
investigated the reports. If you do, refer me to the URL.
Thank you for proving my point about the hypocrisy of those
of you on the left, and your leftist media. You just didn't
give a damn while Obama was president, but you PRETEND to
give a damn now because it's a chance to score some political
points. What a bunch of cold, cynical hypocrites you are.
Steven Douglas
2018-07-21 19:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
I acknowledged at least twice there were separations of children from
parents under Obama (and Bush) but were limited to children of those
parents convicted of a crime other than crossing the border.
Here's what you continue to ignore:

[excerpt] While most of the parents of U.S.-born children
deported last year had been convicted of a crime, about
10,700 had no criminal convictions, although they may have
fit other ICE priorities for removal, according to the reports.

ICE said 71,214 parents of U.S.-born children who were deported
fit its priorities. The priorities include convicted criminals,
people caught attempting to enter the country illegally, people
who had returned after a previous deportation, and people who
failed to report to ICE after a deportation order, according
to the report. [end excerpt]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/parents-deportation_n_5531552.html

Do you see that part where it says 10,700 had no criminal
convictions? Yet they were separated from their children,
and that was just from ONE YEAR while Obama was president.

Go ahead and deny it yet again, and show me how delusional
you are.
a***@yahoo.com
2018-07-20 22:55:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.
It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
I didn't say he was gay because I don't know.
At his age I doubt he knows, either. It's ridiculous that
you brought this up at all. That video is about Trump's
reaction to a little boy. You have completely ignored
that so you could make it about something that is truly
irrelevant.
It's relevant to the news of our times since a cute boy gives Donald a
warm hug Donald visibly appreciates, while little boys, most not white
and blonde, from south of our border, along with little girls, have been
unable to be with their parents and hug them.
Why didn't you care about children from south of our border
before Trump became president?
And...what evidence do you offer you had any real humanitarian concern
about them back then?
I said exactly what you said about it back then. What is
different now is that you've suddenly decided to become
outraged about something that did NOT outrage you while
Obama was president. That's why you're a hypocrite.
Post by docufo
I've repeatedly stated my concern that illegal migrants were being
exploited by business owners here,
I've said that, too. I've mentioned on several occasions
that there is a growing sub-class of laborers who will
work for dirt-cheap wages. This sub-class of laborers
is encouraged by liberals, who want those people here
so that they will have babies who grow up to vote for
Democrats.
If we'd been enforcing our border for all these years,
maybe the word would have spread south of the border
that it's not a good idea to drag your children across
the desert and try to illegally sneak across the border.
Maybe they'd have some respect for our country and
report to a port-of-entry and ask for asylum there.
Would that possibly be the same level of "respect" the U.S. government,
print media and public gave Native Americans from colonial times through
the 1970s?
Do you know how Native North Americans are treated in Mexico?
Do you care? Why is it that leftists like you seem to think
that the U.S. government is the only government in the entire
history of the world that has ever mistreated indigenous people?
Did you know that Canada once had indigenous natives who lived
on that land? How about all the countries to the south of our
border, all the way down to the southern tip of South America?
What happened to all the indigenous people of those countries?
Last I checked, the countries of North, Central, and South
America have all made European languages their official
languages. Not one of those governments uses a Native
American language.
Yet your entire focus is on the United States, as if we have
no right to have a border. Yet Mexico has a border to their
south, and they enforce their border with strict laws. Then
there is Canada, which also has a border and immigration
laws.
So tell me, why is the United States the only country in
our hemisphere that is not allowed (in your mind) to have
a border and enforce it?
You overstate my position immensely, as usual. Every nation has a right
to have a protected, screened border system, but it's the manner in
which that is accomplished that is the focal point of contention over
Donald's 0-tolerance policy. He has since backed off on that point of
contention, a point not reached by either Bush or Obama. They had the
natural moral objection to exploiting children as a deterrence by
separating them from their parents.
No matter how many examples I give you of Obama separating
children from parents, you plod along as if it never
happened.
#win
Post by Steven Douglas
I'm through discussing this with you. It's like
talking to a brick wall.
The examples Stevie gave have nothing to do with the Trump immigration
policy change that put migrants whose only crime was illegal entry into
a cruel situation of being regarded as regular criminals by taking their
children away.
Guardian of galaxy Hollywood James Gunn CT, meBia is supporting. Fire 4 tweet on pro child rape.

Cabel CNN champion child abuse. look now. CNN = FUCK rape children
Post by docufo
No matter how you attempt to compare the immigration process under GW
Bush and Obama as immoral or extreme, they didn't go the immoral extra
distance Donald went.
We can control illegal immigration without resorting to the lowest
common denominator
This LA Musician Built $1,200 Tiny Houses for the Homeless. Then Liberal the City Seized Them.



FU You are evil hater of Christian
Post by docufo
in moral behavior. Exploiting children as a
deterrence is really just another exercise in shameless racist spite.
If your hatred of an ethnic/racial group is so bad you feel a need to
traumatize kids even further than Obama or Bush did as policy, then
Donald's your bitter cup of tea. Not mine or anyone's - who still know
what right and wrong are, and haven't sunken to the moral depths you and
Stevie have. JTEM, as well.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves as adults. You are adults,
aren't you?
U are a child abuser. You hate Christian . u have no position but lies
Post by docufo
^Y^
V
docufo
2018-07-19 12:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.
It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
I didn't say he was gay because I don't know.
At his age I doubt he knows, either. It's ridiculous that
you brought this up at all. That video is about Trump's
reaction to a little boy. You have completely ignored
that so you could make it about something that is truly
irrelevant.
It's relevant to the news of our times since a cute boy gives Donald a
warm hug Donald visibly appreciates, while little boys, most not white
and blonde, from south of our border, along with little girls, have been
unable to be with their parents and hug them.
Why didn't you care about children from south of our border
before Trump became president?
And...what evidence do you offer you had any real humanitarian concern
about them back then?
I said exactly what you said about it back then. What is
different now is that you've suddenly decided to become
outraged about something that did NOT outrage you while
Obama was president. That's why you're a hypocrite.
Post by docufo
I've repeatedly stated my concern that illegal migrants were being
exploited by business owners here,
I've said that, too. I've mentioned on several occasions
that there is a growing sub-class of laborers who will
work for dirt-cheap wages. This sub-class of laborers
is encouraged by liberals, who want those people here
so that they will have babies who grow up to vote for
Democrats.
If we'd been enforcing our border for all these years,
maybe the word would have spread south of the border
that it's not a good idea to drag your children across
the desert and try to illegally sneak across the border.
Maybe they'd have some respect for our country and
report to a port-of-entry and ask for asylum there.
Would that possibly be the same level of "respect" the U.S. government,
print media and public gave Native Americans from colonial times through
the 1970s?
Do you know how Native North Americans are treated in Mexico?
Do you care? Why is it that leftists like you seem to think
that the U.S. government is the only government in the entire
history of the world that has ever mistreated indigenous people?
Did you know that Canada once had indigenous natives who lived
on that land? How about all the countries to the south of our
border, all the way down to the southern tip of South America?
What happened to all the indigenous people of those countries?
Last I checked, the countries of North, Central, and South
America have all made European languages their official
languages. Not one of those governments uses a Native
American language.
Yet your entire focus is on the United States, as if we have
no right to have a border. Yet Mexico has a border to their
south, and they enforce their border with strict laws. Then
there is Canada, which also has a border and immigration
laws.
So tell me, why is the United States the only country in
our hemisphere that is not allowed (in your mind) to have
a border and enforce it?
You overstate my position immensely, as usual. Every nation has a right
to have a protected, screened border system, but it's the manner in
which that is accomplished that is the focal point of contention over
Donald's 0-tolerance policy. He has since backed off on that point of
contention, a point not reached by either Bush or Obama. They had the
natural moral objection to exploiting children as a deterrence by
separating them from their parents.
No matter how many examples I give you of Obama separating
children from parents, you plod along as if it never
happened. I'm through discussing this with you. It's like
talking to a brick wall.
The cracked brick in your mental wall is your extreme foolish loyalty to
a psychopath, sandwiched between the many other stony blocks 'Guru Trump
labels as followers. More and more, he refers to himself in the third
person. His gigantic ego drive should be able to construct a loyalty
wall, a wall of fantasy and fascism, so great it'd make China's Great
Wall look insignificant.

All in all, your brick wall is Donald's Cult. It's too high up to scale,
too thick to drill through and way too silly to argue against rationally
and seriously.

Every day brings more wild psychopathy from Donald and crew. Yesterday,
it was "Spin Race 5000" as he and his dimwitted staff once again
attempted to extricate Donald from multiple mess-ups in Helsinki.

We now hear many hours later after the "summit," that he warned Putin
not to meddle in our electoral system in private with no recording made
of the meeting. Asking for the interpreter to provide the truth may not
work if Donald can rustle up another "fixer" solution - over $100,000
for the interpreter if he/she goes along with his explanation. He'll
need Putin to lie along with him, of course. That shouldn't be unusual
for Vladimir.

Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
All those pending huge investments, of Russia and the USA, of Europe and
China are at stake. And he'd like to be the "peacemaker" so long as it
is profitable commercially.

And why not go to Helsinki hours after the DOJ indicted 12 Russian spy
agents and criticize the outrageous intervention during the press
meeting? Did he blame Russia for anything? Yes, he did, but it was
America sharing the blame!

You think this man cares about making America "great" when he's acting
like he'd fit into Putin's propaganda machine - a real nut ratcheted
down by Putin to build his great wall of bullshit.

You should be ashamed. Prostrate yourself before your god and plead for
entry into Heaven despite your transgressions.

=|=
~
Steven Douglas
2018-07-19 15:08:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.
It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
I didn't say he was gay because I don't know.
At his age I doubt he knows, either. It's ridiculous that
you brought this up at all. That video is about Trump's
reaction to a little boy. You have completely ignored
that so you could make it about something that is truly
irrelevant.
It's relevant to the news of our times since a cute boy gives Donald a
warm hug Donald visibly appreciates, while little boys, most not white
and blonde, from south of our border, along with little girls, have been
unable to be with their parents and hug them.
Why didn't you care about children from south of our border
before Trump became president?
And...what evidence do you offer you had any real humanitarian concern
about them back then?
I said exactly what you said about it back then. What is
different now is that you've suddenly decided to become
outraged about something that did NOT outrage you while
Obama was president. That's why you're a hypocrite.
Post by docufo
I've repeatedly stated my concern that illegal migrants were being
exploited by business owners here,
I've said that, too. I've mentioned on several occasions
that there is a growing sub-class of laborers who will
work for dirt-cheap wages. This sub-class of laborers
is encouraged by liberals, who want those people here
so that they will have babies who grow up to vote for
Democrats.
If we'd been enforcing our border for all these years,
maybe the word would have spread south of the border
that it's not a good idea to drag your children across
the desert and try to illegally sneak across the border.
Maybe they'd have some respect for our country and
report to a port-of-entry and ask for asylum there.
Would that possibly be the same level of "respect" the U.S. government,
print media and public gave Native Americans from colonial times through
the 1970s?
Do you know how Native North Americans are treated in Mexico?
Do you care? Why is it that leftists like you seem to think
that the U.S. government is the only government in the entire
history of the world that has ever mistreated indigenous people?
Did you know that Canada once had indigenous natives who lived
on that land? How about all the countries to the south of our
border, all the way down to the southern tip of South America?
What happened to all the indigenous people of those countries?
Last I checked, the countries of North, Central, and South
America have all made European languages their official
languages. Not one of those governments uses a Native
American language.
Yet your entire focus is on the United States, as if we have
no right to have a border. Yet Mexico has a border to their
south, and they enforce their border with strict laws. Then
there is Canada, which also has a border and immigration
laws.
So tell me, why is the United States the only country in
our hemisphere that is not allowed (in your mind) to have
a border and enforce it?
You overstate my position immensely, as usual. Every nation has a right
to have a protected, screened border system, but it's the manner in
which that is accomplished that is the focal point of contention over
Donald's 0-tolerance policy. He has since backed off on that point of
contention, a point not reached by either Bush or Obama. They had the
natural moral objection to exploiting children as a deterrence by
separating them from their parents.
No matter how many examples I give you of Obama separating
children from parents, you plod along as if it never
happened. I'm through discussing this with you. It's like
talking to a brick wall.
The cracked brick in your mental wall is your extreme foolish loyalty
I'm happy with my vote! I can't imagine how unhappy I'd be
if I'd thrown away my vote the way you did.
Steven Douglas
2018-07-19 16:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966

Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
docufo
2018-07-20 22:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.

Aside from your blatant hypocrisy, what most people expected, after the
Russian spies were indicted, was that he'd confronted Putin publicly and
asked the question, not in an unrecorded private meeting.

No wonder Donald can't stand recorders at meetings. Probably has
nightmares about Nixon's tapes that helped sink his ship in 1973-74. LOL!

^Y^
v
Steven Douglas
2018-07-21 19:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?

Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
docufo
2018-07-22 21:52:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
It's already patently insane to keep defending an arrogant psychopath
that's attempting to turn your beloved Republic into an authoritarian
system.

If you really loved democracy, peace, unity, mature rational leadership,
fairness and equality, humanitarianism, etc., you fucked up royally when
voting for Donald.

You've bought that pathological liar and phony's "fake news" hook, line
and sinker ignoring the fact that Donald's been caught in so many lies
in a year-and-a-half in office he's making US Presidential history.

When you and your hyenas finally run out of steam comparing Obama or
other past leaders' performances and personalities to Donald's as a
relentless distraction from the horrid fact that he's way beyond any of
'em for lying so early in his administration, so way beyond any of 'em
(in the same period) for staff firings and resignations, public speech
gaffes, false accusations, boasting, ad nauseum, you and they will
finally have to face a very cold hard reality, like dizzied drunks dried
out in rehab.

'^Y^'
v
Steven Douglas
2018-07-23 16:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
It's already patently insane to keep defending an arrogant psychopath
that's attempting to turn your beloved Republic into an authoritarian
system.
If you really loved democracy, peace, unity, mature rational leadership,
fairness and equality, humanitarianism, etc., you fucked up royally when
voting for Donald.
Oh sure, I'd have been much happier with Hillary Clinton
putting liberal judges on federal courts, and whatever
Supreme Court picks she'd have made. Oh yes, I'd have been
much happier with the economy continuing to plod along
with all the burdensome regulations that Obama put in
place, and she'd have left in place.

Oh sure, I'd have been much happier knowing the DC swamp
would never be held accountable for their actions. But
instead, I have Trump giving American workers a tax
cut and bigger paychecks (something you seem unaware of,
since you pay attention to the fake news you watch,
which keeps you so ill-informed).

Yes, I should have voted for Hillary. What was I thinking?
docufo
2018-07-24 00:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
It's already patently insane to keep defending an arrogant psychopath
that's attempting to turn your beloved Republic into an authoritarian
system.
If you really loved democracy, peace, unity, mature rational leadership,
fairness and equality, humanitarianism, etc., you fucked up royally when
voting for Donald.
Oh sure, I'd have been much happier with Hillary Clinton
putting liberal judges on federal courts, and whatever
Supreme Court picks she'd have made. Oh yes, I'd have been
much happier with the economy continuing to plod along
with all the burdensome regulations that Obama put in
place, and she'd have left in place.
Oh sure, I'd have been much happier knowing the DC swamp
would never be held accountable for their actions. But
instead, I have Trump giving American workers a tax
cut and bigger paychecks (something you seem unaware of,
since you pay attention to the fake news you watch,
which keeps you so ill-informed).
Yes, I should have voted for Hillary. What was I thinking?
You shouldn't have voted for either. You hated her. And you didn't like
Donald, either. Then you "compromised" and chose Donald. You didn't like
anything about him in 2011-2012's election run. You supported Romney.
You didn't like him in 2015-16, either, preferring Scott of Cheese Land
and even considering Gary Johnson.
When I saw two piss-poor candidates that I couldn't, in good conscience,
help put either into power, I had no other moral imperative but to vote
my conscience.
You could call me a "conscientious objector" to the sickly choice for
President presented by the two major parties. It'd never happened since
1972, my first voting year.
We are in extraordinarily uneasy and uncertain times.

^Y^
v
a***@yahoo.com
2018-07-24 01:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
It's already patently insane to keep defending an arrogant psychopath
that's attempting to turn your beloved Republic into an authoritarian
system.
If you really loved democracy, peace, unity, mature rational leadership,
fairness and equality, humanitarianism, etc., you fucked up royally when
voting for Donald.
Oh sure, I'd have been much happier with Hillary Clinton
putting liberal judges on federal courts, and whatever
Supreme Court picks she'd have made. Oh yes, I'd have been
much happier with the economy continuing to plod along
with all the burdensome regulations that Obama put in
place, and she'd have left in place.
Oh sure, I'd have been much happier knowing the DC swamp
would never be held accountable for their actions. But
instead, I have Trump giving American workers a tax
cut and bigger paychecks (something you seem unaware of,
since you pay attention to the fake news you watch,
which keeps you so ill-informed).
Yes, I should have voted for Hillary. What was I thinking?
You shouldn't have voted for either. You hated her. And you didn't like
Donald, either. Then you "compromised" and chose Donald.
u threw your vote to Jill Stine, thus favored Trump. #lolz

we call you stupid behind your back; we keep this mostly hidden. You are a frekin' cabbage. #LOLZ
docufo
2018-07-24 19:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
It's already patently insane to keep defending an arrogant psychopath
that's attempting to turn your beloved Republic into an authoritarian
system.
If you really loved democracy, peace, unity, mature rational leadership,
fairness and equality, humanitarianism, etc., you fucked up royally when
voting for Donald.
Oh sure, I'd have been much happier with Hillary Clinton
putting liberal judges on federal courts, and whatever
Supreme Court picks she'd have made. Oh yes, I'd have been
much happier with the economy continuing to plod along
with all the burdensome regulations that Obama put in
place, and she'd have left in place.
Oh sure, I'd have been much happier knowing the DC swamp
would never be held accountable for their actions. But
instead, I have Trump giving American workers a tax
cut and bigger paychecks (something you seem unaware of,
since you pay attention to the fake news you watch,
which keeps you so ill-informed).
Yes, I should have voted for Hillary. What was I thinking?
You shouldn't have voted for either. You hated her. And you didn't like
Donald, either. Then you "compromised" and chose Donald.
u threw your vote to Jill Stine, thus favored Trump. #lolz
we call you stupid behind your back; we keep this mostly hidden. You are a frekin' cabbage. #LOLZ
Actually, no, since Washington State's electoral college votes were
already sewed up tight for Clinton.
Since this last national election was won by EC votes, and the
concentrations of EC votes were in a handful of swing states Donald won,
all far from my state, my vote for Dr. Jill Stein didn't hurt Clinton's
chances of winning at all. She couldn't have won it by popular vote, but
at least she did have a true majority of voters choose her. I never
wanted to see her win, as I said.
Had that election been done only by popular vote, she'd be President
today. It was won, however, by EC votes.
You and Stevie can go fuck each other in the tar pits down there.
I knew what I was doing was right and I know what Stevie did on E-day
was wrong.
The moral wrongness of Donald and his motley crew is self-evident,
verifiable, a sure bet. The ineptness shows up convincingly, as well.
Authoritarians have invaded the Executive Branch. The Left will rout
them out and punish the scoundrels, sending them running, whining and
sobbing back to their mommies. And the rest will be off to prison.
If not, then America's heading for the kind of hard times Nazi Germany
and Fascist Italy fell victim to, but first the booming economy and
nationalism will reign, albeit shortly.
Instead of the Hindenburg blimp Germans were proud of, today we'll have
to settle for the Trump Baby blimp as a proud symbol of our resistance
against an evolving totalitarian as President.

@Y@
~
Steven Douglas
2018-07-24 16:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
It's already patently insane to keep defending an arrogant psychopath
that's attempting to turn your beloved Republic into an authoritarian
system.
If you really loved democracy, peace, unity, mature rational leadership,
fairness and equality, humanitarianism, etc., you fucked up royally when
voting for Donald.
Oh sure, I'd have been much happier with Hillary Clinton
putting liberal judges on federal courts, and whatever
Supreme Court picks she'd have made. Oh yes, I'd have been
much happier with the economy continuing to plod along
with all the burdensome regulations that Obama put in
place, and she'd have left in place.
Oh sure, I'd have been much happier knowing the DC swamp
would never be held accountable for their actions. But
instead, I have Trump giving American workers a tax
cut and bigger paychecks (something you seem unaware of,
since you pay attention to the fake news you watch,
which keeps you so ill-informed).
Yes, I should have voted for Hillary. What was I thinking?
You shouldn't have voted for either.
One of the two was going to be president. That's it. Any
other vote was a wasted vote.
Post by docufo
You hated her. And you didn't like
Donald, either. Then you "compromised" and chose Donald.
That's right, and I'm glad I did. I'm actually quite happy
with my vote. Have I ever mentioned that to you?
Post by docufo
You didn't like
anything about him in 2011-2012's election run.
I didn't want him to split the vote and give Obama an easy
win.
Post by docufo
You supported Romney.
Because he was the Republican nominee. If Trump had run,
he'd have entered the race as an independent and split
the vote with Romney. You know, the way Ralph Nader
split the vote with Al Gore and gave the election to
George W. Bush.
Post by docufo
You didn't like him in 2015-16, either, preferring Scott of Cheese Land
That was early on. Later I supported Cruz. I actually
voted for Cruz in the California primary.
Post by docufo
and even considering Gary Johnson.
For a minute, until I learned more about him and rejected
that idea.
Post by docufo
When I saw two piss-poor candidates that I couldn't, in good conscience,
help put either into power,
One of them was going to win anyway, whether you threw away
your vote or not.
Post by docufo
I had no other moral imperative but to vote
my conscience.
That's not true. If you and all the others who threw away
their votes had voted for Hillary, you wouldn't have to
sit there complaining about Trump every waking moment of
your life.
Post by docufo
You could call me a "conscientious objector" to the sickly choice for
President presented by the two major parties. It'd never happened since
1972, my first voting year.
We are in extraordinarily uneasy and uncertain times.
If you were the deciding vote between Hillary and Trump,
and if voting for Jill Stein (instead of Hillary) meant
Trump would become president, would you have still
voted for Jill Stein?
docufo
2018-07-24 20:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
It's already patently insane to keep defending an arrogant psychopath
that's attempting to turn your beloved Republic into an authoritarian
system.
If you really loved democracy, peace, unity, mature rational leadership,
fairness and equality, humanitarianism, etc., you fucked up royally when
voting for Donald.
Oh sure, I'd have been much happier with Hillary Clinton
putting liberal judges on federal courts, and whatever
Supreme Court picks she'd have made. Oh yes, I'd have been
much happier with the economy continuing to plod along
with all the burdensome regulations that Obama put in
place, and she'd have left in place.
Oh sure, I'd have been much happier knowing the DC swamp
would never be held accountable for their actions. But
instead, I have Trump giving American workers a tax
cut and bigger paychecks (something you seem unaware of,
since you pay attention to the fake news you watch,
which keeps you so ill-informed).
Yes, I should have voted for Hillary. What was I thinking?
You shouldn't have voted for either.
One of the two was going to be president. That's it. Any
other vote was a wasted vote.
Post by docufo
You hated her. And you didn't like
Donald, either. Then you "compromised" and chose Donald.
That's right, and I'm glad I did. I'm actually quite happy
with my vote. Have I ever mentioned that to you?
Post by docufo
You didn't like
anything about him in 2011-2012's election run.
I didn't want him to split the vote and give Obama an easy
win.
Post by docufo
You supported Romney.
Because he was the Republican nominee. If Trump had run,
he'd have entered the race as an independent and split
the vote with Romney. You know, the way Ralph Nader
split the vote with Al Gore and gave the election to
George W. Bush.
Post by docufo
You didn't like him in 2015-16, either, preferring Scott of Cheese Land
That was early on. Later I supported Cruz. I actually
voted for Cruz in the California primary.
Post by docufo
and even considering Gary Johnson.
For a minute, until I learned more about him and rejected
that idea.
Post by docufo
When I saw two piss-poor candidates that I couldn't, in good conscience,
help put either into power,
One of them was going to win anyway, whether you threw away
your vote or not.
Post by docufo
I had no other moral imperative but to vote
my conscience.
That's not true. If you and all the others who threw away
their votes had voted for Hillary, you wouldn't have to
sit there complaining about Trump every waking moment of
your life.
Post by docufo
You could call me a "conscientious objector" to the sickly choice for
President presented by the two major parties. It'd never happened since
1972, my first voting year.
We are in extraordinarily uneasy and uncertain times.
If you were the deciding vote between Hillary and Trump,
and if voting for Jill Stein (instead of Hillary) meant
Trump would become president, would you have still
voted for Jill Stein?
Predictable that you manage to steer clear of his inflammatory,
dishonest and abusive personal behavioral style which is quite a
contradiction to what you've held as a high personal moral conduct
standard for Democratic Presidents, and all other politicians, and even
members of this forum. LOL! What a downsizing in your high moral code!
How did it occur?
You'd spun out if you'd heard Obama using the crude language Donald
regularly used on his stump circuit, and references to white federal
judges as those who can't be trusted because of their race/ethnicity to
fairly adjudicate a lawsuit against Obama whose plaintiffs are also
white. LOL!
If Obama had behaved in such a crude erratic manner as Donald, you'd
been mercilessly on his back, pecking away at his ineptness, mental
stability and lack of good behavior. Not to mention lying as much as
Donald has.
Oh, the fuckin' delirious fantasizing you must be enmeshed in these
Demented Donald Daze! LOL!
Like a little boy with a new toy he thought he'd always wanted, but it
turned out to be poorly designed and constructed, and failed miserably
just after the warranty expired.
Boooo hoooo.
Well, cheap thrills in life are like that.

^Y^
U ranut!
Steven Douglas
2018-07-26 19:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
If you were the deciding vote between Hillary and Trump,
and if voting for Jill Stein (instead of Hillary) meant
Trump would become president, would you have still
voted for Jill Stein?
Predictable that you manage to steer clear of his inflammatory,
Predictable that you'd avoid the question.
a***@yahoo.com
2018-07-29 01:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
It's already patently insane to keep defending an arrogant psychopath
that's attempting to turn your beloved Republic into an authoritarian
system.
If you really loved democracy, peace, unity, mature rational leadership,
fairness and equality, humanitarianism, etc., you fucked up royally when
voting for Donald.
Oh sure, I'd have been much happier with Hillary Clinton
putting liberal judges on federal courts, and whatever
Supreme Court picks she'd have made. Oh yes, I'd have been
much happier with the economy continuing to plod along
with all the burdensome regulations that Obama put in
place, and she'd have left in place.
Oh sure, I'd have been much happier knowing the DC swamp
would never be held accountable for their actions. But
instead, I have Trump giving American workers a tax
cut and bigger paychecks (something you seem unaware of,
since you pay attention to the fake news you watch,
which keeps you so ill-informed).
Yes, I should have voted for Hillary. What was I thinking?
You shouldn't have voted for either.
One of the two was going to be president. That's it. Any
other vote was a wasted vote.
Post by docufo
You hated her. And you didn't like
Donald, either. Then you "compromised" and chose Donald.
That's right, and I'm glad I did. I'm actually quite happy
with my vote. Have I ever mentioned that to you?
Post by docufo
You didn't like
anything about him in 2011-2012's election run.
I didn't want him to split the vote and give Obama an easy
win.
Post by docufo
You supported Romney.
Because he was the Republican nominee. If Trump had run,
he'd have entered the race as an independent and split
the vote with Romney. You know, the way Ralph Nader
split the vote with Al Gore and gave the election to
George W. Bush.
Post by docufo
You didn't like him in 2015-16, either, preferring Scott of Cheese Land
That was early on. Later I supported Cruz. I actually
voted for Cruz in the California primary.
Post by docufo
and even considering Gary Johnson.
For a minute, until I learned more about him and rejected
that idea.
Post by docufo
When I saw two piss-poor candidates that I couldn't, in good conscience,
help put either into power,
One of them was going to win anyway, whether you threw away
your vote or not.
Post by docufo
I had no other moral imperative but to vote
my conscience.
That's not true. If you and all the others who threw away
their votes had voted for Hillary, you wouldn't have to
sit there complaining about Trump every waking moment of
your life.
Post by docufo
You could call me a "conscientious objector" to the sickly choice for
President presented by the two major parties. It'd never happened since
1972, my first voting year.
We are in extraordinarily uneasy and uncertain times.
If you were the deciding vote between Hillary and Trump,
and if voting for Jill Stein (instead of Hillary) meant
Trump would become president, would you have still
voted for Jill Stein?
Since June 12 2017 I have taken over 37 assassination attempts by my own government.
Massive CIA cars. They must support Obama an his ways.

Anthony #Bourdain was killed to steal $13.5 Million of his estate. #Confirmed #FBI CIA 100% Involved . Hitters last night were #CIA+ robbers . Black an Hoody white cabbage gurl. Pat by the boehnke house just a whiie ago. $100,000,000 spent on me since June 12 2017 . 20 Us citizen died to protect me. #JesusChrist returned #0728218AD
docufo
2018-07-22 22:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
No, he didn't say that they did, he said he'd not be surprised if they
did. A significant difference. It was his primary position from 2016
through 2017, but with variations until very recently, when he shifted
to apparently acknowledging more solidly they had meddled, but refuses
to publicly finger Putin as a major suspect. It's hard to fathom that
Vlad's authoritarian sinister regime, with suspicious murders and
assaults, disappearances of opponents, invasions and occupations of
small nations near him, etc.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-many-different-ways-trump-has-described-putin-and-russian-election-interference

But he emphasized that if they did, he had nothing to do with it. His
mercurial positions and policies help deflect his opponents since it's
damned fucking hard to state what his actual position is at any given
point, without his supporters pointing out his variances as "proof" the
Left is lying. No, it's Donald not sticking to his position on the
issue, and the latest fiasco is that he claimed to have warned Putin in
private, and yet it's deeply disturbing that he wishes not to put the
public heat on an authoritarian with such a shady career. No, instead,
he defended him, accepted his denials, and praised his leadership. You
love America's freedoms and principles, do you? LOL! You've become the
laughing stock of this forum, junior.

If he had knowledge of anyone on his payroll or of his friends and
family that had knowledge of Russian agents meddling, then he's up for
impeachment. He doesn't need to personally be in any collusion,
actively, but merely needs to have had that knowledge of an illegal
activity that is quite constitutionally serious. Any of his staff,
friends or family that had such knowledge that can be proved to have
also been known to Donald, would give him the presidential death kiss of
impeachment.

But, since it's Donald's aberrant mental state that appears to more of
an issue currently, and it doesn't really need empirical evidence. It's
self-evident every day, at least to those not nearly as dinged in the
head. Perhaps the first Senate presidential competency trial will make
history for Donald. He can add that to his creepy autobiography on how
his Presidency made history. No stony face of Donald on Mt. Rushmore yet
planned, but let's wait and see. LOLol!

@Y@
V
Steven Douglas
2018-07-23 16:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
No, he didn't say that they did, he said he'd not be surprised if they
did.
Youtube headline: "Trump has recognized Russian meddling many times"



Watch that video, and learn something for the first time
(since you're so ill-informed due to the media sources
you rely on).
docufo
2018-07-24 20:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
No, he didn't say that they did, he said he'd not be surprised if they
did.
Youtube headline: "Trump has recognized Russian meddling many times"
http://youtu.be/e26TjLmKdyo
Watch that video, and learn something for the first time
(since you're so ill-informed due to the media sources
you rely on).
LOLOLolol! I watched many of Donald's stump speeches, full length in
most cases for months leading up the the election, and many interviews,
as well. His position has been mercurial, as it still is. He admits the
possibility, or even probability that Russian agents were tampering with
our election, but wouldn't directly link any of it to Putin. How 12
Russian agents can be deployed to turn the election results in favor of
Donald (which was the reason they were there; even Putin admits he
wanted to have Clinton lose), and not have authoritarian Vlad not order
it or be aware of it, is quite a stretch. Donald prefers we think that
maybe "someone else" is behind the spying, or that maybe it's all part
of a leftist conspiracy to ruin him.
He doesn't suggest who else might be the culprits. He presents no
evidence whatsoever of his claims.
He prefers his followers believe him. His rhetoric is primarily for his
congregation, as they resemble religious believers in their
unquestioning faith in Donald's purist patriotism, and delight in his
daily childish pounding of left politicians, celebs, media people, while
making it clear brown and black-skinned migrants will be vetted to
death, and the illegal ones will be deported. Until recently, he liked
to further traumatize Latino children until human rights groups and his
own party pushed him to stop it.
Now, he claims to have privately warned Putin not to meddle, but has
been varying his story and his position. We need to talk to the
interpreter, but he/she may be paid off by a Donald fixer. Putin would
simply lie along if was to his great advantage, which their odd
partnership seems to suggest. How can we ever know what was said at that
private meeting - and why weren't others present, and recordings made?
Had Obama gone into a private meeting with Putin and made similar
claims, you'd called him a coward, conspirator, lying commie. LOL! Why
can't the public have transparency in Donald's summit meetings? Where
security concerns are not involved, there is no reason not to have it
all made public.
Unless, of course, the private meeting had more to do with sensitive
personal things and investment schemes, not to mention an "historic
union" of Russia and America being possibly planned. A joint
announcement the Eagle and the Bear are getting together on multiple
levels to make the world a safer, saner place to live, and where a
brighter future can be expected.
Well, that's the likely rhetoric we'd hear, anyway, not necessarily the
realization of any of it.

^Y^
V
Steven Douglas
2018-07-26 19:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
No, he didn't say that they did, he said he'd not be surprised if they
did.
Youtube headline: "Trump has recognized Russian meddling many times"
http://youtu.be/e26TjLmKdyo
Watch that video, and learn something for the first time
(since you're so ill-informed due to the media sources
you rely on).
LOLOLolol! I watched many of Donald's stump speeches, full length in
most cases for months leading up the the election, and many interviews,
as well. His position has been mercurial, as it still is. He admits the
possibility, or even probability that Russian agents were tampering with
our election, but wouldn't directly link any of it to Putin.
He said Putin is ultimately responsible since he's the leader
of Russia.
docufo
2018-07-26 22:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
No, he didn't say that they did, he said he'd not be surprised if they
did.
Youtube headline: "Trump has recognized Russian meddling many times"
http://youtu.be/e26TjLmKdyo
Watch that video, and learn something for the first time
(since you're so ill-informed due to the media sources
you rely on).
LOLOLolol! I watched many of Donald's stump speeches, full length in
most cases for months leading up the the election, and many interviews,
as well. His position has been mercurial, as it still is. He admits the
possibility, or even probability that Russian agents were tampering with
our election, but wouldn't directly link any of it to Putin.
He said Putin is ultimately responsible since he's the leader
of Russia.
He has not yet said there is evidence Putin ordered the interference,
however. Saying that he's ultimately responsible as the top leader, is
like saying Reagan was ultimately responsible for Iran-Contra. But
evidence didn't show he had knowledge of it or ordered it.

So, we still don't have Donald accusing Putin of knowing or ordering the
operation.

He still lets Vlad off the hook. And you ought to know that, but you're
too sickeningly off the deep end these days to have any common sense or
understanding of a hard evolving reality - Donald's attempting to
convert the government into an authoritarian system. Will you love
America as much if that happens, and still defend Donald? Oh, yeah, as
long as the money's flowing like sweet wine.

LOL!

@Y@
U
Steven Douglas
2018-07-28 17:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
No, he didn't say that they did, he said he'd not be surprised if they
did.
Youtube headline: "Trump has recognized Russian meddling many times"
http://youtu.be/e26TjLmKdyo
Watch that video, and learn something for the first time
(since you're so ill-informed due to the media sources
you rely on).
LOLOLolol! I watched many of Donald's stump speeches, full length in
most cases for months leading up the the election, and many interviews,
as well. His position has been mercurial, as it still is. He admits the
possibility, or even probability that Russian agents were tampering with
our election, but wouldn't directly link any of it to Putin.
He said Putin is ultimately responsible since he's the leader
of Russia.
He has not yet said there is evidence Putin ordered the interference,
however. Saying that he's ultimately responsible as the top leader, is
like saying Reagan was ultimately responsible for Iran-Contra. But
evidence didn't show he had knowledge of it or ordered it.
So, we still don't have Donald accusing Putin of knowing or ordering the
operation.
He still lets Vlad off the hook. And you ought to know that, but you're
too sickeningly off the deep end these days to have any common sense or
understanding of a hard evolving reality - Donald's attempting to
convert the government into an authoritarian system. Will you love
America as much if that happens, and still defend Donald? Oh, yeah, as
long as the money's flowing like sweet wine.
I believe in our Constitution, which provides checks and
balances.
docufo
2018-07-29 00:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
No, he didn't say that they did, he said he'd not be surprised if they
did.
Youtube headline: "Trump has recognized Russian meddling many times"
http://youtu.be/e26TjLmKdyo
Watch that video, and learn something for the first time
(since you're so ill-informed due to the media sources
you rely on).
LOLOLolol! I watched many of Donald's stump speeches, full length in
most cases for months leading up the the election, and many interviews,
as well. His position has been mercurial, as it still is. He admits the
possibility, or even probability that Russian agents were tampering with
our election, but wouldn't directly link any of it to Putin.
He said Putin is ultimately responsible since he's the leader
of Russia.
He has not yet said there is evidence Putin ordered the interference,
however. Saying that he's ultimately responsible as the top leader, is
like saying Reagan was ultimately responsible for Iran-Contra. But
evidence didn't show he had knowledge of it or ordered it.
So, we still don't have Donald accusing Putin of knowing or ordering the
operation.
He still lets Vlad off the hook. And you ought to know that, but you're
too sickeningly off the deep end these days to have any common sense or
understanding of a hard evolving reality - Donald's attempting to
convert the government into an authoritarian system. Will you love
America as much if that happens, and still defend Donald? Oh, yeah, as
long as the money's flowing like sweet wine.
I believe in our Constitution, which provides checks and
balances.
You and many Americans had better get ready to pray or rub their lucky
horseshoes that our founding fathers had done enough to keep an
authoritarian like Donald from converting it into Big Brotherhood.

The plausible scenario for the sinister transition has been outlined by
me already. If those situations are as expected, it will then depend
more on individuals in the (converted system, or one that is being
infringed on) to stand by the constitutional system, by its moral
principles, than dependence on the system's mechanisms to work. If the
system allows authoritarianism, then it will likely come down to some
courageous, smart and caring civilians and government employees to stop it.

And there will always be some, but will it be enough?

^Y^
~
Steven Douglas
2018-08-01 06:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
No, he didn't say that they did, he said he'd not be surprised if they
did.
Youtube headline: "Trump has recognized Russian meddling many times"
http://youtu.be/e26TjLmKdyo
Watch that video, and learn something for the first time
(since you're so ill-informed due to the media sources
you rely on).
LOLOLolol! I watched many of Donald's stump speeches, full length in
most cases for months leading up the the election, and many interviews,
as well. His position has been mercurial, as it still is. He admits the
possibility, or even probability that Russian agents were tampering with
our election, but wouldn't directly link any of it to Putin.
He said Putin is ultimately responsible since he's the leader
of Russia.
He has not yet said there is evidence Putin ordered the interference,
however. Saying that he's ultimately responsible as the top leader, is
like saying Reagan was ultimately responsible for Iran-Contra. But
evidence didn't show he had knowledge of it or ordered it.
So, we still don't have Donald accusing Putin of knowing or ordering the
operation.
He still lets Vlad off the hook. And you ought to know that, but you're
too sickeningly off the deep end these days to have any common sense or
understanding of a hard evolving reality - Donald's attempting to
convert the government into an authoritarian system. Will you love
America as much if that happens, and still defend Donald? Oh, yeah, as
long as the money's flowing like sweet wine.
I believe in our Constitution, which provides checks and
balances.
You and many Americans had better get ready to pray or rub their lucky
horseshoes that our founding fathers had done enough to keep an
authoritarian like Donald from converting it into Big Brotherhood.
The plausible scenario for the sinister transition has been outlined by
me already. If those situations are as expected, it will then depend
more on individuals in the (converted system, or one that is being
infringed on) to stand by the constitutional system, by its moral
principles, than dependence on the system's mechanisms to work. If the
system allows authoritarianism, then it will likely come down to some
courageous, smart and caring civilians and government employees to stop it.
And there will always be some, but will it be enough?
You're hysterical.
docufo
2018-07-23 04:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
I didn't say it would do "any good" to change the behavior of Putin. No,
the public shaming is simply to let Putin know that we know what he did,
we're enraged and we fucking will not sit quietly and let it happen again.

It is much more for our self-respect and our principles that we'd expect
the President to deliver a public rebuke for what was a very serious
breach of our democratic system.

I don't really care if Putin changes his behavior or not. I doubt that
I'd trust him if he suddenly did. I didn't trust Kim to get rid of
nuclear weapons, and it appears now that he's digging in to keep them. I
don't trust Donald, either. And I've not seen his poor behavior change
since he got into office, except for the worst.

Obama is correct - it'd not likely change Putin's behavior of policies.
It'd also be unlikely he'd get pissed off and pull out, start another
Cold War and lose so much commercially, strategically for it. I think
Donald and Vlad are planning to joint announce a serious of unifying
reciprocal steps that may shock us all. Lifting all sanctions and
announcing joint governmental and commercial endeavors. As well as doing
military exercises together and more cooperation in space.

As I said, if Obama had gone into a private meeting and warned him, and
we didn't have any record of what actually transpired, you'd be thinking
it's a conspiracy, or that Obama was too scared to confront him
publicly, or too inept. No, you'd be all over Obama for being secretive
and seemingly timid. You'd called Barack "Putin's Poodle." LOL!
"He's not a strong leader! Putin is a tyrant that murders his
opposition. Invades nations! He won't criticize that mass gasser Assad!
What an inept wimp of a President!!" you'd squawked. You sick hypocrite.

Don't try to fool me, junior.

^Y^
o
Steven Douglas
2018-07-23 17:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
I didn't say it would do "any good" to change the behavior of Putin. No,
the public shaming is simply to let Putin know that we know what he did,
we're enraged and we fucking will not sit quietly and let it happen again.
Oh, you mean the way Obama sat quietly by and let it happen
in 2016? Because Obama was informed of it happening before
the election, and he did NOTHING about it.

And now, all of a sudden, it seems the left wants to make it
Trump's fault that it happened at all, when Obama knew about
it and did NOTHING about it while it was happening.
docufo
2018-07-24 21:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
I didn't say it would do "any good" to change the behavior of Putin. No,
the public shaming is simply to let Putin know that we know what he did,
we're enraged and we fucking will not sit quietly and let it happen again.
Oh, you mean the way Obama sat quietly by and let it happen
in 2016? Because Obama was informed of it happening before
the election, and he did NOTHING about it.
And now, all of a sudden, it seems the left wants to make it
Trump's fault that it happened at all, when Obama knew about
it and did NOTHING about it while it was happening.
Well, junior, Obama's explanation for that inaction against Putin makes
perfect political sense.

Quote:

In fairness to Obama, he had reasons to hesitate. Hillary Clinton looked
poised to win the election, right up until the election results began
rolling in. Why needlessly politicize an election that looked like it
would withstand Russia’s disinformation campaign? Why call into question
the legitimacy of a central tenet of democracy—arguably THE central
tenet of democracy—when it looked like the American people would
overcome the challenge?

Then there are Obama’s more personal reasons. He probably didn’t want
his last significant act as President to be seen as political,
tarnishing his legacy. He tried to get Republican leadership to help him
raise the warning flags, but Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell
refused to join him in a bipartisan condemnation of Russia. Pro-Obama
folks will point to that as exculpatory, but it really isn’t—it is up to
the president of the United States to put the country ahead of personal
legacy. And on that front, Obama failed. Spectacularly.

But here’s the thing: the failures of Obama do not excuse the failures
of Trump. Russia was Obama’s problem so long as he was
commander-in-chief; since Jan. 20, 2017, it has been Trump’s problem —
and he has somehow managed to do a worse job confronting the Russian
threat than his predecessor.

Trump and the U.S. intelligence community now have more extensive
knowledge of Russia’s operations than Obama did, and more information
continues to spill out. Yet Trump hasn’t done a thing to deter the
Russians from taking the same action in the 2018 elections and beyond;
indeed, he’s currently refusing to enforce sanctions passed by Congress
in explicit retaliation against Russia’s U.S. election hacking.

Trump’s willful ignorance shouldn’t surprise us. This is the man who
couldn’t handle Steve Bannon taking even partial credit for his election
victory; of course he would refuse to acknowledge Russia’s role in his
life’s most triumphant moment. Even when confronted with
incontrovertible evidence from his intelligence agencies, he falls back
on the trope that even if Moscow did try to influence the election, it
failed to do so in any meaningful way. Again, this isn’t proof of
collusion; it’s proof that this is a highly insecure individual who
can’t countenance being overshadowed by anything or anyone, for good or ill.

Obama got Russia wrong when he was president; that’s inarguable. That
was on him. Now it’s on Trump.
http://time.com/5170954/trump-russia-election-hacking-obama-blame/

The article was written earlier in the year, before Trump claimed he
warned Putin in a private meeting. Well, at least, Donald's little
Barron has a nice expensive new soccer ball.

^Y^
V
Steven Douglas
2018-07-26 19:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
I didn't say it would do "any good" to change the behavior of Putin. No,
the public shaming is simply to let Putin know that we know what he did,
we're enraged and we fucking will not sit quietly and let it happen again.
Oh, you mean the way Obama sat quietly by and let it happen
in 2016? Because Obama was informed of it happening before
the election, and he did NOTHING about it.
And now, all of a sudden, it seems the left wants to make it
Trump's fault that it happened at all, when Obama knew about
it and did NOTHING about it while it was happening.
Well, junior, Obama's explanation for that inaction against Putin makes
perfect political sense.
In fairness to Obama, he had reasons to hesitate. Hillary Clinton looked
poised to win the election, right up until the election results began
rolling in. Why needlessly politicize an election that looked like it
would withstand Russia’s disinformation campaign? Why call into question
the legitimacy of a central tenet of democracy—arguably THE central
tenet of democracy—when it looked like the American people would
overcome the challenge?
Obama mocked Trump for even thinking our elections could be
tampered with. Here he is, in his own words:


docufo
2018-07-26 22:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
I didn't say it would do "any good" to change the behavior of Putin. No,
the public shaming is simply to let Putin know that we know what he did,
we're enraged and we fucking will not sit quietly and let it happen again.
Oh, you mean the way Obama sat quietly by and let it happen
in 2016? Because Obama was informed of it happening before
the election, and he did NOTHING about it.
And now, all of a sudden, it seems the left wants to make it
Trump's fault that it happened at all, when Obama knew about
it and did NOTHING about it while it was happening.
Well, junior, Obama's explanation for that inaction against Putin makes
perfect political sense.
In fairness to Obama, he had reasons to hesitate. Hillary Clinton looked
poised to win the election, right up until the election results began
rolling in. Why needlessly politicize an election that looked like it
would withstand Russia’s disinformation campaign? Why call into question
the legitimacy of a central tenet of democracy—arguably THE central
tenet of democracy—when it looked like the American people would
overcome the challenge?
Obama mocked Trump for even thinking our elections could be
http://youtu.be/ZPpt7-QOGKc
Obama has never mocked the validity of the elections before or after,
and every Presidential candidate in my lifetime, since JFK, hasn't
whined about a "rigged election" system before or after.

Donald was upset he didn't get the popular vote, and began immediately,
as President, to prove his allegations Hillary didn't win that vote. His
commission inquiry came to an end when numerous states blocked access of
voter data on constitutional grounds.

It'd been more mature and responsible to simply have basked in the upset
victory, and graciously conceded that Hillary was the more popular of
the two.

A pettiness and spitefulness that rages inside a thin-skinned, but
egotistical Donald could help be his undoing. He didn't agree that Obama
had more fans in the DC streets on inaugural day, despite aerial photos
showing the difference in crowd sizes. Obama's bigger turnout was likely
because he was the first racial minority to become President, and the
rest of the jubilation was over the end of GW Bush's "heroic" tenure.

^Y^'
o
Steven Douglas
2018-07-28 18:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
I didn't say it would do "any good" to change the behavior of Putin. No,
the public shaming is simply to let Putin know that we know what he did,
we're enraged and we fucking will not sit quietly and let it happen again.
Oh, you mean the way Obama sat quietly by and let it happen
in 2016? Because Obama was informed of it happening before
the election, and he did NOTHING about it.
And now, all of a sudden, it seems the left wants to make it
Trump's fault that it happened at all, when Obama knew about
it and did NOTHING about it while it was happening.
Well, junior, Obama's explanation for that inaction against Putin makes
perfect political sense.
In fairness to Obama, he had reasons to hesitate. Hillary Clinton looked
poised to win the election, right up until the election results began
rolling in. Why needlessly politicize an election that looked like it
would withstand Russia’s disinformation campaign? Why call into question
the legitimacy of a central tenet of democracy—arguably THE central
tenet of democracy—when it looked like the American people would
overcome the challenge?
Obama mocked Trump for even thinking our elections could be
http://youtu.be/ZPpt7-QOGKc
Obama has never mocked the validity of the elections before or after,
But he did mock Trump for thinking our elections could be
tampered with.
Post by docufo
and every Presidential candidate in my lifetime, since JFK, hasn't
whined about a "rigged election" system before or after.
Until now. Now we have Hillary's whining.
Post by docufo
Donald was upset he didn't get the popular vote, and began immediately,
as President, to prove his allegations Hillary didn't win that vote. His
commission inquiry came to an end when numerous states blocked access of
voter data on constitutional grounds.
It'd been more mature and responsible to simply have basked in the upset
victory, and graciously conceded that Hillary was the more popular of
the two.
Her winning margin came from people who live west of I-5.
The rest of the country (everything east of I-5) gave the
popular vote to Trump.

Do you think people who live west of I-5 should decide who
the president will be, so that everyone east of I-5 has to
live with choices made by coastal elites on the West Coast?
docufo
2018-07-29 00:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
I didn't say it would do "any good" to change the behavior of Putin. No,
the public shaming is simply to let Putin know that we know what he did,
we're enraged and we fucking will not sit quietly and let it happen again.
Oh, you mean the way Obama sat quietly by and let it happen
in 2016? Because Obama was informed of it happening before
the election, and he did NOTHING about it.
And now, all of a sudden, it seems the left wants to make it
Trump's fault that it happened at all, when Obama knew about
it and did NOTHING about it while it was happening.
Well, junior, Obama's explanation for that inaction against Putin makes
perfect political sense.
In fairness to Obama, he had reasons to hesitate. Hillary Clinton looked
poised to win the election, right up until the election results began
rolling in. Why needlessly politicize an election that looked like it
would withstand Russia’s disinformation campaign? Why call into question
the legitimacy of a central tenet of democracy—arguably THE central
tenet of democracy—when it looked like the American people would
overcome the challenge?
Obama mocked Trump for even thinking our elections could be
http://youtu.be/ZPpt7-QOGKc
Obama has never mocked the validity of the elections before or after,
But he did mock Trump for thinking our elections could be
tampered with.
So did a number of GOP congresspeople.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
and every Presidential candidate in my lifetime, since JFK, hasn't
whined about a "rigged election" system before or after.
Until now. Now we have Hillary's whining.
She didn't whine about it being rigged, junior. That's a lie.
Jesus will spank you for that one. She complained about Donald whining
it was rigged! LOL!
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Donald was upset he didn't get the popular vote, and began immediately,
as President, to prove his allegations Hillary didn't win that vote. His
commission inquiry came to an end when numerous states blocked access of
voter data on constitutional grounds.
It'd been more mature and responsible to simply have basked in the upset
victory, and graciously conceded that Hillary was the more popular of
the two.
Her winning margin came from people who live west of I-5.
The rest of the country (everything east of I-5) gave the
popular vote to Trump.
Do you think people who live west of I-5 should decide who
the president will be, so that everyone east of I-5 has to
live with choices made by coastal elites on the West Coast?
Do you think we need a civil war, junior, to parcel out the ideological
territories properly??

^!*
~
Steven Douglas
2018-08-01 06:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
I didn't say it would do "any good" to change the behavior of Putin. No,
the public shaming is simply to let Putin know that we know what he did,
we're enraged and we fucking will not sit quietly and let it happen again.
Oh, you mean the way Obama sat quietly by and let it happen
in 2016? Because Obama was informed of it happening before
the election, and he did NOTHING about it.
And now, all of a sudden, it seems the left wants to make it
Trump's fault that it happened at all, when Obama knew about
it and did NOTHING about it while it was happening.
Well, junior, Obama's explanation for that inaction against Putin makes
perfect political sense.
In fairness to Obama, he had reasons to hesitate. Hillary Clinton looked
poised to win the election, right up until the election results began
rolling in. Why needlessly politicize an election that looked like it
would withstand Russia’s disinformation campaign? Why call into question
the legitimacy of a central tenet of democracy—arguably THE central
tenet of democracy—when it looked like the American people would
overcome the challenge?
Obama mocked Trump for even thinking our elections could be
http://youtu.be/ZPpt7-QOGKc
Obama has never mocked the validity of the elections before or after,
But he did mock Trump for thinking our elections could be
tampered with.
So did a number of GOP congresspeople.
And now look at them, claiming Russia hacked our election and
changed the outcome, after assuring us it could never happen.
They're all a bunch of whiners.
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
and every Presidential candidate in my lifetime, since JFK, hasn't
whined about a "rigged election" system before or after.
Until now. Now we have Hillary's whining.
She didn't whine about it being rigged, junior.
She and her party are constantly whining about Russia hacking
the election and giving it to Trump. Of course that was after
they spent the entire campaign mocking Trump for saying the
election could be rigged.
Post by docufo
That's a lie.
Uh, no, it's a fact.
Post by docufo
Jesus will spank you for that one.
Why do you feel the need to mention Jesus, when you've made
it quite clear that you have rejected him?
Post by docufo
She complained about Donald whining
it was rigged!
She's been whining ever since she lost the election.
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Donald was upset he didn't get the popular vote, and began immediately,
as President, to prove his allegations Hillary didn't win that vote. His
commission inquiry came to an end when numerous states blocked access of
voter data on constitutional grounds.
It'd been more mature and responsible to simply have basked in the upset
victory, and graciously conceded that Hillary was the more popular of
the two.
Her winning margin came from people who live west of I-5.
The rest of the country (everything east of I-5) gave the
popular vote to Trump.
Do you think people who live west of I-5 should decide who
the president will be, so that everyone east of I-5 has to
live with choices made by coastal elites on the West Coast?
Do you think we need a civil war, junior, to parcel out the ideological
territories properly??
Not at all. I'm quite happy with the way the Electoral
College protects the rest of the country from coastal
elites who live west of I-5. It's pure genius that the
Founding Fathers thought of the Electoral College!!!
docufo
2018-08-03 22:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/obama-to-face-reporters-friday-at-his-final-year-end-news-conference/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c57a0a237966
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
to do.
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
I didn't say it would do "any good" to change the behavior of Putin. No,
the public shaming is simply to let Putin know that we know what he did,
we're enraged and we fucking will not sit quietly and let it happen again.
Oh, you mean the way Obama sat quietly by and let it happen
in 2016? Because Obama was informed of it happening before
the election, and he did NOTHING about it.
And now, all of a sudden, it seems the left wants to make it
Trump's fault that it happened at all, when Obama knew about
it and did NOTHING about it while it was happening.
Well, junior, Obama's explanation for that inaction against Putin makes
perfect political sense.
In fairness to Obama, he had reasons to hesitate. Hillary Clinton looked
poised to win the election, right up until the election results began
rolling in. Why needlessly politicize an election that looked like it
would withstand Russia’s disinformation campaign? Why call into question
the legitimacy of a central tenet of democracy—arguably THE central
tenet of democracy—when it looked like the American people would
overcome the challenge?
Obama mocked Trump for even thinking our elections could be
http://youtu.be/ZPpt7-QOGKc
Obama has never mocked the validity of the elections before or after,
But he did mock Trump for thinking our elections could be
tampered with.
So did a number of GOP congresspeople.
And now look at them, claiming Russia hacked our election and
changed the outcome, after assuring us it could never happen.
They're all a bunch of whiners.
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
and every Presidential candidate in my lifetime, since JFK, hasn't
whined about a "rigged election" system before or after.
Until now. Now we have Hillary's whining.
She didn't whine about it being rigged, junior.
She and her party are constantly whining about Russia hacking
the election and giving it to Trump. Of course that was after
they spent the entire campaign mocking Trump for saying the
election could be rigged.
Post by docufo
That's a lie.
Uh, no, it's a fact.
No, it's not a fact. Hillary has never said the electoral process may be
rigged, as it is and was sans the recent Russian influence which most
analysts said wasn't significant enough to actually tip it towards
Donald. Hillary has said that the Russian influence wasn't what tipped
her out of it, but Comey's timing of a re-investigation into (more of)
her emails. That, she said, was the main factor in a sudden loss of
popularity she suffered just a few days before the election.
I could see that happen as I monitored it by the day. Many observers
remarked on the sudden downtrend at that time, right after Comey's
announcement. Comey himself has said on the lecture circuit that the
Russian influence, whatever it was, didn't cause the dramatic election
swing. He said it was primarily his announcement.
In fact, Donald praised Comey for his action and for a brief moment in
time, Comey became a villain to the Left, a hero of sorts to the Right.
That was before Donald canned him.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Jesus will spank you for that one.
Why do you feel the need to mention Jesus, when you've made
it quite clear that you have rejected him?
I can't reject what I don't believe actually exists. Jesus is a mystery
to me, but I have no scientific evidence he was anything but a human
being, without any deification involved. Perhaps if I'd been back in
Judea around 30 A.D. I'd had another view of Jesus' ministry.
I'd have still been suspicious anyway. Lazareth's resurrection would
compel me to investigate whether the figure seen from afar at the
entrance of his caved tomb, was, indeed, a man brought back to life, for
example.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
She complained about Donald whining
it was rigged!
She's been whining ever since she lost the election.
You've been whining for 8 years over Obama's leadership.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Donald was upset he didn't get the popular vote, and began immediately,
as President, to prove his allegations Hillary didn't win that vote. His
commission inquiry came to an end when numerous states blocked access of
voter data on constitutional grounds.
It'd been more mature and responsible to simply have basked in the upset
victory, and graciously conceded that Hillary was the more popular of
the two.
Her winning margin came from people who live west of I-5.
The rest of the country (everything east of I-5) gave the
popular vote to Trump.
Do you think people who live west of I-5 should decide who
the president will be, so that everyone east of I-5 has to
live with choices made by coastal elites on the West Coast?
Do you think we need a civil war, junior, to parcel out the ideological
territories properly??
Not at all. I'm quite happy with the way the Electoral
College protects the rest of the country from coastal
elites who live west of I-5. It's pure genius that the
Founding Fathers thought of the Electoral College!!!
The Electoral College is far from being fair in representation of
population densities, on which it is primarily based, not on equalizing
ideological concentrations. It leaves minorities hurting for fair
representation, and it favors Republicans historically. It is little
wonder most Republicans want it to stay just like it is. LOL! You're a
weasel.

I quote extensively:

Democrats keep losing the Electoral College while winning ever-larger
popular-vote victories because their support is overly concentrated in
under-represented states like California and New York. Clinton won
California by over 3 million votes, netting 55 electoral votes. Trump’s
combined popular vote margin in Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, and
Wisconsin was under 250,000, but those victories netted him 75 electoral
votes.

Moving forward, Democrats should seek to ensure they not only secure
huge victories in very progressive and populous states, but also invest
time and resources in securing victories in states where votes are
likely to impact the outcome of the election. But which states are those?

Because elections are decided by a vastly different number of voters in
different states, and because states have very different numbers of
electoral votes, voters in some states are far more likely to impact the
outcome in the Electoral College. A voter in a state with a large spread
between the two major candidates and/or a small number of electoral
votes would have a small likelihood of affecting the election. Think of
Washington, DC—an extremely partisan city with a measly 3 electoral
votes. Casting your ballot there, for either party, is unlikely to
influence the outcome of the presidential election. In contrast, a voter
in a state with a small spread between the two candidates and/or a lot
of electoral votes can make a difference. Think of Florida, where
elections have been decided by a tiny number of voters, but the state
provides a whopping 29 electoral votes. Casting a vote in Florida is
more likely to swing how the state apportions its huge prize, which in
turn is more likely to impact the outcome of the election.
Combining these two factors (major candidate margin and electoral
votes), in 2016, voters in New Hampshire and Michigan had the biggest
likelihood of influencing the election.

The data used to create the chart above were collected from CNN.com on
November 20th, 2016 and therefore may under-represent the power of a
vote in certain states, like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania,
where votes counted in the latter third of November suggested even
closer election outcomes.

Not surprisingly, the top five states where a vote can make a difference
are also typical swing states, and the bottom five are stable Democratic
or Republican states. What is surprising is the huge range of how
valuable a vote in a given state can be. A vote in New Hampshire is over
120 times more valuable than a vote in DC. While this might seem
counter-intuitive given that both places have three electoral votes,
recall that George W. Bush won by two votes. Moreover, the tiny margin
between Trump and Clinton in 2016 meant that a voter in New Hampshire
was a lot more likely than a voter almost anywhere else to help their
candidate of choice secure any points where it counts.

Moving beyond the top five most influential states, many
non-swing-states made the top twenty. A vote in Minnesota mattered 7.5
times more than a vote in the average state, and a vote in Alaska, New
Mexico, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Texas (yes, Texas) mattered anywhere
from 1.5 to 2.65 times more. Votes in all of these states mattered more
than votes in Ohio and Iowa, two typical swing states.

One way to explain Clinton’s loss is that she lost four of the five
states where a vote matters the most, but won the two states where your
vote matters the least.

* * *
To avoid a repeat in 2020, Democrats should do three things.
First, campaign strategically in states where a vote is more likely to
affect the outcome in the Electoral College. While many of these states
are swing states, and swing states certainly receive a great deal of
attention and ad revenue, there are votes yet to be had in each of the
strategic states mentioned above. Even Minnesota, which had the highest
turnout rate in 2016, still only saw 75 percent of its eligible voters
cast ballots. That leaves a quarter of the electorate. And the average
state is far less engaged. Sixty percent of eligible voters nationwide
participated in the 2016 election.

Second, overturn or repeal voter identification laws in those key
states. Voter identification laws are having a clear impact in key
states. They are in effect in New Hampshire, Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Florida—four of the top five states with an impact on the Electoral
College. And a federal court found that voter identification laws in
Wisconsin could be keeping 300,000 voters (or 9 percent of the state’s
electorate) from voting, and that these 300,000 voters are more likely
to be poor, Latino, and Black. Current data suggests that Trump won
Wisconsin by fewer than 23,000 votes. Aggressively taking on these laws
is not only a strategic means of providing Democrats with a potential
pathway to victory in 2020. It is also a moral imperative for those
hoping to remove at least one threat to the franchise experienced by
groups that are already partially disenfranchised by the bias in the
Electoral College (among other threats to their right to vote).

Finally, minimize the negative impacts of voter registration purges in
key states. Both NBC and Rolling Stone have reported that such
purges—allegedly designed to ensure individuals are not registered to
vote in multiple states or are not registered if they are
non-citizens—have a disproportionate, negative effect on the franchise
of Black, Hispanic, and Asian voters. This is largely because those
populations use fewer surnames and thus are more vulnerable to
false-positive identification. Mark Swedlund found that these
disproportionate purges are happening in Virginia and Georgia—two of the
top 15 states where a vote is likely to impact the outcome in the
Electoral College. Ensuring adequate safeguards against hasty purges in
these key states will also safeguard the franchise for vulnerable groups
while helping Democratic candidates benefit from every legitimate ballot
cast in states more likely to impact the outcome in the Electoral College.
* * *
The Founding Fathers envisioned a democracy where all voters could help
determine the destiny of the country through free and fair elections. As
bias in the Electoral College grows and obstacles to the franchise
persist, our nation’s democratic promise fades. To rekindle this
promise, and revive fading faith in our democratic institutions, we must
restore a semblance of balance to the Electoral College and overcome the
laws and practices that are subverting the voices of millions.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-electoral-college-is-even-more-biased-than-you-think-heres-how-democrats-can-beat-it/

Either improve the EC system or rescind the 12th Amendment and use a
popular vote system only, as Donald himself favored before his upset
victory was won by the EC system. No Dem Presidential candidates have
yet benefited from it, yet you whine it's favoring liberals. LOL@!
You're as much a whiner as Donald is. He whined he would've won the
popular vote if it hadn't been rigged and/or sloppily managed. Everyone
seems to be whining these days, eh?

@Y@
v
Steven Douglas
2018-08-04 18:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Obama mocked Trump for even thinking our elections could be
http://youtu.be/ZPpt7-QOGKc
Obama has never mocked the validity of the elections before or after,
But he did mock Trump for thinking our elections could be
tampered with.
So did a number of GOP congresspeople.
And now look at them, claiming Russia hacked our election and
changed the outcome, after assuring us it could never happen.
They're all a bunch of whiners.
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
and every Presidential candidate in my lifetime, since JFK, hasn't
whined about a "rigged election" system before or after.
Until now. Now we have Hillary's whining.
She didn't whine about it being rigged, junior.
She and her party are constantly whining about Russia hacking
the election and giving it to Trump. Of course that was after
they spent the entire campaign mocking Trump for saying the
election could be rigged.
Post by docufo
That's a lie.
Uh, no, it's a fact.
No, it's not a fact. Hillary has never said the electoral process may be
rigged, as it is and was sans the recent Russian influence which most
analysts said wasn't significant enough to actually tip it towards
Donald. Hillary has said that the Russian influence wasn't what tipped
her out of it, but Comey's timing of a re-investigation into (more of)
her emails.
She has whined about both of those things contributing to her
loss.
Post by docufo
That, she said, was the main factor in a sudden loss of
popularity she suffered just a few days before the election.
I could see that happen as I monitored it by the day. Many observers
remarked on the sudden downtrend at that time, right after Comey's
announcement. Comey himself has said on the lecture circuit that the
Russian influence, whatever it was, didn't cause the dramatic election
swing. He said it was primarily his announcement.
In fact, Donald praised Comey for his action and for a brief moment in
time, Comey became a villain to the Left, a hero of sorts to the Right.
That was before Donald canned him.
Donald canned him because Rod Rosenstein wrote a letter that
says the FBI's reputation and credibility had been damaged by
Comey, and that would not change as long as Comey remained as
FBI Director.
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Jesus will spank you for that one.
Why do you feel the need to mention Jesus, when you've made
it quite clear that you have rejected him?
I can't reject what I don't believe actually exists.
Then why do you even mention someone you don't believe exists?
Post by docufo
Jesus is a mystery
to me, but I have no scientific evidence he was anything but a human
being, without any deification involved. Perhaps if I'd been back in
Judea around 30 A.D. I'd had another view of Jesus' ministry.
I'd have still been suspicious anyway. Lazareth's resurrection would
compel me to investigate whether the figure seen from afar at the
entrance of his caved tomb, was, indeed, a man brought back to life, for
example.
I don't care what you believe. But it's clear that you care
what I believe. What is it with you atheists that you feel
the need to focus on something in which you don't believe?
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
She complained about Donald whining
it was rigged!
She's been whining ever since she lost the election.
You've been whining for 8 years over Obama's leadership.
Actually, I've been laughing at the way Obama cost his party
the majorities in not only Congress, but in state legilatures
and governorships around the country during those 8 years.
And ultimately, Obama could not carry Hillary across the
finish line as his presidency came to an end.
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Donald was upset he didn't get the popular vote, and began immediately,
as President, to prove his allegations Hillary didn't win that vote. His
commission inquiry came to an end when numerous states blocked access of
voter data on constitutional grounds.
It'd been more mature and responsible to simply have basked in the upset
victory, and graciously conceded that Hillary was the more popular of
the two.
Her winning margin came from people who live west of I-5.
The rest of the country (everything east of I-5) gave the
popular vote to Trump.
Do you think people who live west of I-5 should decide who
the president will be, so that everyone east of I-5 has to
live with choices made by coastal elites on the West Coast?
Do you think we need a civil war, junior, to parcel out the ideological
territories properly??
Not at all. I'm quite happy with the way the Electoral
College protects the rest of the country from coastal
elites who live west of I-5. It's pure genius that the
Founding Fathers thought of the Electoral College!!!
The Electoral College is far from being fair in representation of
population densities, on which it is primarily based, not on equalizing
ideological concentrations. It leaves minorities hurting for fair
representation, and it favors Republicans historically. It is little
wonder most Republicans want it to stay just like it is. LOL! You're a
weasel.
Democrats keep losing the Electoral College while winning ever-larger
popular-vote victories because their support is overly concentrated in
under-represented states like California and New York. Clinton won
California by over 3 million votes, netting 55 electoral votes. Trump’s
combined popular vote margin in Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, and
Wisconsin was under 250,000, but those victories netted him 75 electoral
votes.
Moving forward, Democrats should seek to ensure they not only secure
huge victories in very progressive and populous states, but also invest
time and resources in securing victories in states where votes are
likely to impact the outcome of the election. But which states are those?
Because elections are decided by a vastly different number of voters in
different states, and because states have very different numbers of
electoral votes, voters in some states are far more likely to impact the
outcome in the Electoral College. A voter in a state with a large spread
between the two major candidates and/or a small number of electoral
votes would have a small likelihood of affecting the election. Think of
Washington, DC—an extremely partisan city with a measly 3 electoral
votes. Casting your ballot there, for either party, is unlikely to
influence the outcome of the presidential election. In contrast, a voter
in a state with a small spread between the two candidates and/or a lot
of electoral votes can make a difference. Think of Florida, where
elections have been decided by a tiny number of voters, but the state
provides a whopping 29 electoral votes. Casting a vote in Florida is
more likely to swing how the state apportions its huge prize, which in
turn is more likely to impact the outcome of the election.
Combining these two factors (major candidate margin and electoral
votes), in 2016, voters in New Hampshire and Michigan had the biggest
likelihood of influencing the election.
The data used to create the chart above were collected from CNN.com on
November 20th, 2016 and therefore may under-represent the power of a
vote in certain states, like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania,
where votes counted in the latter third of November suggested even
closer election outcomes.
Not surprisingly, the top five states where a vote can make a difference
are also typical swing states, and the bottom five are stable Democratic
or Republican states. What is surprising is the huge range of how
valuable a vote in a given state can be. A vote in New Hampshire is over
120 times more valuable than a vote in DC. While this might seem
counter-intuitive given that both places have three electoral votes,
recall that George W. Bush won by two votes. Moreover, the tiny margin
between Trump and Clinton in 2016 meant that a voter in New Hampshire
was a lot more likely than a voter almost anywhere else to help their
candidate of choice secure any points where it counts.
Moving beyond the top five most influential states, many
non-swing-states made the top twenty. A vote in Minnesota mattered 7.5
times more than a vote in the average state, and a vote in Alaska, New
Mexico, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Texas (yes, Texas) mattered anywhere
from 1.5 to 2.65 times more. Votes in all of these states mattered more
than votes in Ohio and Iowa, two typical swing states.
One way to explain Clinton’s loss is that she lost four of the five
states where a vote matters the most, but won the two states where your
vote matters the least.
* * *
To avoid a repeat in 2020, Democrats should do three things.
First, campaign strategically in states where a vote is more likely to
affect the outcome in the Electoral College. While many of these states
are swing states, and swing states certainly receive a great deal of
attention and ad revenue, there are votes yet to be had in each of the
strategic states mentioned above. Even Minnesota, which had the highest
turnout rate in 2016, still only saw 75 percent of its eligible voters
cast ballots. That leaves a quarter of the electorate. And the average
state is far less engaged. Sixty percent of eligible voters nationwide
participated in the 2016 election.
Second, overturn or repeal voter identification laws in those key
states. Voter identification laws are having a clear impact in key
states. They are in effect in New Hampshire, Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Florida—four of the top five states with an impact on the Electoral
College. And a federal court found that voter identification laws in
Wisconsin could be keeping 300,000 voters (or 9 percent of the state’s
electorate) from voting, and that these 300,000 voters are more likely
to be poor, Latino, and Black. Current data suggests that Trump won
Wisconsin by fewer than 23,000 votes. Aggressively taking on these laws
is not only a strategic means of providing Democrats with a potential
pathway to victory in 2020. It is also a moral imperative for those
hoping to remove at least one threat to the franchise experienced by
groups that are already partially disenfranchised by the bias in the
Electoral College (among other threats to their right to vote).
Finally, minimize the negative impacts of voter registration purges in
key states. Both NBC and Rolling Stone have reported that such
purges—allegedly designed to ensure individuals are not registered to
vote in multiple states or are not registered if they are
non-citizens—have a disproportionate, negative effect on the franchise
of Black, Hispanic, and Asian voters. This is largely because those
populations use fewer surnames and thus are more vulnerable to
false-positive identification. Mark Swedlund found that these
disproportionate purges are happening in Virginia and Georgia—two of the
top 15 states where a vote is likely to impact the outcome in the
Electoral College. Ensuring adequate safeguards against hasty purges in
these key states will also safeguard the franchise for vulnerable groups
while helping Democratic candidates benefit from every legitimate ballot
cast in states more likely to impact the outcome in the Electoral College.
* * *
The Founding Fathers envisioned a democracy where all voters could help
determine the destiny of the country through free and fair elections. As
bias in the Electoral College grows and obstacles to the franchise
persist, our nation’s democratic promise fades. To rekindle this
promise, and revive fading faith in our democratic institutions, we must
restore a semblance of balance to the Electoral College and overcome the
laws and practices that are subverting the voices of millions.
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-electoral-college-is-even-more-biased-than-you-think-heres-how-democrats-can-beat-it/
The Nation? An outwardly leftist publication, and here you
are citing it while just a short time ago you were criticizing
me for supposedly using a biased source (when in fact, it was
the Daily Beast, which is nowhere near a conservative site --
despite your false belief that it is).
Post by docufo
Either improve the EC system or rescind the 12th Amendment and use a
popular vote system only,
You'll need a Constitutional Amendment to get that done. What
are you waiting for? Get on it! You keep repeating the same
complaints, yet you're doing nothing (other than your typical
whining) to fix it.
docufo
2018-08-05 06:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Obama mocked Trump for even thinking our elections could be
http://youtu.be/ZPpt7-QOGKc
Obama has never mocked the validity of the elections before or after,
But he did mock Trump for thinking our elections could be
tampered with.
So did a number of GOP congresspeople.
And now look at them, claiming Russia hacked our election and
changed the outcome, after assuring us it could never happen.
They're all a bunch of whiners.
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
and every Presidential candidate in my lifetime, since JFK, hasn't
whined about a "rigged election" system before or after.
Until now. Now we have Hillary's whining.
She didn't whine about it being rigged, junior.
She and her party are constantly whining about Russia hacking
the election and giving it to Trump. Of course that was after
they spent the entire campaign mocking Trump for saying the
election could be rigged.
Post by docufo
That's a lie.
Uh, no, it's a fact.
No, it's not a fact. Hillary has never said the electoral process may be
rigged, as it is and was sans the recent Russian influence which most
analysts said wasn't significant enough to actually tip it towards
Donald. Hillary has said that the Russian influence wasn't what tipped
her out of it, but Comey's timing of a re-investigation into (more of)
her emails.
She has whined about both of those things contributing to her
loss.
Post by docufo
That, she said, was the main factor in a sudden loss of
popularity she suffered just a few days before the election.
I could see that happen as I monitored it by the day. Many observers
remarked on the sudden downtrend at that time, right after Comey's
announcement. Comey himself has said on the lecture circuit that the
Russian influence, whatever it was, didn't cause the dramatic election
swing. He said it was primarily his announcement.
In fact, Donald praised Comey for his action and for a brief moment in
time, Comey became a villain to the Left, a hero of sorts to the Right.
That was before Donald canned him.
Donald canned him because Rod Rosenstein wrote a letter that
says the FBI's reputation and credibility had been damaged by
Comey, and that would not change as long as Comey remained as
FBI Director.
And yet Trump-appointed Rosenstein remains on duty, apparently
unfettered by Donald's unstable behavior and contradictory policy
statements. He should resign and explain that the DOJ has been
transformed into an untrustworthy, conspiratorial, unethical agency as
Donald has characterized it by his words and actions, as he has
similarly done with the CIA and FBI, undermining confidence in them.
Rosenstein needs to be removed from office if he doesn't step down.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Jesus will spank you for that one.
Why do you feel the need to mention Jesus, when you've made
it quite clear that you have rejected him?
I can't reject what I don't believe actually exists.
Then why do you even mention someone you don't believe exists?
I mention fairies and leprechauns, too. So? Maybe they exist, too, but
certainly the popular myth exists, allowing mention of it.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Jesus is a mystery
to me, but I have no scientific evidence he was anything but a human
being, without any deification involved. Perhaps if I'd been back in
Judea around 30 A.D. I'd had another view of Jesus' ministry.
I'd have still been suspicious anyway. Lazareth's resurrection would
compel me to investigate whether the figure seen from afar at the
entrance of his caved tomb, was, indeed, a man brought back to life, for
example.
I don't care what you believe. But it's clear that you care
what I believe. What is it with you atheists that you feel
the need to focus on something in which you don't believe?
No, I don't "care" at all. Because I differ with you, is not a sign of
caring, it's a sign of opposition. That is not caring. That is
acknowledgement of our differences as fact.
Caring requires more thought and time, which you and it are not worth.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
She complained about Donald whining
it was rigged!
She's been whining ever since she lost the election.
You've been whining for 8 years over Obama's leadership.
Actually, I've been laughing at the way Obama cost his party
the majorities in not only Congress, but in state legilatures
and governorships around the country during those 8 years.
And ultimately, Obama could not carry Hillary across the
finish line as his presidency came to an end.
No, it's properly labeled as "whining", followed by bed-wetting episodes
of self-delusion about your ideological obsessions becoming reality some
day.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Donald was upset he didn't get the popular vote, and began immediately,
as President, to prove his allegations Hillary didn't win that vote. His
commission inquiry came to an end when numerous states blocked access of
voter data on constitutional grounds.
It'd been more mature and responsible to simply have basked in the upset
victory, and graciously conceded that Hillary was the more popular of
the two.
Her winning margin came from people who live west of I-5.
The rest of the country (everything east of I-5) gave the
popular vote to Trump.
Do you think people who live west of I-5 should decide who
the president will be, so that everyone east of I-5 has to
live with choices made by coastal elites on the West Coast?
Do you think we need a civil war, junior, to parcel out the ideological
territories properly??
Not at all. I'm quite happy with the way the Electoral
College protects the rest of the country from coastal
elites who live west of I-5. It's pure genius that the
Founding Fathers thought of the Electoral College!!!
The Electoral College is far from being fair in representation of
population densities, on which it is primarily based, not on equalizing
ideological concentrations. It leaves minorities hurting for fair
representation, and it favors Republicans historically. It is little
wonder most Republicans want it to stay just like it is. LOL! You're a
weasel.
Democrats keep losing the Electoral College while winning ever-larger
popular-vote victories because their support is overly concentrated in
under-represented states like California and New York. Clinton won
California by over 3 million votes, netting 55 electoral votes. Trump’s
combined popular vote margin in Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, and
Wisconsin was under 250,000, but those victories netted him 75 electoral
votes.
Moving forward, Democrats should seek to ensure they not only secure
huge victories in very progressive and populous states, but also invest
time and resources in securing victories in states where votes are
likely to impact the outcome of the election. But which states are those?
Because elections are decided by a vastly different number of voters in
different states, and because states have very different numbers of
electoral votes, voters in some states are far more likely to impact the
outcome in the Electoral College. A voter in a state with a large spread
between the two major candidates and/or a small number of electoral
votes would have a small likelihood of affecting the election. Think of
Washington, DC—an extremely partisan city with a measly 3 electoral
votes. Casting your ballot there, for either party, is unlikely to
influence the outcome of the presidential election. In contrast, a voter
in a state with a small spread between the two candidates and/or a lot
of electoral votes can make a difference. Think of Florida, where
elections have been decided by a tiny number of voters, but the state
provides a whopping 29 electoral votes. Casting a vote in Florida is
more likely to swing how the state apportions its huge prize, which in
turn is more likely to impact the outcome of the election.
Combining these two factors (major candidate margin and electoral
votes), in 2016, voters in New Hampshire and Michigan had the biggest
likelihood of influencing the election.
The data used to create the chart above were collected from CNN.com on
November 20th, 2016 and therefore may under-represent the power of a
vote in certain states, like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania,
where votes counted in the latter third of November suggested even
closer election outcomes.
Not surprisingly, the top five states where a vote can make a difference
are also typical swing states, and the bottom five are stable Democratic
or Republican states. What is surprising is the huge range of how
valuable a vote in a given state can be. A vote in New Hampshire is over
120 times more valuable than a vote in DC. While this might seem
counter-intuitive given that both places have three electoral votes,
recall that George W. Bush won by two votes. Moreover, the tiny margin
between Trump and Clinton in 2016 meant that a voter in New Hampshire
was a lot more likely than a voter almost anywhere else to help their
candidate of choice secure any points where it counts.
Moving beyond the top five most influential states, many
non-swing-states made the top twenty. A vote in Minnesota mattered 7.5
times more than a vote in the average state, and a vote in Alaska, New
Mexico, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Texas (yes, Texas) mattered anywhere
from 1.5 to 2.65 times more. Votes in all of these states mattered more
than votes in Ohio and Iowa, two typical swing states.
One way to explain Clinton’s loss is that she lost four of the five
states where a vote matters the most, but won the two states where your
vote matters the least.
* * *
To avoid a repeat in 2020, Democrats should do three things.
First, campaign strategically in states where a vote is more likely to
affect the outcome in the Electoral College. While many of these states
are swing states, and swing states certainly receive a great deal of
attention and ad revenue, there are votes yet to be had in each of the
strategic states mentioned above. Even Minnesota, which had the highest
turnout rate in 2016, still only saw 75 percent of its eligible voters
cast ballots. That leaves a quarter of the electorate. And the average
state is far less engaged. Sixty percent of eligible voters nationwide
participated in the 2016 election.
Second, overturn or repeal voter identification laws in those key
states. Voter identification laws are having a clear impact in key
states. They are in effect in New Hampshire, Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Florida—four of the top five states with an impact on the Electoral
College. And a federal court found that voter identification laws in
Wisconsin could be keeping 300,000 voters (or 9 percent of the state’s
electorate) from voting, and that these 300,000 voters are more likely
to be poor, Latino, and Black. Current data suggests that Trump won
Wisconsin by fewer than 23,000 votes. Aggressively taking on these laws
is not only a strategic means of providing Democrats with a potential
pathway to victory in 2020. It is also a moral imperative for those
hoping to remove at least one threat to the franchise experienced by
groups that are already partially disenfranchised by the bias in the
Electoral College (among other threats to their right to vote).
Finally, minimize the negative impacts of voter registration purges in
key states. Both NBC and Rolling Stone have reported that such
purges—allegedly designed to ensure individuals are not registered to
vote in multiple states or are not registered if they are
non-citizens—have a disproportionate, negative effect on the franchise
of Black, Hispanic, and Asian voters. This is largely because those
populations use fewer surnames and thus are more vulnerable to
false-positive identification. Mark Swedlund found that these
disproportionate purges are happening in Virginia and Georgia—two of the
top 15 states where a vote is likely to impact the outcome in the
Electoral College. Ensuring adequate safeguards against hasty purges in
these key states will also safeguard the franchise for vulnerable groups
while helping Democratic candidates benefit from every legitimate ballot
cast in states more likely to impact the outcome in the Electoral College.
* * *
The Founding Fathers envisioned a democracy where all voters could help
determine the destiny of the country through free and fair elections. As
bias in the Electoral College grows and obstacles to the franchise
persist, our nation’s democratic promise fades. To rekindle this
promise, and revive fading faith in our democratic institutions, we must
restore a semblance of balance to the Electoral College and overcome the
laws and practices that are subverting the voices of millions.
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-electoral-college-is-even-more-biased-than-you-think-heres-how-democrats-can-beat-it/
The Nation? An outwardly leftist publication, and here you
are citing it while just a short time ago you were criticizing
me for supposedly using a biased source (when in fact, it was
the Daily Beast, which is nowhere near a conservative site --
despite your false belief that it is).
Millions of votes were negated by the EC in 5 national elections.
Millions of citizens' balloted choices for President tossed under the
bus of the EC.
And for what measure of enhancement of the democratic core principle of
a majority deciding?
A majority is thereby defeated by its representational system as having
their will fairly realized.
But, since you're an authoritarian-licking little man for Donald's
glorification, at least you're consistent now with your fanatical
ideology and your support of an unstable authoritarian leader.
It all must be meshing well for your these darkening days of our society.

^Y^
=
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Either improve the EC system or rescind the 12th Amendment and use a
popular vote system only,
You'll need a Constitutional Amendment to get that done. What
are you waiting for? Get on it! You keep repeating the same
complaints, yet you're doing nothing (other than your typical
whining) to fix it.
a***@yahoo.com
2018-07-20 23:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Is this a little gay boy trying to cuddle with Donald Trump?
Why does it matter if he's gay? The point of that video
is Trump's reaction to a little boy who wanted a hug from
the president.
It's just astounding that you feel the need to make this
about whether or not the little boy is gay. And it's
doubly astounding that you expect other people to think
the way you do.
I didn't say he was gay because I don't know.
At his age I doubt he knows, either. It's ridiculous that
you brought this up at all. That video is about Trump's
reaction to a little boy. You have completely ignored
that so you could make it about something that is truly
irrelevant.
It's relevant to the news of our times since a cute boy gives Donald a
warm hug Donald visibly appreciates, while little boys, most not white
and blonde, from south of our border, along with little girls, have been
unable to be with their parents and hug them.
Why didn't you care about children from south of our border
before Trump became president?
And...what evidence do you offer you had any real humanitarian concern
about them back then?
I said exactly what you said about it back then. What is
different now is that you've suddenly decided to become
outraged about something that did NOT outrage you while
Obama was president.
#WIN 4 Christian

witch mikeufo = 0 = failure ha ha
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...