US Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kilkrazy**

Border, not boarder.

**cuda1179**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Border, not boarder.

Thank you, self-appointed Dakka Spell Checker. Your contribution to this thread has been noted.

**BigWaaagh**

cuda1179 wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
[
“America is expelling illegal immigrants at nine times the rate of 20 years ago; nearly 2m so far under Barack Obama, easily outpacing any previous president,” the Economist wrote in February 2014. “Border patrol agents no longer just patrol the border; they scour the country for illegals to eject. The deportation machine costs more than all other areas of federal criminal law-enforcement combined.”
"Critics may declare President Obama soft on immigration but according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data the Department of Homeland Security deported 414,481 people in fiscal year 2014, down from 438,421 the year before. Each year of the Obama administration has seen more deportations than any preceding president; the pre-Obama high of 358,886 removals in FY2008 came during President George W. Bush’s last full fiscal year in office."
!

Actually, no this is not quite true. Obama's numbers are better because they redefined what "deported" meant. Unlike previous Presidents Obama is counting "self deportation" (moving back to Mexico on your own), and also counts those that are turned away when caught at the boarder. If this standard had been used before Bush would have vastly outnumbered Obama.

Really? I always thought numbers were cut and dried, but okay. What kind of numbers are we talking about? Source(s) please. Also, even though you've cut out just a portion of a long thread from a string of long threads to reproach, the point all along that was being made by myself is that contrary to the lies that portray us as being "soft" on undocumented aliens, the numbers presented show that we are sending back, deporting, at a very high rate. You state that those numbers I've shown are skewed? Fine, I'd just like proof.

Also, skew or no skew aside, I find it amazing that removing over 400K undocumented aliens, whether they were caught and turnedt at the border...the ideal approach in my book...or tracked down and deported is at all supportive of the bullgak "soft" on illegals narrative. The simple fact that in 2013, a record 363,000 (83%) of deportations were carried out without appearing before a judge – either through an order issued by an enforcement agent (called expedited removal) or by using a previous order of deportation (called reinstatement of final orders). Sounds like the mechanism is working pretty efficiently to me and when combined with the irrefutable fact that, as noted, the deportation machine costs more than all other areas of federal criminal law-enforcement combined, i.e. it's funded, and you get a pretty solid picture that there really isn't a "welcome" sign on the border as some would like to believe.

**cuda1179**

BigWaaagh wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
[
“America is expelling illegal immigrants at nine times the rate of 20 years ago; nearly 2m so far under Barack Obama, easily outpacing any previous president,” the Economist wrote in February 2014. “Border patrol agents no longer just patrol the border; they scour the country for illegals to eject. The deportation machine costs more than all other areas of federal criminal law-enforcement combined.”
"Critics may declare President Obama soft on immigration but according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data the Department of Homeland Security deported 414,481 people in fiscal year 2014, down from 438,421 the year before. Each year of the Obama administration has seen more deportations than any preceding president; the pre-Obama high of 358,886 removals in FY2008 came during President George W. Bush’s last full fiscal year in office."
!

Actually, no this is not quite true. Obama's numbers are better because they redefined what "deported" meant. Unlike previous Presidents Obama is counting "self deportation" (moving back to Mexico on your own), and also counts those that are turned away when caught at the boarder. If this standard had been used before Bush would have vastly outnumbered Obama.

Really? I always thought numbers were cut and dried, but okay. What kind of numbers are we talking about? Source(s) please. Also, even though you've cut out just a portion of a long thread from a string of long threads to reproach, the point all along that was being made by myself is that contrary to the lies that portray us as being "soft" on undocumented aliens, the numbers presented show that we are sending back, deporting, at a very high rate. You state that those numbers I've shown are skewed? Fine, I'd just like proof.

Also, skew or no skew aside, I find it amazing that removing over 400K undocumented aliens, whether they were caught and turnedt at the border...the ideal approach in my book...or tracked down and deported is at all supportive of the bullgak "soft" on illegals narrative. The simple fact that in 2013, a record 363,000 (83%) of deportations were carried out without appearing before a judge – either through an order issued by an enforcement agent (called expedited removal) or by using a previous order of deportation (called reinstatement of final orders). Sounds like the mechanism is working pretty efficiently to me and when combined with the irrefutable fact that, as noted, the deportation machine costs more than all other areas of federal criminal law-enforcement combined, i.e. it's funded, and you get a pretty solid picture that there really isn't a "welcome" sign on the border as some would like to believe.

Some of that info was all ready sited in this thread, so I feel no need to regurgitate it again. Nor have I stated that we are "soft" on immigration, or that Obama has been lax on illegal immigration. I was just pointing out that he hasn't been the total balls-to-the-walls deportation master as stated.

**BigWaaagh**

cuda1179 wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
[
“America is expelling illegal immigrants at nine times the rate of 20 years ago; nearly 2m so far under Barack Obama, easily outpacing any previous president,” the Economist wrote in February 2014. “Border patrol agents no longer just patrol the border; they scour the country for illegals to eject. The deportation machine costs more than all other areas of federal criminal law-enforcement combined.”
"Critics may declare President Obama soft on immigration but according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data the Department of Homeland Security deported 414,481 people in fiscal year 2014, down from 438,421 the year before. Each year of the Obama administration has seen more deportations than any preceding president; the pre-Obama high of 358,886 removals in FY2008 came during President George W. Bush’s last full fiscal year in office."
!

Actually, no this is not quite true. Obama's numbers are better because they redefined what "deported" meant. Unlike previous Presidents Obama is counting "self deportation" (moving back to Mexico on your own), and also counts those that are turned away when caught at the boarder. If this standard had been used before Bush would have vastly outnumbered Obama.

Really? I always thought numbers were cut and dried, but okay. What kind of numbers are we talking about? Source(s) please. Also, even though you've cut out just a portion of a long thread from a string of long threads to reproach, the point all along that was being made by myself is that contrary to the lies that portray us as being "soft" on undocumented aliens, the numbers presented show that we are sending back, deporting, at a very high rate. You state that those numbers I've shown are skewed? Fine, I'd just like proof.

Also, skew or no skew aside, I find it amazing that removing over 400K undocumented aliens, whether they were caught and turnedt at the border...the ideal approach in my book...or tracked down and deported is at all supportive of the bullgak "soft" on illegals narrative. The simple fact that in 2013, a record 363,000 (83%) of deportations were carried out without appearing before a judge – either through an order issued by an enforcement agent (called expedited removal) or by using a previous order of deportation (called reinstatement of final orders). Sounds like the mechanism is working pretty efficiently to me and when combined with the irrefutable fact that, as noted, the deportation machine costs more than all other areas of federal criminal law-enforcement combined, i.e. it's funded, and you get a pretty solid picture that there really isn't a "welcome" sign on the border as some would like to believe.

Some of that info was all ready sited in this thread, so I feel no need to regurgitate it again. Nor have I stated that we are "soft" on immigration, or that Obama has been lax on illegal immigration. I was just pointing out that he hasn't been the total balls-to-the-walls deportation master as stated.

Noted. I'm just asking for the numbers that you state weren't counted under Bush, that are apparently now being counted under Obama, which would cause the "vast outnumbering" you claim. I'm afraid I didn't see those in the thread before.

**whembly**

Sarouan wrote:
It's quite fascinating to see so many scandals and "revelations" are popping up when the President-elect isn't even officially at his office. I mean, the 4 years didn't even truly start.

And yes, Whembly already started to defend all of this mess. 4 years of this non stop...it's really depressing, when you think about it.

What/where am I defending this?

**Co'tor Shas**

Yeah, Whem' has been pretty anti-Trump in this whole thing.

**BigWaaagh**

Frazzled wrote:
Correction Exxon for SoS all your worlds belong to us!

McCain isn't too happy with that nomination.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mccain-tillerson-ties-to-putin-a-matter-of-concern/ar-AAloXZb?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

**d-usa**

He's come close to some of the same taking points that Trump likes to use, and suddenly "unnamed sources" aren't good enough for public trials anymore, but he really hasn't flat-out defended Trump.

**LordofHats**

To be fair I've seen almost no one defend Trump. It's either he sucks or "x is just as bad/worse" all around the merry-go-round. About the only people happily jumping on board the bandwagon are people that a certain D word seems to regularly be used to describe right before everyone jumps on board another bandwagon about how bad SJWs are.

**A Town Called Malus**

BigWaaagh wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Correction Exxon for SoS all your worlds belong to us!

McCain isn't too happy with that nomination.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mccain-tillerson-ties-to-putin-a-matter-of-concern/ar-AAloXZb?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

Surely there's no way he could get through the confirmation process? His links with Russia aside, the possibilities for conflicts of interest are insane. He could be privy to classified information concerning states that his company is involved in, the temptation to pass them along to Exxon in order for them to get ahead of competition or get out of dodge before gak hits the fan would be pretty considerable.

**BigWaaagh**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Correction Exxon for SoS all your worlds belong to us!

McCain isn't too happy with that nomination.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mccain-tillerson-ties-to-putin-a-matter-of-concern/ar-AAloXZb?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

Surely there's no way he could get through the confirmation process? His links with Russia aside, the possibilities for conflicts of interest are insane. He could be privy to classified information concerning states that his company is involved in, the temptation to pass them along to Exxon in order for them to get ahead of competition or get out of dodge before gak hits the fan would be pretty considerable.

The birth of an oligarchy...I'm just exaggerating...I hope...but if someone is looking for a conspiracy theory to this administration, there you go.

**CptJake**

BigWaaagh wrote:

Noted. I'm just asking for the numbers that you state weren't counted under Bush, that are apparently now being counted under Obama, which would cause the "vast outnumbering" you claim. I'm afraid I didn't see those in the thread before.

A few sources discussing it:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370784/obama-administration-inflating-deportation-numbers-andrew-stiles

Explains the difference between 'removals' and 'returns' and how the Obama admin mixed the two.

https://newrepublic.com/article/117412/deportations-under-obama-vs-bush-who-deported-more-immigrants

Shows some of the return/removal numbers for Bush and Obama, also explains how sometimes several 'returns' can be the same person attempting more than once.

The LA Times take (note, LA Times is not known as a conservative outlet). http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html

And another: http://cis.org/ICE-Illegal-Immigrant-Deportations

**BigWaaagh**

CptJake wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:

Noted. I'm just asking for the numbers that you state weren't counted under Bush, that are apparently now being counted under Obama, which would cause the "vast outnumbering" you claim. I'm afraid I didn't see those in the thread before.

A few sources discussing it:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370784/obama-administration-inflating-deportation-numbers-andrew-stiles

Explains the difference between 'removals' and 'returns' and how the Obama admin mixed the two.

https://newrepublic.com/article/117412/deportations-under-obama-vs-bush-who-deported-more-immigrants

Shows some of the return/removal numbers for Bush and Obama, also explains how sometimes several 'returns' can be the same person attempting more than once.

The LA Times take (note, LA Times is not known as a conservative outlet). http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html

And another: http://cis.org/ICE-Illegal-Immigrant-Deportations

Good stuff. A couple of these I've seen and a couple I haven't.

**reds8n**

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/12/10/breaking-mitch-mcconnell-implicated-in-russiatrump-election-meddling-fbi-inquiry/

So if Wikileaks, Russia's tool of choice, have the RNC's emails-- and they did take those as well, they just didn't release them during the election , do they have leverage to shut them up ? Or get them to do X/Y/Z ?

Or are those emails going to be saved for use at a later time ?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/807547249681166336

I have NOTHING to do with The Apprentice except for fact that I conceived it with Mark B & have a big stake in it. Will devote ZERO TIME!

.......I have nothing to do with it except for the fact that I created it and own it & will be executive producer
..

**Kilkrazy**

If Wikileaks didn't release the Republican emails when they received them, it is clearly a political act. However it is more likely that the Russians are sitting on them and never gave them to Wikileaks.

**Sarouan**

whembly wrote:

What/where am I defending this?

When you try to justify the nominations of some controversial republican figures or their decisions, already. Should I also mention your stance about the contestation of the votes, how Russia is involved as well?

You're trying to defend your party, it's quite obvious. And by extension, their candidate now President-elect, because let's be clear, it's an unique opportunity for your side to do what they always wanted to do now that the road is wide open. And I expect you to do this for 4 years.

**Mitochondria**

Sarouan wrote:
whembly wrote:

What/where am I defending this?

When you try to justify the nominations of some controversial republican figures or their decisions, already. Should I also mention your stance about the contestation of the votes, how Russia is involved as well?

You're trying to defend your party, it's quite obvious. And by extension, their candidate now President-elect, because let's be clear, it's an unique opportunity for your side to do what they always wanted to do now that the road is wide open. And I expect you to do this for 4 years.

Ha! The exact same thing was said about the legislative cycle of 2008 - 2010.

**Co'tor Shas**

feth you Trump. feth you.

Trump said to pick drilling advocate Cathy McMorris Rodgers for Interior

Donald Trump has chosen Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), a member of the GOP congressional leadership and a strident advocate for increased oil and gas drilling on federal lands, to head the Interior Department, according to multiple news reports.

McMorris Rodgers, the highest ranking Republican woman in the House of Representatives, would take the helm of a 70,000-person agency that manages hundreds of millions of acres of federal lands, including the National Parks system. She would be charged with implementing Trump’s plan to aggressively roll back many of the environmental restrictions the Obama administration has placed on federal lands, which the president-elect wants to open up for substantially more drilling and mining.

In picking the congresswoman, Trump has chosen an ally who has been loyal to him politically and who shares his view that big energy companies should have more access to the lands under federal stewardship. McMorris Rodgers has voted against environmental protections repeatedly, earning her a score of zero in 2015 from the League of Conservation Voters. She supports opening the Atlantic Ocean for drilling, and has fought efforts to regulate hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on federal land. She also voted to make it easier to drill in Native American lands.

If confirmed, McMorris Rodgers would continue the tradition of a Westerner running the Interior department, which reflects the vast acreage of federal land in the West. While she has not had a high profile in environmental issues, McMorris Rodgers has been a trusted adviser to Trump, serving as one of the co-chairs of his transition team and working with Trump’s daughter Ivanka on childcare policies.

She is a polished and steadfast leader of the GOP caucus in the House, where she is often a point person to represent the party before the media. Her strong ties in Congress and experience brokering deals, rallying fellow Republicans, and staying on message will help Trump build bridges on Capitol Hill and project an orderly pursuit of his agenda.

But if confirmed, McMorris Rodgers will find herself at the center of the nation’s most contentious environmental battles, facing an organized resistance that already is mobilized to fight Trump’s plans.

The Sierra Club immediately declared her appointment unacceptable.

“Selling off our public lands to the highest bidder and opening them to drilling, mining and logging is not in the best interest of our country,” said a statement from Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune, “but that is exactly what Rep. McMorris Rodgers has voted to do over and over again.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-said-to-pick-mcmorriss-rodgers-1481305993-htmlstory.html

Why is it that the Republican party elite is so fething short-sighted? They seem to act like a profit today is worth wrecking our environment and fething over the future generations. It's like they don't care about anything but immediate profit, and anyone else can go die in a hole for all they care. And they wrap it up in bs like supply-side economics and other stuff, duping those who don't actually look into it, into beliving gak like this. It's the same "pro-business" bs they have been pulling for years. Being pro-buisness is one thing, I am myself, but not at the expense of the people. They aren't "pro-business", they are anti-consumer, anti-worker, and anti-environment.

**Ustrello**

Because global warming is a lie and a myth created by the liberal elite to stop our god given rights to profit. Also god wouldn't let anything bad happen to us

**wuestenfux**

Ustrello wrote:
Because global warming is a lie and a myth created by the liberal elite to stop our god given rights to profit. Also god wouldn't let anything bad happen to us

This is exactly what Trump is thinking. He's still an idiot and stay with his business and not with politics.

**Tannhauser42**

Ustrello wrote:
Because global warming is a lie and a myth created by the liberal elite to stop our god given rights to profit. Also god wouldn't let anything bad happen to us

You've sort of hit the nail on the head there. First, of course, most politicians are already wealthy enough or otherwise insulated from any economic consequences that they don't care. Second, by the time things get really bad, they'll already be dead, so they still don't care. And while some might say the politicians should care because of their own children and grandchildren, well, again, they'll be too dead to care. As for the underlined, the religious aspect, if you already believe you and your kids will be going to an eternal paradise, then what's a little Hell on Earth matter?

**BigWaaagh**

Ustrello wrote:
Because global warming is a lie and a myth created by the liberal elite to stop our god given rights to profit. Also god wouldn't let anything bad happen to us

It's been 5000 good years so far!

**Ustrello**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Because global warming is a lie and a myth created by the liberal elite to stop our god given rights to profit. Also god wouldn't let anything bad happen to us

You've sort of hit the nail on the head there. First, of course, most politicians are already wealthy enough or otherwise insulated from any economic consequences that they don't care. Second, by the time things get really bad, they'll already be dead, so they still don't care. And while some might say the politicians should care because of their own children and grandchildren, well, again, they'll be too dead to care. As for the underlined, the religious aspect, if you already believe you and your kids will be going to an eternal paradise, then what's a little Hell on Earth matter?

You think it would enter their minds that god would be a bit pissed that they destroyed the home that he gave them

**A Town Called Malus**

Ustrello wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Because global warming is a lie and a myth created by the liberal elite to stop our god given rights to profit. Also god wouldn't let anything bad happen to us

You've sort of hit the nail on the head there. First, of course, most politicians are already wealthy enough or otherwise insulated from any economic consequences that they don't care. Second, by the time things get really bad, they'll already be dead, so they still don't care. And while some might say the politicians should care because of their own children and grandchildren, well, again, they'll be too dead to care. As for the underlined, the religious aspect, if you already believe you and your kids will be going to an eternal paradise, then what's a little Hell on Earth matter?

You think it would enter their minds that god would be a bit pissed that they destroyed the home that he gave them

Well it's a good thing that god in his infinite wisdom didn't tell us not to burn fossil fuels and turn our planet into the new Venus! Obviously coveting your neighbours ox was much more important

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
feth you Trump. feth you.

Trump said to pick drilling advocate Cathy McMorris Rodgers for Interior

Donald Trump has chosen Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), a member of the GOP congressional leadership and a strident advocate for increased oil and gas drilling on federal lands, to head the Interior Department, according to multiple news reports.

McMorris Rodgers, the highest ranking Republican woman in the House of Representatives, would take the helm of a 70,000-person agency that manages hundreds of millions of acres of federal lands, including the National Parks system. She would be charged with implementing Trump’s plan to aggressively roll back many of the environmental restrictions the Obama administration has placed on federal lands, which the president-elect wants to open up for substantially more drilling and mining.

In picking the congresswoman, Trump has chosen an ally who has been loyal to him politically and who shares his view that big energy companies should have more access to the lands under federal stewardship. McMorris Rodgers has voted against environmental protections repeatedly, earning her a score of zero in 2015 from the League of Conservation Voters. She supports opening the Atlantic Ocean for drilling, and has fought efforts to regulate hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on federal land. She also voted to make it easier to drill in Native American lands.

If confirmed, McMorris Rodgers would continue the tradition of a Westerner running the Interior department, which reflects the vast acreage of federal land in the West. While she has not had a high profile in environmental issues, McMorris Rodgers has been a trusted adviser to Trump, serving as one of the co-chairs of his transition team and working with Trump’s daughter Ivanka on childcare policies.

She is a polished and steadfast leader of the GOP caucus in the House, where she is often a point person to represent the party before the media. Her strong ties in Congress and experience brokering deals, rallying fellow Republicans, and staying on message will help Trump build bridges on Capitol Hill and project an orderly pursuit of his agenda.

But if confirmed, McMorris Rodgers will find herself at the center of the nation’s most contentious environmental battles, facing an organized resistance that already is mobilized to fight Trump’s plans.

The Sierra Club immediately declared her appointment unacceptable.

“Selling off our public lands to the highest bidder and opening them to drilling, mining and logging is not in the best interest of our country,” said a statement from Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune, “but that is exactly what Rep. McMorris Rodgers has voted to do over and over again.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-said-to-pick-mcmorriss-rodgers-1481305993-htmlstory.html

Why is it that the Republican party elite is so fething short-sighted? They seem to act like a profit today is worth wrecking our environment and fething over the future generations. It's like they don't care about anything but immediate profit, and anyone else can go die in a hole for all they care. And they wrap it up in bs like supply-side economics and other stuff, duping those who don't actually look into it, into beliving gak like this. It's the same "pro-business" bs they have been pulling for years. Being pro-buisness is one thing, I am myself, but not at the expense of the people. They aren't "pro-business", they are anti-consumer, anti-worker, and anti-environment.

A shame that the Democrats can't stop this pick... (damn you Reid... DAAMMN YOOOOOOOOOOU!

)

**Co'tor Shas**

feth off whem. It's Trump's fault for picking her, and it will the the Repub's who vote for her fault if she get in.

**whembly**

Sarouan wrote:
whembly wrote:

What/where am I defending this?

When you try to justify the nominations of some controversial republican figures or their decisions, already. Should I also mention your stance about the contestation of the votes, how Russia is involved as well?

You're trying to defend your party, it's quite obvious. And by extension, their candidate now President-elect, because let's be clear, it's an unique opportunity for your side to do what they always wanted to do now that the road is wide open. And I expect you to do this for 4 years.

Sure I'm tickled pink that the Republicans kicked Democrats ass...

But it ain't like I'm picking up pom-poms cheering everything Cheeto Jesus has done so far...

However, I will say that I'm pleasantly surprised at most of the cabinet picks so far. (Mattis for DoD? I may have gay thoughts for the first time of my life!

)

I'm from Missouri, and out state motto is "The Show-Me State". We believe in action, not words.

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
whembly wrote:

What/where am I defending this?

When you try to justify the nominations of some controversial republican figures or their decisions, already. Should I also mention your stance about the contestation of the votes, how Russia is involved as well?

You're trying to defend your party, it's quite obvious. And by extension, their candidate now President-elect, because let's be clear, it's an unique opportunity for your side to do what they always wanted to do now that the road is wide open. And I expect you to do this for 4 years.

Sure I'm tickled pink that the Republicans kicked Democrats ass...

But it ain't like I'm picking up pom-poms cheering everything Cheeto Jesus has done so far...

However, I will say that I'm pleasantly surprised at most of the cabinet picks so far. (Mattis for DoD? I may have gay thoughts for the first time of my life! )

I'm from Missouri, and out state motto is "The Show-Me State". We believe in action, not words.

Not, you believe in rampant partisanship and party loyalty over all else. You've demonstrated that quite plainly.

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
feth off whem. It's Trump's fault for picking her, and it will the the Repub's who vote for her fault if she get in.

Hey.

I'm part of the 'Earth First' club.... we'll strip mine the other planets later.

Seriously, Co'tor... methinks you're protesting a bit much. They're not running the show yet, so keep your powder dry.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
whembly wrote:

What/where am I defending this?

When you try to justify the nominations of some controversial republican figures or their decisions, already. Should I also mention your stance about the contestation of the votes, how Russia is involved as well?

You're trying to defend your party, it's quite obvious. And by extension, their candidate now President-elect, because let's be clear, it's an unique opportunity for your side to do what they always wanted to do now that the road is wide open. And I expect you to do this for 4 years.

Sure I'm tickled pink that the Republicans kicked Democrats ass...

But it ain't like I'm picking up pom-poms cheering everything Cheeto Jesus has done so far...

However, I will say that I'm pleasantly surprised at most of the cabinet picks so far. (Mattis for DoD? I may have gay thoughts for the first time of my life! )

I'm from Missouri, and out state motto is "The Show-Me State". We believe in action, not words.

Not, you believe in rampant partisanship and party loyalty over all else. You've demonstrated that quite plainly.

No, I beleive this current generation of Democrats are so fething far removed from what most Americans want. 'Tis why 2016 will be known as 'The Year of the Democrats Spankings'.

As for Cheeto Jesus, I'm just in the shruggie mindset and expected the worst. But, I'm somewhat heartened by his transition picks so far.