you're wrong about this. exit polls indicate the Comey's grandstanding was likely decisive in the final week leading up to election day. Furthermore, this has been the GOP blueprint for 24 years now - some $100 million dollars or more have been spent destroying the Clinton name. If we don't call it out for the McCarthyist shit it is, you can look forward to baseless, years-long GOP investigations into every political opponent under the sun for the foreseeable future. And more of this presumption of guilt bullshit seeping into the hoi polloi.
Simple. Then don't defend them. It is not checking the tire pressure after the car crash (although, that might need to be done if the tire pressure was a contributing factor to the car crash). As for the rest of your post, I agree. However, it was a complete abdication by the Democratic Party and the Democratic voters and, apparently, millennials, to allow Trump to be voted into office. The problem is that grandstanders have a stranglehold on power for the foreseeable future. Also, this was precisely what Darryl Issa's entire agenda was about President Obama. Fortunately, it only partially worked against Obama. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gops-darrell-issa-plans-hundreds-of-oversight-hearings/ The witch hunts will continue until some sanity is restored to Congress and, frankly, I don't think that is likely to happen any time soon. It is up to US to fix that. DURING REAGAN ADMINISTRATION 10 Embassy attacks 318 deaths 1 US ambassador killed 18 CIA officers 254 Marines Number of investigations 1 DURING BUSH ADMINISTRATION 13 Embassy attacks 66 deaths 3 American diplomats killed 22 Embassy employees killed Number of investigations 0 DURING OBAMA ADMINISTRATION 2 Embassy attacks 4 American deaths Number of Investigations 13 $14 million.
I didn't mean to back down, I'll stand by the claim that she was a terrible candidate, precisely because of the issues she had. I didn't mean that to be a lessening of my claim. Dynasty candidates are generally not great. a super wealthy candidate with strong ties to wallstreet both personally and politically is not a great democratic candidate, the email scandal was not great for a candidate. All of those things, plus more subjective points, including that she is not (fairly or not) likable according to a large part of the population, make her a terrible candidate (though I also won't accept your claim that I called them equivalently terrible) I'll also stand by my claim that I'm not concerned by his presidency, for the reasons I said in the last post. Edited for clarity
Sorry for being late to the party - boy, looks like I missed a lot of fun. No one who was taken seriously predicted a Trump victory, so much so that it doesn't even seem like many groups planned it as an actual possibility. So I'm thinking maybe trying to make serious predictions about what the next 4 years are going to be like might be a little fragile. I mean, if people were so enlightened about the future maybe they should have seen this coming a little more. Right now Trump has already gone back on most of his more volatile campaign promises. It's certainly possible he'll be some sort of racist kleptocrat. He certainly wasn't my candidate. But there's a lot of uncertainty in my mind as to what's going to be done.
Larger trends are often easier to identify and predict than individual results. A Hauptman led Fire team will predictably be in the wooden spoon race, even if it can occasionally surprise you winning a game.
he has? He just hired a white supremacist to be his senior counselor. http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/stormfront-on-steve-bannons-appointment-it-doesnt-get-1789008594
Plenty of people had predictions of what might happen if Trump won and tried to push everyone to the polls to vote against him. Many, many millions took him seriously and were scared. Not that it matters. A racist and a religious zealot are in the White House. Previous predictions about who will get elected have nothing to do with what to expect now. Why on earth would you even try to equate the two issues based on the completely unrelated stat of polling prediction accuracy? That's about as useful as trying to predict earthquakes based on the number of eggs you had for breakfast.
He just hired a white supremacist to be his senior counselor. What you said simply enables white supremacy. ********. That. Noise.
You've heard men and women brag about getting away with sexual assault because of their celebrity status? Don't attempt to dismiss this a "locker room" talk. Don't attempt to argue that bragging about consensual sex is "similar" to bragging about sexual assault. Please feel free to clarify you: A) Work in a Federal prison B) Work in Trump Tower C) Are Billy Bush
then what, pray tell, was the point of adding this to your response: "I have heard both men and women make similar comments in conversation." surely you didn't drop a cup of coffee on your keyboard and have this randomly appear on the screen. Did you mean to write "people" and accidentally type "both men and women," or were you trying to say something more by specifying both sexes?
also, please note that nutbag Mike Pence is currently: Vice President Elect Head of the President Elect's transition team Governor of Indiana I'm sure everything will be normal and fine.
What do you think America will look like in 4 years? As much fun as it is to make jokes I'm curious to hear predictions about this.
that depends a lot on Schumer and mass media - will Schumer and the dem senate have the balls to filibuster every single thing the GOP tries to do the way the GOP did for the last 8 years? Will the media report on such tactics as failures by the GOP, as they did for the past 8 years, or obstruction by the Dems? Bearing in mind that the GOP just flatly refused to allow an elected president to fill a supreme court vacancy, while the press essentially ignore the unprecedented and downright unamerican move, will they cover the Dem resistance in the same fashion? If the GOP eliminate the filibuster, will the press call it a drastic "nuclear option" as they did when Dems floated the idea in 2010? Will Ryan (hereafter to be known as "the Zombie-eyed Granny Starver") actually try to eliminate medicare before the midterms? Will the media note that "vouchers" only work for people who already have money, or will they nod approvingly at the zombie-eyed granny starver's wonkishness? It does really hinge on whether the media normalizes nit just Trump, but the rest of the insane ideas the GOP has about the economy (i.e. the ACA has currently extended Medicare solvency through 2028. The zombie-eyed granny starver claims the ACA has killed medicare, but his plan puts Medicare into the red NEXT YEAR.) I'll make a broad generalization: in 4 years, the US will be a far shittier place for the poor, religious and ethnic minorities, and women.
Who cares? A racist, misogynist hate monger has control of the world's largest billboard and we know billboards work.
Unfortunately that's relative. To a libertarian, any government cost cutting makes the world a better place so even if elder people die to save money, we're better off.
"'what d'you think this country's gonna look like in the year 2003?' 'y'know, i'll tell you the truth - nothing against you guys, but i don't wanna answer that question because...i haven't even got a mind that's that...that inhumane...'" Your question reminded me of the "interview" on this song, and i couldn't help posting my favorite GSY!BE song.