SURVEY: Do you want Trump to finish his first term?

[riclag]

The creators of the Big C designed requirements over 200+ years.Its up to the Congress and the states to change it.Until than America has officially voted.Regardless of Russians or dislike by some of the choice


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, bushdoctor said:

 

It’s becoming more and more evident that there has been bias and corruption throughout the investigation, and yet they have still not been able to turn up anything that indicates Trump commited a crime. I wouldn’t be surprised if people are prosecuted, but probably not who you are expecting. 

 

9.2% of Obama voters flipped and voted for Trump. It’s hard to claim they are racists or many of the other insults liberals like to throw around.

 

To me those who hope for bad things to happen to the US, like hoping for Trump’s negotiations with North Korea fail, or who hope for trade deals to fail, or hope for a recession, or a myriad of other things being suggested by the left (which I think are born out of pure spite) are much closer to being the traitors. 

It's becoming more and more evident that Trump cult members care more about keeping their leader in office than protecting democracy in the US from outside interference.  Read Mueller's appointment and explain how he has done anything other than investigate illegal activities:   https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/politics/document-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

 

Trump's negotiations with North Korea have already failed.  He gave away everything North Korea wants and got nothing in return other than photo ops.  The fact that a green newbie leader such as Kim Jong Un was able to make a total fool of Trump is disturbing.  The fact that Trump is now about to face an experienced, ruthless, spy-master such as Putin is terrifying.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

The creators of the Big C designed requirements over 200+ years.Its up to the Congress and the states to change it.Until than America has officially voted.Regardless of Russians or dislike by some of the choice


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

The creators of the Big C did not anticipate adversaries using the internet to elect useful idiots.  They did understand the requirement for checks and balances, but could not anticipate the gutless reaction of a temporary majority party willing to put re-election ahead of country.  

 

America has voted, and a reckless FBI chief and foreign adversary have swung an election to a dangerous incompetent.  The constitution did not anticipate this, but did allow for investigations of such things.  If you give a damn about the country, allow the investigation to run its course.  Especially if Trump makes it clear that he doesn't like being investigated. 

[bushdoctor]

25 minutes ago, heybruce said:

....Trump's negotiations with North Korea have already failed.  

 

Thanks for proving my point. The negotiations are ongoing, the final outcome is yet to be determined. 

 

 

 

[bushdoctor]

36 minutes ago, heybruce said:

.....but could not anticipate the gutless reaction of a temporary majority party willing to put re-election ahead of country....

 

Trying to make sense of your post. What do you mean by 

“re-election”? Or “a temporary majority”? 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by bushdoctor

[bushdoctor]

Americans do tend to swing from party to party electorally, but there will eventually come some point when Democrats are again ascendant. When that happens will you consider them to be just a “temporary majority”? And if that majority elects a Democratic President, will they also be guilty of putting “re-election” ahead of country? 

 

 

[heybruce]

28 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

 

Thanks for proving my point. The negotiations are ongoing, the final outcome is yet to be determined.

Let's see, Trump met with Kim Jong Un, the leader of a repressing, dictatorial regime guilty of more human rights abuses than can be easily summarized, praised him as a strong leader, gave up joint US-South Korea military drills, provided cover for China to relax sanctions, and in return got a vague promise of nuclear disarmament with no definition of what it means or when it will happen. 

 

Trump gave away things North Korea has wanted for decades and got nothing in return.  After giving away the US's best incentives, we find North Korea unwilling to yield on anything.  Please explain how that is anything but a humiliating defeat for the US. 

 

More important, please explain why we should not be afraid of Trump's meeting with Putin.

[heybruce]

22 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

 

Trying to make sense of your post. What do you mean by 

“re-election”? Or “a temporary majority”?

I assume you don't understand how the US political system works.  I won't go into details, I'll just point out the obvious fact that few Republican congress members will survive the primaries if the Trumpies are against them.   Every one who puts re-election ahead of principals and the good of the country are gutless cowards bordering on treasonous.

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

Americans do tend to swing from party to party electorally, but there will eventually come some point when Democrats are again ascendant. When that happens will you consider them to be just a “temporary majority”? And if that majority elects a Democratic President, will they also be guilty of putting “re-election” ahead of country?

Yes, their majority will be temporary.  I hope so.  No, I will not automatically assume they are putting re-election ahead of country.  Only if they sell out on all principals and support a dangerous incompetent in order to get re-elected will I accuse them of that.

[bushdoctor]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I assume you don't understand how the US political system works.  I won't go into details, I'll just point out the obvious fact that few Republican congress members will survive the primaries if the Trumpies are against them.   Every one who puts re-election ahead of principals and the good of the country are gutless cowards bordering on treasonous.

 

Again trying to make sense of your post. What do you mean by “the obvious fact that few Republican congress members will survive the primaries if the Trumpies are against them”. Will They be replaced by Democrats? 

[bristolboy]

Does an attempted crime against humanity count as an impeachable offense? If so, then Trump should be impeached and removed from office. Of course if he claims he knew nothing of it and moves to fire those who directed this effort, that would at least mitigate the offense. What do you think the odds of that are?

U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials

 

"Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.

American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.html

The United States successfully threatened a dozen nations with a cutoff in aid if they sponsored the resolution."

Breastfeeding: achieving the new normal

"Breastmilk makes the world healthier, smarter, and more equal: these are the conclusions of a new Lancet Series on breastfeeding. The deaths of 823 000 children and 20 000 mothers each year could be averted through universal breastfeeding, along with economic savings of US$300 billion. The Series confirms the benefits of breastfeeding in fewer infections, increased intelligence, probable protection against overweight and diabetes, and cancer prevention for mothers." 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)00210-5/fulltext

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

 

Again trying to make sense of your post. What do you mean by “the obvious fact that few Republican congress members will survive the primaries if the Trumpies are against them”. Will They be replaced by Democrats? 

Before posing this question, you should ask yourself what are primaries for? Why are they called primaries and not finals?

[bushdoctor]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Does an attempted crime against humanity count as an impeachable offense? If so, then Trump should be impeached and removed from office. Of course if he claims he knew nothing of it and moves to fire those who directed this effort, that would at least mitigate the offense. What do you think the odds of that are?

U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials

 

"Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.

American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.html

The United States successfully threatened a dozen nations with a cutoff in aid if they sponsored the resolution."

Breastfeeding: achieving the new normal

"Breastmilk makes the world healthier, smarter, and more equal: these are the conclusions of a new Lancet Series on breastfeeding. The deaths of 823 000 children and 20 000 mothers each year could be averted through universal breastfeeding, along with economic savings of US$300 billion. The Series confirms the benefits of breastfeeding in fewer infections, increased intelligence, probable protection against overweight and diabetes, and cancer prevention for mothers." 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)00210-5/fulltext

Is this a serious question? 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, bushdoctor said:

Is this a serious question? 

You don't see this attempt as being monstrous?

[bushdoctor]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Before posing this question, you should ask yourself what are primaries for? Why are they called primaries and not finals?

 

Go ahead and explain.....

[bristolboy]

Just now, bushdoctor said:

 

Go ahead and explain.....

Does the name "Mark Sanford" mean anything to you?

[bushdoctor]

Go on.....

[heybruce]

24 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

 

Again trying to make sense of your post. What do you mean by “the obvious fact that few Republican congress members will survive the primaries if the Trumpies are against them”. Will They be replaced by Democrats? 

 

8 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

 

Go ahead and explain.....

Ok, you have made it very clear that you don't understand the difference between primaries and the general election.  I'm kind of at a loss for words, other than "educate yourself".  Seriously, educate yourself, these things are fundamental to our democracy.

 

For all the potential for abuse, I can't help but think that requiring voters to pass a basic civics test would be a good idea.  Even a better idea for candidates, I doubt that Trump would pass.

[bushdoctor]

You’re making ridiculous assumptions while avoiding answering my question. I’m not surprised. 

 

All Trump can do is endorse a candidate. Endorsements help if the people respect and trust the endorser, but the way they get elected is still through elections like it always has been. 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

Go on.....

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/mark-sanford-loses-to-kate-arrington-in-south-carolinas-1st-congressional-district.html

[Curt1591]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Stop spreading lies. Her majority didn't come only from Cali. Another case of Fox propaganda network brain rot.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Not Fox News, but that other endless source of extreme conservatism: https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/california

I'm sorry; I rounded down. I didn't think anyone could consider that a lie. So, in the interest of being truthful, the California margin was actually a bit more. 

Without California, the popular vote would have been Trump.

Im try to form my opinions from various sources, not from talking heads on TV. I also like to do my own research.
 

Edited July 8, 2018 by Curt1591

[bushdoctor]

It also doesn’t surprise me that you would try to find fault with republicans electing the republican candidate of their choice, and then trying to imply a correlation between that and my lack of understanding of what a primary is. 

 

These posts are are getting progressively stranger. 

[Scott]

Continuing to nit-pick, ask silly questions and other attempts to control the topic will result in a suspension.  

 

You have been warned.  

 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, bushdoctor said:

It also doesn’t surprise me that you would try to find fault with republicans electing the republican candidate of their choice, and then trying to imply a correlation between that and my lack of understanding of what a primary is. 

 

These posts are are getting progressively stranger. 

I truly hope your incomprehension of the obvious is feigned. Heybruce stated that Republicans who opposed Trump risked losing their seats. This was your reply to that:

"What do you mean by “the obvious fact that few Republican congress members will survive the primaries if the Trumpies are against them”. Will They be replaced by Democrats? "

So no, the answer is that as candidates they will be replaced by other pro-Trump Republicans. 

[Scott]

Troll posts removed. 

 

[bushdoctor]

37 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I truly hope your incomprehension of the obvious is feigned. Heybruce stated that Republicans who opposed Trump risked losing their seats. This was your reply to that:

"What do you mean by “the obvious fact that few Republican congress members will survive the primaries if the Trumpies are against them”. Will They be replaced by Democrats? "

So no, the answer is that as candidates they will be replaced by other pro-Trump Republicans. 

 

The only way they would lose their seat is through a fair election. 

 

Is there reason to believe the elections were unfair, or that an endorsement is unfair or unusual?

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Let's see, Trump met with Kim Jong Un, the leader of a repressing, dictatorial regime guilty of more human rights abuses than can be easily summarized, praised him as a strong leader, gave up joint US-South Korea military drills, provided cover for China to relax sanctions, and in return got a vague promise of nuclear disarmament with no definition of what it means or when it will happen. 

 

Trump gave away things North Korea has wanted for decades and got nothing in return.  After giving away the US's best incentives, we find North Korea unwilling to yield on anything.  Please explain how that is anything but a humiliating defeat for the US. 

 

More important, please explain why we should not be afraid of Trump's meeting with Putin.

Just to add heyruce, Trump also told us in front of a rally about a week after the meeting that the remains of 200 soldiers were already on their way home. It turns out they have not even been "negotiated yet" and should be 'discussed' at the next meeting. The man is a fool and a moron. Lets not forget Trump supporters that the man who wrote "The Art of the Deal" was NOT Trump. Trump has not even read it.

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

 

The only way they would lose their seat is through a fair election. 

 

Is there reason to believe the elections were unfair, or that an endorsement is unfair or unusual?

No one has questioned the fairness of the electoral process. At least not heybruce or me. It's not us who has  repeatedly stated that droves of illegal aliens vote.  Heybruce did note that if a Republican opposes Trump it's very likely he would lose his or her seat. Nothing in his comment suggested that a Democrat would replace such a candidate. It was you who suggested that with your silly rhetorical question. I don't know if you're an American or not and don't think it's relevant, but it does seem you're quite unfamiliar with the elecotral process.

[bushdoctor]

I not sure how your claim that I don’t know the difference between a primary election and general election comes into play, but we seem to agree that’s the primary elections were fair, and Trump did nothing wrong. I’ll

let it stand at that. 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

I not sure how your claim that I don’t know the difference between a primary election and general election comes into play, but we seem to agree that’s the primary elections were fair, and Trump did nothing wrong. I’ll

let it stand at that. 

I'll let you and your straw man slumber in peace.