I May Not Like Trump, But Can Agree With This

[Kathianne]

At least parts of it:

https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2017/08/27/trump-vs-enemies-people/


Trump vs. the Enemies of the People



It's true that Donald Trump cannot yet claim a major legislative accomplishment. It's also true that he himself bears some of the blame for that: the distractions of his chaotic style have given cover to a divided and spineless GOP legislature. Nonetheless, those of us who voted for him with misgiving can still feel more than well pleased with his three major achievements so far: the appointment of an excellent Supreme Court justice; the battle against the Giant Squid-like beast of the regulatory state; and the fact that he's not Hillary Clinton, a felonious battle-axe who would've continued the Chicago-style corruption of the Obama administration and destroyed the American Experiment with freedom-smothering socialism. Speaking personally, I'd put Trump on Mount Rushmore for that last achievement alone.

But there's a fourth major accomplishment too, unofficial and extra-governmental though it may be: Trump's emotional torture of the press.



...

[High_Plains_Drifter]

At least parts of it:

https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2017/08/27/trump-vs-enemies-people/
Ya know... his first major legislative accomplishment was supposed to be repeal and replace of obamacare, and when the republicans already voted to do just that almost a hundred times already, suddenly COULDN'T do it again, that just speaks volumes about what kind of dirty, filthy, low life rats we have in the republican party.

I don't think there's a one of them I could find to say something nice about.

[Kathianne]

Ya know... his first major legislative accomplishment was supposed to be repeal and replace of obamacare, and when the republicans already voted to do just that almost a hundred times already, suddenly COULDN'T do it again, that just speaks volumes about what kind of dirty, filthy, low life rats we have in the republican party.

I don't think there's a one of them I could find to say something nice about.

Yep, it's going to be much easier when the Democrats replace all those GOP folks he's knocking.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Yep, it's going to be much easier when the Democrats replace all those GOP folks he's knocking.
---------------- :laugh:

Well I wouldn't bet on that though either, Kath, because even a rat republican is better than any democrat... :laugh:

[Kathianne]

---------------- :laugh:

Well I wouldn't bet on that though either, Kath, because even a rat republican is better than any democrat... :laugh:

Really, wouldn't know it by Trump and those that agree to 'throw them out.' The only thing going in the favor of GOP is the Democrats borrowing the tendency to snatch defeat in the face of victory.

But heh, if those Senators that Trump dislikes are faced with deciding impeachment should the House turn over, won't be a problem, right?

It's good to have chaos reign.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Really, wouldn't know it by Trump and those that agree to 'throw them out.' The only thing going in the favor of GOP is the Democrats borrowing the tendency to snatch defeat in the face of victory.

But heh, if those Senators that Trump dislikes are faced with deciding impeachment should the House turn over, won't be a problem, right?

It's good to have chaos reign.
Yeah I'd know it... :rolleyes:

The democrat party is full of loons. I don't see a plethora of shrill nut case hacks in the republican party like there is in the dems. What I do see though is a party that's full of people that have been bought and paid for by lobbyist cash and really don't give a damn about you or I, but the same can be said for democrats. The difference is, you want bought off nut cases or just bought off?

I'll take just bought off, even though it's still simply the lessor of the two evils.

[Kathianne]

Yeah I'd know it... :rolleyes:

The democrat party is full of loons. I don't see a plethora of shrill nut case hacks in the republican party like there is in the dems. What I do see though is a party that's full of people that have been bought and paid for by lobbyist cash and really don't give a damn about you or I, but the same can be said for democrats. The difference is, you want bought off nut cases or just bought off?

I'll take just bought off, even though it's still simply the lessor of the two evils.


Hmm, for some reason your reasoning is confusing to me. LOL! It does seem to me that you consider those 'bought off' that disagree with Trump, maybe other Republicans earlier?

I tend to look at the politicians and their likelihood of voting in expected ways, i.e., looking for consistency. Ryan lost my respect when he accepted Trump, more when he's stayed silent on some very troubling statements made by him. He HAS been consistent in his support of the GOP, including the nominees. I guess I foolishly thought principles would overcome party.

If Ryan HAD acted like that, he'd be Jeff Flake, who has criticized Trump consistently. He has also voted nearly 100% for Trump positions. Trump responds as I'd expect, he's trying to destroy Flake. Yet, he also keeps criticizing Ryan.

Strange days indeed.

[jimnyc]

The shithead republicans in congress are equivalent to the shitheads we laughed at in congress when Obama was in the oval office and the Dems had the majority everywhere. They still failed passing things and some of us laughed. Ok, no naming, but I know I laughed at times!

It's tough for a president when he makes various promises, has an agenda, does speaking engagements and speaks of specific things - and then things have trouble or can't get past congress.

And NO, idiots shouldn't be voting against things JUST because they don't like the president or things he has stated. They are supposed to vote on agendas and things that their constituents want. Sure, if an area is "different" and that area is VERY strongly about something, that person should vote accordingly. But if a R, and from a strong R area, and all things point to them supporting "A", and they come in all kinds of agitated and vote for "B", and helps make things fail... not supposed to be that way, and folks should not ever blame the president for such things. No one should be voting based on vengeance. <--- unless of course it's elections, THEN of course vote on vengeance and get rid of assholes.

I'll be frank, I don't care about R's or not, if I had my way, at midterms, I would vote out anyone on either side who voted as such.

[Kathianne]

The shithead republicans in congress are equivalent to the shitheads we laughed at in congress when Obama was in the oval office and the Dems had the majority everywhere. They still failed passing things and some of us laughed. Ok, no naming, but I know I laughed at times!

It's tough for a president when he makes various promises, has an agenda, does speaking engagements and speaks of specific things - and then things have trouble or can't get past congress.

And NO, idiots shouldn't be voting against things JUST because they don't like the president or things he has stated. They are supposed to vote on agendas and things that their constituents want. Sure, if an area is "different" and that area is VERY strongly about something, that person should vote accordingly. But if a R, and from a strong R area, and all things point to them supporting "A", and they come in all kinds of agitated and vote for "B", and helps make things fail... not supposed to be that way, and folks should not ever blame the president for such things. No one should be voting based on vengeance. <--- unless of course it's elections, THEN of course vote on vengeance and get rid of assholes.

I'll be frank, I don't care about R's or not, if I had my way, at midterms, I would vote out anyone on either side who voted as such.

Yet, the two examples I used, Ryan and Flake have both consistently voted the way Trump wanted.

[jimnyc]

Yet, the two examples I used, Ryan and Flake have both consistently voted the way Trump wanted.

Yup, didn't say otherwise. Those are 2 good examples I suppose then. If they don't like Trump, but are voting based on what's best for their constituency as they voted for them, then that's the way it's supposed to be, IMO.

[Kathianne]

Yup, didn't say otherwise. Those are 2 good examples I suppose then. If they don't like Trump, but are voting based on what's best for their constituency as they voted for them, then that's the way it's supposed to be, IMO.

It would be good if Trump recognized that, but he won't. Probably best in the long game anyways.

[michiganFats]

At least parts of it:

https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2017/08/27/trump-vs-enemies-people/

No we can't agree :laugh: