• Announcements

    • LaToyaADMIN

      What to do if you get a "Wrong Password" message   01/21/16

      You must reset your password (even if you know it's the right one) before you can sign into the community. Thanks to the upgrade, there's an issue with passwords and signing in. The good news is that you can click here: http://community.grandparents.com/index.php?/lostpassword/ to change your password (it'll let you reuse your old one). If you can't reach the email address connected to your account then please contact the admin at latoya@grandparents.com and I'll help you sort it out. 
    • LaToyaADMIN

      Anonymous posting is back   01/21/16

      We've removed the extra step that required you to go to the full-page editor to access the anonymous post option. Now, you can reply to a post and toggle the button to post anonymous (see photo below).    Read more on anonymous posting here:    In short, the mods can see who posts as anonymous, we moderate anonymous posts the same as revealed posts, you can reply anonymously to your own topic, you may report anonymous posts.
RoseRed135

Trump, Comey, etc...

186 posts in this topic

7 hours ago, RoseRed135 said:

Again, I didn't vote for Trump and I live in a liberal area. So maybe I shouldn't even answer this. And I'm not going to give you "accolades for" him. But from what I've seen online or on TV and sometimes heard in person, there seem to be 3 major reasons why many people voted for Trump besides "'he's not Democrat" and "he's not Hilary'" (not saying this is true of all Trump voters or even most):

1. Jobs - Trump promised to "save jobs," promote job creation and see to it that a lot of outsourced manufacturing jobs were brought back to the the U.S. And some of that has happened or started to, apparently. Fact-checking shows me that often the plans to create or bring back jobs were already in the works before Trump was elected or even campaigning, but it doesn't seem to matter. Several of the people who lost/were in fear of losing jobs felt they had been "forgotten" (or "ignored" as Komo says) and Trump was "remembering" them. Besides,  I'm guessing that when someone is worried about "putting food on the table," so to speak, details become obscured. Also, for them and their loved one, etc, most other issues pale by comparison.

2. Terrorism - Many Trump supporters I've seen/talked to, see him as a strong leader who could and would protect us against terrorism more effectively than any other candidate who tried for the presidency.

3. The Supreme Court - Whenever I've asked a Trump supporter, "What about the Supreme Court?" the reply has been, "I want the Court to be more conservative." If I say, "Do you mean you want Roe V. Wade overturned?" I either get "Yes" or "Oh, that will never happen! I just want the Court to be more conservative in general."

Your 3 points are likely a few of the reasons why people may have voted for 45. However, I would strongly disagree with people who believe what you have put forth, so those reasons could obviously go either direction.  :)

Where we live, unemployment was already moving in a good direction, before the election.

We've been fortunate, here in the US, regarding terrorism, compared to the whole world, but that is not because of 45's policies.

The supreme court?  I just can't go there, a new justice was not selected timely. I consider that poor form - making the court political.

Interest rates are low, housing is selling the day it's listed at record prices. But nothing to do with 45.

The education bill makes me furious, I see it as a step backward.

Overturning the ACA vs fixing it will be irresponsible at best. All I see is a bunch of old white guys who only care about old white guys and profits for drug and insurance companies. Disgusting.

Russia......  oh my.

I still have NO idea why anyone voted for 45, but those people must be happy with the results.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Mame925 said:

I got into a FB squabble with a friend who is a high school humanities teacher, a well educated mid-30s Jewish man...he's quite intelligent as well as left leaning....from Chicago. He doesn't understand the protesting of removing the Confederate statues, I don't agree with the political correctness of removing them...they are a part of history. History isn't to be rewritten or erased. His zealot attitude died when I asked him if was ready to discuss the ramifications of Southern Reconstruction and why it may have led to the idealization of Confederate 'heroes" ...

Same with words. We use snowflake here to discuss those extremely "entitled" and/or "selfish/self centered" people we come across from time to time. It's the same to me as using DUH when describing those hubbies who need to get a clue...conversation will become wildly boring if we eliminate any adjectives that might be politically incorrect.

Oh, and to be clear, I'm not talking racial slurs in any form.

I've not read snowflake here, before now. I had to look it up. I hated what I read. So, I disagree.

The statue of Lenin was taken down, that history was not worthy of honor either.

I see the confederate flag, statues of Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee as symbols of racism. Those statues and flag honor a dark part of US history. Racists, still viewing non-whites as 'less than' whites, should not have public displays glorifying ignorance, bigotry, and prejudice.

My husband and I are caucasian as are our kids. But we have many family members who are not caucasian. Those flags and statues are racist and insulting towards them, imo. That's just not acceptable. Nor is the word snowflake, used for people who get upset by such racism, a mere politically incorrect term.

In my opinion, the word snowflake has become a very derogatory.

We work in an area where confederate flags abound, statues of confederate people are plentiful. I'm not at all impressed with any talk about reconstruction to excuse bigotry and racism. Nor does excusing politically incorrect terms make me happy. For me, Snowflake, as a politicized insult, is as bad as any religious or racial slur.

Edited by JanelleK
spaces

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought of 'snowflake' as a term used to describe people upset about racism.  I thought of it as a term to describe people who are offended too easily (see definition I just pulled from a current slang dictionary)

'snowflake:  A snowflake is a derogatory term used to describe a young person who is easily offended, too emotionally vulnerable to deal with challenging views, and non-resilient compared to other generations. It comes from the fragility of a snowflake that easily melts when coming in contact with an object.'

Also saw a definition of it as being 'Snowflake historically refers to people who are against the abolition of slavery; 'A person who thinks they are perfect and unique when in fact they are not and are like everyone else', a beautiful, perfectly unique person.  I'm sure there are more. 

Looks like that term has many meanings and can be taken in many different ways. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JanelleK said:

Your 3 points are likely a few of the reasons why people may have voted for 45. However, I would strongly disagree with people who believe what you have put forth, so those reasons could obviously go either direction.  :)

Where we live, unemployment was already moving in a good direction, before the election.

We've been fortunate, here in the US, regarding terrorism, compared to the whole world, but that is not because of 45's policies.

The supreme court?  I just can't go there, a new justice was not selected timely. I consider that poor form - making the court political.

Interest rates are low, housing is selling the day it's listed at record prices. But nothing to do with 45.

The education bill makes me furious, I see it as a step backward.

Overturning the ACA vs fixing it will be irresponsible at best. All I see is a bunch of old white guys who only care about old white guys and profits for drug and insurance companies. Disgusting.

Russia......  oh my.

I still have NO idea why anyone voted for 45, but those people must be happy with the results.

 

Yes, most of the people where I live make the same points as you or similar. And they want a more liberal Supreme Court or at least not as conservative as they fear it may become under the present government. Different opinions on different sides of the ledger.

ETA: If you do a search of the word "snowflake, either in MILA or the community, overall, you'll find it. If you remember footballmom, she referred to her XDIL as a "special snowflake" ad few times, but the first use of it as a figure of speech here was by a member called Tightan in 2009. TBA, she used it to mean that someone wanted to feel "special" and, I think, "entitled." No doubt, the meaning has broadened since then, both here and elsewhere. And, lately, IMO,  not in a good way.

Edited by RoseRed135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, RoseRed135 said:
5 hours ago, RecLucy said:

 I guess I am a conservative leaning Libertarian.  I proudly voted for Donald Trump and would do so again today.  No, I'm not pleased with all his actions, but I believe his intent is good.  I am a conservative (politically speaking), but am not thrilled with the Republican Party, and even less thrilled with the Democrat Party.  I watch MSNBC, FOX, and CNN and surf facebook for comments on all sides of the political spectrum.

But Lucy, you're willing to admit that you don't like everything he does - not like the people Oscar was talking about who defend him, no matter what. I don't get that either. I've always known people to concede that they didn't like this/that about their favorite candidate. There seems to me to be a resistance to that now on the part of some people (obviously, you're not one of them).

Perhaps it has something to do w/ the bolded in Sue's reply below. And maybe these are the reasons this country seems so much more divided now than ever? .As Sue's quoted comment says, we've had the 2-party system for a very long time. But many people seem to be less accepting of each other's different POVs now. IDKY...

 

4 hours ago, SueSTx said:

I read a very interesting comment on the current political situation today.  It gives me something to think about.

"Why is it that people think, what allegedly was committed, hasn't been committed over and over again behind closed doors! Not saying if it were right or wrong. Why is it, that half the people of this country believe wrestling is real, that ufo's exist, that Elvis is still alive and that only the liberal viewpoint is correct? This country has always been a two party system of government, for the most part. When one party won an election, the other party, respectfully, listened, debated and worked with the other. Or at least pretended too! Seems we have decided that respect for each other's opinions and beliefs should be replaced by demagoguery, hate and witch hunting. People should trust the system of government that has worked for us over 200 years. And respect and treat others like you would expect them to treat you."

 

 

Edited by RoseRed135
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first time I heard it was in the movie The Blind Side .. the part where she was looking for Michael, and the guy on the steps said to her, "He gone snowflake-"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homes here don't sell as quickly, some take a great while, some just don't move- Many empty commercial buildings, some of which were newly built, some of the older ones were mom and pop and have been empty since 2007/2008- The job market isn't abysmal but it's not healthy- Many hold 2 part time jobs because full time is hard to come by even for people with an education and experience- About 20% don't have health coverage, give or take- Trump won our state, prior to that, Obama -- twice-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So. Trump admits that firing Comey (calling him a 'nut job') was to relieve pressure on himself.

How can it be argued that he's NOT obstructing justice at this point?

I really, really don't understand how ppl can defend Trump. I just don't.

Nepotism. Cutting health care for millions. Cutting education funding. Spending half a million a day for his wife and child. Releasing top secret info to Russians. Appointing known white supremicists to cabinet positions. Repeated lying. Dismantling the EPA. Sensitive meetings held in his clubhouse dining room. Golfing almost every freaking wknd thus far, costing millions each time.

At what point does he become indefensible? At what point do people say, "Hey. This is not acceptable, he was a bad choice."

Bragging about assaulting women didn't do it. Ripping off contrators as a business model didn't do it. Trump U being sued for fraud (and settling) didn't do it. Russia getting involved w/the election didn't do it. Blatant and ridiculous lies didn't do it ("Alternative facts") Refusing to actually divest his business interests didn't do it.

What is it going to take?

To quote Anderson Cooper, "He could take a dump on his desk, and you'd defend it." And, frighteningly, I think there are people that would. No matter what Trump does, I think that there are some that would excuse, defend, deny (fake media!) anything and everything.

Shades of Jim Jones, imo, this ferverent dedication/worship that some seem to hold for Trump.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ImpishMom said:

So. Trump admits that firing Comey (calling him a 'nut job') was to relieve pressure on himself.

How can it be argued that he's NOT obstructing justice at this point?

I really, really don't understand how ppl can defend Trump. I just don't.

Nepotism. Cutting health care for millions. Cutting education funding. Spending half a million a day for his wife and child. Releasing top secret info to Russians. Appointing known white supremicists to cabinet positions. Repeated lying. Dismantling the EPA. Sensitive meetings held in his clubhouse dining room. Golfing almost every freaking wknd thus far, costing millions each time.

At what point does he become indefensible? At what point do people say, "Hey. This is not acceptable, he was a bad choice."

Bragging about assaulting women didn't do it. Ripping off contrators as a business model didn't do it. Trump U being sued for fraud (and settling) didn't do it. Russia getting involved w/the election didn't do it. Blatant and ridiculous lies didn't do it ("Alternative facts") Refusing to actually divest his business interests didn't do it.

What is it going to take?

To quote Anderson Cooper, "He could take a dump on his desk, and you'd defend it." And, frighteningly, I think there are people that would. No matter what Trump does, I think that there are some that would excuse, defend, deny (fake media!) anything and everything.

Shades of Jim Jones, imo, this ferverent dedication/worship that some seem to hold for Trump.

The promise of jobs is one reason and die hard party support would be another -- a democrat was in office the past 8- The fact that he comes across as Pro-life is another-

The list of examples you mention above simply don't matter to some people -- meaning .. even if he were impeached they would remain loyal supporters, even if they didn't or don't agree with him completely- So to answer your question, for some, it's possible the answer is nothing- Nothing would sway them- 

But the same could be said for some who oppose/loathe him- Take the environment for example- Some of those opposed are freaking out about his take on the EPA even though the environment has suffered its losses long before he took office- But that fact* doesn't matter- *The EPA didn't prevent the environments decline- They don't want to hear it -- and by don't hear it I mean lalalalalala fingers in the ears routine-

The EPA protects but it doesn't necessarily prevent decline overall- Plenty the EPA allows is damage causing- It's a leaky patch over a big hole-

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-05-20 at 10:34 AM, Komorebi said:

The promise of jobs is one reason and die hard party support would be another -- a democrat was in office the past 8- The fact that he comes across as Pro-life is another-

The list of examples you mention above simply don't matter to some people -- meaning .. even if he were impeached they would remain loyal supporters, even if they didn't or don't agree with him completely- So to answer your question, for some, it's possible the answer is nothing- Nothing would sway them- 

But the same could be said for some who oppose/loathe him- Take the environment for example- Some of those opposed are freaking out about his take on the EPA even though the environment has suffered its losses long before he took office- But that fact* doesn't matter- *The EPA didn't prevent the environments decline- They don't want to hear it -- and by don't hear it I mean lalalalalala fingers in the ears routine-

The EPA protects but it doesn't necessarily prevent decline overall- Plenty the EPA allows is damage causing- It's a leaky patch over a big hole-

See, and here comes the hypocricy alert: if Trump was about jobs, perhaps he could start by bringing his own companies manufacturing from overseas?

And there's no way that dumping coal water into streams is a good thing.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ImpishMom said:

See, and here comes the hypocricy alert: if Trump was about jobs, perhaps he could start by bringing his own companies manufacturing from overseas?

And there's no way that dumping coal water into streams is a good thing.

All presidents makes promises that they do not fulfill- And the current one is no different- I have absolutely no idea if he is about jobs or not- I do know that on the campaign trail, as well as after, he devoted some time to communicating his promise/s regarding jobs- As a result, it's what his supporters are waiting for- They more than likely don't care if he himself is about jobs, all they may care about is how many he will create -- in the US- For them-

Mining isn't good for the environment or the human body and the families of those bodies -- as well as those of us upstream- Which in essence is all people if one considers the cycle of water- However, it also isn't good for humans to be stripped of their livelihoods either- Business practices, what industry has been allowed to do, is the source of the environmental issues-

To hold the current president accountable for decades of poison being poured into the water and the ground isn't logical- At best, it's venting of decades of frustration over both the earth and people being mistreated- I honestly don't think a day passes that I don't think about Detroit and other towns and smallish cities used for industry then abandoned leaving many in a state of poverty because the jobs disappeared- Many that live that way for an extended period will grab at anything- And I don't blame them for doing so- I blame past presidents and government as a whole for that- The current one could make matters worse -- too ..

Edited by Komorebi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Komorebi said:

All presidents makes promises that they do not fulfill- And the current one is no different- I have absolutely no idea if he is about jobs or not- I do know that on the campaign trail, as well as after, he devoted some time to communicating his promise/s regarding jobs- As a result, it's what his supporters are waiting for- They more than likely don't care if he himself is about jobs, all they may care about is how many he will create -- in the US- For them-

Mining isn't good for the environment or the human body and the families of those bodies -- as well as those of us upstream- Which in essence is all people if one considers the cycle of water- However, it also isn't good for humans to be stripped of their livelihoods either- Business practices, what industry has been allowed to do, is the source of the environmental issues-

To hold the current president accountable for decades of poison being poured into the water and the ground isn't logical- At best, it's venting of decades of frustration over both the earth and people being mistreated- I honestly don't think a day passes that I don't think about Detroit and other towns and smallish cities used for industry then abandoned leaving many in a state of poverty because the jobs disappeared- Many that live that way for an extended period will grab at anything- And I don't blame them for doing so- I blame past presidents and government as a whole for that- The current one could make matters worse -- too ..

Uh, no.

He *repealed* legislation that prohibited waste water from coal manufacturing being dumped into streams.

So, that's a direct, Trump based, logical issue.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The repeal was brought about by Repubican party members- The president signed it, yes- The law that was repealed went into effect just over one month prior to its repeal. The repeal was a show of support for the mining industry and a show of support for the mining industry is a show of support for job security -- as promised-

The US has a history of putting the cart before the horse- When an industry is lost, jobs are lost- And the loss of those jobs is equally as devastating as the loss of clean water- Those in the mining industry stood to lose both- With no solid plan in place, it appeared that Democrats cared more about water-

We need a government that cares about both people and environment-

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Komorebi said:

The repeal was brought about by Repubican party members- The president signed it, yes- The law that was repealed went into effect just over one month prior to its repeal. The repeal was a show of support for the mining industry and a show of support for the mining industry is a show of support for job security -- as promised-

The US has a history of putting the cart before the horse- When an industry is lost, jobs are lost- And the loss of those jobs is equally as devastating as the loss of clean water- Those in the mining industry stood to lose both- With no solid plan in place, it appeared that Democrats cared more about water-

We need a government that cares about both people and environment-

 

Uh, yeah. The OUGHT to care more about the water. B/c clean water is kind of a necessity of life. Just ask the folks in Flint. I disagree that job loss is on par with loss of clean water. Ppl die from unclean water. Children die, children have brain damage, organ damage, that will leave them with lifetime serious health issues.

Job loss sucks. My dh has been out of work a year, just started a new job this week. I don't underestimate how hard job loss is. But it won't kill our children, give them brain damage, or shorten their life expectancy while leaving them with grave health issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ImpishMom said:

Uh, yeah. The OUGHT to care more about the water. B/c clean water is kind of a necessity of life. Just ask the folks in Flint. I disagree that job loss is on par with loss of clean water. Ppl die from unclean water. Children die, children have brain damage, organ damage, that will leave them with lifetime serious health issues.

Job loss sucks. My dh has been out of work a year, just started a new job this week. I don't underestimate how hard job loss is. But it won't kill our children, give them brain damage, or shorten their life expectancy while leaving them with grave health issues.

My point is that the law you referenced was in effect for one month- When that law took effect the water was dirty- When the law was repealed the water was dirty- The president is not solely responsible for the condition of the water- And no degree of hatred for one man is going to change the fact that the water was dirty before the law went into effect and remained dirty after the law was repealed one month after its enactment-

All life is dependent upon one thing or another- Lack of clean water, lack of nutrition, both can kill- When one goes withot a job for a year they are able to survive due to another or other sources of support to depend upon- Not everyone receives or has access to support or the human will to survive after being deprived- So, yes, people can indeed become sick and die from job loss- Any and all disregard for that fact contributes to the occurring damage already being done- That type of attitude fuels the frustrations of the neglected sects and gets people who don't care about all citizens elected-

Edited by Komorebi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Komorebi said:

My point is that the law you referenced was in effect for one month- When that law took effect the water was dirty- When the law was repealed the water was dirty- The president is not solely responsible for the condition of the water- And no degree of hatred for one man is going to change the fact that the water was dirty before the law went into effect and remained dirty after the law was repealed one month after its enactment-

All life is dependent upon one thing or another- Lack of clean water, lack of nutrition, both can kill- When one goes withot a job for a year they are able to survive due to another or other sources of support to depend upon- Not everyone receives or has access to support or the human will to survive after being deprived- So, yes, people can indeed become sick and die from job loss- Any and all disregard for that fact contributes to the occurring damage already being done- That type of attitude fuels the frustrations of the neglected sects and gets people who don't care about all citizens elected-

I don't believe that poisoning water to hundreds of thousands is better than job loss for thousands, no. I don't.

I'm not saying job loss isn't an issue, or concern. It very much is.

But repealing the law to allow this to continue is wrong, imo. I don't care how long the law was enacted for. Everything has to start somewhere, and to repeal it cannot be argued to be beneficial to the environment, or health and well being for citizens.

Sure, you can work...until the water becomes so toxic that it makes you too ill to continue, or kills you, or makes the land uninhabitable from the tainted water getting into the soil...

"My child has terminal cancer, but it's ok b/c we all have jobs!" said no one, ever.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ImpishMom said:

I don't believe that poisoning water to hundreds of thousands is better than job loss for thousands, no. I don't.

I'm not saying job loss isn't an issue, or concern. It very much is.

But repealing the law to allow this to continue is wrong, imo. I don't care how long the law was enacted for. Everything has to start somewhere, and to repeal it cannot be argued to be beneficial to the environment, or health and well being for citizens.

Sure, you can work...until the water becomes so toxic that it makes you too ill to continue, or kills you, or makes the land uninhabitable from the tainted water getting into the soil...

"My child has terminal cancer, but it's ok b/c we all have jobs!" said no one, ever.

 

As as I indicated previously, considering the course water takes it eventually impacts all when contaminated- That's not the issue- The issue is holding one man accountable for the present condition of the water, hating him for signing a repeal that may have had the potential to improve the condition of the water, that won't do as a solution to the water issue-

I acknowledge the fact people believe what they do- That's not an issue- I'm not much of a believer in no one ever saids- But appreciate the undue use of exaggeration nonetheless- Neither my appreciation for it or the use of it to prove what's untrue won't address the water issue, won't address job loss- The only thing that will fix both are noticing the condition of both and addressing them instead of neglecting them or treating people with less respect than one has for water-

 

Edited by Komorebi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Komorebi said:

As as I indicated previously, considering the course water takes it eventually impacts all when contaminated- That's not the issue- The issue is holding one man accountable for the present condition of the water, hating him for signing a repeal that may have had the potential to improve the condition of the water, that won't do as a solution to the water issue-

I acknowledge the fact people believe what they do- That's not an issue- I'm not much of a believer in no one ever saids- But appreciate the undue use of exaggeration nonetheless- Neither my appreciation for it or the use of it to prove what's untrue won't address the water issue, won't address job loss- The only thing that will fix both are noticing the condition of both and addressing them instead of neglecting them or treating people with less respect than one has for water-

 

I don't hate Trump due to the water issue. It's simply another brick in the wall, to quote Pink Floyd, as to his ridiculous inability to be a fit president, imo. Health care, education, travel ban...there are so many issues I have w/his behaviour and governing decisions...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Komorebi said:

My point is that the law you referenced was in effect for one month- When that law took effect the water was dirty- When the law was repealed the water was dirty- The president is not solely responsible for the condition of the water- And no degree of hatred for one man is going to change the fact that the water was dirty before the law went into effect and remained dirty after the law was repealed one month after its enactment-

 

I don't think anyone is blaming Trump for the actual condition of the water. Are there people criticizing him for repealing a law that might have improved the condition of the water? Yes, no doubt. Hopefully, people don't hate him for it though some might, I suppose. More likely, it will affect their voting choices in the future.

3 hours ago, Komorebi said:

The issue is holding one man accountable for the present condition of the water, hating him for signing a repeal that may have had the potential to improve the condition of the water, that won't do as a solution to the water issue-

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ImpishMom said:

I don't hate Trump due to the water issue. It's simply another brick in the wall, to quote Pink Floyd, as to his ridiculous inability to be a fit president, imo. Health care, education, travel ban...there are so many issues I have w/his behaviour and governing decisions...

What ever feelings you have they are completely valid -- as are my doubts that hate will rise to the top and topple the wall and save the day- The Wall is old, it goes up, it comes down but doesn't go away for everyone at the same time on any given day- And that's a freakin' shame ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RoseRed135 said:

I don't think anyone is blaming Trump for the actual condition of the water. Are there people criticizing him for repealing a law that might have improved the condition of the water? Yes, no doubt. Hopefully, people don't hate him for it though some might, I suppose. More likely, it will affect their voting choices in the future.

 

It appears some do -- hate him- I personally don't know what percentage of hate the water represents ..

Edited by Komorebi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 19, 2017 at 11:13 AM, SueSTx said:

I read a very interesting comment on the current political situation today.  It gives me something to think about.

"Why is it that people think, what allegedly was committed, hasn't been committed over and over again behind closed doors! Not saying if it were right or wrong. Why is it, that half the people of this country believe wrestling is real, that ufo's exist, that Elvis is still alive and that only the liberal viewpoint is correct? This country has always been a two party system of government, for the most part. When one party won an election, the other party, respectfully, listened, debated and worked with the other. Or at least pretended too! Seems we have decided that respect for each other's opinions and beliefs should be replaced by demagoguery, hate and witch hunting. People should trust the system of government that has worked for us over 200 years. And respect and treat others like you would expect them to treat you."

Shrugging one's shoulders and saying, "But the other side..." And "But it's all been done before..." Is an odd way to explain the policy and conduct of this administration. The "other side" is not in power. The side you voted for, is. Tell me, please, what you like about the administration for which you voted.

By the way, I saw a good meme that might actually be the best political analysis I've seen yet:

Washington Post: "It's been reported that Trump (pooped) his pants."

Trump's advisors: "The president would NEVER (poop) his pants."

Trump: "I (pooped) my pants ON PURPOSE!"

Hilarious, but I think I could add....

Conservative commenters in this thread: "At least it's not Hillary pooping in her pantsuit! Besides, I bet other presidents have pooped their pants. Stop demonizing our president! He should be respected for moving his bowels wherever he decides!"

:D

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, oscarsmaman said:

Shrugging one's shoulders and saying, "But the other side..." And "But it's all been done before..." Is an odd way to explain the policy and conduct of this administration. The "other side" is not in power. The side you voted for, is. Tell me, please, what you like about the administration for which you voted.

Ok, I'm a little lost here. This ^^^^ is directed at Sue, I take it. Yet, I don't see any place where she said she voted for Trump/the administration in power. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. But the fact that she was, as she says, "anti-Clinton," doesn't necessarily mean she cast her vote for Trump. So I don't know why there's that assumption.

Edited by RoseRed135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH, there is a lot of assuming going on, why not assume about me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now