Democrats and Reporters, No Soup For You

party-free · 2018-05-08T23:55:12.390Z

MarkyS:

I’m not telling you there are not times when some nominees NEED or get more scrutiny, but for the Dems it is 100% and that. BS.

M

So…exactly what the GOP did to Obama starting before he was even sworn in. And now the GOP wants revenge against the Dems for playing the game the GOP started back in 2008.

MarkyS · 2018-05-09T00:32:12.025Z

party-free:

What a predictably asinine response. That is EXACTLY what I expected you to smash into your keyboard.

Not the least bit relevant to a single point I made, but the “California hur dur, Get over it hur dur” nonsense as expected.

Sorry if the truth hurts you, but you’re the one who pulled out the old saw that America wanted Hillary more than Trump. It’s not at all TRUE. More states wanted Trump by FAR. He WON far more states than she did. That’s America - all of America. She just had the large block of Californians in her hip pocket. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter because you have to win more than California, no matter how many millions you win by there.

M

MarkyS · 2018-05-09T00:35:22.769Z

party-free:

So…exactly what the GOP did to Obama starting before he was even sworn in. And now the GOP wants revenge against the Dems for playing the game the GOP started back in 2008.

Revisionist history.

The GOP was willing to work with Obama and even approved all of his cabinet picks without a lot of dissent. Gave them all a decent approval. Then for TWO YEARS Obama kept telling them he won and they had to get over it, refusing to work with THEM. And then Mitch McConnell said, essentially, “Okay, if that’s the way it is going to be then we are going to do what we can to stop you”.

That was in 2010 - not 2008.

M

party-free · 2018-05-09T14:30:51.803Z

MarkyS:

Sorry if the truth hurts you, but you’re the one who pulled out the old saw that America wanted Hillary more than Trump. It’s not at all TRUE. More states wanted Trump by FAR.

States aren’t people. People are people. More American PEOPLE wanted Hillary as president. That’s a fact, but it’s not how we elect presidents. I never argued to the contrary.

party-free · 2018-05-09T14:32:17.267Z

MarkyS:

Revisionist history.

The GOP was willing to work with Obama and even approved all of his cabinet picks without a lot of dissent. Gave them all a decent approval. Then for TWO YEARS Obama kept telling them he won and they had to get over it, refusing to work with THEM. And then Mitch McConnell said, essentially, “Okay, if that’s the way it is going to be then we are going to do what we can to stop you”.

That was in 2010 - not 2008

I provided a link that shows I am correct. The GOP started planning, before Obama was ever sworn in, to obstruct literally everything he did. That’s a fact.

They obstructed, stone-walled, and slow-walked Obama starting before day 1. That’s a fact, and there’s nothing revisionist about it.

CaughtInTheMiddle · 2018-05-09T15:46:50.915Z

party-free:

MarkyS:

Revisionist history.

The GOP was willing to work with Obama and even approved all of his cabinet picks without a lot of dissent. Gave them all a decent approval. Then for TWO YEARS Obama kept telling them he won and they had to get over it, refusing to work with THEM. And then Mitch McConnell said, essentially, “Okay, if that’s the way it is going to be then we are going to do what we can to stop you”.

That was in 2010 - not 2008

I provided a link that shows I am correct. The GOP started planning, before Obama was ever sworn in, to obstruct literally everything he did. That’s a fact.

They obstructed, stone-walled, and slow-walked Obama starting before day 1. That’s a fact, and there’s nothing revisionist about it.

I think we all knew that the first minority president or the first female president or the first non Christian president was going to be fought tooth-and-nail, and whatever they passed would probably be wiped out by the next president. And that’s exactly what we saw and are seeing.

But, this is a good thing. We now know that we can have a minority president. We’ll probably have a female present at some point. We’ll probably have a non-Christian president at some point. And those that follow will implement some of the things that the “first” ones did.

For example, the ACA will probably eventually lead us to single payer (but we have to spend 20-30 years arguing about it first). And those opposed to all of those “first” people have to throw tantrums and get revenge for a while. It’s just the way it works.

MarkyS · 2018-05-10T05:55:16.629Z

party-free:

States aren’t people. People are people. More American PEOPLE wanted Hillary as president. That’s a fact, but it’s not how we elect presidents. I never argued to the contrary.

What is a FACT is that more Californians wanted Clinton. I’ll easily concede that! But what I will NOT concede is that more Americans BESIDES Californians wanted Clinton, because that is WRONG.

And the poor, poor truth for Clinton is that she needed more Americans BESIDES Californians to win and she couldn’t get them.

He did,

M

MarkyS · 2018-05-10T06:07:34.924Z

party-free:

I provided a link that shows I am correct. The GOP started planning, before Obama was ever sworn in, to obstruct literally everything he did. That’s a fact.

They obstructed, stone-walled, and slow-walked Obama starting before day 1. That’s a fact, and there’s nothing revisionist about it.

You provided a link that largely said that the Republicans refused to go along with all the big-spending liberal bills Obama decided to start his run with. Color me surprised! Republicans opposed to big government spending in one bill on an unprecedented scale???

Nahhhh! MUST BE obstruction just for the sake of obstruction.

Your link also says that one of the reasons they refused to play along with the Dems was payback for what the Dems did in 2006! So AGAIN the Dems were the first to ramp up the obstruction in 2006 - according to your own link.

Thanks!

M

MarkyS · 2018-05-10T06:31:39.789Z

CaughtInTheMiddle:

I think we all knew that the first minority president or the first female president or the first non Christian president was going to be fought tooth-and-nail, and whatever they passed would probably be wiped out by the next president. And that’s exactly what we saw and are seeing.

But, this is a good thing. We now know that we can have a minority president. We’ll probably have a female present at some point. We’ll probably have a non-Christian president at some point. And those that follow will implement some of the things that the “first” ones did.

For example, the ACA will probably eventually lead us to single payer (but we have to spend 20-30 years arguing about it first). And those opposed to all of those “first” people have to throw tantrums and get revenge for a while. It’s just the way it works.

Oh, here we go - The Republicans were all just racists!

It had NOTHING to do with them not adoring HIGHLY LIBERAL policies.

And AGAIN, despite NOT going along with Obama’s highly-liberal policies the GOP guys DID NOT try to obstruct every single appoinment of Obama’s cabinet. Quite the opposite, they gave them all a quick and FAIR HEARING and even a decent vote of approval.

M

bullseyelqcs · 2018-05-10T07:37:00.170Z

MarkyS:

> fact, but it’s not how we elect presidents. I never argued to the contrary.

What is a FACT is that more Californians wanted Clinton. I’ll easily concede that! But what I will NOT concede is that more Americans BESIDES Californians wanted Clinton, because that is WRONG.

And the poor, poor truth for Clinton is that she needed more Americans BESIDES Californians to win and she couldn’t get them.

He did,

M

Here is a simple thought experiment that shows you you are wrong.

There are 5 states. 4 of them have populations of 25 people. One of them has a population of 100 people. It is conceivably possible to win the first 4 states electorally and lose popularly. While it is already conceded that we don’t elect our President by popular vote, you look silly when you claim that more Americans didn’t vote for Hillary than voted for Donald. Last time I checked, Callifornians were still Americans, and the fact that more of them helped Hillary’s total surpass Donald’s total, while not applicable to the electoral vote, is just that a fact.

As such, more Americans voted for Hillary. Saying otherwise simply makes you look foolish.

Yakshi · 2018-05-10T08:10:37.652Z

CaughtInTheMiddle:

he’s pretty much all the things that evangelicals said was bad (until he decided to run). it’s really funny watching them flip.

In my experience, heavily religious folk tend to have the weakest morality. It is the most reliable stereotype I know. If you accept that, then their choice and continued defense of Donald Trump make sense.

MarkyS · 2018-05-10T08:32:22.450Z

bullseyelqcs:

Here is a simple thought experiment that shows you you are wrong.

There are 5 states. 4 of them have populations of 25 people. One of them has a population of 100 people. It is conceivably possible to win the first 4 states electorally and lose popularly. While it is already conceded that we don’t elect our President by popular vote, you look silly when you claim that more Americans didn’t vote for Hillary than voted for Donald. Last time I checked, Callifornians were still Americans, and the fact that more of them helped Hillary’s total surpass Donald’s total, while not applicable to the electoral vote, is just that a fact.

As such, more Americans voted for Hillary. Saying otherwise simply makes you look foolish.

First, I never said “More Americans voted for Trump”. I said more Americans BESIDES Californians voted for Trump and that is correct and why he is president.

I concede that more Californians voted for Hillary and her winning margin there was MUCH more in number than the number she won the popular vote by, but each one beyond 1 more than the mean was effectively a wasted vote, It only made her totals in California bigger, showing the excess popularity of a liberal in a liberal state, and that is where she had her popular vote overflow - all wasted votes. Too bad she couldn’t make them temporary Michiganders, Pennsylvanians, Wisconsinites etcetera.

Trump won FAR MORE of all the rest of the country than she did. He had half again as many states won.

He was CLEARLY and simply more popular in far more states and we elect presidents by popularity in states - not by Americans total in all the states.

All her extra California votes were great for a TOTAL number but entirely meaningless to judge her popularity across the country. You have to be more popular across much more of the country than just California to win, and she wasn’t.

He was.

M

MarkyS · 2018-05-10T08:47:06.502Z

Yakshi:

In my experience, heavily religious folk tend to have the weakest morality. It is the most reliable stereotype I know. If you accept that, then their choice and continued defense of Donald Trump make sense.

Shows how little you know them.

They lead the moral lives. They do not require that their president lead the same life. They only require that he help them push their moral agenda effectively.

They already have a pastor. They do not need one for their president. They need someone who can get their agenda passed - even if he is the devil, personally - because then the whole COUNTRY hews to the more moral compass - not just the one man.

You want to restrict them to find the paragon of virtue to lead the fight for the agendas. Why? All that is necessary is that the agendas get passed and that requires an EFFECTIVE leader willing to wage that fight - not a moral one. A highly moral one would be gravy but is wholly unimportant to the goals.

They are religious - not stupid.They defend Trump because he is on their side and will help them - NOT because they think he is a saint.

M

Yakshi · 2018-05-10T08:49:23.632Z

I know them better than you know them, most likely, but I’ll let your posts vouch for me.

MarkyS · 2018-05-10T08:56:58.714Z

Yakshi:

I know them better than you know them, most likely, but I’ll let your posts vouch for me.

Sorry. You guys think you can restrict them to only vote for angels while you are free to vote for effective politicians who are crooks, liars and and philanderers because you don’t make any claim of having morals to aspire to.

Again, they are religious - not stupid. They will vote for the guy who gets them what they need - not what he needs.

M

Yakshi · 2018-05-10T08:58:53.212Z

If they are religious, they are stupid, in general.

They also tend to have more backward morals than your standard sane individual.

party-free · 2018-05-10T11:00:43.773Z

MarkyS:

What is a FACT is that more Californians wanted Clinton. I’ll easily concede that! But what I will NOT concede is that more Americans BESIDES Californians wanted Clinton, because that is WRONG.

And the poor, poor truth for Clinton is that she needed more Americans BESIDES Californians to win and she couldn’t get them.

He did,

M

None of which is relevant to what I said.

party-free · 2018-05-10T11:15:06.005Z

MarkyS:

You provided a link that largely said that the Republicans refused to go along with all the big-spending liberal bills Obama decided to start his run with. Color me surprised! Republicans opposed to big government spending in one bill on an unprecedented scale???

No, you’re being intentionally obtuse here. BEFORE HE WAS EVEN SWORN IN the met and decided to obstruct him completely. And they did just that.

MarkyS:

Nahhhh! MUST BE obstruction just for the sake of obstruction.

Your link also says that one of the reasons they refused to play along with the Dems was payback for what the Dems did in 2006! So AGAIN the Dems were the first to ramp up the obstruction in 2006 - according to your own link.

Thanks!

M

Here is the exact quote from that article. After I show you, I’m going to show you another quote and article that disprove the thesis you’ve created in your head.

From my first article, regarding 2006:

““This is how we get whole,” she said with a laugh. “We’re going to do to you what you did to us in 2006.””

Literally this was what an Obama aide quoted a Republican senate staffer (who she was dating) as having said. And what happened in 2006? Democrats took congress. That’s it.

Now here’s the funny part…it wasn’t the Democrats who obstructed in 2006-2007. It was the GOP. They engaged in hundreds of filibusters against Democrats starting in 2006. And remember how Trump whined that congress should have done something about “DREAMERS”? Well, they tried in 2009. The GOP filibustered.

It’s really pathetic how you’re seeking petty revenge like an elementary school kid. The reality is that NEITHER Democrats nor Republicans have clean hands when it comes to playing dirty politics. BOTH sides obstruct, slow-walk, play hardball, etc…yet you justify Republican’s play hardball, because the Democrats played hardball, but they’re doing it because Republicans played hardball, but they’re doing it because…etc.

It’s partisan ■■■■■■■■■ and as long as people with such a hackish attitude keep electing politicians with hacking attitude, all we’re going to get is politicians who spend all their effort trying to get petty revenge and not actually doing anything.

Sounds like you’re getting the government you want.

CaughtInTheMiddle · 2018-05-10T13:41:03.099Z

MarkyS:

Oh, here we go - The Republicans were all just racists!

It had NOTHING to do with them not adoring HIGHLY LIBERAL policies.

And AGAIN, despite NOT going along with Obama’s highly-liberal policies the GOP guys DID NOT try to obstruct every single appoinment of Obama’s cabinet. Quite the opposite, they gave them all a quick and FAIR HEARING and even a decent vote of approval.

hold on there patna. i said there would be backlash to any of the “firsts” (first minority, first female, first non-christian). it’s no big secret. we’re watching it happen real time and watched it happen real time for 8 years.

CaughtInTheMiddle · 2018-05-10T13:54:50.939Z

Yakshi:

In my experience, heavily religious folk tend to have the weakest morality. It is the most reliable stereotype I know. If you accept that, then their choice and continued defense of Donald Trump make sense.

the religious people i dislike the most are the evangelicals who are also “conflict seekers”. or any religion for that matter.

just think how much better this world would be if there were no “Islam Conflict Seekers”. no “Christian Conflict Seekers”. no “Jewish Conflict Seekers”.