How dictators deal with the press.
« prev   random   next »

8
6

How dictators deal with the press.

By iwog following x   2017 Jan 12, 10:56am 10,227 views   175 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


This is how dictators deal with the press. BTW this comparison of Donald Trump and Hugo Chavez is original with me. I figured it out on my own. Maybe some of you Trump supporters should start figuring things out on your own.

https://hiredknaves.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/berated-and-garlanded-as-stupid-by-hugo-chave/

JAMES INGHAM (reporter): Why not spend the resources of Venezuela here in Venezuela? Why do you need to help other countries with so much plaza (sic)?
HUGO CHÁVEZ: Look, it’s a stupid question.
JAMES INGHAM: It’s a question asked in London.
HUGO CHÁVEZ: I’m not going to answer stupid things. Because I’ll end up stupid too. It’s a completely stupid question. It doesn’t deserve an answer because whoever tries to answer it ends up stupid too (laughs). No? I have no answer for stupid things.
JAMES INGHAM: OK, so..
HUGO CHÁVEZ: I don’t have.. It’s stupid. Anyone with a forehead four fingers high (places hand on forehead – colloquial phrase to denote someone with a reasonable amount of intelligence) knows it’s stupid, what the gentleman over there, I don’t know what he’s called, is wondering in London.

#TrumpHump #politics

« First    « Previous     Comments 136 - 175 of 175     Last »

136   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 1:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Heraclitusstudent says

You keep saying the policies pushed by the Democrats, which also include globalization in its current form, are the solution.

If the Democrats ran the government 100%, globalism would not exist in its current form. There would still be tariffs and quotas. Reagan's total skull-fucking of our country would never have happened.

You take one single man and extrapolate a mountain of bullshit from him.

137   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Jan 13, 1:07pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

joeyjojojunior says

Clinton does not equal Democrats.

No? Who else is there? Donna Brazile?

138   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Jan 13, 1:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

"No? Who else is there? Donna Brazile?"

Well, you can start by looking at the voting record of Senators and Reps.

139   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Jan 13, 1:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

If the Democrats ran the government 100%, globalism would not exist in its current form. There would still be tariffs and quotas.

I have never heard a single democrat outside Bernie Sanders (and he is an isolated radical in his party) make such a point. Where do you get this from?

140   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 1:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Heraclitusstudent says

I have never heard a single democrat outside Bernie Sanders (and he is an isolated radical in his party) make such a point. Where do you get this from?

It's called reality. You should try it sometime.

141   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Jan 13, 1:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

I alluded to this earlier but now I'll just flat out ask you. How in the hell did you determine that the middle class living standards collapsed in Europe?

As I said I know people there. I know how their parents were living 30 yrs back (large houses, affording good vacations) and how the children with the same kind of jobs are living now (small apartments, no vacations or just camping). The median net income is at 20,000 euros, the top 10% starts at 37,000 euros, home prices and other costs are much higher than they were. Unemployment is high and economic growth flat. And no change of policy is ever considered.

142   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Jan 13, 1:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

It's called reality. You should try it sometime.

Show me where Obama or Clinton, worked to repeal NAFTA and opposed free trade deals.

143   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 1:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Heraclitusstudent says

As I said I know people there.

Not good enough.

Heraclitusstudent says

The median net income is at 20,000 euros, the top 10% starts at 37,000 euros, home prices and other costs are much higher than they were.

Still not good enough. They also have free health care, 5 weeks of vacation, hefty retirement benefits, and a welfare system that catches them when they fall. Not the pittance that we pay single moms.

I'll ask you again. Where is your EVIDENCE that the middle class is suffering in Europe?

144   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 1:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Heraclitusstudent says

Show me where Obama or Clinton, worked to repeal NAFTA and opposed free trade deals.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAND we're back to your single man nonsense. You don't want to talk about the Democratic party for some reason. What happened to this horseshit:

Heraclitusstudent says

I have never heard a single democrat outside Bernie Sanders (and he is an isolated radical in his party) make such a point.

Seems like most Democrats voted against NAFTA.

145   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 1:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Ironman says

Clinton SIGNED it, that's all you need to know.

Piggy don't you have crayons to sharpen or something?

146   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Jan 13, 1:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAND we're back to your single man nonsense. You don't want to talk about the Democratic party for some reason. What happened to this horseshit:

Single man: the Clintons, Obama,...: in short everyone who is actually in power in a position to change something. In fact the entire stance of democrats:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-trade.html

I'll say it again: outside Sanders I have never heard any democrat oppose free trade.
About 99% of the crap I hear from democrats is about feminism, poor immigrants, unions, minimum wage, etc... they are happy to sign new deals like TTIP without too much discussion.

147   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Jan 13, 1:32pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Still not good enough. They also have free health care, 5 weeks of vacation, hefty retirement benefits, and a welfare system that catches them when they fall.

Yeah 20,000 euros. 10% unemployment and no growth. Great standard of living!
Oh but they have vacations...

148   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 1:32pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Heraclitusstudent says

About 99% of the crap I hear from democrats is about feminism, poor immigrants, unions, minimum wage, etc... they are happy to sign new deals like TTIP without too much discussion.

Show me the vote on the TPP? Oh that's right.......there hasn't been one. You're simply going to make up in your mind that most Democrats would vote for it based on nothing. In fact the TPP itself is undefined since no one knows what is in it.

149   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 1:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah 20,000 euros. 10% unemployment and no growth. Great standard of living!

Oh but they have vacations...

It could be a lot better however at this point I don't think you remember why you brought up Europe. You were comparing workers in Europe to unemployed workers in the interior of the USA where unemployment is higher than 10%.

You're going to have to regroup now and figure out what you were arguing.

150   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Jan 13, 1:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

And Trump's own SecState is for TPP, by the way. As are the vast majority of Republicans in the House and Senate.

In fact, I'd still give it 50/50 that Trump signs it.

151   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 2:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Ironman says

Don't you have some waste baskets to empty, some coffee to make your wife (the one that actually EARNS the money) and some envelopes to lick? After all, you are the office manager.

She doesn't drink coffee. I made my own coffee about 10 minutes ago and it was perfect! In fact I'm going to give you a treat Piggy, I'm going to show you my coffee cup as it sits on my desk right this very moment.


152   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 2:12pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

joeyjojojunior says

In fact, I'd still give it 50/50 that Trump signs it.

Ditto. Based on Trump's cabinet, I think we're going to see some absolutely horrendous policy surface.

153   TwoScoopsPlissken   ignore (0)   2017 Jan 13, 3:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

That's a very odd statement considering most Democrats voted to allow Americans to buy Canadian drugs and most Republicans opposed it. Maybe you're wrong.

Except if the13 of 44 Dem Senators voted Yes instead of No - About 30% of the Dems in the Senate - the bill would have passed handily. Didn't even need all 13. Feinstein abstained.

Democratic Senators Michael Bennet (CO), Cory Booker (NJ), Maria Cantwell (WA), Tom Carper (DE), Robert Casey (PA), Chris Coons (DE), Martin Heinrich (NM), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Robert Menendez (NJ), Patty Murray (WA), Jon Tester (MT), and Mark Warner (VA) all voted against it.

“This vote is a disgraceful betrayal of every patient and consumer in America,” said RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of NNU.

And, with 11 Republican Senators, including several of the most conservative Republicans, voting for the amendment, which only failed 52-46, the amendment would have passed by a large margin if the 13 Democrats had not “embraced the profiteering of the wealthy drug cartels at the expense of our families, our neighbors, and our communities,” DeMoro said.

She noted that six of the Democrats who voted against patients – Booker, Murray, Casey, and Bennet – are among the top 10 recipients of pharmaceutical campaign contributions since 2010, an “indication of where they think their interests clearly lie.”

“At a time when even President-elect Donald Trump, in his press conference Wednesday, called out the lobbying of the pharmaceutical industry and said they are ‘getting away with murder’, these 13 Democrats demonstrate why so their party has lost so many federal and state elections over the past eight years,” DeMoro said.


http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/press/entry/national-nurses-call-out-13-democrats-on-rx-vote-whose-side-are-you-on/

154   TwoScoopsPlissken   ignore (0)   2017 Jan 13, 3:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

joeyjojojunior says

Well, you can start by looking at the voting record of Senators and Reps.

41% of House Democrats voted for NAFTA, and the Democratic President not only signed it, he campaigned for it both during his Election and in the run up to the vote.

The Canadian RX Bill that was just defeated would have passed if some of the 13 Democrats that voted "nay", voted "yea".

155   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 3:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

T L Lipsovich says

Except if the13 of 44 Dem Senators voted Yes instead of No - About 30% of the Dems in the Senate - the bill would have passed handily. Didn't even need all 13. Feinstein abstained.

Unbelievable.

This is clearly a reason to put the Republicans in power. After all, a few of the Democrats voted the wrong way.

What's your fucking thesis anyway? I'd love to know. Trump is the god king and he's going to override anything congress wants?

156   TwoScoopsPlissken   ignore (0)   2017 Jan 13, 4:01pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

This is clearly a reason to put the Republicans in power. After all, a few of the Democrats voted the wrong way.

I'll say it one more time. If most of those 41% of Democrats - almost half - didn't vote for NAFTA, it wouldn't have passed.
If a few of those 13 Democrats voted FOR the Canadian Rx Bill, it would have passed. Almost as many Republicans (11) voted FOR it as Democrats (13) AGAINST It.

My thesis? The Democrats won't even face up to the fact that they're a cleft party between Neoliberals (Paleocapitalists who are okay with the Gay) and Progressives.

157   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 4:12pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

T L Lipsovich says

I'll say it one more time. If most of those 41% of Democrats - almost half - didn't vote for NAFTA, it wouldn't have passed.

So what? In what fucking universe are the members of a diverse political party in agreement 100% of the time?? THE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS want reforms to globalism and trade. Get rid of the Republican assclowns and leave only Democrats, and NAFTA gets repealed and you can buy drugs in Canada!

So what did you do? You choose the FUCKING REPUBLICANS that despite those 11 votes, (liar votes in purple states) vote almost lock-step to further free trade, globalism, and Ayn Rand sociopathy.

The cops occasionally kill innocent people. The robbers usually or always kill innocent people. Your fucking conclusion...........and I can't believe I'm actually typing this............is to side with the robbers!?!

158   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Jan 13, 4:14pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

After all, a few of the Democrats voted the wrong way.

The idea that democrats are in any way philosophically opposed to free trade is just plain ridiculous.

If this is your point, then let me plant a flag here and we will come back to this every time they fail to say and do anything against it.

159   TwoScoopsPlissken   ignore (0)   2017 Jan 13, 4:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

The cops occasionally kill innocent people. The robbers usually or always kill innocent people. Your fucking conclusion...........and I can't believe I'm actually typing this............is to side with the robbers!?!

Let me get this straight. Almost half the Party deliberately voting in a calculated manner for something opposed by the largest member-driven groups, at antithesis with everything they had previously advocated, is the same as an occasional cop shooting when he thinks is a guy down a dark alley with a aluminum-foil wrapped sandwich was really a guy holding a pistol?

160   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Jan 13, 4:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Heraclitusstudent says

The idea that democrats are in any way philosophically opposed to free trade is just plain ridiculous.

Are you kidding me?? A strong majority of them voted AGAINST free trade. What in the hell are you talking about?

161   TwoScoopsPlissken   ignore (0)   2017 Jan 13, 4:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

This sound like a Party fundamentally opposed to Free Trade?

2012

Over the last four years, we have made historic progress toward the goal of doubling our exports by 2015. We have taken steps to open new markets to American products, while ensuring that other countries play by the same rules. President Obama signed into law new trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama that will support tens of thousands of private-sector jobs, but not before he strengthened these agreements on behalf of American workers and businesses. We remain committed to finding more markets for American-made goods--including using the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the United States and eight countries in the Asia-Pacific, one of the most dynamic regions in the world--while ensuring that workers' rights and environmental standards are upheld, and fighting against unfair trade practices. We expanded and reformed assistance for trade-affected workers, and we demanded renewal of that help alongside new trade agreements.

I like the TPP's labor standard, it guaranteed a dollar a day. The absolutely poverty line around 1990, 27 years ago. Tough Protection!

2004

Exports sustain about 1 in 5 American factory jobs. Open markets spur innovation, speed the growth of new industries, and make our businesses more competitive. We will make it a priority to knock down barriers to free, fair and balanced trade so other nation’s markets are as open as our own. We will stand up for American workers & consumers by building on Pres. Clinton’s progress in including enforceable, internationally recognized labor & environmental standards in trade agreements.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Free_Trade.htm

162   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 4:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

T L Lipsovich says

Let me get this straight. Almost half the Party deliberately voting in a calculated manner for something opposed by the largest member-driven groups, at antithesis with everything they had previously advocated, is the same as an occasional cop shooting when he thinks is a guy down a dark alley with a aluminum-foil wrapped sandwich was really a guy holding a pistol?

You are totally ignoring anything relevant to the conversation intentionally. I'm going to have to fix the areas in which you are being disingenuous one by one.

1. 156 votes against and 102 votes for NAFTA is not "almost half the party". The vote on Canadian drugs was also not "almost half the party". It's bloody dishonest of you to phrase things this way. If this was the TOTAL vote on the bill, the press would have reported it lost in a landslide.

2. You are siding with Republicans which by your own calculations are FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR worse than the Democrats. You don't put out a fire by adding more fire which is what you did.

3. My analogy was perfect and your only argument with it was degree. Since you obviously don't want to talk about cops, maybe you can explain how your Republican party voted on these issues and why you support them?

163   TwoScoopsPlissken   ignore (0)   2017 Jan 13, 4:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

1. 156 votes against and 102 votes for NAFTA is not "almost half the party". The vote on Canadian drugs was also not "almost half the party". It's bloody dishonest of you to phrase things this way.

106/258100= ????
or, if you prefer
106
100/258 = ???

41%, aka Almost Half.

164   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 4:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

T L Lipsovich says

This sound like a Party fundamentally opposed to Free Trade?

Back to quoting one man eh? I'm not surprised.

165   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Jan 13, 4:25pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

It could be a lot better however at this point I don't think you remember why you brought up Europe. You were comparing workers in Europe to unemployed workers in the interior of the USA where unemployment is higher than 10%.

I brought up Europe because most of what the democrats want is already in Europe and look at the result. No, fighting inequality wasn't enough. And unemployment in the corresponding parts of Europe is a lot more than 10% too.

Economic globalization has been an unmitigated and obvious failure from a western perspective. It has really profited only a few in the west.
What is really spectacular is the zeal with which economists, pundits and elites are claiming that this is the best strategy and the only way forward, in spite of the obvious smoking piles of ruins it left behind.

And then these same elites invariably proceed to pour their scorn and their victims: they are idiots, racists, coddled, well fed, and lazy.
Aah... that explains why the middle classes were destroyed in most western countries!

166   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Jan 13, 4:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

No Thunder is right. If one Republican votes for a gun control bill, then the Republican party is the party of gun control. Makes perfect sense.

167   TwoScoopsPlissken   ignore (0)   2017 Jan 13, 4:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

2. You are siding with Republicans which by your own calculations are FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR worse than the Democrats. You don't put out a fire by adding more fire which is what you did.

The NAFTA vote and the Canadian Drug Vote were great examples of too-strong neoliberal influence on the Democratic Party. Not unique to the US, the Labour Party is having the same struggle.

iwog says

Back to quoting one man eh? I'm not surprised.

That's the Democratic Party Platform, not One Man. It reads more like "Let's go through the motions of giving a shit about some Labor and Enviro standards, which we'll throw in there with no enforcement mechanism or penalty. But let's give every company involved in trade an immediate and speedy mechanism to try their complaints."

168   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 4:28pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

T L Lipsovich says

41%, aka Almost Half.

This was a vote. When a candidate loses by 55% to 45%, it's considered a mauling. As I stated earlier, if the Democrats defeated this bill 41% to 59%, the press would have reported it as a landslide. You people are fucking ludicrous and you ignore the fact that this is POLITICS and many times votes are made for POLITICAL reasons when the outcome is guaranteed.

169   TwoScoopsPlissken   ignore (0)   2017 Jan 13, 4:28pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

joeyjojojunior says

No Thunder is right. If one Republican votes for a gun control bill, then the Republican party is the party of gun control. Makes perfect sense.

Joeyjojojunior Math:

13 of 42 = 1
41% of the House Majority Party = 1

170   TwoScoopsPlissken   ignore (0)   2017 Jan 13, 4:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

This was a vote. When a candidate loses by 55% to 45%, it's considered a mauling. As I stated earlier, if the Democrats defeated this bill 41% to 59%, the press would have reported it as a landslide. You people are fucking ludicrous and you ignore the fact that this is POLITICS and many times votes are made for POLITICAL reasons when the outcome is guaranteed.

A House Vote is not a Political Race.

When 41% of the majority party votes with the minority, against the Party's fundamental supporters, and has the President's support to boot, there's a big problem with the majority party.

13 of 42 is not a small number. 4 of 42 is understandable. Does Montana have a big Pharma Industry that Tester voted to protect?

171   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 4:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

T L Lipsovich says

A House Vote is not a Political Race.

This is just raw stupidity right here.

T L Lipsovich says

When 41% of the majority party votes with the minority, against the Party's fundamental supporters, and has the President's support to boot, there's a big problem with the majority party.

ROFLOL.......I can't believe this. You're literally too stupid to vote.

- The majority of party A wants something you want.
- The majority of party B is opposed to something you want.
- Your decision: Put party B in power.

Fucking brilliant.

172   TwoScoopsPlissken   ignore (0)   2017 Jan 13, 4:38pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

ROFLOL.......I can't believe this. You're literally too stupid to vote.

Ah, your "insult" tactic instead of altering the battleground tactic.

#1. Politicians only change when you make them lose power, otherwise, they'll continue to do what is personally and politically most profitable (ie take money from Silicon Valley and Big Pharma for Outsourcing and Drug Import Bans)
#2. Trump is in favor of negotiating Drug Prices and strong arming Big Pharma and would have certainly signed it
#3. That "Most of Party B is against" doesn't absolve "Enough of Party A being against enough to defeat it."

Again, without 41% of Democrats voting for NAFTA, it wouldn't have passed. Without 13 Democratic Senators voting against the Bernie's Bill, it WOULD have passed.

Those aren't my opinions, those are facts.

Furthermore, the Democratic Party Members just killed a bill that 72% of Americans support, and the support is bipartisan.

What a way to come back after an epic defeat. Don't forget to blame Russia and Comey!

173   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 4:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

T L Lipsovich says

Ah, your "insult" tactic instead of altering the battleground tactic.

Nope, there is no "instead" here. I've decimated your ridiculous argument. The correct term is "an aside"

T L Lipsovich says

#1. Politicians only change when you make them lose power, otherwise, they'll continue to do what is personally and politically most profitable

When are you going to make the Republicans lose power? They have either had the government in their control or had the ability to bock the Democrats for 16 fucking years since Bush took office. The only exception was two whole months in 2009.

You will find out what you ACTUALLY voted for very soon. Sessions is just the beginning. Also you're not going to be able to remove his Supreme Court nominees for an entire generation. Hope it was worth it.

174   TwoScoopsPlissken   ignore (0)   2017 Jan 13, 6:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

When are you going to make the Republicans lose power? They have either had the government in their control or had the ability to bock the Democrats for 16 fucking years. The only exception was two whole months in 2009.

Oh, not the "you only control the Senate if you have a supermajority" bullshit again. Having a 5+ Seat majority only allows you to control Committee Chair appointments, resources, and staff, pretty much the entire legislative agenda.

iwog says

You will find out what you ACTUALLY voted for very soon. Sessions is just the beginning. Also you're not going to be able to remove his Supreme Court nominees for an entire generation. Hope it was worth it.

Your party just got absolutely trounced, and yet there is no apparent capacity within it for self-reflection. Any attempt by Democrat commentators to start a debate on the subject results in an army of Kos-acks descending onto the Comments Section and/or Twitter to rip them a new one and ask why they haven't written a 36th piece on how Trump is bad, bad, bad!

But I'm sure you're going to be giving the new President a bit of a Honeymoon period when he takes office, right?

175   iwog   ignore (3)   2017 Jan 13, 6:28pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

T L Lipsovich says

Oh, not the "you only control the Senate if you have a supermajority" bullshit again. Having a 5+ Seat majority only allows you to control Committee Chair appointments, resources, and staff, pretty much the entire legislative agenda.

You keep showing ignorance here. Do you even remember 2009 and 2010? The pledge to block ANY new legislation from the Democrats?

Did you fail civics so badly that you don't comprehend that the filibuster rule in the Senate can block everything 100%??

T L Lipsovich says

But I'm sure you're going to be giving the new President a bit of a Honeymoon period when he takes office, right?

No need. Sessions is the new attorney general. That's absolutely the worst case scenario. You want me to give him a honeymoon period why?

« First    « Previous     Comments 136 - 175 of 175     Last »


Comment as anon_66d5f or log in at top of page: