Quote :

"It's actually kind of fascinating that you think the fact that the Clinton Foundation accepted money from foreign nations (it did) in exchange for favors (no evidence yet of this) is bad because of the chance for corruption but are A-OK with Trump's kids running his for profit business in countries around the world while also being highly involved with his actual presidency."

I love how often I see leftists say "no evidence" and at the same time downplay the destruction of evidence. It's amazing cognitive dissonance.

Also, a president having family in large private businesses isn't exactly a rare thing. I agree it's something to monitor, but you're talking about a hypothetical case of corruption under the full scrutiny of the media, I'm talking about actual corruption that was accepted and covered up by the powers that be. Surely you can see the difference.

12/13/2016 2:17:41 PM

So a Trump voter was asked about how she felt about him taking away her healthcare, and this is how it went,



Here's the whole article about people in some of the most Obamacare dependent counties in the nation that also heavily voted for Trump. It's a fun exercise in cognitive dissonance.

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/13/13848794/kentucky-obamacare-trump

[Edited on December 13, 2016 at 3:06 PM. Reason : .]

12/13/2016 2:59:12 PM

I talked to an educated trump supporter yesterday and their position was that people weren't voting for the candidates, but the parties, on the basis that both candidates were wildly unpopular.

His thinking was that trump might at least be a "Republican" and cut taxes and privatize social security and "cut regulation". He also cited the "war on Christmas" and bathroom bills as reasons people felt liberals were attacking them with a culture war.

12/13/2016 3:03:45 PM

attacking them with inclusion

12/13/2016 3:07:41 PM

my coworker is really upset because she got kicked out of her running group because she is a trump supporter

she's also a huge cunt, so +1 credibility

12/13/2016 6:37:20 PM

^^^^

I guess part of being a hack is having zero capability to see media bias.

Any ThinkProgress, HuffPo, or Buzzfeed articles you would like to share with anecdotal evidence supporting liberal narratives?

12/13/2016 6:48:17 PM

^^of course the people that kicked her out think they are the tolerant ones

12/13/2016 9:21:55 PM

Quote :

"So a Trump voter was asked about how she felt about him taking away her healthcare, and this is how it went,"

Jokes on you. The uneducated Trump supporter guessed exactly right. Trump immediately after the election said he wasn't going to touch the pre-existing condition statute. Sooo, if their healthcare is lost, it'll be because the Exchanges collapsed, which they were going to do eventually regardless of who got elected.

12/13/2016 10:08:29 PM

Quote :

"Jokes on you. The uneducated Trump supporter guessed exactly right. Trump immediately after the election said he wasn't going to touch the pre-existing condition statute"

Or maybe he just said that so he could blame congress when people are mad that insurance won't cover them any more and he can deflect responsibility in 2020, meanwhile his cabinet picks all want to dismantle it immediately and don't give a shit about people that would hurt.

Really we have no idea, he's never had any political position of any kind before, all we have to go on are his statements and he changes those all the time.

12/13/2016 11:16:09 PM

^^ It's unclear what changes will come. GOP knows they have to do something that will not make things worse, which is hard to do without going more progressive with the plan.

12/14/2016 1:09:54 AM

Quote :

"Jokes on you. The uneducated Trump supporter guessed exactly right. Trump immediately after the election said he wasn't going to touch the pre-existing condition statute. Sooo, if their healthcare is lost, it'll be because the Exchanges collapsed, which they were going to do eventually regardless of who got elected."

Do you have any clue how the ACA works? The requirement to not deny enrollees based on pre-existing conditions is only possible due to the individual mandate, which is only possible due to subsidies for people purchasing healthcare on the exchange. If the GOP goes through with their plan to defund the law via reconciliation, without a replacement as Mitch McConnell recently said they were going to do, then yes, that woman and many other Trump supporters would lose their healthcare. Remember, the ACA was largely a transfer of wealth to poor red states that had the shittiest healthcare systems prior to passage of the law.

I don't know why anyone gives the GOP the benefit of the doubt anymore, especially when it comes to healthcare, a problem they've never shown any interest in addressing. To them, it's a free market issue, and just like everything else if the government cuts taxes and deregulates, it will magically fix itself. Right now, their plan is kill the law via budgetary measures, and then try to pass a bailout in the form of cash infusions to health insurance companies and hospitals which will be financially crippled by a repeal without a replacement. Basically, they are going to manufacture a crisis purely for political purposes. You know, the same thing they've been doing the last 6 years when it comes time to fund the federal government.

[Edited on December 14, 2016 at 11:16 AM. Reason : .]

12/14/2016 11:08:29 AM

Quote :

"Remember, the ACA was largely a transfer of wealth to poor red states that had the shittiest healthcare systems prior to passage of the law."

"Poor red states"? Lmao

Only a hack of your caliber would take a forced, socialist, redistribution of wealth (at the individual level) and somehow, through a feat of mental gymnastics, imply republicans wanted/needed the ACA. Just like with your anecdotal Vox propaganda article... You are in denial.

12/14/2016 2:21:55 PM

Don't mistake this as a response to ^, but for anyone interested in reality, here's a chart showing of the top 20 states receiving Obamacare subsidies, 15 voted for Trump.

http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/average-monthly-advance-premium-tax-credit-aptc/?currentTimeframe=0

This doesn't even take into account the Medicaid expansion, which again mainly benefited the red states that accepted it.

[Edited on December 14, 2016 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2016 2:41:59 PM

Their premiums are generally higher because of many factors (rural, sparse population) including that red states generally decided to not expand Medicaid. The two go hand in hand.

In fact, since red states are in general more fiscally responsible, they opted to not take federal money now for Medicaid, which results in $billions leaving red states and going to blue states, who tend to love unfunded liabilities and reckless spending in pursuit of morale posturing.

*but insert anecdotal article from VOX that says Trump voters want the ACA*

#Hack

12/14/2016 7:20:21 PM

Ok cool remove it and go back to 2005. I'm sure poor working class white Americans will be totally cool with it.

12/14/2016 7:28:29 PM

^^ I would like to point out that both you and shrike have "hack" posts... Some threads are worse than others. So you two can stop calling each other that.

[Edited on December 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM. Reason : Troll bait taken.]

12/14/2016 8:49:11 PM

congrats, you just got trolled

12/14/2016 8:54:02 PM

Quote :

"In fact, since red states are in general more fiscally responsible,"

I have lived in Alabama for four years. This is an outright lie. Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas are in complete shit right now. There's no way you can provide any evidence to the contrary.

http://www.benefitspro.com/2016/10/03/10-poorest-states-in-america-in-2016?slreturn=1481780581&page=2

9/10 are Republican led. Only New Mexico is among the ten poorest states led by the blue party.

[Edited on December 15, 2016 at 12:45 AM. Reason : You are just trolling with this nonsense]

12/15/2016 12:38:27 AM

Quote :

"I have lived in Alabama for four years. This is an outright lie. Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas are in complete shit right now. There's no way you can provide any evidence to the contrary. http://www.benefitspro.com/2016/10/03/10-poorest-states-in-america-in-2016?slreturn=1481780581&page=2 9/10 are Republican led. Only New Mexico is among the ten poorest states led by the blue party. [Edited on December 15, 2016 at 12:45 AM. Reason : You are just trolling with this nonsense]"

lol. You should work on your reading comprehension. I said the states are fiscally responsible. Red states generally have more conservative spending, as opposed to blue states which generally have reckless spending and debt (See UjustWait's utopia, North Mexico). You're comparing poverty at the individual level without accounting for cost of living, while my comment was about State level solvency/debt.

12/15/2016 2:09:48 AM

Quote :

"I have lived in Alabama for four years. This is an outright lie. Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas are in complete shit right now. There's no way you can provide any evidence to the contrary. "

Those states have been complete shit for 150 years now, and they were under Dixiecrat control for the vast majority of that time. Alabama state legislature was under democratic control from 1874 to 2010. Mississippi only elected democrats for governor, state legislature, and most federal representation from 1876 to 1992. Democrats controlled the state legislature and the governor's position in Louisiana from 1877 until 1980, and this recent election has switched the state back to democratic leadership. Democrats has dominated Arkansas politics for years as well.

Trying to claim these states are fucked up financially because Republicans gained control of them AFTER the great recession is ludicrous. They may not have helped matters any, but that's another story.

12/16/2016 12:59:56 PM

This is what is served as a vodka martini at Trump grill. I am not at all surprised.


[Edited on December 16, 2016 at 2:51 PM. Reason : That was yuge.]

12/16/2016 2:50:42 PM

Can any Trump supporter/sympathizer here explain what Trump's strategy is with attacking the American intelligence agencies regarding Russia?

The Conway-types usually frame this stuff in some half-plausible way that it's part of a broader strategy (like they did with the Taiwan thing-- where I can see the plausibility), but I can't see how this creates leverage for anything. Plz explain, thanks.

12/17/2016 12:26:07 AM

Quote :

"Can any Trump supporter/sympathizer here explain what Trump's strategy is with attacking the American intelligence agencies regarding Russia?"

i not a trump supporter. trump doesnt give a shit and he thinks the agencies are attacking his legitimacy so he is returning blows. the CIA has been lying us into wars for decades so might be a good thing to be skeptical too

12/17/2016 6:37:24 AM

As far it goes for my opinion, we could somehow find a Trump replacement and I'd be happy. Having said that, I think what Obama has said and insinuated has been downright disrespectful to the office. For Josh Earnest to actually say what he did in his presser about Trump and Putin...that's just childish.

The intelligence agencies should be carrying out there research and gathering intel, and coming public when they have completed - same with Comey and Hillary, I'm not letting Comey off the hook there. And for the current administration to comment on it before any reports are complete, again, disrespectful and childish.

Congress has been requesting these intelligence agencies to come to Cap Hill for some time now, and they keep brushing Congress off because their investigations are incomplete. But they're happy leaking a few vague details to the public.

Look, I want Obama to end on a high note for me, but this kind of behavior just isn't changing my opinion of him. Did Bush, in his presidential death throes, try to go out and speak out against the incoming president? Pretty sure he took the high road, and has been ever since.

12/17/2016 8:54:10 AM

what exactly has the president said that has gotten your jimmies rustled?

and how is any of this analogous to anything that went on before, during, and after the election of 2008?

[Edited on December 17, 2016 at 11:12 AM. Reason : end on a high note for you?]

12/17/2016 11:10:12 AM

we're taking about respect right now?

This is some delicate flower shit right here.

12/17/2016 12:08:05 PM

Bush was classy.

But Obama didn't spend literally seven years calling him a foreigner and questuoning his legitimacy. In what world does Trump even deserve the respect Obama has shown him even? Obama is a much better man than I am. I'd say "fuck you and figure everything out yourself, asshole" if I was him.

12/17/2016 12:28:23 PM

Bush was essentially shunned into being "classy"

12/17/2016 12:34:20 PM

lol at y'all calling a guy that killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions classy

12/17/2016 1:13:08 PM

Getting tossed out the back door at least lets you keep some dignity.

12/17/2016 1:27:01 PM

lol @ discussing respect and politicians

12/17/2016 4:35:11 PM

Quote :

"Congress has been requesting these intelligence agencies to come to Cap Hill for some time now, and they keep brushing Congress off because their investigations are incomplete. But they're happy leaking a few vague details to the public."

Ahem

Quote :

"Brennan tried to talk to Nunes several times about the dispute. But officials said the congressman didn’t take his calls until after he issued a statement Wednesday asking intelligence leaders to “clarify press reports that the CIA has a new assessment that it has not shared with us.” Officials disputed the statement, saying Nunes had been fully briefed on the intelligence. “In recent days, I have had several conversations with members of Congress, providing an update on the status of the review as well as the considerations that need to be taken into account as we proceed,” Brennan wrote in his message to CIA staffers. “Many — but unfortunately not all — members understand and appreciate the importance and the gravity of the issue, and they are very supportive of the process that is underway.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.22f901c3a91f

12/17/2016 9:57:30 PM

Sorry for the double post but fuck you people who voted this guy in who thought he was going to do anything but look out for his best interests. He has consistently demonstrated in business that he looks out for himself over just about anyone else (except maybe his kids).

There's no policy behind what he's doing. There's no forethought. The next four years (if he makes it that long) will be filled with knee jerk tweet reactions that have the potential to bring us to blows with other countries. Anybody who doesn't see what havoc he has the potential to cause is close-minded, short-sighted and doesn't have a firm grasp of the complex nature of the world right now.

Get out of your fucking bubbles and read a goddamned book.

[Edited on December 17, 2016 at 10:05 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2016 10:04:52 PM

This china thing was really sad.

Saw a video earlier today too of one of Trump's victory rallies (which is a weird thing isn't it?) where the crowd was chanting "lock her up" and he was awkwardly trying to talk them down from this. If he keeps this up, people are going to start waking up to him conning them like he did Trump U students.

12/17/2016 11:19:48 PM

I don't think he has a firm grasp of the fact that he's opened a can of worms... hemisphere can't stop whatever shitstorm he's started

And please someone tell me why you this this will be a good thing. Not just with lofty catch phrases... give me something concrete. Fact base would be amazing, though I won't hold my breath.

12/17/2016 11:30:32 PM

I'd still like to know exactly what was said that made rjrumfel clutch his pearls

12/19/2016 11:03:32 AM

Earnest insinuated that Trump was working with Putin. In a f'ning press briefing. That's what got me clutching my pearls. Does he have 100% irrefutable proof that has happened? No. So stop acting like a little baby.

12/19/2016 1:04:05 PM

how about some quotes?

and you were upset with something that the president said, too

12/19/2016 1:19:02 PM

He's got to own whatever comes out of Earnest's mouth.

Why do you get your panties in a wad ever time I say something negative about Obama? It's not even like I call myself a Republican anymore. Every day that goes by I feel like I'm less of a Republican and more of a Democrat.

But if I have to bow down to and agree to everything Obama says and does, then count me out. But I guarantee you, in 2020, if the Democrats run someone with a good background and middle of the road tendencies, I'll def. be voting for that person.

But knowing you guys, you're gonna pick Michelle O for 2020.

12/19/2016 1:29:21 PM

because you're a classic reactionary who tends to react first and think second

I'm interested to see what exactly made you react the way that you did. would you have preferred that the president had come out and pulled his press secretary away from the microphone?

12/19/2016 1:32:08 PM

Honestly, I would have preferred for everyone to wait until the intelligence agencies finish their investigations. If it did come to light that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and a foreign power, I'd be the first to call for his (impeachment?) removal.

Can you impeach a president-elect?

12/19/2016 2:51:46 PM

which statement do you feel was over the line?

12/19/2016 2:53:34 PM

Quote :

" there's ample evidence that was known long before the election and, in most cases, long before October about the Trump campaign and Russia -- everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on Russia to hack his opponent. It might be an indication that he was obviously aware and concluded, based on whatever facts or sources he had available to him, that Russia was involved, and their involvement was having a negative impact on his opponent's campaign. That's why he was encouraging them to keep doing it. You had the Republican nominee refer to the President of Russia as a strong leader. The Republican nominee chose a campaign chair that had extensive, lucrative, personal financial ties to the Kremlin. And it was obvious to those who were covering the race that the hack-and-leak strategy that had been operationalized was not being equally applied to the two parties and to the two campaigns. There was one side that was bearing the brunt of that strategy and another side that was clearly benefitting from it. "

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/14/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-12142016

You can pick this apart line by line and say that there was nothing out of line there, but you'd have to be a moron to not see the insinuation there.

[Edited on December 19, 2016 at 3:35 PM. Reason : asfds]

12/19/2016 3:34:24 PM

insinuation no doubt. but i'm pretty sure that everything that he's said is pretty widely known as factual.

12/19/2016 3:47:50 PM

Starting from Obama not being classy and failing to end on a high note - to something his press secretary said during a presser - ending in said secretary inferring cooperation

Your progression belies your original statement...

That said - why wouldn't Trump's campaign jump on board with this and push that agenda. What Earnest says is all factual regardless what underlying message there may be.

12/19/2016 3:50:31 PM

it's completely factual, and in no way beneath the office of the president and/or childish

12/19/2016 3:51:17 PM

Quote :

"You can pick this apart line by line and say that there was nothing out of line there, but you'd have to be a moron to not see the insinuation there."

But I think this is exactly the point, at least to those of us not yet privy to much of the intelligence. Any one of Trump's actions in regards to Russia could be shrugged off pretty easily. Add the actions together and the trend is where it gets disturbing.

12/19/2016 6:36:24 PM

+304 credibility

12/19/2016 7:01:05 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/newt-gingirch-trump-drain-the-swamp-232878

So...like, whatever he said campaigning...you can just go ahead and ignore all of that I guess.

12/22/2016 7:28:21 AM

Wasn't it JCE2011 that kept whining during the election that Hillary had admitted to having both a public and private position on issues and how damning that was. Does Trump deserve similar scrutiny or...........

12/22/2016 8:40:50 AM