It’s telling that there’s no Impeachment thread on VS...

[ides1056]

amen

I took the dogs for a walk in the woods. An idyllic day, bright with no wind.

[colker]

I've stated why many times in the past: Because he wasn't Hillary. I dislike her as much as you dislike the President. Is that simple enough for you?

And if the Democrats or 3rd party can't put a candidate who I can get behind, I'll vote with my party.

So is supporting your party wrong? Before he was President, Obama never voted across the aisle once. Not once. Does it sound like some here have ever voted for a Republican? They are free to vote the way they wants and although I may not fully understand it, I'll respect it.

So as the Dems have banded together to "get" Trump from day one, Republicans have rallied in support. It's not a difficult concept to accept. Look at the impeachment vote.

Voting for any candidate is NOT a statement that you are in agreement with everything he or she may have done in their past. It's like saying voting for Bill Clinton is saying you also agree with being a serial cheater and (accused) rapist. It's saying folks who voted for Warren in my state, agree that lying about your minority status is "ok" to get ahead.

Sounds silly, correct?

1_ There is a difference in voting x later support in the face of wrongdoings.
2_ you can vote against something... but i would rather nullify my vote than elect something else i suspect is wrong. Nullified votes are important too.
3_ Criticsm from those who did vote for Trump may be more effective in opposing him and his actions than those in the democrat field.

[j44ke]

Merry Christmas you knuckleheads!

[NorTX-Dave]

During the winter of 1914, German, British and French troops in Flanders stopped shooting for a little while around Christmas. Soliders exchanged chocolates, cognac, coffee, cigarettes, and even engaged in football games.

For Pete's sake, people, give it a rest for a few hours, huh?

Amen.

[TTX1]

“If it means that I am viewed as one who looks openly and critically at every issue in front of me rather than acting as a rubber stamp for my party or my president, I’m totally good with that” she said. - Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, R., calling out Moscow Mitch for his statement re: coordination with the White House.

The Senator is a patriot.

Mitch is guilty of dereliction of duty, if not conspiracy.

There is important work ahead, for everyone.

Season’s greetings!

[mzilliox]

“If it means that I am viewed as one who looks openly and critically at every issue in front of me rather than acting as a rubber stamp for my party or my president, I’m totally good with that” she said. - Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, R., calling out Moscow Mitch for his statement re: coordination with the White House.

The Senator is a patriot.

Mitch is guilty of dereliction of duty, if not conspiracy.

There is important work ahead, for everyone.

Season’s greetings!

Wait, you mean to say being open and critical are the least we can all do as citizens? and moreso as elected officials meant to represent said citizens? Elected officials should take their jobs seriously and obey the rules and norms as dictated to them in their service to us?? a supposedly independant branch should not get in bed with another independant branch and coordinate? thats wrong? we shouldnt rubber stamp for our party? something about rubber stamping for party sounds familiar, where did i just hear that?

Merry christmas as well

if fighting for a real future during a man made holiday is frowned upon, im totally good with that...

[King Of Dirk]

if fighting for a real future during a man made holiday is frowned upon, im totally good with that...

1. All holidays are human inventions. Does that mean they aren't useful?
2. I'm not sure the idiot in the White House threatens your future in the same way the Great War threatened the futures of those troops, but don't let a little hyperbole get in your way.

[guido]

2. I'm not sure the idiot in the White House threatens your future in the same way the Great War threatened the futures of those troops, but don't let a little hyperbole get in your way.

If he doesn't take serious action and global leadership on climate change the entire planet is in for a world of hurt that the great war will not begin to touch...

[colker]

If he doesn't take serious action and global leadership on climate change the entire planet is in for a world of hurt that the great war will not begin to touch...

The US comes out of the great war as a world leader and an icon of freedom. The US during Trump´s administration nurtures every far right monstrosity on the planet losing respect and influence.

[jtbadge]

This administration would have turned away Joseph and Mary at the border, and separated them from Jesus.

Telling people when they can and cannot ask for change or the "right way" to protest is showing your privilege. If anything, today is the perfect day to ask for leadership by a better example.

[Colinmclelland]

The US comes out of the great war as a world leader and an icon of freedom. The US during Trump´s administration nurtures every far right monstrosity on the planet losing respect and influence.

Australia is the same. Although I suspect we started with less respect and certainly less influence.

Also, leaving everything else aside, financially the US could afford WWII. Came out of it having built debt to GDP up to epic proportions, the likes of which were not repeated until, well now really. The government should be storing acorns not trimming the tree...

As for voting on party lines, the Liberal Party here (our version of conservatives or republicans) call themselves the sensible economic managers and demonise debt. Except our economy is one of the worst performing in the OECD and debt has gone up under them. The only reason we are approaching a surplus is because the tax take has gone up thanks to bracket creep.

They’ve been in power for six years, that should be long enough to have an impact. Sometimes you have to call BS on the party line and judge actions.

I’m inclined to vote Liberal, but the current Liberals are arsehats, and I don’t want the world thinking they represent my views. I haven’t and won’t vote for them.

[Corso]

Trump has 15,000 lies that you are quite happy to ignore but get apoplectic over a single statement by Warren.

Hmmmm...

Guy, you are the King of putting words in my mouth - words I've never said.

But thanks for proving my "party line" point. Defend Warren by making up something I never said about Trump. What kind of "ism" is that?

You are one (of many) who I had in mind when I stated earlier as one who may have never voted for a Republican. My assumption is based on all you've ever posted, mostly your opposite argumentative post concerning any I post.

I don't know if you even READ anything I post, but blindly use what I write as a jumping off point to make your statements. But if that's what floats your boat, carry on man!

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

And Warren didn't make the lie a "single statement". She lied on several documents and applications and potentially screwed a real American Native out of a job(s). Harvard back tracked and covered for her. You know this.

[HorsCat]

There is no defending what Warren did. It was wrong and she shouldna dunnit. It’s come back to haunt her. Still...

Being a rapist and criminal and world’s greatest liar and conman > lying about your ancestry on college and work applications. By a significant order of magnitude. Significant.

As for Murkowski, I will be very surprised if, when push comes to shove, she doesn’t have the same amoeba-like spine of the rest of the GOP. So, too, Romney and Collins.

[guido]

Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test: What it can and can’t tell us | PolitiFact

[Dallas Tex]

I absolutely LOVE that Guido's signatory phrase is a quote for me! No kidding, I have a 'yuuuge' smile about that.

"Agree on basic facts? That's a challenge due to the redefinition of the word 'fact'. Once the term 'facts' takes on the meaning of strongly-held-belief or 'everybody knows' we arrive at a place where many folks can't even agree on the definition of the word fact. Agreement of what you decide are basic facts should never be a pre-requirement before discussion or debate."
-- Glenn Thompson

[guido]

Guy, you are the King of putting words in my mouth - words I've never said.

But thanks for proving my "party line" point. Defend Warren by making up something I never said about Trump. What kind of "ism" is that?

You are one (of many) who I had in mind when I stated earlier as one who may have never voted for a Republican. My assumption is based on all you've ever posted, mostly your opposite argumentative post concerning any I post.

I don't know if you even READ anything I post, but blindly use what I write as a jumping off point to make your statements. But if that's what floats your boat, carry on man!

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

And Warren didn't make the lie a "single statement". She lied on several documents and applications and potentially screwed a real American Native out of a job(s). Harvard back tracked and covered for her. You know this.

So other than the complete factual inaccuracy about your attempt to slime Warren, What words did I put in your mouth?

[Dallas Tex]

Below is a list of what someone described as 'facts' about your president,

" A racist
A rapist
A misogynist
Evil (definition: “profoundly immoral and wicked”)
A malignant narcissist
A criminal
Corrupt to his core
Indifferent to the suffering of others
A liar
An ignoramus
A fraudulent huckster
Etc

Is not a matter of “differing viewpoints” but is instead objective fact."


Most, if not all, of these 'facts' are subjective opinions. Viewed through the lens of the left's re-definition of the word fact, they morph into 'fact' in the mind of the person that posted this list. (Please note the poster that posted this list clearly & unequivocally described the list as fact......and that point actually is a fact). The end goal is to limit debate and discussion because now the person with the opposing view is arguing against 'basic facts' and the debate or discussion can simply be dismissed, even by good folks who claim to be very open minded and tolerant of diverse ideas.

[guido]

Below is a list of what someone described as 'facts' about your president,

" A racist
A rapist
A misogynist
Evil (definition: “profoundly immoral and wicked”)
A malignant narcissist
A criminal
Corrupt to his core
Indifferent to the suffering of others
A liar
An ignoramus
A fraudulent huckster
Etc

Is not a matter of “differing viewpoints” but is instead objective fact."


Most, if not all, of these 'facts' are subjective opinions. Viewed through the lens of the left's re-definition of the word fact, they morph into 'fact' in the mind of the person that posted this list. (Please note the poster that posted this list clearly & unequivocally described the list as fact......and that point actually is a fact). The end goal is to limit debate and discussion because now the person with the opposing view is arguing against 'basic facts' and the debate or discussion can simply be dismissed, even by good folks who claim to be very open minded and tolerant of diverse ideas.

I find it comical that you claim the left is the side that has re-defined fact. But I shouldn't surprised given that reversing any claim to pointing back at the accuser is the only way the Trump and house republicans have answered any of the charges against him.

As I suggested in an earlier post, providing documented references disproving items on the list would go a long way toward helping you make your case. There is ample material available supporting them.

[HorsCat]

Most, if not all, of these 'facts' are subjective opinions.

That's beyond absurd, Glenn. When you get over being triggered by it, feel free to offer a substantive analysis of why I'm wrong. Floor is yours . . .

[Dallas Tex]

That's beyond absurd, Glenn. When you get over being triggered by it, feel free to offer a substantive analysis of why I'm wrong. Floor is yours . . .

Let me start with the most obvious: 'Trump is an ignoramus'. This is an opinion, not a fact. Period. That was my point.

Now you want me discuss why I disagree with your opinion, which is an entirely different thing? OK, what the heck.



Trump has reached the highest levels of success in three of the most competitive fields in our world:

-NY Real Estate Developer, he owns billions of dollars in real estate in NY and elsewhere

-Televison/Entertainment, his show was on for 15 seasons and highly rated during several seasons

-Politics, without ever holding prior elected office he won the Presidency of the United States.....much to the chagrin of both parties


You may disagree with his politics, his persona, his gruffness, his hair color............but there is no way a reasonable person could honestly call him an ignoramus.


But more to the point of this portion of this discussion, you have a definite right to your opinion.