Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Wed May 28, 2014, 08:53 PM
Number of posts: 142

Journal Archives

The lies about funding the wall are getting hilarious.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders is now claiming that the new trade deal with Mexico is going to raise so much money that it is the same as Mexico paying for the wall (paraphrased).

The fact that any benefits from that deal go to private companies and individuals was lost on her.

When asked if that revenue would be taxed to proved the money for the wall she responded "No".

Somehow she seems to be trying to tell Americans that because there is a new trade deal which may benefit American companies more than the old one, the wall is now paid for.

Nobody even bothered to point out to her that even if some magic (aka witchcraft) did create this theoretical revenue, it would still need to be appropriated through Congress.

How is anyone buying into this line of crap? It is as if they aren't even trying anymore. You would think that with all the practice she gets she would be a much better liar by now. I guess only doing one 15 minute press briefing a month isn't enough to be on your game.

More Proof That FOX News Lives In An Alternate Reality

FOX World

(The part about Judge Sullivan not tolerating abuse of power is my favorite.)

Real World

Judge talks of Treason in regards to Flynn, Trump Foundation dissolved, Trump caves on shutdown...

..and it isn't even 2:00 pm eastern yet.

Not all news cycles are created equal.

I think the ACA ruling has got it backwards.

The ACA has been challenged in the SCOTUS twice and upheld twice.

The new ruling, in a lower court, claims that the entire law is now unconstitutional because of the law passed last year eliminating the individual mandate.

Shouldn't it be the new law that eliminated the individual mandate that is found to be unconstitutional?

I know conservatives will reject this out of hand, but consider the argument (which is sure to be raised).

A)There is a program which has been found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court, Twice.

B)There is a new law passed which changes that constitutionally legitimate program.

How is it that the program that has been found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court, Twice, is the law which is now unconstitutional?

I think the way this court battle ends is that the individual mandate is reinstated by court order due to the unconstitutional law passed which repealed it.

Only time will tell but we already know that (R)s can't fix healthcare. They have had ten years to come up with something (more like 30 if you go back to the Clinton attempt to reform it) and they still have nothing. They won't have anything by 2020 either.

Even Republicans don't want this fight. They just want to play the victim to motivate their base.

Everyone should step back and take another look at this decision. Odds are it is going to be one giant backfire and conservatives will again be given a reason to play the victim, even though they are doing this to themselves.

Isn't retweeting posts from Russian Bots a form of collusion?

We now know for certain that both Cadet Bone Spurs and his Campaign Chair Conway retweeted posts from Russian Bots.

Retweeting helps spread their message and increases the exposure of the poster which then leads to more followers.

I see no reasonable argument against being able to now declare that Trump himself, as well as one or more members of his campaign, colluded with Russia and persons working for Russia during the campaign.

Worse yet, if we classify these tweets as part of an attack against the United States then we can state that Trump and Conway both helped Russia attack us.

I think we are now down to the claim that they did not KNOWINGLY collude with Russia and aid them in their attack against the United States. That is unless someone comes up with an email or text naming the Bots in question and suggesting that retweeting their posts would be helpful. That would remove the word "not" from the previous statement.

Go to Page: 1