And America Continues to Show it's True Colors. . .

[D'Snowth]

At this point, they're only defending him because they don't want to admit that everything people said about him during the campaign is being proven true.

No, they continue to defend him because they're still brainwashed into believing that everything people say about his is "fake news," and "lies to make him look bad." They're seriously brainwashed into believing that, it's not even funny.

 

[jvcarroll]

No, they continue to defend him because they're still brainwashed into believing that everything people say about his is "fake news," and "lies to make him look bad." They're seriously brainwashed into believing that, it's not even funny.

This is one rare point where we disagree. I think they choose to excuse and overlook everything from Trump (stuff they certainly wouldn't excuse Hillary, Obama or anyone else for even a fraction of), but I think they're aware. They just don't care. That's worse. This is illustrated by how Fox Newsies keep moving the line of what is okay. First, there was no collusion! Next, what is collusion exactly? After that, is collusion illegal in the first place? Now it's finger pointing at Democrats' ties to overseas money (that every candidate from all parties get) to muddy the waters of Trump's campaign is alleged to have done. That's not brainwashing IMHO. It's blind support no matter what and that takes presence of mind.

 

[LittleJerry92]

No, they continue to defend him because they're still brainwashed into believing that everything people say about his is "fake news," and "lies to make him look bad." They're seriously brainwashed into believing that, it's not even funny.

But- but- but- Fox news said so!

 

[MuppetsRule]

Obama's administration put the health care subsidies in, Trump takes the subsidies out, Trump and his Congress put the subsidies back in and ya shake em all about. Um...I think it's clear that Trump has no idea what he's doing. While this current band-aid is a good idea to fix Trump's gross negligence, it just proves that he's painfully unqualified and has no idea what he's doing.

Perhaps you're right. Or . . . . maybe it was a shrewd move by President Trump to get something moving on healthcare. Since last November we've heard promises of a healthcare bill from the Republicans and meanwhile the Democrats played the roll of obstructionists. In that time we've gotten absolutely no movement on the healthcare bill. Then President Trump issues an executive order removing the subsidies from Obamacare. And, lo and behold, less than a week later the Democrats and Republicans come up with a bi-partisan solution to extend Obamacare which includes subsidies, the ability of small business to create insurance pools, and allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines and increasing competition. All positive movements. Coincidence? Hmmmmm.

 

[MuppetsRule]

Eugh! To be fair, none of this came from the widow, so it's hard to figure what really happened, but it's sad that this easily fits his pattern of behavior. That's the disturbing part. He's done stuff like this before with his treatment of the Gold Star family who lost their son after they plead with Trump to stop berating Muslims and went after war hero John McCain for being captured (even though the Donald weaseled out of his service by claiming "heel spurs"). Even on the most basic level, Trump is not an honorable man and that should concern every single person who continues to support him. At this point, they're only defending him because they don't want to admit that everything people said about him during the campaign is being proven true.

To be completely fair, there are two versions of what was said in the phone conversation. The democratic congresswoman claims that President Trump told the widow "He knew what he was signing up for." which in itself is an incredibly insensitive thing to say. BUT the other version is that President Trump said, "He knew what he signed up for, but when it happens, it still hurts terribly and is a great loss." Which, given the first sentence, in context, makes it a whole lot more sensitive. And anybody that has served in the military will tell you they knew what they signed up for. The democratic congresswoman, who was not a part of the conversation, peppers her claims with phrases like, "said something like". She also goes on to say about the incident "this could be another Benghazi". Sure seems like the good congresswoman from Florida is trying to politicize the loss. On the other hand, several staffers were in the room when President Trump made the phone call and claim his version is accurate. But I would expect them to back the President's version.

I'm not sure who is right here. But I'm guessing, like most issues, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

And I really don't want to debate a he said, she said story here. I'm not taking sides on which side is correct. I'm simply pointing out that there are two versions out there of this story.

 

[jvcarroll]

To be completely fair, there are two versions of what was said in the phone conversation. The democratic congresswoman claims that President Trump told the widow "He knew what he was signing up for." which in itself is an incredibly insensitive thing to say. BUT the other version is that President Trump said, "He knew what he signed up for, but when it happens, it still hurts terribly and is a great loss." Which, given the first sentence, in context, makes it a whole lot more sensitive. And anybody that has served in the military will tell you they knew what they signed up for. The democratic congresswoman, who was not a part of the conversation, peppers her claims with phrases like, "said something like". She also goes on to say about the incident "this could be another Benghazi". Sure seems like the good congresswoman from Florida is trying to politicize the loss. On the other hand, several staffers were in the room when President Trump made the phone call and claim his version is accurate. But I would expect them to back the President's version.

I'm not sure who is right here. But I'm guessing, like most issues, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

And I really don't want to debate a he said, she said story here. I'm not taking sides on which side is correct. I'm simply pointing out that there are two versions out there of this story.

The whole thing is tacky, but the fact that Trump them politicized the death of his own Chief of Staff's son, something Kelly has gone to great lengths not to politicize for years, exposes a complete lack of empathy and thoughtfulness toward others - even his own advocates. That, in itself, is abominable. His mocking John McCain's war service is equally abominable. This is a horrible person any way anyone wants to spin it. This all makes me think that it has to be intentional in order to cover something else up, but I don't think Trump is that clever. Just dim and narcissistic. That said, what he could have done is to call the widow and the solder's mother back and apologize if what he said or the way he said it offended them. That's what a stand-up guy would do. Instead, he whines and threatens. It's not the Dems who are going to oust Trump. The GOP will finally have enough of him eventually unless he starts to turn things around. Also, little good has come from engaging with one another so far, so it might be best to keep to that.

 

[jvcarroll]

Perhaps you're right. Or . . . . maybe it was a shrewd move by President Trump to get something moving on healthcare. Since last November we've heard promises of a healthcare bill from the Republicans and meanwhile the Democrats played the roll of obstructionists. In that time we've gotten absolutely no movement on the healthcare bill. Then President Trump issues an executive order removing the subsidies from Obamacare. And, lo and behold, less than a week later the Democrats and Republicans come up with a bi-partisan solution to extend Obamacare which includes subsidies, the ability of small business to create insurance pools, and allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines and increasing competition. All positive movements. Coincidence? Hmmmmm.

The Democrats are only obstructing taking away healthcare from people who need it. They want to alter and patch up Obamacare in some major ways, but the Republicans won't even try to compromise. That's not really obstructing anything. Also, Trump has changed his mind again, again, again and now he's against subsidies. He's flipped and flopped so much that it's hard to keep track. Again, I don't think you and I engaging with one another is a good idea. Nothing offensive from either of us has happened here so far, but this is probably a good, preemptive measure. You may PM me if you'd like to discuss it further. Thanks

 

[MuppetsRule]

The Democrats are only obstructing taking away healthcare from people who need it. They want to alter and patch up Obamacare in some major ways, but the Republicans won't even try to compromise. That's not really obstructing anything. Also, Trump has changed his mind again, again, again and now he's against subsidies. He's flipped and flopped so much that it's hard to keep track. Again, I don't think you and I engaging with one another is a good idea. Nothing offensive from either of us has happened here so far, but this is probably a good, preemptive measure. You may PM me if you'd like to discuss it further. Thanks

But yet when President Obama was in office and the Republicans pushed back against his policies that they didn't agree with they were labeled "obstructionist'. That's the point I've been trying to make in this thread at times. Quit pretending it's only the Republicans that "obstruct" or any of the other political stuff. It's both sides. They're politicians. That's what they do.

 

[MikaelaMuppet]

Argh.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-voters/ar-AAtH6Q2?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

 

[jvcarroll]

But yet when President Obama was in office and the Republicans pushed back against his policies that they didn't agree with they were labeled "obstructionist'. That's the point I've been trying to make in this thread at times. Quit pretending it's only the Republicans that "obstruct" or any of the other political stuff. It's both sides. They're politicians. That's what they do.

The difference is this...Republican leadership openly pledged to obstruct everything Obama did. Period. John Boener is quoted as calling compromise a dirty word to the GOP (and he's considered a moderate by today's Republicans). That says it all. Here's the perfectly illustrated difference.

Democrats have expressed great interest in reaching across the isle where they can find agreement and compromise. Completely different things. Dems want to drastically alter the Affordable Care Act while Republicans want to completely dismantle it. It's possible for conservatives to come up with minor agreements to patch up the ADA until they actually compose a "repeal and replace" that Americans actually want. The truth is, they never really wanted to change health care before the ADA came along. They've had decades to come up with solutions and this hastily composed TrumpCare garbage is all they could muster. That's not a legit effort - and one that Americans, even by Fox News polls, favor less than the current state of ObamaCare. That's why it didn't get enough Republican votes. The proof is in the pudding and the Republicans have offered criticism, but absolutely no pudding. It's not "both sides" and I really think it's best we keep to a non-contact agreement. Disagreements like this have a way of becoming "too passionate" or ugly. You may contact me via PM if you wish to discuss this further. Thank you.