Tiberius Posted December 4, 2016 Posted December 4, 2016 So anything goes as long as the company is trying to stay profitable? Are you anti capitalist now? Wow, you sound like Karl Marx!
Chef Jim Posted December 4, 2016 Posted December 4, 2016 Are you anti capitalist now? Wow, you sound like Karl Marx! Yup wanting to keep at many Americans employed as possible makes me a Marxist. What at child you are.
B-Man Posted December 4, 2016 Posted December 4, 2016 Trump Secretary of State candidate John Bolton: China doesn’t tell us who we can talk to http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2016/12/04/boom-trump-secretary-of-state-candidate-john-bolton-china-doesnt-tell-us-who-we-can-talk-to/
B-Man Posted December 5, 2016 Posted December 5, 2016 Report: Trump moving away from Romney and Giuliani, considering Huntsman for Secretary of State LOL............yep............keep writing articles about The Donald being too "right wing"
/dev/null Posted December 5, 2016 Posted December 5, 2016 Report: Trump moving away from Romney and Giuliani, considering Huntsman for Secretary of State LOL............yep............keep writing articles about The Donald being too "right wing" Noooo, not Huntsman. He's every Liberal's "He's the type of Republican I could vote for" straw man. Kind of like how McCain used to be, until they actually had a chance to vote for McCain
Tiberius Posted December 5, 2016 Posted December 5, 2016 General Flynn just tweeted out this link http://truepundit.com/breaking-bombshell-nypd-blows-whistle-on-new-hillary-emails-money-laundering-sex-crimes-with-children-child-exploitation-pay-to-play-perjury/
boyst Posted December 5, 2016 Posted December 5, 2016 General Flynn just tweeted out this link http://truepundit.com/breaking-bombshell-nypd-blows-whistle-on-new-hillary-emails-money-laundering-sex-crimes-with-children-child-exploitation-pay-to-play-perjury/ General tso just tweeted this out
B-Man Posted December 5, 2016 Posted December 5, 2016 Trump to meet with Laura Ingraham, Gov. Terry Branstad Washington Examiner, by Sarah Westwood Original Article Democrats to give Trump Cabinet picks the Garland treatment Politico, by Burgess Everett and Elana Schor Original Article Nancy Pelosi Calls Ben Carson ‘Disturbingly Unqualified’ Associated Press, by Staff Original Article Well......................She's is the expert on that ...
Nanker Posted December 5, 2016 Posted December 5, 2016 I think Laura Ingraham would be an outstanding selection as Press Secretary. I saw where not just Ivanka, but The Donald himself met today with ALG.
B-Man Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 Trump Picks Iowa Governor Branstad as China Ambassador Bloomberg, by Jennifer Jacobs Original Article
B-Man Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 (edited) From Dr. Charles Krauthammer; Revenge is not a good strategy for the Democrats. The one thing they don’t want to be tagged with immediately is obstructionism. That worked against Republicans in the Senate for eight years as a political hatchet. If the Democrats want to invite that, this is going to look like naked partisanship and obstruction for its own sake. Remember when Obama came into office, the Congress approved eight of his cabinet members on Day One. If these guys are going to stand around and do procedural stuff that you just show on television, it is going to look ridiculous. It’s going to be obvious obstructionism and no reason. I can understand a drawn-out hearing on somebody you think is extreme or unqualified, but if they want to do it as a way to get revenge for Garland, be my guest. They will suffer from that for eight years.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner Edited December 7, 2016 by B-Man
DC Tom Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 From Dr. Charles Krauthammer; Revenge is not a good strategy for the Democrats. The one thing they don’t want to be tagged with immediately is obstructionism. That worked against Republicans in the Senate for eight years as a political hatchet. If the Democrats want to invite that, this is going to look like naked partisanship and obstruction for its own sake. Remember when Obama came into office, the Congress approved eight of his cabinet members on Day One. If these guys are going to stand around and do procedural stuff that you just show on television, it is going to look ridiculous. It’s going to be obvious obstructionism and no reason. I can understand a drawn-out hearing on somebody you think is extreme or unqualified, but if they want to do it as a way to get revenge for Garland, be my guest. They will suffer from that for eight years. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner Krauthammer's dead wrong in this case. What will really happen is that, if the Democrats decide to be obviously obstructionist, the Republicans will invoke the nuclear option, kill the filibuster, and take the Democrats completely out of the picture. Then the Democrats will complain the Republicans are being undemocratic and fascist, and the media will run with that narrative. The Democrats have nothing to lose by being obstructionist, because it'll be spun in their favor.
Taro T Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 Krauthammer's dead wrong in this case. What will really happen is that, if the Democrats decide to be obviously obstructionist, the Republicans will invoke the nuclear option, kill the filibuster, and take the Democrats completely out of the picture. Then the Democrats will complain the Republicans are being undemocratic and fascist, and the media will run with that narrative. The Democrats have nothing to lose by being obstructionist, because it'll be spun in their favor. As it always is. D's opposing R's = principled opposition. R's opposing D's = obstructionism. Just is the way it's always called. Will be interesting to see what happens when Trump proposes items the D's typically support but the R's typically oppose. Still hopeful (though not tremendously) that this presidency sees Congress take back some of their authority.
GG Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 As it always is. D's opposing R's = principled opposition. R's opposing D's = obstructionism. Just is the way it's always called. Will be interesting to see what happens when Trump proposes items the D's typically support but the R's typically oppose. Still hopeful (though not tremendously) that this presidency sees Congress take back some of their authority. When?
Taro T Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 When? Pretty sure it's bound to happen during his presidency. If it doesn't, then good, but that would be surprising.
GG Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 Pretty sure it's bound to happen during his presidency. If it doesn't, then good, but that would be surprising. I think you misunderstood the 'when'
Nanker Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 Indeed he did. "When" has already happened. Things change so fast.
keepthefaith Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 Uh oh. This will make the left crazy. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-picks-gop-oil-industry-ally-scott-pruitt-lead-n693231
Azalin Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 Uh oh. This will make the left crazy. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-picks-gop-oil-industry-ally-scott-pruitt-lead-n693231 Crazy? Apoplectic is more like it.
Recommended Posts