Bill from NYC Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, ALF said: Why didn't Israel's enemies attack them while Obama was President ? Has any administration cut off foreign aid and weapon sales to Israel ? Why do you think the situation you describe exists?
whatdrought Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, ALF said: Why didn't Israel's enemies attack them while Obama was President ? Has any administration cut off foreign aid and weapon sales to Israel ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel ...
Chef Jim Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, whatdrought said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel ... Well that's different...or something like that.......I think......kinda.
ALF Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, whatdrought said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel ... That did not defeat Israel.
whatdrought Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 Just now, ALF said: That did not defeat Israel. 7 minutes ago, ALF said: Why didn't Israel's enemies attack them while Obama was President ? Has any administration cut off foreign aid and weapon sales to Israel ? at·tack /əˈtak/ verb 1. take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, ALF said: That did not defeat Israel. I think the point was Israel was attacked under Obama, as it has been under Trump (and pretty much every President). They're surrounded by enemies who do not believe in their right to exist, let alone be a country. That's not hyperbole. 3 1
Chef Jim Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, ALF said: That did not defeat Israel. Just stop. 2
Doc Brown Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 2 hours ago, section122 said: The republicans would have won in 08 with McCain if they didn't have Palin as his running mate. As much as the DNC screwed the pooch in 16 the repubs did the same in 08. They tried to capitalize on the womens vote and grab Hillary supporters by adding Palin. They underestimated how dumb she was and I firmly believe she cost them the election. Just like the DNC underestimated how much people disliked Hillary. I'm a dem and wanted to vote McCain and still did even with Palin dragging him down. Who better to lead us out of an unwinnable war than a decorated war veteran? See what I did there? I was objective about both parties. Those Trump tweets were dumb. You don't have to defend everything he does just because you are Republican. He has done some good and he has done some bad. These tweets were a bad look from him and it is okay to admit it. I know it is politics but "go back to where you came from" to elected representatives let alone just regular people shouldn't be an acceptable way to talk to people. It is just so embarrassing to watch our President get into twitter beefs with people. Twitter beefs. A 73 year old man. Twitter beefs. No. You represented the wishful Republican excuse for losing that election. The dynamics in '08 were different than the dynamics in '16. Wall Street was in meltdown, the Iraq War was starting to become clear to Americans it was a mistake, and the incumbent Republican president was incredibly unpopular. Democrats didn't have any of those problems entering the 2016 election. Hillary just ran a terrible campaign and her lack of likability along with the lack of enthusiasm she generated cost her what should've been a slam dunk win against Trump. Palin is the only reason they didn't have 15 million less votes than the Obama campaign as opposed to 10 million. She helped energize the Republican base as McCain had a serious lack of enthusiasm. Lieberman couldn't inspire a fat kid to run after the ice cream truck. Not to mention, Plus, Obama was the best Democratic campaigner and public speaker since Kennedy. 1
Chef Jim Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, ALF said: ok Just saving you from yourself. ? 18 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Lieberman couldn't inspire a fat kid to run after the ice cream truck. LOL!!
IDBillzFan Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Yes, I am still a Sarah Palin fan-girl. ? It is that ***** McCain I couldn't stand. Funny how everyone forgets how horribly the media treated Sarah Palin. The embarrassing leftist dumpster diving and reviews of her public emails was simply disgusting. But make one comment about a former bartender too stupid to peel a potato and speak at the same time, and she's on the cover of Time.
3rdnlng Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 46 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: No. You represented the wishful Republican excuse for losing that election. The dynamics in '08 were different than the dynamics in '16. Wall Street was in meltdown, the Iraq War was starting to become clear to Americans it was a mistake, and the incumbent Republican president was incredibly unpopular. Democrats didn't have any of those problems entering the 2016 election. Hillary just ran a terrible campaign and her lack of likability along with the lack of enthusiasm she generated cost her what should've been a slam dunk win against Trump. Palin is the only reason they didn't have 15 million less votes than the Obama campaign as opposed to 10 million. She helped energize the Republican base as McCain had a serious lack of enthusiasm. Lieberman couldn't inspire a fat kid to run after the ice cream truck. Not to mention, Plus, Obama was the best Democratic campaigner and public speaker since Kennedy. No, at that time the surge had settled things down and things were relatively quiet. It was a few years prior to that everyone was up in arms due to the lack of new WMD's found in Iraq, and the poor planning for after the military victory.
section122 Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said: There is so much wrong with this post it is difficult to know where to begin... When "dumb" Sarah Palin took on the Republican machine in Alaska and won, people were shocked. When "dumb" Sarah Palin took on big oil in Alaska and won, people were shocked. And when John McCain (who was pretty loathed by the conservative Republican base) asked her on people were shocked. So shocked, that it took the Obama campaign a whole 24 hours to get people up to Alaska to go through her garbage (seriously, her garbage) and compile a negative dossier to use against her. She gave McCain a nice bump in the polls after her red meat introduction speech. The polls were not horrible (although who knows what the internals said) until the financial meltdown in September. At the point, it was the Ds election. I've always felt horrible for her and her family that she accepted the nomination only to be dragged down by that louse McCain who wouldn't defend her aginst his own campaign staff or the MSM. And, when the Ds started filing bogus lawsuit after bogus lawsuit against her in an effort to lawfare her into bankruptcy (which thank goodness Alaska changed the law afterward), I really felt terrible for the whole family. Yes, I am still a Sarah Palin fan-girl. ? It is that ***** McCain I couldn't stand. @Deranged Rhino gave you a great little education in the whys and hows of the tweets. You quotes 2 rasmussen polls unfortunately I can't read them as you have to be a member. Here is some info I found on Rasmussen polls though from their wiki: After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.[69] FiveThirtyEight currently rates Rasmussen Reports with a C+ grade and notes a simple average error of 5.3 percent across 657 polls analyzed.[81] Most candidates receive a bump after naming their vp candidate. (An average of 5 points) and Palin was viewed very favorably when she was first named: John McCain had gained huge support among white women voters since the announcement;[14] he had not only surpassed the Democratic Party candidate Senator Barack Obama in white women voters, but also amassed a lead of five percentage points in the Gallup polls. John Zogby found that the effects of Palin's selection were helping the McCain ticket since "She has high favorability numbers, and has unified the Republican Party." However she had limited media access and bombed an interview with Katie Couric. A growing number of Republicans are expressing concern about Sarah Palin’s uneven — and sometimes downright awkward — performances in her limited media appearances. Conservative columnists Kathleen Parker, a former Palin supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside. Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing on the conservative National Review, says “that’s not a crazy suggestion” and that “something’s gotta change.” Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says Palin’s recent CBS appearance isn’t disqualifying but is certainly alarming. “You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water.” “I have not been blown away by the interviews from her, but at the same time I haven’t come away from them thinking she doesn’t know s—t,” said Chris Lacivita, a GOP strategist. “But she ain’t Dick Cheney, nor Joe Biden and definitely not Hillary Clinton.” I will agree (concede perhaps?) that the financial meltdown played a huge part as well as overall republican fatigue from Bush. Palin to me though was a clear grab at the female vote and she wasn't ready to be a vp candidate. (again I voted McCain because I felt Obama wasn't prepared to be president).
IDBillzFan Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, section122 said: You quotes 2 rasmussen polls unfortunately I can't read them as you have to be a member. Here is some info I found on Rasmussen polls though from their wiki: After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.[69] FiveThirtyEight currently rates Rasmussen Reports with a C+ grade and notes a simple average error of 5.3 percent across 657 polls analyzed.[81] So funny. Forget the message. Kill the messenger. By citing Silver of all people. Next up...we discredit the popularity of Pizza In A Cup in our exclusive interview with the owner of Cup O' Pizza!
plenzmd1 Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 4 hours ago, B-Man said: AOC: U.S. Must Provide Lifelong Mental Healthcare Services To Migrant Children Because Of Trauma We Have Caused AOC held a town hall event on immigration in Queens, NY on Saturday. The young Congresswoman believes the U.S. government must make a “lifelong commitment” to provide mental healthcare services to migrant children. The reason? Because of the lifelong trauma we inflict upon them when we separate them from their parents at the border. AOC told the crowd: . am i reading something wrong? Where in the world does she say that ? I am just reading the link provided..I see not one mention of lifelong commitment to menatl health. I may be wrong..but can you point out where it is? 4 hours ago, Bill from NYC said: Maybe they like President Trump because he would rather not have babies in their 9th month aborted and celebrate a "victory" like this by lighting up the Empire State Building in pink with taxpayer dollars. If you support things like this and attacking Israel you should be against our President. If not, point me to a democrat running in the primary who is on the conservative side of these two issues. I'll wait.....;) Absolutely disgusting, evil, and insane. Who cares if the Democrats are on he conservative side..that is freaking contradiction in terms no? New flash, its a democracy, usually one side is liberal,t he other conservative. And in terms on "attacking Isreal" show me one stinking instance of AOC saying anything about attacking Israel? I will ask you the same question I asked BMan..where in that link does it say she wants to provide mental health care for life? Did oyu read the article..or just buzz a headline from a hard right publication and take it as gospel?
IDBillzFan Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: am i reading something wrong? Where in the world does she say that ? I am just reading the link provided..I see not one mention of lifelong commitment to menatl health. I may be wrong..but can you point out where it is? From The Guardian article cited in The Red State article. Quote "The US has a “lifelong commitment” to the children it separated, she said, adding: “I believe we have responsibility to provide mental healthcare services to those children for the rest of their lives.” 1
plenzmd1 Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said: From The Guardian article cited in The Red State article. thank you..now why in the world would they bury that link when it was in their freaking headling..dumb righties!
Buffalo_Gal Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said: thank you..now why in the world would they bury that link when it was in their freaking headling..dumb righties! It's like you've never read a blog or an online newspaper before. 1
section122 Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 9 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said: So funny. Forget the message. Kill the messenger. By citing Silver of all people. Next up...we discredit the popularity of Pizza In A Cup in our exclusive interview with the owner of Cup O' Pizza! Well I agreed with the premise of one poll that she provided a bump but showed that naming a vp candidate usually causes a bump. I did look into the messenger however to see if it should be believed. Everyone should do that and I think @Deranged Rhino would agree that instead of accepting what the media is telling us we investigate for ourselves... Anyway here is more: Jonathan Chait of the New Republic said that Rasmussen is perceived in the "conservative world" as "the gold standard"[82] and suggested the polling company asks the questions specifically to show public support for the conservative position. They cited an example when Rasmussen asked "Should the government set limits on how much salt Americans can eat?" when the issue was whether to limit the amount of salt in pre-processed food.[83] A December 2018 article by political writer and analyst Harry Enten called Rasmussen the least accurate pollster in the 2018 midterm elections after stating Rasmussen had projected the Republicans to come ahead nationally by one point, while at the time Democrats were actually winning the national House vote by 8.6 points - an error of nearly 10 points.[94]
section122 Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: Do an honest assessment of 2017-2018 on who is more divisive: Trump or the media. I had a whole response and got a notification which deleted it all so I'm going to give a much briefer response (my apologies!) Short answer the media. This isn't either/or to me though they are both divisive. Obama went through this with the birther movement, the Muslim claims (as if it mattered), etc. Please don't think I agree with the media's handling of Trump because I don't. They only care about generating clicks, ad revenue, and outrage. They don't care who is sitting in office. 1
Recommended Posts