Are you happy now IFFY? Start saying it: "President Hillary Clinton"

Keep giving us your analysis, Revananus. You were so right about the election results. Oh, wait. You lost. Here's my prediction. Trump will do just fine. He will do some things I like, and some I won't. But keep trying to prove the Trump Administration is a failure before it starts, just like you proved Hillary would win the election before she lost. We're not impressed with your analytical ability. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm not trying to prove anything about his administration, which hasn't even taken office yet.

I'm only pointing out that he is making the same stupid mistakes now that he made before. He has always been venal and a corrupt con-man. His business practice have always been shady. And that doesn't appear to be changing. Even with the whole world watching.

It's not just starting off with nepotism. The asshole is STILL tweeting - to argue with Saturday Night Live and the cast of Hamilton. WTF is wrong with him? Can't he ignore anything? Doesn't he have more important things to do? Like staff an administration and set up and agenda?

And WTF is wrong with the people around him? Can't anyone tell him to delete his Twitter accounts as a condition of their support? Or are they all just yes men?

And you are making a big deal about his pick for the CIA, whom you refer to as a statist.

Is there anyone who will be a bigger statist than Trump? Have you read the shit he has said about killing families of Jihadists? And waterboarding?

Hillary is a much bigger statist than Trump will ever be. Look up the definition of the word before you use it in a sentence. Makes you sound stupid.

Hillary is a much bigger statist than Trump will ever be. Look up the definition of the word before you use it in a sentence. Makes you sound stupid. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You used it first. He just tossed it back at you. Give us YOUR definition. That shouldn't be hard. It's one of your favorite words.

I spelled it for you. Look it up.

It looks like I was only off by one. Hillary couldn't beat ANY Republican - including Trump.

It doesn't change the fact that we could have had a better GOP President. Originally Posted by Revenant

Nope. I was only off by ONE. Hillary couldn't beat ANY Republican - even Trump.

That does not change the fact that we could have had a much better candidate... Originally Posted by Revenant

What a lame-ass attempt to save face. "I was only off by one." That's your answer?

You'd look better if you just said nothing or admitted you were completely wrong. It's not like you're the only person who called the damn election wrong, is it mope?

You crack us up, rev-an-anus!



As for your other face-saving argument - "we could have had a much better candidate" - that's even lamer. The GOP kept control of both the House and the Senate, and you're complaining? Fuck that. I'm delighted. I was braced for the Repubs to lose the Senate no matter who was at the top of the ticket, for the simple reason that they had 24 incumbents at risk versus only 10 for the Dems. (Yes, the numbers will be reversed in 2020.) Rather than hurting the GOP down-ballot candidates, it looks like Trump actually helped them in some races (Alaska, Colorado, Indiana, Missouri)!

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...attails-effect

Look, we get it. You hate your fellow New Yawker Donald Trump. But it's frankly disgusting to see how you're already cheering for him to fail, because you think it will somehow vindicate your poor judgment. The same rotten judgment that prompted you to choose Odumbo over Romney in 2012, then make an even bigger ass out of yourself trying to explain THAT one (and pretend you are a Republican who has the party's best interests at heart).

What a lame-ass attempt to save face. "I was only off by one." That's your answer?

You'd look better if you just said nothing or admitted you were completely wrong. It's not like you're the only person who called the damn election wrong, is it mope?

You crack us up, rev-an-anus!



As for your other face-saving argument - "we could have had a much better candidate" - that's even lamer. The GOP kept control of both the House and the Senate, and you're complaining? Fuck that. I'm delighted. I was braced for the Repubs to lose the Senate no matter who was at the top of the ticket, for the simple reason that they had 24 incumbents at risk versus only 10 for the Dems. (Yes, the numbers will be reversed in 2020.) Rather than hurting the GOP down-ballot candidates, it looks like Trump actually helped them in some races (Alaska, Colorado, Indiana, Missouri)!

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...attails-effect

Look, we get it. You hate your fellow New Yawker Donald Trump. But it's frankly disgusting to see how you're already cheering for him to fail, because you think it will somehow vindicate your poor judgment. The same rotten judgment that prompted you to choose Odumbo over Romney in 2012, then make an even bigger ass out of yourself trying to explain THAT one (and pretend you are a Republican who has the party's best interests at heart). Originally Posted by lustylad

I have no interest in "saving face" because I have nothing to be ashamed of.

Trump is a megalomaniac scumbag and a shady character and you apparently don't care. The shame is yours.

The fraud he committed with "Trump University" alone ought to disqualify him from decent society, let alone being President. He conned poor people desperate to advance themselves out of their money. Because that is his "brand".

That being said, I didn't have dog in this hunt. I hated Hillary even more. So I did not cast a ballot for President at all. Not even a write-in.

And if you are satisfied with merely keeping control of Congress, shame on you. If he had any coattails, the GOP would have picked up some Senate seats instead of losing two.

For all the talk about "the Trump revolution", there wasn't a whole lot of change in Congress.

We'll see if he even knows what a conservative is when he picks his S. Ct. nominee.

I have no interest in "saving face" because I have nothing to be ashamed of.

Trump is a megalomaniac scumbag and a shady character and you apparently don't care. The shame is yours.

The fraud he committed with "Trump University" alone ought to disqualify him from decent society, let alone being President. He conned poor people desperate to advance themselves out of their money. Because that is his "brand".

That being said, I didn't have dog in this hunt. I hated Hillary even more. So I did not cast a ballot for President at all. Not even a write-in.

And if you are satisfied with merely keeping control of Congress, shame on you. If he had any coattails, the GOP would have picked up some Senate seats instead of losing two.

For all the talk about "the Trump revolution", there wasn't a whole lot of change in Congress.

We'll see if he even knows what a conservative is when he picks his S. Ct. nominee. Originally Posted by Revenant

Your vote for 0bozo explains your "never Trumpers" attitude. Wanting Libtards on the SCOTUS. You can NEVER BE TRUSTED, EVER...

You always reminded me of Glenn Beck... Assup is 10x the man you are, you ain't even a man, nySISSYer...

Your vote for 0bozo explains your "never Trumpers" attitude. Wanting Libtards on the SCOTUS. You can NEVER BE TRUSTED, EVER...

You always reminded me of Glenn Beck... Assup is 10x the man you are, you ain't even a man, nySISSYer... Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Before you talk about who is and is not a man, why don't you post some reviews so we know if you even like women.

And your sister doesn't count hillbilly.

Why would I remind you of Glenn Beck? I've always thought he was a drama queen and an idiot. Kind of like you.

And I have never wanted liberals on the S. Ct. Where does that come from?

Do you even know what a conservative justice looks like? And NO, it is NOT a justice who will vote against gay marriage. That's a religious nut, not a small government conservative. I would try to explain the difference to you, but you would never understand.

Do you even know what a conservative justice looks like? And NO, it is NOT a justice who will vote against gay marriage. That's a religious nut, not a small government conservative. I would try to explain the difference to you, but you would never understand. Originally Posted by Revenant

You're asking what does a conservative justice look like, mope? How about someone cut from the same cloth as Antonin Scalia? You know, the guy who wrote a scathing dissent in Obergefell vs. Hodges. He wasn't a religious nut. His dissent had nothing to do with religion. It had to do with the Fourteenth Amendment. He was, in fact, a small government conservative expressing alarm at an over-reaching SCOTUS. I would try to explain the difference to you, but you would never understand.


But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic...

https://www.scribd.com/document/2697...Scalia-Dissent

You're asking what does a conservative justice look like, mope? How about someone cut from the same cloth as Antonin Scalia? You know, the guy who wrote a scathing dissent in Obergefell vs. Hodges. He wasn't a religious nut. His dissent had nothing to do with religion. It had to do with the Fourteenth Amendment. He was, in fact, a small government conservative expressing alarm at an over-reaching SCOTUS. I would try to explain the difference to you, but you would never understand.


But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic...

https://www.scribd.com/document/2697...Scalia-Dissent Originally Posted by lustylad

I miss Scalia.

Before you talk about who is and is not a man, why don't you post some reviews so we know if you even like women.

And your sister doesn't count hillbilly.

Why would I remind you of Glenn Beck? I've always thought he was a drama queen and an idiot. Kind of like you.

And I have never wanted liberals on the S. Ct. Where does that come from?

Do you even know what a conservative justice looks like? And NO, it is NOT a justice who will vote against gay marriage. That's a religious nut, not a small government conservative. I would try to explain the difference to you, but you would never understand. Originally Posted by Revenant

You're asking what does a conservative justice look like, mope? How about someone cut from the same cloth as Antonin Scalia? You know, the guy who wrote a scathing dissent in Obergefell vs. Hodges. He wasn't a religious nut. His dissent had nothing to do with religion. It had to do with the Fourteenth Amendment. He was, in fact, a small government conservative expressing alarm at an over-reaching SCOTUS. I would try to explain the difference to you, but you would never understand.

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic...

https://www.scribd.com/document/2697...Scalia-Dissent Originally Posted by lustylad

Fuck off, Stalker Lad. I know a lot more about small government conservatism than you ever will.

For the record, I have been a big fan of Scalia since the day he took the bench. But that doesn't mean I agree with everything he wrote. And he was off on gay rights. The government has NO business meddling in people's private lives.

His real contributions in conservatism were hie First Amendment opinions, and his decisions that reined in the government's power in terms of legislative and executive over-reach - particularly the abuse/over-use of the Commerce Clause to try to achieve a general police power for the federal government.

I have no interest in "saving face" because I have nothing to be ashamed of.

Trump is a megalomaniac scumbag and a shady character and you apparently don't care. The shame is yours.

The fraud he committed with "Trump University" alone ought to disqualify him from decent society, let alone being President. He conned poor people desperate to advance themselves out of their money. Because that is his "brand".

That being said, I didn't have dog in this hunt. I hated Hillary even more. So I did not cast a ballot for President at all. Not even a write-in.

And if you are satisfied with merely keeping control of Congress, shame on you. If he had any coattails, the GOP would have picked up some Senate seats instead of losing two.

For all the talk about "the Trump revolution", there wasn't a whole lot of change in Congress.

We'll see if he even knows what a conservative is when he picks his S. Ct. nominee. Originally Posted by Revenant

Trump is now your president. Hillary Clinton isn't the president and never will be. Everyone has a few distasteful traits. Trump has them, you have them and so does Clinton. We get our presidents from the human race. The human race is imperfect. Trump will make many mistakes like all presidents before him. If Trump's biggest vice is that he made some vulgar comments behind closed doors over a decade ago is an indication that he couldn't possibly be an effective president then you need to reevaluate your opinions on all presidents before him, especially Obama and Bush who are the two biggest idiots this country has ever seen in the White House.

Jim