TIllerson did illegal business with Iran -- I suppose that's OK too.

You're a nitpicking nitwit. If you think it matters to any Trump supporters whether Mexico hands us an actual physical check in payment for the wall, you've been watching too many Saturday Night Live parodies. And if you think anyone cares whether the repeal/replace sequence is simultaneous or occurs with a slight time lag to get it right, you're even more delusional.

Sheesh, why can't you let the guy be sworn in before you start frothing and foaming and fulminating about him? Like all Presidents, Trump will inevitably make his share of mistakes. When that happens, people like you will have no standing or credibility to criticize him, because everyone knows you simply attack him reflexively whether he deserves it or not. Originally Posted by lustylad

Wait, so I'm nitpicking? The wall was his biggest campaign promise. It's kinda what he started his campaign on. So if he can't deliver on that promise of all the ones made, that's pretty bad. I actually don't watch SNL, but thanks. Maybe you've been watching Fox News too much. Guess what, Trump's supporters don't make up the nation. It's pass half the population when you look at how many people voted against him or voted third party. So you're saying it's ok for Trump to force all those voters to pay more in taxes to pay for a wall they didn't vote for. But when Obama who won the popular vote does something it's not ok? And I never thought Mexico would hand use a check because I knew they would never pay for a wall. And the idea of raising tariffs on them will only lead to them doing the same on use and a trade war. And if you think people are ok with repealing and not replacing quickly, you are leaving in a bubble. And guess what, a lot of those people on ACA are Trump voters who were told they would get a better version of it. That's why Trump didn't want to repeal and wait. He wanted Congress to repeal and immediately replace or wait. A slight lag isn't what they are looking at, they are talking about years. That's on top of the 6 years they've talked about repealing it. If they haven't had a plan in place in 6 years, why would 1-2 more years really make the difference? And as I said, I would have waited to criticize him when he was in office, if he wasn't out taking credit for things already. You can't have the praise without the criticism also. And to say people can't criticize him later because they did now is ridiculous. Anyone can call him out on his mistakes. And again, this convo isn't going to go anywhere. So comment, I'm done.

No shit, Sherlock and guess what Clinton supporters don't make up the nation. And voters have to pay for shit that they NOT want all the time. Take Obama Care - I get FINED
if I don't have insurance. The government is forcing me to have insurance. I didn't vote for Obama so why should I have to follow his order? So the answer to that last part is-yes.




Guess what, Trump's supporters don't make up the nation. It's pass half the population when you look at how many people voted against him or voted third party. So you're saying it's ok for Trump to force all those voters to pay more in taxes to pay for a wall they didn't vote for.

Wait, so I'm nitpicking? The wall was his biggest campaign promise. It's kinda what he started his campaign on. So if he can't deliver on that promise of all the ones made, that's pretty bad. I actually don't watch SNL, but thanks. Maybe you've been watching Fox News too much. Guess what, Trump's supporters don't make up the nation. It's pass half the population when you look at how many people voted against him or voted third party. So you're saying it's ok for Trump to force all those voters to pay more in taxes to pay for a wall they didn't vote for. But when Obama who won the popular vote does something it's not ok? And I never thought Mexico would hand use a check because I knew they would never pay for a wall. And the idea of raising tariffs on them will only lead to them doing the same on use and a trade war. And if you think people are ok with repealing and not replacing quickly, you are leaving in a bubble. And guess what, a lot of those people on ACA are Trump voters who were told they would get a better version of it. That's why Trump didn't want to repeal and wait. He wanted Congress to repeal and immediately replace or wait. A slight lag isn't what they are looking at, they are talking about years. That's on top of the 6 years they've talked about repealing it. If they haven't had a plan in place in 6 years, why would 1-2 more years really make the difference? And as I said, I would have waited to criticize him when he was in office, if he wasn't out taking credit for things already. You can't have the praise without the criticism also. And to say people can't criticize him later because they did now is ridiculous. Anyone can call him out on his mistakes. And again, this convo isn't going to go anywhere. So comment, I'm done. Originally Posted by Milly23

Millsy, relax brohammer, it's just a Hooker board. Save all that pent up energy for the next lady you see. Or Tranny. Show em what you got.

Millsy, relax brohammer, it's just a Hooker board. Save all that pent up energy for the next lady you see. Or Tranny. Show em what you got. Originally Posted by bambino

Though I think you threw that tranny remark in as a dig. I respect a persons right to see whoever and glad you do too.

No shit, Sherlock and guess what Clinton supporters don't make up the nation. And voters have to pay for shit that they NOT want all the time. Take Obama Care - I get FINED
if I don't have insurance. The government is forcing me to have insurance. I didn't vote for Obama so why should I have to follow his order? So the answer to that last part is-yes.




Guess what, Trump's supporters don't make up the nation. It's pass half the population when you look at how many people voted against him or voted third party. So you're saying it's ok for Trump to force all those voters to pay more in taxes to pay for a wall they didn't vote for. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

My god you either LACK intelligence or you just REFUSE to look at statements. You took one part of the statement I made and argued with that point without answering the other. (1) Clinton supporters/third party voters actually make up a far greater portion of the population. (2) The key part of that of the statement was that Obama won the popular vote. He had what thinks he has, a MANDATE. Yet people complained left and right about paying for things, like you just did. But with the wall, people can't complain and criticize when Trump didn't win the popular vote, actually lost it by more than anyone to win the presidency, and those voters now have to pay for something they voted against. You having to be insured being compared to having to pay for a wall is like comparing apples to raisins. The data shows that (1) most illegals are here on expired visas and (2) most people here illegal get here by plane. A wall won't prevent that. So to respond to your idiotic comment, yes I know we will have to pay for the wall even if we didn't vote for Trump. Like you had to do with Obama. My point was that one guy won the popular vote, so a majority of the people in the population voted for his policies. The other guy did not. If you can't see the difference in that and why people will not be happy about it, I can't help you.

Ok Milly-Nilly, let's apply your logic... here are the 1992 popular vote percentages:

Bill Clinton - 43.0%
George H.W. Bush - 37.4%
Ross Perot - 18.9%

It looks like Slick Willy the Perjuring Sexual Predator won the Presidency in 1992 with only a plurality of the popular vote. Fully 57.0% of the voters rejected him. Does that mean all those voters could have opted out of paying taxes for any of Slick Willy's policies they didn't like?

Since you claim you voted for the younger Bush twice, I assume you would have voted for his father too, if you hadn't still been in diapers back then. Would you have been just as irate about paying for Slick Willy's programs as you are about Trump?

Oh, and another thing - the cost of that damn wall will be a tiny drop in the bucket of federal spending, something that can easily be covered by slashing all those other wasteful libtard programs so nobody's taxes have to go up.

Oh, and one more thing - Congress controls the power of the purse, not the President. So maybe you should bitch to your Congressman and Senators about any appropriations for the wall.

Typical equivocation by one of our temporary trolls.

Trump received no mandate.

Trump is rushing the nation headlong into chaos. I want him to succeed, because I want America to succeed just like we all do. Even those of us for whom this election was only about hatred. I want Trump to be diplomatic. I need him to be a leader.

But his bullying, lack of class and outright attacks on our constitution -- before the inauguration -- coupled with the inappropriate behavior of his advisers will lead to the disaster everybody feared.

Look the other way if that makes you feel better about this. But the truth remains. He's a fascist and an asshole.

Book it. And pray for America.

Ok Milly-Nilly, let's apply your logic... here are the 1992 popular vote percentages:

Bill Clinton - 43.0%
George H.W. Bush - 37.4%
Ross Perot - 18.9%

It looks like Slick Willy the Perjuring Sexual Predator won the Presidency in 1992 with only a plurality of the popular vote. Fully 57.0% of the voters rejected him. Does that mean all those voters could have opted out of paying taxes for any of Slick Willy's policies they didn't like?

Since you claim you voted for the younger Bush twice, I assume you would have voted for his father too, if you hadn't still been in diapers back then. Would you have been just as irate about paying for Slick Willy's programs as you are about Trump?

Oh, and another thing - the cost of that damn wall will be a tiny drop in the bucket of federal spending, something that can easily be covered by slashing all those other wasteful libtard programs so nobody's taxes have to go up anyway.

Oh, and one more thing - Congress controls the power of the purse, not the President. So maybe you should bitch to your Congressman and Senators about any appropriations for the wall. Originally Posted by lustylad

Oh where did I say anyone should opt out? I'm talking about the right for everyone to criticize Trump. And in making that point I just pointed out that the shower king didn't win the popular vote and that a lack of a mandate means we should criticize and hold him to promises he's made. Yeah sure it may be a tiny drop to some but won't be the same for everyone. I know how the government works. I've taken many course it, having majored in it and all and work in it. So no need to lecture me on who controls spending/budget. I've probably forget more about Congress having taken a course on it, than many people trying to teach me on it. But yeah I'm bored with these comments. And in 2 years, if Trump hasn't resigned yet, I would wager that those working class voters will really regret their decision.

Oh where did I say anyone should opt out? Originally Posted by Milly23

You did say that, or at least imply it, right here:

So you're saying it's ok for Trump to force all those voters to pay more in taxes to pay for a wall they didn't vote for? Originally Posted by Milly23

I'm talking about the right for everyone to criticize Trump... a lack of a mandate means we should criticize and hold him to promises he's made. Originally Posted by Milly23

Fuck the mandate. The First Amendment already allows you to criticize Trump, Obama or anyone you choose. Mandate or no mandate. It just doesn't guarantee your criticism will be rational or persuasive or intelligent.

Yeah, Junior. What's a "Libtard?"

We've been dealing with the talking point rhetoric since the Bush days.

You even care about the other 57% of America that Trump and his billionaires club now seeks to disenfranchise? How about your precious fucking constitution? Seems you're a believer in the First Amendment. Trump and his thugs are not.

Why are you pressing your agenda here?

You did say that, or at least imply it, right here: Originally Posted by lustylad

Wait, are you in my mind? You're telling me what I implied? Maybe you inferred that but I don't imply that.

Is oinkboy back? We thought you got run over by a milk truck.

Wait, are you in my mind? You're telling me what I implied? Maybe you inferred that but I don't imply that. Originally Posted by Milly23

Crawfish much, sillymilly?

Fuck the mandate. The First Amendment already allows you to criticize Trump, Obama or anyone you choose. Mandate or no mandate. It just doesn't guarantee your criticism will be rational or persuasive or intelligent. Originally Posted by lustylad

Oh I took Con Law, Constitutional Interpretation also. So no need to try to enlighten me on First Amendment rights. My criticism would never seem rational or persuasive to you. And I'm not trying to persuade you anyway. As for my intelligence, I guarantee you a nonpartisan person could review what I said and what you have said, and my points are going to be seen as more truthful and intelligent that yours. But that's just what I think. I guess I could be wrong. Just like you could be wrong on your thoughts on my criticism.