home

Trump's Latest Whoppers

Biggest lie of the weekend by the Trump Administration: Chief of staff, Reince Priebus on Meet the Press (according to the New York Times):

“We expect a massive increase in military spending. We expect money for border security in this bill....And it ought to be. Because the president won overwhelmingly. And everyone understands the border wall was part of it.” (my emphasis)

More than 10 million people voted for Trump's opponents than voted for him. I'd say that's an overall rejection, not an endorsement, for his positions on issues. [More...]

Trump 62,979,636
Clinton 65,844,610
Others 7,804,213
Total Votes: 136,628,459.

Put another way, 53.9% of voters voted for someone other than him to be President.

Another Trump failure and backtrack: He has admitted Mexico won't be paying for the wall, which means, the United States (and its taxpayers)would foot the bill.

He may be the most inarticulate person ever to have a desk in the oval office. Here's his Washington Post interview from Friday. He sounds like a middle-schooler. He says "you know" 52 times. (It was so distracting, I copied the interview into WordPerfect and counted them using the "find" function.)

Added: I wrote this last night and hit publish today. I just saw that "Trump is Unintelligible" is trending on Twitter, based on his WAPO interview. Clearly, there are hundreds of thousands of others who think this.)

Some other pebbles from his speech:

TRUMP: Our military is so proud. They were not proud at all. They had their heads down. Now they have their heads up.
.

He will terminate NAFTA on his own.

TRUMP: I am going to either renegotiate it or I am going to terminate it....If they don’t treat fairly, I am terminating NAFTA.

AP: What’s a timeline for that decision?

TRUMP: It’s a six-month termination clause, I have the right to do it, it’s a six-month clause.

On the nuclear deal:

AP: At this point, do you believe that you will stay in the nuclear deal?

TRUMP: It’s possible that we won’t.

In the laugh out loud funny category, there's his description of his "Just don't watch" epiphany. (Since that's a big word, in case he or his staff is reading, an ephiphany is an experience that brings a sudden and striking realization -- a flash of insight).

TRUMP: And I don’t watch things that I know are going to be unpleasant. CNN has covered me unfairly and incorrectly and I don’t watch them anymore. A lot of people don’t watch them anymore, they’re now in third place. But I’ve created something where people are watching ... but I don’t watch CNN anymore. I don’t watch MSNBC anymore. I don’t watch things, and I never thought I had that ability. I always thought I’d watch.

AP: Sure.

TRUMP: I just don’t. And that’s taken place over the last year. And you know what that is, that’s a great, it’s a great thing because you leave, you leave for work in the morning you know, you’re, you don’t watch this total negativity. I never thought I’d be able to do that and for me, it’s so easy to do now. Just don’t watch. (bolded words are my emphasis.)

Why that's laughable: He doesn't realize that millions of us have had the same flash of insight since November and stopped watching all news (not just one network), because watching has become such an unpleasant experience, since the news usually is about him.

Two questions: What did he create? He didn't finish the thought. And when does he leave for work? He sleeps and works in the same building, whether it's the White House or his place in Palm Beach.

The only position he took in the interview that anyone could find solace in was his statement about DREAMers.

AP: Dreamers, you’ve talked about them, you’ve talked about heart earlier. This is one area where you have talked —

TRUMP: No, we aren’t looking to do anything right now. Look, the dreamers ... this is an interesting case, they left and they came back and he’s got some problems, it’s a little different than the dreamer case, right? But we are putting MS-13 in jail and getting them the hell out of our country....We are not after the dreamers, we are after the criminals.

...AP: And that’s going to be the policy of your administration to allow the dreamers to stay?

TRUMP: Yes. Yes. That’s our policy.

...AP: A lot of the dreamers have been hoping to hear something from you. I don’t want to give them the wrong message with this.

TRUMP: Here is what they can hear: The dreamers should rest easy. OK? I’ll give you that. The dreamers should rest easy. ...

Jeff Sessions, the same day, said the opposite about DREAMers: "Attorney General Jeff Sessions said “everyone that enters the country unlawfully is subject to being deported.”

Here's the problem. What Donald Trump thinks or says about anything is of no import and should make no one rest easy given his tendency to flip-flop and take an opposite position within days or weeks.He's not giving an announcement, he's ruminating outloud to himself to amuse himself.

Then there's this downright delusional claim:

Have you seen the tremendous success we’ve had in the Middle East with the ISIS....We have had tremendous success, but we don’t talk about it. We don’t talk about it.

What's his ISIS plan that he was supposed to get a report on in 30 days. He's not telling. When pressed, he says:

AP: Can you say generally what the strategy is? Should people —

TRUMP: Generally is we have got to get rid of ISIS. We have no choice. And other terrorist organizations.

Second laugh-out loud funny quote: The generals accepted his ISIS strategy

AP: In terms of the strategy, though, that you have accepted, it sounds like, from the generals —

TRUMP: Well, they’ve also accepted my strategy.

His border wall threats are so misguided they don't even warrant repeating, except for this delusional one:

The wall will stop the drugs.

Anyone want to take odds on that?

And the 100th reason I'm reminding myself never to read another thing Donald Trump says is this comment in the same interview:

I’ve done more than any other president in the first 100 days.

Just Don't Watch, indeed.

As for the budget, he wouldn't say whether he'd sign a bill that didn't include funding for the wall, which he estimates to be only $10 billion. (Does that include the cost of 5,000 more border patrol agents, 10,000 more ICE agents and immigration judges? Does it include the money for 24k gold belt buckles for the Coast Guard? Or 24 hr garage parking for ICE vans within .6 miles of the LA courthouse?)

It sounds like he's all but conceded he'd sign the bill regardless:

AP: If you don’t have a funding stream, your message to your base is what?

TRUMP: My base understands the wall is going to get built, whether I have it funded here or if I get it funded shortly thereafter, that wall’s getting built, OK? One hundred percent. One hundred percent it’s getting built.

Democrats should not fall for his aides implied threats of a shutdown if they don't agree to the wall spending. That's called extortion - vote for my ridiculous wall or we'll shut down funding for the stuff you think is important. First,both sides can negotiate another temporary budget extension while they work at a better solution.

Memo to Trump: Mexico isn't paying for your wall, and neither are we, the taxpayers. Any elected officials who votes for the bill containing money for your wall will not get our votes in 2018. Ask the House Members who don't live in iron-clad Republican districts or swing districts if they are willing to risk their re-election on your fantasy of what a physical border wall would accomplish?

Update: In addition to the tweet meme about him being unintelligible, there are numerous reporters and bloggers today just astounded by his ignorance, his inability to express himself and the delusional nature of some of his comments in his interview. A writer at The Daily Banter titles his article:

Donald Trump's AP Interview Transcript Is Goddamn Terrifying. A con man with dementia is running our country.
He ends with this:
So, again, do yourself a favor and read the whole transcript. Because packaging it with commentary robs you of every batsh*t non sequitur and bullsh*t lie from an unhinged narcissist who already has a taste for missile launches. It's the type of document that's going to be required reading if future generations somehow exist. (Asterisks mine.)
< Sunday Open Thread | Ted Cruz: All Hat, No Cattle, Again >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Trump trade war with Canada (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Natal on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 02:03:22 PM EST
    Trump has just put a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber.  It will be interesting to see where this goes.  It will have an affect on the US house prices.  NAFTA is suppose to be about free trade but not anymore.  Canadian government will most likely take it to the WTO like they did last time and it has been suggested it may be looking more to China for trade.

    The dark side of Trump making America (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 04:54:50 PM EST
    Great again.

    Parent
    What people (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 06:38:39 PM EST
    don't understand is how this kind of thing interrupts the supply chain. If a business is using Canadian wood they are going to attempt to find it somewhere else but maybe they can't. Maybe Canada is selling the majority of their wood now to someone else. So said business can't even get wood. So now the business is going to have to lay people off.

    There is a reason why economists projected a 3.5 million job loss under Trump.

    Parent

    i googled this (none / 0) (#20)
    by linea on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:58:35 PM EST
    and i feel the canadian tariff is maybe a good thing for american workers:

    Senator Ron Wyden (Democrat-Oregon.), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, applauded the Commerce Department's decision. "Unfairly traded softwood lumber from Canada has for decades hurt mill towns and American millworkers in Oregon and across the country," Wyden said.


    Parent
    Maybe bad... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 08:53:52 AM EST
    for Canadian workers, who enjoy protections and wages comparable to ours.  

    And maybe bad for American trees...though tress are smarter than us in this regard, they have no borders.

    Workers & Trees of the world unite!

    Parent

    my handyman (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 09:47:22 AM EST
    says the price of lumber will go up.   maybe a lot

    Parent
    Capitalism Catch 22... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 10:01:55 AM EST
    jobs go to other places, nobody got no money to buy sh&t.  Jobs stay here or come back, people have some money but not enough to buy sh&t that is now more expensive.

    Parent
    More likely (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 12:57:42 PM EST
    no jobs come back and people lose their job.

    Parent
    I remember what big fluctuations did (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 29, 2017 at 11:01:26 AM EST
    To the housing market when I was a kid. It was a wild ride sometimes as my pa was a contractor. When lumber prices were high, existing homes were in demand and builders focused on remodels. Inspired a lot of creativity, but our economic confidence has a large chunk of it based on access to housing now. Home prices shooting upward could easily crash an economy with few middle class wages being paid out.

    Because we don't have a middle class anymore our economic engine is very fragile. Trump will probably figure that out the hard way like he has everything else in his privileged life.

    Parent

    Maybe my fish are (none / 0) (#31)
    by fishcamp on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 11:20:12 AM EST
    smarter than your fish. 🌴

    Parent
    I just did my best (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 02:22:40 PM EST
    To read the transcript. Very garbled. And he said that the reason he campaigned on NATO being obsolete was because he really didn't know much about NATO. He was busy building big buildings in Manhattan. He wasn't running around asking about NATO.

    Which proves the point (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 02:59:06 PM EST
    He's the kind'uv person who makes these kind of irresponsible, potentially damaging statements based on nothing more than (at best) something he saw on Fox News or a winger website.  No need to worry about facts/evidence/knowledge, as long as it sounds good to his base and helps him.  The man is an ignorant megalomaniac and apparently has no shame in admitting his ignorance, since his base thinks it's a feature, not a bug.

    Parent
    I will never understand why (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 03:44:38 PM EST
    Trumpers loved hearing that NATO was obsolete. Or that Putin is a great leader.

    Parent
    "economic (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 03:57:14 PM EST
    anxiety."

    Parent
    Opioid withdrawl (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 04:10:40 PM EST
    and Bible-based science.

    Parent
    i have no idea (none / 0) (#6)
    by linea on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 08:56:41 PM EST
    I will never understand why
    Trumpers loved hearing that NATO was obsolete.

    the u.s. benefits most from nato. the u.s. contributes 22% to nato and for that they get to be Supreme Allied Commander over all the other members and get to tell the other countries how to structure their forces. nato members contribute to an integrated air force, provide toward nato special operation response forces, and provide maritime operations forces (ships to defend mostly u.s. and u.k. commercial shipping). the u.s. also gets bases in europe to use as launching and refueling points for their middle east activities. the u.s. controls the whole show and when the u.s. gets attacked by terrorists - the u.s. declares an article 5 and all the nato counties were obligated to send monies and equipment and personnel.

    for all this, countries like estonia cross their fingers and hope that the u.s. - the country running nato - will do more that tweet a strongy worded rebuke to vladimir putin when tanks roll into tallinn. because we all know that's exactly what president trump will do.


    Parent

    The NATO treaty ... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 02:02:49 AM EST
    ... requires all member states to come to the mutual defense of one another when attacked. That particular treaty provision has been invoked exactly one time, following Al Qa'eda's 9/11 attack on the United States in 2001, which is why there is a multinational NATO military presence in Afghanistan.

    We have an legal obligation to defend the Baltic states in the event of an attack by Russia. Were Trump to unilaterally abrogate the NATO treaty in the event of just such a crisis, the political backlash against him would likely be immediate and overwhelming, both in our own country and abroad.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    that's not actually correct (2.00 / 1) (#14)
    by linea on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 07:19:59 PM EST
    requires all member states to come to the mutual defense of one another when attacked.

    president obama personally made that strong commitment to estonia, et alia, but it's not actually the text of article 5.

    my point in the post above was to agree with militarytracy that it makes no sense for conservatives to be anti-nato when it is the u.s. that benefits most.  i can also add that it was nato obligations that were used to strong-arm countries to host cia black-site torture prisons.

    nato is just a chimera to those countries who are not part of the nuke-club or part of nuclear-sharing like italy and germany. when russian tanks are parked in front of toompea castle; the u.s., u.k., france... wont be dropping bombs on moscow and certainly not engaging in nuclear brinkmanship.

    in my opinion.

    Parent

    Here is not opinion but fact: Article 5 (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Towanda on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 09:47:26 PM EST
    penned the year that I was born.  And I wasn't born yesterday.

    Article 5

    The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

    Parent

    what aregument are you making? (none / 0) (#23)
    by linea on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 11:55:58 PM EST
    by Donald from Hawaii
    We have an legal obligation to defend the Baltic states in the event of an attack by Russia. Were Trump to...

    what exactly are you arguing?

    is it your position that:
    if president trump interprets "such action as it deems necessary" to be a strongly worded tweet that the 6th circuit court of appeals will override and order a nuclear strike on moscow?

    is it your position that:
    nato adequately protects the estonian border thus it's impossible for russia to invade?

    or is it your position that:
    "linea made a post so im going to be disagreable."

    Parent

    Donald's response is very clear (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 06:53:48 AM EST
    He's bringing facts to the discussion, rather than sheer speculation or strawman "questions".

    Parent
    re: what exactly are you arguing? (none / 0) (#25)
    by linea on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 08:47:50 AM EST
    to be clear, im asserting:

    • the u.s. benefits from nato more than the european members and i cited specific examples including:
    • for estonia, et alia, any protection or deterence from russian aggression is a chimera.

    do you disagree with these assertions?


    Parent

    re: what exactly are you arguing? (none / 0) (#26)
    by linea on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 08:47:50 AM EST
    to be clear, im asserting:

    • the u.s. benefits from nato more than the european members and i cited specific examples including:
    • for estonia, et alia, any protection or deterence from russian aggression is a chimera.

    do you disagree with these assertions?


    Parent

    I'm saying that you're wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 27, 2017 at 05:13:04 AM EST
    The United States is bound by the provisions of the NATO treaty, including Article 5. That treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate 68 years ago in July 1949 and as such, it carries the force of federal law in our country. The president, whoever he or she may be, does not possess unilateral authority to abrogate any ratified treaty in all or in part, without first obtaining the consent of Congress.

    (That's why today's media chatter about Trump unilaterally withdrawing the U.S. from NAFTA has been mostly overheated and uninformed hot air. It's an economic treaty that was ratified two decades ago, and he would have to first obtain the consent of Congress by seeking its repeal.)

    Your fears about a Russian military threat to Estonia are well grounded. However, your similar fears that the U.S. and NATO might abandon the Baltic states in the event of a Russian invasion are groundless. We are bound by law to come to their aid.

    Were Trump to seek to prevent or impede any U.S. military effort to counter such an assault upon Europe from the east, he would likely face a huge political uprising across party lines and be removed from power by Congress. Even his own cabinet would likely invoke the Constitution's Article XXV and declare him unfit for office.

    NATO has been the cornerstone of U.S. defense policy in the world for nearly seven decades. Republicans may be stupid, but they're likely not suicidal. And there's likely no quicker path for them to political ruin and oblivion, than to abrogate the NATO treaty and refuse to come to the aid and defense of our European allies in the event of a Russian attack.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    i dont mind being wrong (none / 0) (#35)
    by linea on Thu Apr 27, 2017 at 07:37:33 PM EST
    i completely accept your explanation of the american political consequenses.

    my thesis is that the u.s. benefits most from nato and that the countries that need cooperative-defence the most are in fact not defended at all on any practical level.

    they are not part of nuclear-weapons sharing like the netherlands, germany, italy, and turkey; the u.s. promised russia to not station troops in estonia, latvia, or lituania; and because russia is a nuclear power no bombs will fall on the russian defence ministry.

    on day-one there will be tanks in tallinn and on day-three russian tank commanders will be high-five-ing in kaliningrad. between day-one and day-three, no bombs fall on moscow and neither the french, the brits, nor the
    americans are going to start a nuclear war.

    all the experts say, for all practical purposes, nato as currently structured is little more than a "gentleman's club" for the countries that need actual defence the most.

    that's my thesis.

    Watgaming the Defense of the Baltics


    Parent

    And Europe didn't somehow benefit ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 28, 2017 at 08:23:58 AM EST
    ... from the massive amounts of American economic aid its countries received for nearly 30 years after the end of the Second World War, which in turn has greatly contributed to 70-plus years of relative peace? (Other than, of course, the violent post-Cold War break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.)

    Prior to NATO, the great powers of Europe were bitter rivals who were constantly at each others' throats for the better part of 500 years, which led to frequent wars that only got more intense and bloodier as the technology in armaments improved. NATO's umbrella has given Europe both stability and prosperity.

    Your "thesis," such as it is, is nothing but baseless conjecture. Who are these so-called "experts" to whom you refer? They sound like a bunch of know-nothing fools or at worse, Putin's "useful idiots" who unwittingly spread pro-Moscow propaganda.

    The United States and the other western European NATO states are both legally obligated and morally committed to defend the Baltic State allies and the rest of eastern Europe in the event of a Russian invasion. Period. Any Russian military occupation of Estonia would no more be allowed to stand, than was Iraq's 1990 conquest and annexation of Kuwait.

    Have a nice day.


    Parent

    then we disagree (none / 0) (#43)
    by linea on Fri Apr 28, 2017 at 07:08:58 PM EST
    i have a different perspective than you.

    for others interested, i porvided two links to articles and a link to a Rand Corporation report.

    Parent

    because it is something Obama (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 28, 2017 at 12:06:21 PM EST
    would never say.   i really think its that simple

    Parent
    I think you're right (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 29, 2017 at 10:02:07 AM EST
    I read a paragraph. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 06:39:34 PM EST
    I think you need to have the same drugs Trump is taking to make sense of what he is saying.

    Parent
    Federal District Judge (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 06:17:00 PM EST
    W. Orrick, struck down Trump's Executive Order to withhold federal funds from "sanctuary cities."  In Santa Clara v Trump/San Francisco v Trump, the judge ruled that the president does not have authority to attach new conditions to funding. Such new conditions are the responsibility of the Congress. The judge also determined that the case was prudently ripe to act to forestall budgetary issues for the counties.  

    no response from Agent Orange yet (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 06:57:39 PM EST
    they must have put his hand held device on a very high shelf

    Parent
    I can hardly believe that some so-called judge (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:19:49 PM EST
    from a city in the People's Republic of California, where you can't see your hand in front of your face for the fog, much less think straight, can meddle this way in the President's ceaseless efforts to keep Americans safe from criminal aliens. More psychoanalysis masquerading as law!

    Parent
    Once again, parody fails (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 09:54:12 AM EST
    to keep pace with reality. Tr*mp attacks the "Ninth Circuit" for yesterday's ruling, which was not a decision of the Ninth Circuit, an appellate court. And in doing so refers to his immigration Executive Order as "the ban," which of course is his opponents' characterization of it, and which his lawyers in court are denying. Why can't I have adversaries like this in my court cases?

    Parent
    better link (none / 0) (#15)
    by linea on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 07:35:30 PM EST
    here (full pdf)

    the sanctuary city statue for seattle doesnt protect criminal felons as the republican meme asserts and it's good local policing for victims and witnesses of crime to be able to interact with police. also, for seattle the grants at risk include such programs as the police cyber-crime unit and the task force on missing and trafficked children. that makes no sense.

    Parent

    What you say about Seattle's policy (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:57:31 PM EST
    is typical of Fourth Amendment Cities (a/k/a "Sanctuary Cities") generally. The attacks on these local policies are 100% political hot air, yet with predictable real-world negative consequences. I love seeing the Printz case invoked as precedent to invalidate the current federal threat, for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who follows the link or knows about that case.

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#17)
    by linea on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:24:56 PM EST
    arent conservatives supposed to be for expanded state independence and against centralized federal authority?

    from the court ruling:

    "The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." New York, 505 U.S. at 188. "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997).


    Parent
    no they are not (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 08:31:09 PM EST
    they make the guuible think they are by saying that but are in fact only support expanded "states rights" when it fits their agenda.

    Parent
    Did you just notice for the first time, linea (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 09:16:50 PM EST
    that Republicans are not actually principled conservatives, any more than Democrats are principled progressives (or even liberals)?

    Parent
    Put another way (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 27, 2017 at 11:20:33 AM EST
       Trump 62,979,636
        Clinton 65,844,610
        Others 7,804,213
        Total Votes: 136,628,459.

    Put another way, 53.9% of voters voted for someone other than him to be President.

    Put another other way, 51.8% of voters voted for someone other than Clinton to be President.

    Put another way (none / 0) (#36)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 27, 2017 at 08:04:09 PM EST
    ... she got @ 3 million more votes than Trump.

    Parent
    sorry, but i feel (none / 0) (#37)
    by linea on Thu Apr 27, 2017 at 09:20:52 PM EST
    this is rather silly. both ran to win the electoral college and if the u.s. presidentail election was based on the popular vote, i feel, the political landscape would look so different that neither donald trump nor hillary clinton would have been candidates.

    in my opinion.

    Parent

    The nicest thing about opinions (none / 0) (#38)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 27, 2017 at 09:56:55 PM EST
    They don't need to be based on facts or reality ...

    ... just "feelings".

    OTOH, those based on facts and evidence are much more convincing.

    Parent

    That's why it's (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 28, 2017 at 11:46:38 AM EST
    just better to say Hillary got millions more votes than Trump. Trump lost by the biggest popular vote margin ever.

    Parent
    Yup. If "your" guy (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 28, 2017 at 12:46:27 PM EST
    is so obviously guilty of the same charge that you levy at the "other" guy, then maybe ya oughta not levy the charge...

    Parent
    Assumes facts not in evidence (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Apr 29, 2017 at 08:29:28 PM EST
    If "your" is so obviously guilty of the same charge that you levy at the "other" guy, then maybe ya oughta not levy the charge...

    The entire GOP operates on the principle of accusing Democrats of everything that the GOP is doing, and finding it reprehensible even though (A) Democrats are NOT doing whatever it is they are being accused of and (B) the GOP is.

    Do try to keep up.

    Parent

    Oh dear, you decided to weigh in? (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 03, 2017 at 04:52:01 PM EST
    It's almost as though you can't read.

    From the numbers, this was the "charge" levied:

    Put another way, 53.9% of voters voted for someone other than him to be President.

    However, the very same numbers also show that:

    Put another other way, 51.8% of voters voted for someone other than Clinton to be President.

    iow,  If "your" guy is so obviously guilty of the same charge that you levy at the "other" guy, then maybe ya oughta not levy the charge.

    Next time I'll try to use only single syllable words so you don't get so confused. Not sure it would actually help you, though...

    Parent