The Thread of Democrats

[JimC]

Loving the "yebbut Hillary/Bernie" work - an oldie but a goodie...

I know you guys like to stick with conservative classics...

[Cunt]

Loving the "yebbut Hillary/Bernie" work - an oldie but a goodie...

I know you guys like to stick with conservative classics...

I love how you liberals like to only focus on Trump, rather than the Clintons, who have been in power a lot longer, and arguably have gotten filthy rich off selling their favours.

Yeah, but Trump, with his declining to accept a salary, is your constant target.

It's weird that you can only seem to say negative things about Trump and his work. It's like you are allergic to acknowledging his successes.

[Sean Hayden]

Why are you even talking about Trump Cunt? Did you even know about the guy before he became the President, and what were our views of him then, huh, smart guy?

[Cunt]

All I know is that there is a heavy bias against him, which is demonstrated most grimly in a reluctance to be critical of his rivals.

...and I never claimed to be a 'smart guy'. I do know, though, that lots of people hear criticism of him as simply echoing the media chants.

It's like a song...'Trump, impeachment, Russian collusion! Trump, impeachment, Russian collusion!'

[Sean Hayden]

Most of us --probably all except 42-- would not have liked Trump before he became president. He's not the kind of guy most people with a smidgen of character are going to get behind.


As for criticizing his rivals, who, the Clintons? Jesus, I can't believe she ran! WTF! How do you go from being First Lady, to a senator in a state that ain't really yours, to the Secretary of State, to almost president? It's so completely fucked it's not even funny. I hated that. It drove me nuts. It's antithetical to what we claim are our ideals. Then we find out they screwed Bernie --whose camp I wasn't in any way-- and cheated during the debates. But really, face it, the Clintons have been criticized for years.

But who else? I mean come on man. Which rival is so much worse than Trump that they could take my attention away from the dumpster fire that is Trump?

[L'Emmerdeur]

Ignoring context, are we? She doesn't need a job for the kiddo to get health insurance. She'd already be covered by Medicaid, and the kid SCHIP. So, let's be "fair," shall we.

Yes, you and the right-wing twitter jockey whose inane tweet you've repeated here are ignoring context. Ocasio-Cortez said nothing along the lines of 'it's "not normal" to work for what you need.' She used the posted image as a reference in support of universal health care. People in countries with universal health care work, and pay for their health care as part of their tax contribution, just as would be the case in the US if it adopted a universal health care system. The right-winger's interpretation of Ocasio-Cortez's tweet is a completely mendacious twisting of its actual content.

You think that it's automatic and immediate that when a person loses their job, their child is enrolled in Medicaid? If and when the child gets on Medicaid, is that somehow wrong? After all, the child's mother isn't 'working for what she needs' is she?

The chart that I posted is noting not just the disparity between the US and countries with universal health care in regards to life expectancy. It's also showing the marked disparity in regards to cost per capita. Throw out the infant mortality question and the addiction issues, though most of the countries with universal health care also have effective drug addiction treatment programs that are part of the system. In fact we can ignore the life expectancy disparities entirely if you like. What can unequivocally be said is that countries with universal health care have citizens that are at least as healthy as US citizens, and that their per capita costs are lower, sometimes considerably lower than the US per capita costs.

This is all a red herring; an attempt to distract from the fact that the attack on Ocasio-Cortez was nothing but disinformation. Put simply, it was a lie. I don't think you bothered to check what she'd actually written, merely parroted something you'd seen or heard in the right wing bubble where it seems you get pretty much all the talking points you bring to this site.

[Cunt]

Most of us --probably all except 42-- would not have liked Trump before he became president. He's not the kind of guy most people with a smidgen of character are going to get behind.


As for criticizing his rivals, who, the Clintons? Jesus, I can't believe she ran! WTF! How do you go from being First Lady, to a senator in a state that ain't really yours, to the Secretary of State, to almost president? It's so completely fucked it's not even funny. I hated that. It drove me nuts. It's antithetical to what we claim are our ideals. Then we find out they screwed Bernie --whose camp I wasn't in any way-- and cheated during the debates. But really, face it, the Clintons have been criticized for years.

But who else? I mean come on man. Which rival is so much worse than Trump that they could take my attention away from the dumpster fire that is Trump?

Here is a kooky idea, how about the 'rivals' which refused to negotiate on the budget. For instance, there was a very small item in it, which caused them to not only change their own previously held positions, but to rally their whole base (and media partners) to make it seem more important than it was.

When I say 'important', I mean relative to the budget. It is clearly VERY important as virtue-signaling against Trump.

[Sean Hayden]

Rival is your word, why quote it? Here's an even better idea. Why don't you admit you can't think of a rival more worthy of my attention than Trump? That right now Trump is a dumpster fire and that's why we are focusing on him. Can you do that?

[Cunt]

Rival is your word, why quote it? Here's an even better idea. Why don't you admit you can't think of a rival more worthy of my attention than Trump? That right now Trump is a dumpster fire and that's why we are focusing on him. Can you do that?

As long as you understand that Trump is not a dumpster fire, and that many will think you are out of your mind.

In fact, most of what he does seems pretty solid. Korean peninsula...pull out of Syria...take action to secure borders...donate his salary instead of accepting it.

All of which the left would brag about if they did it.

I don't mind agreeing he is a bit of a dick, but the pissing contest over the wall shows how hard the crazies will push - just because it's Trump.

If it were anyone else, they might look at significant budget problems instead of the teeny one.

[Sean Hayden]

That's all you've got isn't it, a lie about what we would say if a lefty was in office but doing what Trump is doing. It's a lie because we wouldn't, you know, be happy about it. We wouldn't be happy about his appointments to say the EPA, or the DOE for example. It's a bit premature to talk about Syria. But we can definitely talk about how he has hurt our reputation.

[Cunt]

That's all you've got isn't it, a lie about what we would say if a lefty was in office but doing what Trump is doing. It's a lie because we wouldn't, you know, be happy about it. We wouldn't be happy about his appointments to say the EPA, or the DOE for example. It's a bit premature to talk about Syria. But we can definitely talk about how he has hurt our reputation.

Why not focus on the media bias?

Do you remember how shit they are? (the Covington example)

Do you get that the media were dupes, just like the three parties involved?

The real responsible parties in that case aren't mentioned at all.

Taking a side (Trump or other) is suspect to the same manipulation, and it's disastrous. It means you can't believe honest people, either.

I wish someone here would look a bit into the IRA and Dr. McKnew. I feel like it's ignored, and a really significant part of why our media IS the enemy of the people.

[pErvinalia]

The media is surely shit, but they aren't responsible for Trump filling the swamp up, associating with criminals, and forming policy by watching Fox for most of the day.

[Sean Hayden]

I agree the media is shit. But it isn't only shit. It does provide information, and depending on the source it sometimes even provides really good information.

Look, last year I was also talking about Trump derangement syndrome because it seemed to me that the left had lost their minds. But that was because I believe Trump is just the President, and I saw people acting like it was the end of the US. Rather than having a rough ride for a few years we were heading for disaster, and it reminded me of all the people that thought the same when Obama was in office. I was embarrassed that we could be just as bad as the birthers!

However, while I still think Trump is just a president, I sympathize with those who are angry and I think their anger is justified. He is a nasty piece of work. I think that is why people are focused on him.

Why do you want them to be less angry and more willing to work with the guy? Why do you think it should be that kind of relationship? Why assume everyone is entitled to that regardless of their behavior?

Isn't fuck Trump an appropriate attitude for those who oppose everything he wants? --okay then

[Cunt]

I agree the media is shit. But it isn't only shit. It does provide information, and depending on the source it sometimes even provides really good information.

Look, last year I was also talking about Trump derangement syndrome because it seemed to me that the left had lost their minds. But that was because I believe Trump is just the President, and I saw people acting like it was the end of the US. Rather than having a rough ride for a few years we were heading for disaster, and it reminded me of all the people that thought the same when Obama was in office. I was embarrassed that we could be just as bad as the birthers!

However, while I still think Trump is just a president, I sympathize with those who are angry and I think their anger is justified. He is a nasty piece of work. I think that is why people are focused on him.

Why do you want them to be less angry and more willing to work with the guy? Why do you think it should be that kind of relationship? Why assume everyone is entitled to that regardless of their behavior?

Isn't fuck Trump an appropriate attitude for those who oppose everything he wants? --okay then

His behaviour is normal. The reaction is as out of scale as the democrats reaction to his wall funding.

But focus on that covington episode a minute...did you even see what I wrote? If it doesn't make sense, I assure you it's my fault, not Dr. McKnew's.

[Sean Hayden]

We don't want a wall. How is their reaction out of scale? Do you think a different president might have gotten a wall if they had tried a different approach? Is it possible for the same people to give one man a wall and feel justified but not another, and be correct, is what I'm asking. If it is, why might that be?


Are you really the guy Trump was laughing at when he said he could shoot someone dead and you'd love him anyway? His behavior is normal, for a president? --dear god man