Bob78164 wrote:Ignore what Donny says. Watch what he does. --Bob
But you were all about his "they'll let you grab 'em by the p**sy." being what disqualified him. There was nothing more important to you than what he said
Now you want to focus on what he does? O.K. But you're not going to like it, because those that voted for him are very happy with what he has done.
Most of what I don't like about Trump, so far, is what he says, or at least how he says it. Take that away and he's golden. Most of those who voted for him feel the same way. Many that didn't, did't because of what he said (or how he said it). Trump has been his own worst enemy because of what he says (or Tweets). So this is a wonderful change, that one of the Democratic Party's talking points is "ignore what he says. Watch what he does."
Oh, and by what "he" does, don't give him credit for what Obama did (kids in cages, etc.)
He has instituted openly racist policies as the policy of the United States. He had to try three times until he was able to come up with enough of a fig leaf that the Republican caucus of the Supreme Court was willing to give him a pass, on the ground that they were willing to ignore the evidence (and factual findings) that his motives were racist. Four members of that caucus were willing to ignore similar factual findings with respect to the census. I believe Chief Justice Roberts was likewise willing to ignore those findings until the late discovery of the Republican strategist's papers proved a bridge too far for him.
What Donny did was hold out his supposed ability to grab women by the genitals as something to brag about
. He thinks this quality is admirable. And his governance shows it.
And Donny's consistent disapproval ratings, not to mention the Democratic takeover of the House, make it clear that the majority of the American people don't support what he's trying to do. They didn't support it in 2016 either. Don't forget -- he lost the popular vote by approximately 3 million votes.
He's doing his level best to make sure that my son, and (when he has them) his kids, will have to deal with much more severe climate change effects.
Now he's trying to take away protections for pre-existing conditions by having the Justice Department reverse itself and argue that the entire Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. Not only is the argument utterly specious (which might not stop Republican lower-court judges from accepting it), but it will devastate health insurance coverage for tens of millions of people when he said he'd protect people with pre-existing conditions. If he succeeds in his efforts through the courts, we'll see how that plays on Election Day. Although I think that's a question that your Member of the House can already answer just fine. And so can your former Member. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson