All talk, no action?

[flockofseagulls104]

Back to the original point. All the Hillary sycophants who deliberately misinterpreted Trump's 'I will wait to see if I will challenge the results' comments and were so outraged and afraid for the future of our 'democracy' are saying nothing about what Lewis and many other dems are doing.

As Trump would say, "It's a disgrace".

[silverscreenselect]

None were about Congressman Lewis.

I didn't say that the comments were about Congressman Lewis. I just said that people on Breitbart use the term fairly often (which is 13000 times by Google's count).

[silverscreenselect]

All the Hillary sycophants who deliberately misinterpreted Trump's 'I will wait to see if I will challenge the results' comments.

It's wonderful that again and again you are so trusting of Trump that you believe his self-serving, after-the-fact explanations of what he meant when he's challenged. He's certainly never given anyone reason to doubt his word.

[flockofseagulls104]

All the Hillary sycophants who deliberately misinterpreted Trump's 'I will wait to see if I will challenge the results' comments.

It's wonderful that again and again you are so trusting of Trump that you believe his self-serving, after-the-fact explanations of what he meant when he's challenged. He's certainly never given anyone reason to doubt his word.

He never got the chance to do what the left is currently doing. He won the election.

[Bob78164]

All the Hillary sycophants who deliberately misinterpreted Trump's 'I will wait to see if I will challenge the results' comments.

It's wonderful that again and again you are so trusting of Trump that you believe his self-serving, after-the-fact explanations of what he meant when he's challenged. He's certainly never given anyone reason to doubt his word.

He never got the chance to do what the left is currently doing. He won the election.

The left isn't challenging the election. The left is challenging the goals and tactics of the demagogue who won it. You can expect that to continue. Feel free to join us. Although you claim you disagree with Trump, I have yet to see actual evidence of that. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

Today's Jeopardy! had a very timely question.

[flockofseagulls104]

It's wonderful that again and again you are so trusting of Trump that you believe his self-serving, after-the-fact explanations of what he meant when he's challenged. He's certainly never given anyone reason to doubt his word.

He never got the chance to do what the left is currently doing. He won the election.

The left isn't challenging the election. The left is challenging the goals and tactics of the demagogue who won it. You can expect that to continue. Feel free to join us. Although you claim you disagree with Trump, I have yet to see actual evidence of that. --Bob

How is an elected official saying the duly elected President is not legitimate challenging his goals and tactics? How are you, who have pledged to "be doing everything I can to oppose him in any way, shape, or form. And I will never, ever treat him as normal." challenging his goals and tactics?

[Bob78164]

He never got the chance to do what the left is currently doing. He won the election.

The left isn't challenging the election. The left is challenging the goals and tactics of the demagogue who won it. You can expect that to continue. Feel free to join us. Although you claim you disagree with Trump, I have yet to see actual evidence of that. --Bob

How is an elected official saying the duly elected President is not legitimate challenging his goals and tactics? How are you, who have pledged to "be doing everything I can to oppose him in any way, shape, or form. And I will never, ever treat him as normal." challenging his goals and tactics?

Because if we ever treat draft-dodging Donald as normal, or acknowledge him as "legitimate" (this being a reference to moral and not legal legitimacy), we become complicit in treating the tactics he used to gain power as business as usual.

I believe his command of policy will prove sufficiently inept that he will lose a great deal of popularity before the end of his first term. I also believe that Congressional investigations into the Russia connection and his refusal to abide by the Emoluments Clause will justify Congress in impeaching and removing him.

Once he loses what popularity he retains, there will be no political reason for Republicans to refrain from elevating Pence to the Presidency, and his policy preferences are almost certain closer to the Congressional majority's than are Trump's. I'll support impeachment and removal, notwithstanding the effect on policy, because despite my profound policy disagreements with the Vice President elect, I have not seen evidence that he is willing to resort to xenophobia and demagoguery to gain power, and I have no reason to doubt that, unlike draft-dodging Donald, he understands the need to abide by the Constitution. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

I believe his command of policy will prove sufficiently inept that he will lose a great deal of popularity before the end of his first term. I also believe that Congressional investigations into the Russia connection and his refusal to abide by the Emoluments Clause will justify Congress in impeaching and removing him.

Once he loses what popularity he retains, there will be no political reason for Republicans to refrain from elevating Pence to the Presidency, and his policy preferences are almost certain closer to the Congressional majority's than are Trump's. I'll support impeachment and removal, notwithstanding the effect on policy, because despite my profound policy disagreements with the Vice President elect, I have not seen evidence that he is willing to resort to xenophobia and demagoguery to gain power, and I have no reason to doubt that, unlike draft-dodging Donald, he understands the need to abide by the Constitution. --Bob

I agree; I think that the Congressional Republicans will see how much mileage they get from Trump and then look to hang him out to dry if his popularity dips to Nixonian levels. The only problem with that is that they need 67 votes to convict and there will probably still be a number of Senators willing to stay the course with Trump.

[Estonut]

Took you up on that. I did a search for the string 'shift' on the comments section. I got 2 hits. I then changed it to 'shiftl' and got none. Another stereotype that you and Bob are sharing.

I did a quick google search for "shiftless breitbart" and got 13,800 hits.

Maybe you're not sophisticated enough to understand how Google works.

I just searched and found your 13,800.

About 13,800 results (0.34 seconds)

No results found for "shiftless breitbart".

Results for shiftless breitbart (without quotes):

[flockofseagulls104]

The left isn't challenging the election. The left is challenging the goals and tactics of the demagogue who won it. You can expect that to continue. Feel free to join us. Although you claim you disagree with Trump, I have yet to see actual evidence of that. --Bob

How is an elected official saying the duly elected President is not legitimate challenging his goals and tactics? How are you, who have pledged to "be doing everything I can to oppose him in any way, shape, or form. And I will never, ever treat him as normal." challenging his goals and tactics?

Because if we ever treat draft-dodging Donald as normal, or acknowledge him as "legitimate" (this being a reference to moral and not legal legitimacy), we become complicit in treating the tactics he used to gain power as business as usual.

I believe his command of policy will prove sufficiently inept that he will lose a great deal of popularity before the end of his first term. I also believe that Congressional investigations into the Russia connection and his refusal to abide by the Emoluments Clause will justify Congress in impeaching and removing him.

Once he loses what popularity he retains, there will be no political reason for Republicans to refrain from elevating Pence to the Presidency, and his policy preferences are almost certain closer to the Congressional majority's than are Trump's. I'll support impeachment and removal, notwithstanding the effect on policy, because despite my profound policy disagreements with the Vice President elect, I have not seen evidence that he is willing to resort to xenophobia and demagoguery to gain power, and I have no reason to doubt that, unlike draft-dodging Donald, he understands the need to abide by the Constitution. --Bob

He has not even become President and you want to impeach him. You are nothing but a partisan loony. In addition to being a hater. Sorry, but it's true. The Russian thing has already been debunked and what kind of perverse interpretation of:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

will you be using to impeach him? I could definitely see this applying to Hillary Clinton with all the bribes she got for the Clinton Foundation, but the Founders intended public office to be populated by ordinary citizens, who might have their own private businesses, definitely not by a professional political class. Trump is apparently abiding by the laws in removing himself from the operation of his company, as far as I understand. He should not have to sell or disband his company to serve as President.

Admit it. You just hate him.

[Bob Juch]

How is an elected official saying the duly elected President is not legitimate challenging his goals and tactics? How are you, who have pledged to "be doing everything I can to oppose him in any way, shape, or form. And I will never, ever treat him as normal." challenging his goals and tactics?

Because if we ever treat draft-dodging Donald as normal, or acknowledge him as "legitimate" (this being a reference to moral and not legal legitimacy), we become complicit in treating the tactics he used to gain power as business as usual.

I believe his command of policy will prove sufficiently inept that he will lose a great deal of popularity before the end of his first term. I also believe that Congressional investigations into the Russia connection and his refusal to abide by the Emoluments Clause will justify Congress in impeaching and removing him.

Once he loses what popularity he retains, there will be no political reason for Republicans to refrain from elevating Pence to the Presidency, and his policy preferences are almost certain closer to the Congressional majority's than are Trump's. I'll support impeachment and removal, notwithstanding the effect on policy, because despite my profound policy disagreements with the Vice President elect, I have not seen evidence that he is willing to resort to xenophobia and demagoguery to gain power, and I have no reason to doubt that, unlike draft-dodging Donald, he understands the need to abide by the Constitution. --Bob

He has not even become President and you want to impeach him. You are nothing but a partisan loony. In addition to being a hater. Sorry, but it's true. The Russian thing has already been debunked and what kind of perverse interpretation of:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

will you be using to impeach him? I could definitely see this applying to Hillary Clinton with all the bribes she got for the Clinton Foundation, but the Founders intended public office to be populated by ordinary citizens, who might have their own private businesses, definitely not by a professional political class. Trump is apparently abiding by the laws in removing himself from the operation of his company, as far as I understand. He should not have to sell or disband his company to serve as President.

Admit it. You just hate him.

Yes, we hate him, and for very good reasons.

[flockofseagulls104]

Because if we ever treat draft-dodging Donald as normal, or acknowledge him as "legitimate" (this being a reference to moral and not legal legitimacy), we become complicit in treating the tactics he used to gain power as business as usual.

I believe his command of policy will prove sufficiently inept that he will lose a great deal of popularity before the end of his first term. I also believe that Congressional investigations into the Russia connection and his refusal to abide by the Emoluments Clause will justify Congress in impeaching and removing him.

Once he loses what popularity he retains, there will be no political reason for Republicans to refrain from elevating Pence to the Presidency, and his policy preferences are almost certain closer to the Congressional majority's than are Trump's. I'll support impeachment and removal, notwithstanding the effect on policy, because despite my profound policy disagreements with the Vice President elect, I have not seen evidence that he is willing to resort to xenophobia and demagoguery to gain power, and I have no reason to doubt that, unlike draft-dodging Donald, he understands the need to abide by the Constitution. --Bob

He has not even become President and you want to impeach him. You are nothing but a partisan loony. In addition to being a hater. Sorry, but it's true. The Russian thing has already been debunked and what kind of perverse interpretation of:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

will you be using to impeach him? I could definitely see this applying to Hillary Clinton with all the bribes she got for the Clinton Foundation, but the Founders intended public office to be populated by ordinary citizens, who might have their own private businesses, definitely not by a professional political class. Trump is apparently abiding by the laws in removing himself from the operation of his company, as far as I understand. He should not have to sell or disband his company to serve as President.

Admit it. You just hate him.

Yes, we hate him, and for very good reasons.

No, you hate him because he does not conform to your narrative. It's been said many times that the left is tolerant and compassionate to everyone unless they are conservative or Christian. Now you are proving it and showing yourselves for the haters you really are.

[silverscreenselect]

The Russian thing has already been debunked

Wrong as usual Flock. The "Russian thing" has not been debunked. It just has not been proved to the requisite degree of certainty that we usually require for responsible journalism. That's one reason why Democrats want our intelligence agencies to investigate to find out just how accurate the story is. Perhaps if the FBI had made a major announcement a week or so before the Presidential election that it was investigating all of these allegations against Trump and then let all the details leak out into the press, then maybe Trump and his supporters would have a valid complaint. But, of course, it would be highly improper for the FBI to go around making such pronouncements to the press shortly before a presidential election and they would never do that.

Now, if you want an example of something that has been debunked, how about those persistent reports that Obama was born in Kenya that, despite being repeatedly and conclusively debunked, continued to be circulated by Breitbart and the other right wing fake news sources and by a certain Presidential candidate, who kept repeating them for years.

[silverscreenselect]

Trump is apparently abiding by the laws in removing himself from the operation of his company, as far as I understand. He should not have to sell or disband his company to serve as President.

Turning over the day-to-day operation of your companies to your sons, who are among your closest advisors, isn't exactly "removing yourself" from those operations.

I don't know which is more ludicrous, Trump's shenanigans or your exceedingly convoluted justifications and explanations for them.

[flockofseagulls104]

The Russian thing has already been debunked

Wrong as usual Flock. The "Russian thing" has not been debunked. It just has not been proved to the requisite degree of certainty that we usually require for responsible journalism. That's one reason why Democrats want our intelligence agencies to investigate to find out just how accurate the story is. Perhaps if the FBI had made a major announcement a week or so before the Presidential election that it was investigating all of these allegations against Trump and then let all the details leak out into the press, then maybe Trump and his supporters would have a valid complaint. But, of course, it would be highly improper for the FBI to go around making such pronouncements to the press shortly before a presidential election and they would never do that.

Now, if you want an example of something that has been debunked, how about those persistent reports that Obama was born in Kenya that, despite being repeatedly and conclusively debunked, continued to be circulated by Breitbart and the other right wing fake news sources and by a certain Presidential candidate, who kept repeating them for years.

Nothing in the document has been verified and much of it has been proven false.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2943969
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-vl ... ing-541626

Talk to me when something turns up to be anything more than #FAKE NEWS.

Explain to me, since I have no brain for this, how claiming Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii is racist? I know that it is false, a failed 'dirty trick' and was a way that Hillary and then some stupid republicans tried to disqualify him from running, but the #FAKE NEWS industry keeps saying it's racist. How is that? They tried the same thing on Cruz, but as far as I know, that wasn't racist. If anyone would know, it would be you. You know everything about racism.

[flockofseagulls104]

Trump is apparently abiding by the laws in removing himself from the operation of his company, as far as I understand. He should not have to sell or disband his company to serve as President.

Turning over the day-to-day operation of your companies to your sons, who are among your closest advisors, isn't exactly "removing yourself" from those operations.

I don't know which is more ludicrous, Trump's shenanigans or your exceedingly convoluted justifications and explanations for them.

It's a family business. What do you want him to do? Never mind, I know. Jump off a cliff. But he is apparently following the law. Or do you make the laws, too?

Perhaps he decided to become President to make another billion or two. You never know when you need another several million dollars.

Stop making stuff up about him. Maybe if you come up with something that is near reality I will take it seriously.

[silverscreenselect]

Explain to me, since I have no brain for this, how claiming Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii is racist? You know everything about racism.

Where did I say it was racist?

I just said that Obama's opponents, including Trump, kept promoting this myth for years.

As for your articles, the falsehoods seem to consist primarily of things that the authors of the article think are unlikely or misspelled names. The only statement that appears to have been conclusively debunked was one that Trump's lawyers met with Kremlin officials in Prague on a particular date. That's a far cry from saying that the entire 35-page document has been debunked.

Flock, if you're going to cite articles, it might help you to read them first instead of just relying on Breitbart's interpretation of their contents.

And I'm also glad you've added constitutional scholar to your lengthy list of accomplishments. There's plenty of people who actually know something about constitutional law who do believe that Trump's actions will be illegal. And there are such things as blind trusts; several other presidents have employed them.

[Bob Juch]

He has not even become President and you want to impeach him. You are nothing but a partisan loony. In addition to being a hater. Sorry, but it's true. The Russian thing has already been debunked and what kind of perverse interpretation of:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

will you be using to impeach him? I could definitely see this applying to Hillary Clinton with all the bribes she got for the Clinton Foundation, but the Founders intended public office to be populated by ordinary citizens, who might have their own private businesses, definitely not by a professional political class. Trump is apparently abiding by the laws in removing himself from the operation of his company, as far as I understand. He should not have to sell or disband his company to serve as President.

Admit it. You just hate him.

Yes, we hate him, and for very good reasons.

No, you hate him because he does not conform to your narrative. It's been said many times that the left is tolerant and compassionate to everyone unless they are conservative or Christian. Now you are proving it and showing yourselves for the haters you really are.

I see no evidence that Trump is conservative nor Christian.

[BackInTex]

I see no evidence that Trump is conservative nor Christian.

Less than 3 weeks into the new year and BiT and BobJ already have something they agree on.

Its going to be a strange year.

[jarnon]

Once he loses what popularity he retains, there will be no political reason for Republicans to refrain from elevating Pence to the Presidency, and his policy preferences are almost certain closer to the Congressional majority's than are Trump's. I'll support impeachment and removal, notwithstanding the effect on policy, because despite my profound policy disagreements with the Vice President elect, I have not seen evidence that he is willing to resort to xenophobia and demagoguery to gain power, and I have no reason to doubt that, unlike draft-dodging Donald, he understands the need to abide by the Constitution. --Bob

Even if that doesn't happen, maybe Trump will tire of the Presidency, declare victory, and turn it over to Pence next year, just in time to campaign for GOP candidates. His skills and temperament seem more suited to campaigning than governing.

[Bob Juch]

Once he loses what popularity he retains, there will be no political reason for Republicans to refrain from elevating Pence to the Presidency, and his policy preferences are almost certain closer to the Congressional majority's than are Trump's. I'll support impeachment and removal, notwithstanding the effect on policy, because despite my profound policy disagreements with the Vice President elect, I have not seen evidence that he is willing to resort to xenophobia and demagoguery to gain power, and I have no reason to doubt that, unlike draft-dodging Donald, he understands the need to abide by the Constitution. --Bob

Even if that doesn't happen, maybe Trump will tire of the Presidency, declare victory, and turn it over to Pence next year, just in time to campaign for GOP candidates. His skills and temperament seem more suited to campaigning than governing.

I can't think of any GOP candidates who would want him to campaign for them.

[Bob78164]

It's a family business. What do you want him to do? Never mind, I know. Jump off a cliff. But he is apparently following the law. Or do you make the laws, too?

Even if his "no new foreign deals" promise had been true, that wouldn't be close to enough. But to the surprise of absolutely no one, he lied. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

It's a family business. What do you want him to do? Never mind, I know. Jump off a cliff. But he is apparently following the law. Or do you make the laws, too?

Even if his "no new foreign deals" promise had been true, that wouldn't be close to enough. But to the surprise of absolutely no one, he lied. --Bob

OK, so anyone who runs a business is disqualified from being President. That's what you're saying. You can find stuff like this on anyone who runs a business. OK. Let's make it a law that only lawyers and professional politicians can have the job. Why stop there? Make it a law that only democrats can be President. Or how about anyone who George Soros picks? Anyone else is illegitimate.

[jarnon]

It's a family business. What do you want him to do? Never mind, I know. Jump off a cliff. But he is apparently following the law. Or do you make the laws, too?

Even if his "no new foreign deals" promise had been true, that wouldn't be close to enough. But to the surprise of absolutely no one, he lied. --Bob

Interesting article, Bob. In practical terms, if Congress thinks Trump business dealings violate the Emoluments Clause, they can write legislation, and if he vetoes or disobeys it, they can take him to court or impeach him. I doubt the courts will act on their own to enforce the clause.