LezloveVideo Group
Home
Login Member List
LezloveVideo Group   » General Discussions   » Off-Topic   » The Presidency of Donald Trump  
Welcome Guest ( Login )

The Presidency of Donald Trump
Author
Message
Posted 7/7/2018 1:39 PM
Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: Today @ 5:43 AM
Posts: 1,415
Quote: LovesWomenFrenching wrote: " And Trump's behavior is also causing Republican women to abandon him in droves... " Are you being serious, LovesWomenFrenching?You, and other ( liberal ) election-analyst...

Anon, will you ever quit this "the experts predicted a landslide victory for Hillary" nonsense? The consensus of pollsters, just before voting began on November 8 2016, was that Clinton's odds of winning enough Electoral votes had dropped down to 80%, & Trump had a 20% chance to win, so that 20% came through.
Even Trump expected a Clinton win, But VERY FEW folks expected any landslide.

The last national poll conducted before the 2016 election showed Hillary leading Trump by 1.7% in the national popular vote. But in the actual election, Clinton did a little better than that, as she ended up winning the popular vote by 2.2%
(So national polls DIDN'T PREDICT a landslide by any historic definition of one)

ACTUALLY, what should have stopped people from taking most polling results very seriously, was confusion suddenly being injected into the election, by James Comey's surprise announcement, ONLY 11 days before the election, that the FBI was re-opening the Clinton email investigation. That just made any polling done up to then, INVALID. Plus, there were too few polls taken late enough in the 3 critical states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, to provide enough info to be able to tell just how much of a negative effect on Clinton's support, that Comey's late campaign announcement would end up having in those crucial states.

And since Trump's total winning popular vote margin for the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania COMBINED, ended up being less than 79 thousand votes, DIVIDED BETWEEN those 3 states, the Comey announcement only needed to cut Clinton's support by a fraction of 1% in each of those states, to enable the very narrow victories which Trump got in them, that made him President.

Actually, people who study the effects of how negative advertising against candidates tends to LOWER their support, are almost all in agreement that the Comey announcement, which was AS DAMAGING as any negative ad, had to have cost Clinton 1 or 2 % of her support, AT THE VERY LEAST. And that effect, which was TOO LATE IN THE GAME for most pollsters to be able to measure, was MORE THAN ENOUGH to win the 3 states for Trump, and with them, the Presidency.

America's more respected polls, like Gallup, usually provide quite accurate results. But the volatile conditions created in 2016's campaign, due to Comey's late announcement, meant that the only way that pollsters could have accurately caught the late trends in the 3 critical states which decided the election, would literally have been for pollsters to have had to interview people on the morning of the election, in those states. Because those places were so close that a late swing of less than 1 out of each 100 voters in those states, could change the name of the winner.

In 2016, people should have realized that even as scientifically valid as the best polling methods employed in that campaign were, that late campaign announcement by Comey actually served to throw polling results to the winds. However since the polling results which had been generated, were the only ones available, those were the polling results that were reported in the media.

And with national popular vote polling STILL having turned out to be ONLY a half percent off from the actual voting result, people who try to use 2016 as a reason to discredit polling, are simply being dishonest by deliberately failing to mention the EXTREMELY UNUSUAL factor of a late campaign announcement about an FBI investigation of one of the 2 major candidates, having thrown quite a MAJOR WILD CARD into the mix, in the last stage of the 2016 campaign.

So Anon, it would be nice if folks like you stopped lying with your false claim that a "Hillary landslide" was predicted in 2016, when no reputable polling organization was saying that at the end of October 2016, or during the week of November which preceded the election. So you making that sort of claim is really beneath you, since it's exactly like the kind of multiple falsehoods that Donald Trump feeds to each rally audience, that then cause the clueless zombies of his crowds, to wildly cheer for those lies. And that is such a pathetic sight!
LovesWomenFrenching


"It is a rare thing indeed, to ever observe in nature, anything so beautiful, as the sight of 2 pretty women, with one engaged in slowly sucking on the tongue of the other."(mrb0775@gmail.com)

IP Logged
This member is offline.
Posted 7/7/2018 7:52 PM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: Today @ 7:57 PM
Posts: 5,324

And that is such a pathetic sight!

And yet you sit and watch it like some mindless, liberal, sheep.

IP Logged
This member is offline.
Posted 7/7/2018 8:52 PM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: Yesterday @ 8:18 PM
Posts: 7,288
Quote: Anon, it's hilarious that your warped perception of what's now taking place in America has you thinking that it's the Democratic party which is the one that's now coming apart at the seams. Because th...

Your citations of Nicole Wallace and Joe Scarborough do absolutely nothing to strengthen your argument. Both are vehement never Trumpers, who receive a paycheck from MSDNC solely and specifically to espouse their anti-Trump opinions, which have no basis in fact. If MSDNC or CNN for that matter ever had a guest on any of their programs who agreed with the White House on anything such as Harlan Hill head of Democrats for Trump, you could bet your bottom dollar that such an individual would either be shouted down by the other members of the panel or mysteriously develop technical difficulties preventing their microphone from being heard over the airwaves, thus exiting them from the show.

This in contrast to FOX News which has regularly had hosts and panelists over the years, who are on the left side of the political spectrum such as the late Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Greta Van Susteran, Kirsten Powers, and Leslie Marshall. Unlike those other outlets, FOX has never been afraid to debate the issues. But you would never know that if all you were exposed to was the left wing lamstream media.

Another insidious point you seem to belaboring is the comparison between Maxine Waters and Sarah Palin. Other than the fact that both were elected to public office and they are of the same biological sex, the two women have absolutely nothing in common. Waters is a stupid, lying, racist demagogue, who is currently in the process of whipping up hysteria so as to encourage acts of verbal and physical abuse to be committed against Trump cabinet members.

In contrast, Sarah Palin has never said or done anything to promote any kind of violence or unrest. Whether it was her being Governor of Alaska or candidate for Vice President of the United States in the 2008 election, she always conducted herself with the utmost of dignity and class. The left wing media as most evidenced by the Tina Fey impersonation of her on Saturday Night Live did all they could to turn her into a cartoon character. The fact that they would ridicule a classy woman like Sarah and have a hands off policy when it comes to Waters tells you everything you need to know about those biased assholes.

IP Logged
This member is offline.
Posted 7/7/2018 9:12 PM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: Yesterday @ 8:18 PM
Posts: 7,288
Meanwhile, according to this article by Micheal Goodwin we may not have seen the last of Hillary running for President (yikes).

Is Hillary Clinton secretly planning to run in 2020?

Michael Goodwin

The messages convey a sense of urgency, and are coming with increasing frequency. They are short, focused reactions to the latest “outrage” committed by President Trump.

Some end by asking for money, some urge participation in protests. All read as if they are sent from the official headquarters of the resistance.

Hillary Clinton is up to something.

Five times in the last month alone, she sent e-mails touting her super PAC’s role in combating President Trump. Most seized on headline events, such as the family-separation issue at the southern border.

Under the message line, “horrific,” she wrote June 18: “This is a moral and humanitarian crisis. Everyone of us who has ever held a child in their arms, and every human being with a sense of compassion and decency should be outraged.” She said she warned about Trump’s immigration policies during the 2016 campaign.

Three days later, she was back again, saying that her group, Onward Together, raised $1 million and would split it among organizations working to change border policy, including the American Civil Liberties Union and a gaggle of immigrant, refugee, Latino and women’s groups.

And the day after Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, Clinton introduced a newly minted resistance partner. Called Demand Justice, it promises to protect “reproductive rights, voting rights and access to health care” by keeping Senate Democrats united in opposing any conservative Trump nominee.

The instant, in-house nature of Demand Justice was reflected by the name of its executive director: Brian Fallon, Clinton’s campaign press secretary.

In truth, Fallon’s role doesn’t tell us something we didn’t know. Onward Together, formed in May of 2017, is a Clinton 2020 campaign vehicle in waiting.

Its homepage says the group “is dedicated to advancing the vision that earned nearly 66 million votes in the last election.”

Advancing the vision? More like advancing the candidate who collected those votes despite not having a vision.

With the Democratic Party locked in a battle between its far left wing and its far, far left wing, no single leader has emerged to unite it. Clinton is trying to play that role by being a mother hen to the fledgling activists drawn to politics by their hatred of Trump.

If they were active in 2016, most probably supported Bernie Sanders in his primary challenge to Clinton. But by helping to fund them now, she is putting them in her debt for later.

Ah, but will she need their support later? Is she really going to make a third run for the White House?

Not long ago, I told a group of friends, all liberal Dems, that I believed she was keeping open the possibility of a rematch against Trump, and might already have decided to run.

It was unanimous — they were horrified. “I would not give her a single cent,” one man, formerly a big donor to Clinton, said emphatically.

Their reasons are no surprise: Her moment has passed, she was a terrible candidate and her endless claims of victimhood are tiring rather than inspiring. It’s time to find new blood.

Those assessments are unassailable, and certainly are shared by the 20 or so Dems lining up to take their shot at the nomination.

Moreover, there isn’t any clamoring for another Clinton run in Hollywood or other leftist hotbeds. They want a new blockbuster, not a sequel to failure.

So she’s toast, right? Maybe.

On the other hand, the odds are zero that she is playing community organizer just to be a kingmaker. When it comes to money and power, the Clintons assume charity begins at home.

Here’s how I believe she sees the playing field, and why she can’t be ignored.

First, because there’s no clear front-runner for the nomination 18 months into Trump’s presidency, Clinton remains the closest thing to an incumbent. She’s also got numerous advantages, from name recognition to campaign experience to an off-the-shelf Cabinet, that could give her a head start.

Second, a crowded, diverse field diminishes the chances of anyone knocking her off. Recall how Trump outlasted 16 GOP rivals by having a committed core of supporters that grew as the field shrunk. Clinton could be in a similar position — unpopular among many, but also unbeatable by a single opponent.

Third, looking ahead to the 2020 primaries, she sees no reason to fear the favorite daughters and sons in key blue states. She would almost certainly beat Sen. Kamala Harris in California, Sen. Cory Booker in New Jersey and Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York.

And please — forget Sanders and Joe Biden. Sanders is already 76 and Biden, at 75, has never been a viable candidate for president and still isn’t.

Fourth, money is not an issue. Some donors will resist Clinton at first, but any Dem nominee can count on all the money in the world to run against Trump.

To be clear, there are scenarios where Clinton doesn’t run. Health reasons, for example, or a younger rival could rocket to the top of the pack and become the party’s next Barack Obama. Either way, recurring nightmares of two previous defeats would send her back to wandering through the Chappaqua woods.

For now, I am convinced Clinton wants to go for it. Doubters should recall the line about pols who get the presidential itch: There are only two cures — election or death.

Besides, the third time could be the charm.
IP Logged
This member is offline.
Posted 7/8/2018 7:33 AM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: Today @ 9:09 PM
Posts: 9,642
I think the Ivanka Melania influence plays huge in the POTUS prime time Monday night introduction of a female Scotus pick when he introduces Coney-Barrett to the world to replace Justice Kennedy. She's not a bad looking woman which let's be honest offsets the Ginsburg Kagan Sotomayor liberal trio and secondly let the fight begin when ancient over the hill senators Feinstein and Collins fellow women attack a fine fine example of a working mother with 7 children climbing the Corporate ladder like every good femenist since Gloria Steinem in the 60's said you should have the right to.

The hypocritical left attacking a working mother of 7 because she's a Catholic and in her PRIVATE life doesn't believe in abortion on demand. You go Girl !


Attachments:

Please login
to view the image

   
barrettamyconey10312017getty.jpg.cf.jpg   
IP Logged
This member is offline.
Posted 7/8/2018 11:26 AM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: Today @ 5:13 PM
Posts: 13,282
LovesWomenFrenching wrote: "So Anon, it would be nice if folks like you stopped lying with your false claim that a "Hillary landslide" was predicted in 2016, when no reputable polling organization was saying that"

Oh, come on, LovesWomenFrenching - you are STILL quoting polls predicting that Trump will lose, just as you were doing on the eve of the 2016 presidential election!

Lezfriend wrote: "Another insidious point you seem to belaboring is the comparison between Maxine Waters and Sarah Palin."

I thought the EXACT SAME THING, Lezfriend - there's no comparison between the two. LovesWomenFrenching is understandably embarrassed to have congresswoman Maxine Waters now representing the new direction of the Democratic Party, but to drag Governor Palin down into the mud with looney Maxine makes no sense whatsoever.

Sylvester adds: "The hypocritical left attacking a working mother of 7 because she's a Catholic and in her PRIVATE life doesn't believe in abortion on demand. You go Girl!

Trump's upcoming second U.S. Supreme Court pick is REALLY sending the left over the edge, Sylvester - more than I ever thought was possible! They have become a parody of themselves! Derek Hunter has posted the following on the Townhall web-site:

Liberal Outrage Is All The Rage

Every year, without fail, some conservative says, “Why doesn’t Saturday Night Live make fun of liberals the way they mock conservatives?” It makes sense on the surface; the show is hopelessly, and joylessly, liberal because it’s written by liberals, and they happen to be in a perpetual state of anger. But there’s another problem. Even if SNL wanted to mock liberals it would be nearly impossible to do. Not because there’s nothing to mock, it’s because they’ve actually become a parody of themselves, and it’s very difficult to parody a parody.

There isn’t an issue in the news that doesn’t have some band of left-wing mutants marching down the streets screeching some recycled 1960s chant of “Hey, hey, ho, ho! Something or other has got to go.” How do you parody that?

Democrats just nominated a rabid socialist over someone who was in line to be their leader in Congress, then the chairman of their party called her the future of it. The only way to parody that is to have a skit with Che Guevara as head of the DNC.

The mutant mob calling for the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is one thing. It is also to be expected from those who despise the concept of borders and capitalism. But to have prominent members of Congress and possible presidential nominees publicly jump on board is beyond parody, it’s pandering from behind.

Saturday Night Live couldn’t mock a mockery like that if it wanted to, the real thing beats them to the punch at every turn.

By the time they could even think to write a sketch about how an immigrant from a war-torn hell hole like the Congo climbed the Statue of Liberty to protest enforcing immigration laws then praised former First Lady Michelle Obama while wearing a “white supremacy is terrorism” t-shirt, it actually happened in real life... on the 4th of July, no less.

This skit would cause normal people to ask questions, like if you think this country is so awful why would you choose come here? But the radical left are not normal people. They cheer and nod in unison like a series of bobble-head dolls on the dashboard of a car driving down a dirt road.

The Democratic Party has become their fringe. They are beyond parody.

Fringe is the edge of something attached to the center of something else, or at least it’s supposed to be. The Democratic Party has no center anymore. This, I suspect, came as a surprise even to its former leaders.

In 2016, the party really thought Hillary Clinton would win the nomination in a walk, but she barely won it in a stumble and the party needed to cheat to even do that. Socialist Bernie Sanders exposed just how far left the Democratic Party had gone and how large the fringe had become. The idea that Ronald Reagan wouldn’t be conservative enough to win the GOP nomination is a popular trope in liberal media circles because the party has “moved so far to the right.” But it is the Democrats who wouldn’t nominate someone like Bill Clinton. JFK would be chased out their convention if he simply tried to speak today. It’s not Republicans who’ve shifted to the right, Democrats have moved so far to the left that everything else seems like it ran away.

The American people are running away.

A decade of electoral losses have exposed just how far liberals will go to regain grip on the levers of power. Calls to impeach the President for existing in opposition to them and to pack the Supreme Court are just the beginning.

To get what they want they will grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens and flip the Constitution from a document that limits the power of government to infringe upon fundamental right with which we were born to an irrelevant piece of parchment bastardized to empower the government to grant rights. And if a government can grant rights, it can also repeal them.

And that the left’s ultimate goal – to turn our system of rights on its head so they are the arbiters of who can do what. Barack Obama exposed it when he said he wanted to “fundamentally transform the country.” You don’t seek to fundamentally transform someone or something you love.

To get to that point they will continue down the dangerous path of driving their angry mob, of emotional manipulation through any and all means. No matter who President Trump nominates for the Supreme Court Monday, no matter how true to the Constitution they are, November matters. Every November will matter.

The protests, the marches, the riots, the Hitler analogies, the lies, the rage will all continue. And worse. What starts with someone ripping the “Make America Great Again” hat off a kid and tossing a drink in his face can’t end anyplace good. If you don’t toe the liberal line, be careful and, most importantly, stay vigilant and vote. While the left will do anything to win, the best way to beat them is to keep them from their goal.


- Crap like this is why Trump won in 2016, and in the end it's going to distance more people AWAY from the Democratic Party at it becomes increasingly UN-HINGED!
IP Logged
This member is offline.
Posted 7/8/2018 4:22 PM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: Today @ 7:57 PM
Posts: 5,324

Ran across this in my browsing, thought this was kinda funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQJlmFqUA8w

 

IP Logged
This member is offline.
Posted 7/9/2018 6:32 AM


Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: Today @ 5:13 PM
Posts: 13,282
Skyhawk posted the following: "Ran across this in my browsing, thought this was kinda funny."

Top Democrats All Agree with Trump's Immigration Plan and Building The Wall to Stop Illegals - runs 3:30

Liberals are such dishonest hypocrites! Do these high-ranking Democrats even remember making these solemn speeches demanding that illegals be kept out of our country?

If you want to see what the modern Democratic Party actually stands for, all you need do is visit one of those American cities DOMINATED by Democratic Party leadership for the past half-century. DETROIT is a perfect example - so, too, is Chicago (the murder capital of our planet) - and then there's beautiful San Francisco, with a growing human-excrement-on-the-streets problem!

Karol Markowicz wrote the following for the New York Post, about how New York City could be NEXT-in-line to "benefit" from longtime Democratic Party control:

San Francisco’s crisis looks like New York’s future

A major medical association is pulling its annual convention out of the city — saying its members no longer feel safe,” reports the San Francisco Chronicle. It’s a loss of approximately $40 million for the city and a warning to other cities with similar policies, like New York: You could be next.

Beautiful, hilly San Francisco has become known as the city where 20 pounds of poop was dumped on a sidewalk last week in a clear bag and remained there for hours. As The Post noted, “human waste-related complaints in San Francisco have skyrocketed 400 percent from 2008 to 2018,” and “In 2017 alone, more than 21,000 reports were received.”

What happened in San Francisco is obvious. It stopped prosecuting quality-of-life offenses and, unsurprisingly, the quality of life for the city’s residents and visitors decreased sharply.

In 2015, San Francisco courts stopped enforcing bench warrants for such offenses. Police continued writing up tickets for public drunkenness or sleeping in parks, but when the accused failed to show up to their court appearance, a judge simply dismissed the outstanding warrant.

New York started following San Francisco’s lead in 2016 when Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr. announced his office would no longer be prosecuting offenses such as public urination. Both cities have accepted that they’ll continue to have a large number of people living on their streets and inevitably using their sidewalks as a toilet.

New York has tried Band-Aids, not real solutions. The city now spends half a million dollars a day housing homeless people in hotels. One particular night in 2017, the city spent $648,000, booking the homeless into $549 hotel rooms near Times Square. The temporary solution is wildly expensive and doesn’t produce any lasting reduction in the homeless population.

New York also seems to be following San Francisco’s lead regarding drug use in public.

A BuzzFeed story in May noted that the city’s explosion of public drug use has “tested San Francisco’s image as a liberal, compassionate urban oasis” and that, according to the city’s Department of Public Health, “there are about 22,000 intravenous drug users in the city, or about 470 per square mile.” Few want to live in a place where you risk stepping on a discarded needle, as San Francisco Mayor Mark Farrell actually did.

Yet, also in May, Mayor Bill de Blasio told police to stop arresting people for smoking marijuana in public starting Aug. 1, and the city plans to open four “safe injection sites” where heroin users can shoot up under the supervision of a doctor.

The two cities also line up closely on affordable housing: Neither has much nor has extensive plans to build any.

At CityLab, Gabriel Metcalf wrote that he specifically moved to San Francisco for its progressive policies but that those policies have caused a housing shortage of epic proportions. “San Francisco progressives chose to stick with their familiar stance of opposing new development, positioning themselves as defenders of the city’s physical character,” he wrote.

And: “Over the years, these anti-development sentiments were translated into restrictive zoning, the most cumbersome planning and building approval process in the country, and all kinds of laws and rules that make it uniquely difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to add housing in San Francisco.”

Likewise, New York’s commitment to rent stabilization and rent control means a lack of the necessary housing development. And in many cases, instead of building more housing, the city is simply “rezoning” areas to produce more affordable homes.

Both San Francisco and New York City are one-party towns. They’re incubators of uber-liberal policies. Both cities have produced astonishing inequality, an ever-shrinking middle class and a deepening homeless problem. Both cities are throwing money at the issue and hoping something works out.

But people generally will only tolerate human poop on sidewalks for so long. New York needs to stop following San Francisco down its poop-filled road before conventions start thinking twice about visiting.


- If you want to know what today's Democratic Party stands for, just visit a city where they have complete control of government, and you'll get a bird's-eye-view - and smell!

IP Logged
This member is offline.
Posted 7/9/2018 5:56 PM
Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: Today @ 5:43 AM
Posts: 1,415
Well, Trump's team has leaked the identity of his SCOTUS choice.

It's 5 minutes before Trump said he will announce his choice at 9PM Eastern time, and NBC's Pete Williams said, about 3 minutes ago, that Kavanaugh is the choice.
LovesWomenFrenching


"It is a rare thing indeed, to ever observe in nature, anything so beautiful, as the sight of 2 pretty women, with one engaged in slowly sucking on the tongue of the other."(mrb0775@gmail.com)
IP Logged
This member is offline.
Posted 7/9/2018 6:01 PM
Supreme Being
Supreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Active: Today @ 5:43 AM
Posts: 1,415
Well, in a couple minutes we should know if what the President's people leaked to NBC, about the identity of Trump's choice for Supreme Court Justice (Kavanaugh) is correct.
LovesWomenFrenching


"It is a rare thing indeed, to ever observe in nature, anything so beautiful, as the sight of 2 pretty women, with one engaged in slowly sucking on the tongue of the other."(mrb0775@gmail.com)
IP Logged
This member is offline.
Showing page 246 of 278 - 2773 messages found « First Page Prev Page Next Page Last Page »
« Next Oldest :: Next Newest »


Design & Architecture © 2004 SMG Video, Inc | Terms & Conditions | All rights reserved.