Lets see if we can keep this thread a little more civil.

I found this interview very interesting.  A lot of soft balls thrown at Trump, he explained his back pedalling on his more extreme issues as a lot of his claims as opening bids for negotiation purposes.  Which .. whatever .. I still think that those are insincere claims he used to get elected.

He does now come across way more presidential then he did prior to the election.  A lot of his noise, yelling, and rhetoric has been scaled back.

Do respect this one though:

Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

3 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Nobody on here is going to change the way they think but nice try. 

"Nice try"?

dafuq? you were the one who brought it up in the first place...smh

16 minutes ago, pigseye said:

troll or devil's advocate? 

 

5 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

"Nice try"?

dafuq? you were the one who brought it up in the first place...smh

 

Uh, 17 got me, hook line and sinker, touché. 

15 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Uh, 17 got me, hook line and sinker, touché. 

Gotta say, that avatar

- you nailed it.

Edited March 6, 20205 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

3 hours ago, 17to85 said:

But is the writer wrong in his description of trump? Seems to nail it pretty much on the nose. 

Nothing uniquely British in mocking Trumps foibles real or imagined. Can get that from any lefty commentator

Usual suspects cry "sexism" when Warren loses yet party excludes Tulsi Gabbard the last woman in the race from next debate.

Nice job, Democrats. Credibility is zilch.

For the record....there are no trolls in this thread.   Perhaps just some agent provocateurs......

 

4 hours ago, Zontar said:

Usual suspects cry "sexism" when Warren loses yet party excludes Tulsi Gabbard the last woman in the race from next debate.

Nice job, Democrats. Credibility is zilch.

I don't think you know what sexism is...

9 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I don't think you know what sexism is...

Discrimination and bias based on gender.  Dems and progressives say society needs more women in power.   

When women lose elections "sexism" is among the top causes claimed by the Left.

Party that supposedly champions women excludes a woman on arbitrary rules that could be easily bent and no one would care.

Democrats as feminist progressives are complete frauds.

Am I getting warm ?

57 minutes ago, Zontar said:

Discrimination and bias based on gender.  Dems and progressives say society needs more women in power.   

When women lose elections "sexism" is among the top causes claimed by the Left.

Party that supposedly champions women excludes a woman on arbitrary rules that could be easily bent and no one would care.

Democrats as feminist progressives are complete frauds.

Am I getting warm ?

So, women better just turn to the bastion of feminist thought - the Republican party, if they know what is good for them.

1 hour ago, do or die said:

So, women better just turn to the bastion of feminist thought - the Republican party, if they know what is good for them.

I don't believe that is what he trying to say. I think he trying to point out the imagined hypocrisy that the Democratic party should cry sexism in Tulsi' s case because they did the same for Warren....  furthermore showcased by dropping Tulsi from the debate, supposedly changing the rules to make that happen- because she has a ******.  not taking into account her failed Candidacy, unpopular platform and her lone delegate... And possible because she is not even campaigning anymore.... 

Cherrypicking points to create hypocrisy . 

There’s no difference between warren or tulsi right. Lol 

1 hour ago, do or die said:

So, women better just turn to the bastion of feminist thought - the Republican party, if they know what is good for them.

Plenty of women in power among Republicans . Plenty of women in general who consider themselves conservative or traditional.

Yet they don't get the same moral support from feminists because they don't tout the usual leftist garbage. 

Gabbard is a down the line leftist anyway except she's a maverick on foreign policy. Donor class and deep state fear her voice in a debate.

Deep state helps getting people into power and cushy jobs in DC.

Dems want that power and more than happy to throw any one overboard man or woman to get it.

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

There’s no difference between warren or tulsi right. Lol 

We are told there is no distinction. Keeping women out power, jobs etc is sexism and wrong 

Blatant hypocrisy by Democrats. Blatant hypocrisy by by Warren and other female Dems by not even giving her token support.

15 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I don't believe that is what he trying to say. I think he trying to point out the imagined hypocrisy that the Democratic party should cry sexism in Tulsi' s case because they did the same for Warren....  furthermore showcased by dropping Tulsi from the debate, supposedly changing the rules to make that happen- because she has a ******.  not taking into account her failed Candidacy, unpopular platform

Cherrypicking points to create hypocrisy . 

Warren's campaign was just as big a flop as anyone's.

Fuelled by media hype who wanted to look woke. Too much baggage and ran a horrible campaign. Outside of the media bubble she was nothing .

14 minutes ago, Zontar said:

Warren's campaign was just as big a flop as anyone's.

Fuelled by media hype who wanted to look woke. Too much baggage and ran a horrible campaign. Outside of the media bubble she was nothing .

What metrics are you using to come to this conclusion?

5 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

What metrics are you using to come to this conclusion?

Umpteen media endorsements and favourable coverage like NYT. Darling of the left twitter class

Real world results nowhere close to the hype. Huge disconnect.

Edited March 7, 20205 yr by Zontar

4 hours ago, Zontar said:

Discrimination and bias based on gender.  Dems and progressives say society needs more women in power.   

When women lose elections "sexism" is among the top causes claimed by the Left.

Party that supposedly champions women excludes a woman on arbitrary rules that could be easily bent and no one would care.

Democrats as feminist progressives are complete frauds.

Am I getting warm ?

So offer proof that gabbard is being discriminated based on gender... the dnc wants Biden as it's candidate just as it did Hillary. It's not sexism, it's just wanting the person who is in with the right circles.

1 hour ago, Zontar said:

Warren's campaign was just as big a flop as anyone's.

Fuelled by media hype who wanted to look woke. Too much baggage and ran a horrible campaign. Outside of the media bubble she was nothing .

She may have run a horrible campaign, but she had arguably the most substance of any candidate. She would have been my top choice not because I'm woke or any of that nonsense but because she truly was the smartest one of the bunch with the most well reasoned and researched positions.

But she didn't get the support and is out of the race because Bernie inspires the progressive side more and Biden is the status quo choice.

1 minute ago, 17to85 said:

So offer proof that gabbard is being discriminated based on gender... the dnc wants Biden as it's candidate just as it did Hillary. It's not sexism, it's just wanting the person who is in with the right circles.

Exactly. The right person.

So no progressive should cry "sexism" when a progressive woman candidate is rejected without examining why she actually lost.

Warren's , like Hillary s,  accusation of sexism goes unchallenged and promoted by the same people who demand "we need more women voices in politics" yet there's crickets over Gabbard...

Who is also a woman of colour which doubles their hypocrisy.

3 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

She may have run a horrible campaign, but she had arguably the most substance of any candidate. She would have been my top choice not because I'm woke or any of that nonsense but because she truly was the smartest one of the bunch with the most well reasoned and researched positions.

But she didn't get the support and is out of the race because Bernie inspires the progressive side more and Biden is the status quo choice.

Could have gotten traction. Strategy of going full woke identity politics alienated people she needed the most vs Bernie.

1 hour ago, Zontar said:

Exactly. The right person.

So no progressive should cry "sexism" when a progressive woman candidate is rejected without examining why she actually lost.

Warren's , like Hillary s,  accusation of sexism goes unchallenged and promoted by the same people who demand "we need more women voices in politics" yet there's crickets over Gabbard...

Who is also a woman of colour which doubles their hypocrisy.

You and false equivalencies.

5 hours ago, Zontar said:

Plenty of women in power among Republicans

 

 

Edited March 7, 20205 yr by johnzo

On 2020-03-05 at 12:13 PM, 17to85 said:

So if it's a mental state then let everyone be whatever they want to be, again, what's the difference? If someone makes that choice why are you trying to protect them from their own possible regret? Isn't it more harmful to deny the people who it would benefit that option?

note how Zontar punches out of the discussion as soon as he's challenged, and changes the channel from "ugh icky gross trans people!" to the old reliable "democrats are hypocrites."  It's like watching MJF try to worm his way out of his match with Cody.

Still waiting to hear on all those illegal votes, btw.  Do you still believe that?

Edited March 7, 20205 yr by johnzo

Having cruised around the net, practally since it was invented....can assure you that the Republican party (to say nothing of the Alt-right) is chock full of misogynist cretins. 
A lot of these guys (Including a fair number of Tea Party/Freedom Caucus boyos) would like to roll back the clock to the mid 1950's.....when women (to say nothing of Blacks, Hispanics, Gays etc.) simply knew their place.

Comparing the Democrats (who are far from perfect in this area) to these guys.....is total fake equivalency