100% to 0%... See, this is what I mean; that there is the very definition of extremism and it just pops out in your language like it's nothing. "All Democrats are like Pelosi". Your language kinda gives you away so I've known for a while there's no sense in trying to change YOUR mind. But that doesn't mean there no sense in exercising my mind, my writing and maybe even learning something. But if you want to stop because I don't buy your story, that's not a problem




You should totally get her to perform your shame speech.


Oh, yeah... because no one will ever pick up on the fact that Moscow Mitch and Donny his bxtch are the ones actually blocking the stimulus package because they don't want to spend the money on helping the "little guy".

Say it Greta... "those Pelosi is spitting on with her politics!"

That would make more sense if it wasn't predicated on 100% pure BS.


I can tell when your getting emotional because you start talking about my "ilk".

Look, what you are saying registers just fine, I just know it's BS. You say Pelosi is trying to extort money for Democrat run cities... Well, prove it. Or if you can't prove it then at least provide some evidence. Don't get all pissed off because I'm not taking your word for it. I've been listening to people say the exact same thing over and over like a broken record and never once have I seen any evidence to support the claim.

What I DO see, in the proposal, is that Democrats want the stimulus package to include funds for state programs to help their citizens through this economic crisis. Keep in mind, the biggest problem people are facing right now is unemployment and the federal government doesn't handle unemployment, the states do. This sort of thing is too easy to misconstrue and before you know it, it's the cities not the states and oh, yeah... it's only Democratic cities. Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds?

Then you seal it up with how she's "like every one of today's Democratic Party leaders" That's not a rational statement that's an expression of your hateful prejudice.

I'm sorry Seth, but the endless repetition of angry rants isn't convincing me of anything. If you want me to see the light, provide some evidence. In the meantime, I'll suggest again that you read the proposal.


Have you ever heard of a little something called coronavirus? (It's another name for China virus). In case you didn't know, we don't have a vaccine for it yet, it's highly contagious and it's led to over 200,000 American deaths in less than a year. That makes it a serious problem and without a vaccine, the only thing we can do is try and minimize the spread by minimizing contact. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Now, if the government could trust people to do the right thing, they wouldn't have to issue mandates, but apparently too many people including Trump have their heads up their a$$es. So, state governments were compelled to take action. Why? Because when people think it's their right to ignore the danger and run around in crowds without masks, they are spreading the virus. And it's not just amongst themselves at Trump rallies where everyone is making the same choice - these lunatics take it home to their parents, their children and anyone else they come into contact with. So it becomes an assault with deadly stupidity.

And that's why state governments are shutting down non-critical business that have the potential to spread the disease. It's not that they WANT to but they are dealing with cold hard reality. Hiding our heads in the sand really isn't an option.


I think you're making yourself sick. I suggest you lay off the Kool-Aid for a while.

The problem with that statement is that the Republican option isn't even "good". It leaves millions of Americans with nothing. Pelosi is fighting for these people.


The whole reason for Pelosi's hardball *IS* the "little guy". Have you even looked at the proposals or are you just chugging Kool-Aid? Trump's offering 1.8 billion. It sound like a lot of money but there are a LOT of "little guys" and 1.8 billion quite simply isn't enough to help them endure the pandemic. The Democrats are trying to help ALL the "little guys" get through it. With Trump's plan the "little guys" will get a enough to help for a month or so and then they will be back where they are now and new negotiations will have to start all over again before the "little guy" gets any more help. No thank you!


What else is on her agenda Seth? Please elaborate. I've read the Democratic proposal and there isn't anything in it that doesn't relate in someway to making things better for the "little guy". That's why I know that Republicans are lying. They are trying to say that the extra money the Democrats are asking for is to fund all of their corporate pipe dreams. It's a lie. Read the proposal!


Jesus... how can anyone fall for that crap? Yeah, some comments were made about Trump's name on the checks because of how he delayed the checks in the last stimulus to make sure they have his name on it, not because we "hate" Trump. (although it is one more reason to hate him). What matters on the check is the amount and the name of the recipient, not the stupid president's name for crying out loud. In any case, that really isn't a negotiation point for Pelosi (in case you thought it was).

In my opinion Pelosi is doing the right thing by not accepting a nickle when circumstances call for a dime.


I don't know you could possibly mean that *I* don't have a leg to stand on. But if Pelosi didn't have a leg to stand on she wouldn't be able to hold things up now, would she?

I agree he can't reach the "cult obsessed" but the "some" that he CAN reach is basically the majority of the American people. Trump will crow about his "incredible" approval ratings but he always uses the number that shows the percentage of Republicans only. When the entire population is considered, his approval ratings are the lowest of all the living presidents. His highest peak was right when he was elected at 45%. (a few aggregated figures go as far as 49% but that's still far below the presidential average. This was of course before he proved how incapable he is. Since then he has been averaging a little over 40% approval with a 53% disapproval rating. The only time his approval rating came close to reaching his starting number was last April and the only sense I can make of that is the way conservatives reacted to the attacks on his handling of the pandemic. (conservatives can be very defensive on partisan issues). But even then his ratings have since slipped.

Of course these numbers are based on polls which are often based on specific questions and many people who hate Trump for one reason will give him a favorable rating for another reason.

The percentage of registered voters that actually voted for Trump in 2016 is less than 30%. That's because a lot of people sat that one out; especially Democrats that refused to support Hillary after the DNC shafted Sanders. Trump's approval rating never dipped below 30% either. So there are indications that he has a solid base (or cult, if you will) that accounts for about 30% of the American citizenship.

That leaves about 60% that Biden can appeal to.

More people are expected to vote in 2020 because of the perceived urgency on both sides. Because of that I expect Trump will get even more votes than he did in 2016 but it will probably still be a smaller percentage of all voters because unlike 2016 half the Democrats won't be refusing to vote for their candidate.

The writing is on the wall and this is why the Trump campaign is fighting so hard to obstruct the voting process.

Someone on OPP recently suggested that the "silent majority" will suddenly come out of nowhere and vote for Trump in overwhelming numbers. I dunno. Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. People are already voting and so far it's not looking good for Trump. In 2016 they were able to use the EC to override the will of the popular vote which favored Hillary by 3 million. I expect that Biden will get a much bigger majority than that if he does, it might take more than the EC to save the election for Trump.

We'll have to see. One thing I can say about Trump is that he is very good at hiring crafty lawyers to pave the road for him.


I expect you will be the only one on this thread that will. These links don't leave OPP, they are topics that I started some time ago. You may notice how the conservative response to these topics is minimal and weak. I think there are a lot of conservatives out there who can respond with stronger arguments but they aren't on OPP and they probably aren't Trump supporters.

what a knee-slapper.


You might want to find a better example because there's no doubletalk on Pelosi's part in that entire interview. Pelosi is very clear on her position. The Democrats have proposed a larger stimulus bill based on what they perceive as the larger needs of the American people during this pandemic. The Republicans have refused. It's actually right there in the article you referenced...

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has stated that Republicans in the Senate would not pass either package and favors targeted stimulus instead, but has sought to apply pressure on Pelosi by describing Democrats as unwilling to compromise.

Then get this... McConnell is quoted as saying...

“So far they have said if we can’t do everything we want to do we won’t do anything,” McConnell said Tuesday. “That doesn’t solve the problem.”

So there's your doubletalk. On one hand, McConnell refuses to pass the proposed stimulus package because he wants to do something else and on the other, he denigrates Pelosi for doing the same damned thing.


The funniest joke of them all is when people think politics doesn't belong in politics. LOL

Look, This is how it works in a democracy where power is shared among many participants. Politics is a process of fighting for what you think is the right solution by gaining the support of the majority required to pass the solution. This includes negotiations and that sometimes requires a round of what politicians call hardball. That's what Pelosi and McConnell are doing... playing hardball. Politics also includes the persuading of other participants to see your perspective. This is something that has been in practice in every democracy since the great orators of ancient Greece.

Something else the Greeks did was limit the decisions to only those who have the mental capacity to understand how all this works. This was done to avoid the problems that we see today in most contemporary democracies where "common" people lack the capacity to understand how politics works.

Sure enough this is made abundantly clear, everytime someone implies that politics is a flaw in government that only one side is guilty of.

Humorless? Is that why almost every comedian in show business is liberal? Is that why liberal pundits so often use humor as a platform, such as Bill Mahr, Jon Stewart, Stephen Cobert, John Oliver? Compare that to their conservative counterparts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson. They use anger and outrage as their platform.

I'm sure Trump has a sense of humor because everyone does. And I'm sure the reason why conservatives fall over themselves every time he has a laugh is because they are so hard up for it. But if it makes you feel any better, he's been such an abundant laughing stock for liberal comedians they don't even need writers anymore.

LOL - I'm glad YOU think so. As for "all you need to do to confirm" remark, please see my previous comment.

Both you and bylm1 have completely missed the context. This is why I don't think you folks understand much when it comes to politics. Politics is complicated and someone who reads literal statements without also reading context will remain clueless. I see this happening all the time on OPP.

If anyone were to ask me how my opinions differ from so many on OPP, I would simply say... read their responses. Half the time, they are responding to things they only imagine we have said.

Please make an effort to understand the context of something before commenting. I was responding to RandyBrian's post about two liberals on OPP that he is choosing not to listen to anymore because he doesn't like what they say. In that post he said...

These fellows have repeatedly said that the President has declared he will NOT leave even if he loses the election.

So he wasn't talking about liberals in general. He was talking specifically about two liberals on OPP.

I don't see any such comment by any liberal in any of the OPP threads that I've seen. (And YOU certainly won't find them on Google.) This is why I said I don't remember anyone saying that.

We clear now?

Out for the day... I'll leave you with this because it's funny as hell..

What part of Hillary's concession speech did you not understand?

Was it this part...?

"Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans."

- Hillary Clinton 2016

2016 Consession Speech - full text

So did your conservative media diet just leave that out?

If you are referring to the complaints about the Electoral College, that has nothing to do with accepting defeat. We KNOW the rule is that a president is elected by the EC not the the people. Honestly, we get that.

The concern about the EC, if it matters to you, is that it doesn't reflect the will of The People and the 2016 election really exposed that problem even more than the 2000 election did. So it makes sense to be concerned about it. Not to overturn the 2016 election but to avoid the problem in future elections.

It also makes sense that the Democrats would be the ones to express that concern, especially since Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last seven elections.

I know I've explained this to you multiple times Eagle and I know that you will continue to parrot the same fallacy and that's OK... I like that you repeatedly give me the opportunity to point out the flaws in the conservative character.

That does seem to be a pattern in history. The last time Europe lurched to the right, they wound up with fascist dictators and it took the armed forces of three nations under leftist governments to fix that.

The problem with the right is that it runs on fear and loathing where people lose touch with reality and that's just so easy for dictators to leverage. While the alt-right obsesses over cold war leftovers like communist conspiracies and make pilgrimages to Trump rallies and boutiques, they are blissfully unaware of the how the Trump administration and its allies in the Senate are methodically removing their legal, political and environmental protections while building a prison industry and militarized police.

For a while I was posting a series of exposés on OPP titled "Trump's Attacks on the Working Class" to try and explain some if this.

1 - The Fiduciary Rule
2 - The Tax Cuts
3 - Forced Arbitration

But the deplorables refused to consider any of it. It could be that these issues are too boring as the actual study of law often is (much more fun to watch Trump antics at rallies). Or it could be that because it was coming from a liberal, their first instinct was to shut me out.

Either way, I'm fine with it. As a white male with a high-paying job I have less to worry about than most of the deplorables on this site. But I am concerned for those less fortunate and for future generations.

Yeah, you folks always think it's about Trump, don't you? (He does too).

If you paid more attention to what I am saying instead of jumping in my face because you think I'm attacking Trump, your Lord and Savior, you would know that my original post is referring to the hypocrisy of the Senate Republicans. Trump wasn't the one one delaying the confirmation of Obama's nomination in 2016. Oh, I'm sorry did you forget that? Well, so did everyone else on the right.

Here's a excerpt from Politico in 2016, reporting what South Dakota Senator John Thune said about those delays.

“There’s sort of an unwritten rule that’s been in place for some time,” Thune said, referring to the so-called Thurmond rule, an informal guideline to stop confirming judges in the summer of an election year. “I think that’s probably — at least on some level — being adhered to.”

Funny how that rule worked so well to keep all those seats empty in 2016 and now all of a sudden that rule doesn't exist anymore.


I don't know what a communist DIM is but desperation seem to be bubbling up on all sides, the Republicans are probably more desperate to give the Supreme Court a one-sided conservative majority before they lose their grip on legislation than the Democrats are in trying to prevent an unbalanced Supreme Court.

As for Barrett you don't know if she's the most qualified on the bench. She's certainly not the most experienced. But honestly, I don't have a problem with her. She seems much more put together than Kavanaugh is. I don't agree with her ideology but that shouldn't be a factor. If she does her job "to the letter" she will be making decisions based on the law not her personal opinions.

Both conservative judges appointed by Trump have already joined the liberals on several decisions because it's not their job to judge based on ideology. I think a lot of conservatives are really missing that point. Think about it, if the Supreme Court made decisions based on their ideology, Roe/Wade could have been overturned at any time during the 5/4 conservative majority. Do you really think a 6/3 majority is going to make any difference?


Well, that's rather shallow.

I don't remember anyone saying that Trump will NOT leave "even" if he loses the election. Are you sure you're not just making that up?

Also, considering the fact that there's only a few liberals involved in this thread and you're ready to tune out two of them, it seems like you're only interested in learning the right-wing narrative. Is this a fair assumption?

Finally, I have yet to see anyone provide a counter argument to anything I've actually stated on this thread and I'm wondering on what basis anyone can say an argument is "manure" if they can't even counter it. Unless it's an auto-response to anything coming from left of center.

This may surprise you but I am here to learn too and it's hard to learn when nothing I say is ever corrected. And by corrected, I mean with a rational counter-argument that actually shows me the error, not just hearsay, distractions and insults.

So, feel free to find ANYTHING I've actually stated that you can counter with a rational argument. I hunger for a worthy opponent. Just be sure you understand what I am actually saying. For example, in the original post, I described the hypocrisy of rushing the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice just weeks before the election when in 2016 the same people delayed the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice, when the election was eight months away, saying it was "too close to the election. All I got back was how speedy confirmation is a constitutional duty. But do you see how that isn't really addressing my point?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with the Republicans rushing the confirmation... I was saying that doing so is diametrically opposite of what the same Republicans were saying in 2016. Hence the hypocrisy.

Wow, this thread is still going?

I was going to pick up where I left off but that was like 10 pages ago. There might be some worthy comments made but I'm not going to wade through 10 pages of regurgitated propaganda to find them, so I figure I'd start from the end and look for the last argument that makes any sense and well, this was it.

I agree that Trump has exposed a lot of weaknesses in our constitutional system. It's a bit shocking... kinda like turning a black light on in a motel room. LOL

It seems we've been living for decades under the false sense of security based on the idea that no president would ever hire an army of lawyers to game the laws of our land. The the level of bigotry in the populace was a surprise to me too, although I first noticed that in 2008 when we elected our first black president and the reactions on talk radio was an inch short of lynch mob frenzy.

And this is why I'm realizing that Trump is only a symptom of a bigger problem.

So I just read enough of this criminal's book to know that for him it's ALL ABOUT the "Jewish Question". He starts with a history of Jewish expulsions from various European countries during the Middle Ages, implying that if that many countries are expelling the Jews, there must be something wrong with them.

Not once however, in the pages I've read, does he mention the very simple fact that during the Middle-Ages, Judaism was the only religion that allowed the charging of interest on loans (and then only when loaning money to the gentry). Christianity and Islam both prohibited the practice until the Renaissance when Christians began to bend the rules to suite them.

This is how the Jews "corralled" so much wealth.

It would be one thing if our own nation didn't achieve it's massive wealth in the same exact way, but it did. So in effect, your racist felon, Frank L. Britton, is demonizing a people by ignoring the fact that they are no different than we are.

I'll not read any more of his drivel but I'm sure he'll make the Jew-communism connection in much the same way Hitler did. There's not a lot variance in right-wing hatred, which is why the alt-right still thinks it's 1950.