Stacey Abrams chosen to give Democratic response to Trump's State of the Union

[Weezer]

I don't know why I expected more than deflecting milquetoast response. It's comedy gold watching the "whataboutisms" flow in lieu of condemnations.

Honestly, I don't ever recall intelligence officials so publicly contradicting a threat assessment of a sitting president. I certainly don't recall a political neophyte telling career military gmen they should 'go back to school'.

Don't know why I thought you could be honest and admit it's all the same political BS that we continue to see from every POTUS. No, you have to continually make your self-righteous angry posts trying to stir the pot. Have you ever attempted to have an intellectually honest conversation, or is everything just about getting your jollies trying to belittle others?

 

[C-south]

Interesting and insightful. Shame on the DNC for not making better use of the opportunity than to pander to the lowest common denominator. But I shall lose no sleep over it.

Race baiting and be offended by everything is all they know.

 

[Septic]

LBJ set and holds the record for ignoring good advice from people who knew better. Of course, he did have McNamara help him try to run a war like a business. Talk about a dumpster fire.

I'm clearly not as old as you.

 

[AM64]

I'm clearly not as old as you.

Hang in there.

 

[AM64]

I'm clearly not as old as you.

By the way I've got the name thing under control now. All it took was a bit of association. Abrams and tank.

 

[Septic]

Don't know why I thought you could be honest and admit it's all the same political BS that we continue to see from every POTUS. No, you have to continually make your self-righteous angry posts trying to stir the pot. Have you ever attempted to have an intellectually honest conversation, or is everything just about getting your jollies trying to belittle others?

I see you've failed to address my position and instead continued your deflection, again.

It appears as if your M.O. is to remind everyone how impartial you are while deflecting Trump's criticisms at break neck speeds. Never offering any insight other than, "what about' the other sh|theads?"

 

[Weezer]

I see you've failed to address my position and instead continued your deflection, again.

It appears as if your M.O. is to remind everyone how impartial you are while deflecting Trump's criticisms at break neck speeds. Never offering any insight other than, "what about' the other sh|theads?"

Perhaps you're just not understanding my opinion on every POTUS, be it Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, or who the hell ever. It's not whataboutism, it's a blanket belief that all Presidents are assholes that make stupid statements at some point. Is Trump a dumbass? Yes, he is. Most Presidents are. No deflection. It is what it is. Sorry if that hurts your feels or goes over your head. Being an ******* seems to be a prerequisite of being a politician, and no matter what he says, Trump is a politician.

And if we're going to throw out M.O.'s, let's talk about yours, which is to be a contrary *******. Not seeing any incredible insights coming from your posts. You accuse everyone else of deflecting and make very few points. Maybe fix yourself before trying to fix everyone else?

 

[Septic]

Perhaps you're just not understanding my opinion on every POTUS, be it Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, or who the hell ever. It's not whataboutism, it's a blanket belief that all Presidents are assholes that make stupid statements at some point. Is Trump a dumbass? Yes, he is. Most Presidents are. No deflection. It is what it is. Sorry if that hurts your feels or goes over your head. Being an ******* seems to be a prerequisite of being a politician, and no matter what he says, Trump is a politician.

And if we're going to throw out M.O.'s, let's talk about yours, which is to be a contrary *******. Not seeing any incredible insights coming from your posts. You accuse everyone else of deflecting and make very few points. Maybe fix yourself before trying to fix everyone else?

It's very much about "whataboutisims". You can't get through a single critique of Donny without qualifying it, all the while professing to be impartial... And you have the nerve to question someone else's intellectual honesty? LOL, take a look in the mirror.

 

[Weezer]

It's very much about "whataboutisims". You can't get through a single critique of Donny without qualifying it, all the while professing to be impartial... And you have the nerve to question someone else's intellectual honesty? LOL, take a look in the mirror.

I wouldn't say I was impartial so much as I'm opposed to politics in general. Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter. Here of late though, the left has been much more annoying with their near constant whining. I'm sorry if my unwillingness to bow to your Trump narrative is offensive. No, not really, I'm not sorry. Trump is just another in a long line of schmucks to hold the office. Have I defended him before? Yep. Have I spoken against him before? Yep. Not sure what more you're looking for other than to continue being a complete ass hole. If that's all this is, then congratulations, you're succeeding.

 

[1972 Grad]

I wouldn't say I was impartial so much as I'm opposed to politics in general. Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter. Here of late though, the left has been much more annoying with their near constant whining. I'm sorry if my unwillingness to bow to your Trump narrative is offensive. No, not really, I'm not sorry. Trump is just another in a long line of schmucks to hold the office. Have I defended him before? Yep. Have I spoken against him before? Yep. Not sure what more you're looking for other than to continue being a complete ass hole. If that's all this is, then congratulations, you're succeeding.

Septic is good at what he does.

 

[Weezer]

Septic is good at what he does.

I'm aware, which goes back to my original question of being able to have an honest conversation rather than simply churning the waters.

 

[1972 Grad]

I'm aware, which goes back to my original question of being able to have an honest conversation rather than simply churning the waters.

That's not his thing.

 

[Septic]

That's not his thing.

Do you need some attention too?

 

[Weezer]

Do you need some attention too?

Seems that you enjoy giving strange men attention.

Not that I'm judging.

 

[1972 Grad]

Do you need some attention too?

Not from you. That is why I rarely respond, but I do admire some of your work.

 

[Septic]

Seems that you enjoy giving strange men attention.

Not that I'm judging.

You mad?

 

[Septic]

Not from you. That is why I rarely respond, but I do admire some of your work.

OK, just let me know.

 

[Weezer]

You mad?

Not at all, but I'm not one to pass up a joke.

 

[GVF]

Not bad....so you are fully aware of how almost having is far better than having never had the chance.

End result in both cases = not.

 

[luthervol]

End result in both cases = not.

We've been over this. The results in both cases create entirely different probabilities of future chances.
After all, we're talking about the future here.

 

[GVF]

We've been over this. The results in both cases create entirely different probabilities of future chances.
After all, we're talking about the future here.

You did cover it in a liberal sort of mindset, adding probabilities of future choices, and the future, into a statement that clearly indicates the past and nothing more. Now lets look at the facts:


almost had = past

maybe/might/possible. etc. = future.

Once it becomes "almost had" it is in the past. Therefore, the end result in both cases that "almost had" = no, not did not, flunked, etc.

In sentence form:
Hillary Clinton almost got elected president.

I almost thought about running for president.

Which one of us is the president? (Not which one would have a better chance in the future. Which one IS?)

 

[luthervol]

You did cover it in a liberal sort of mindset, adding probabilities of future choices, and the future, into a statement that clearly indicates the past and nothing more. Now lets look at the facts:


almost had = past

maybe/might/possible. etc. = future.

Once it becomes "almost had" it is in the past. Therefore, the end result in both cases that "almost had" = no, not did not, flunked, etc.

In sentence form:
Hillary Clinton almost got elected president.

I almost thought about running for president.

Which one of us is the president? (Not which one would have a better chance in the future. Which one IS?)

Really?
I almost batted 300 for the season.
I was nowhere near batting 300 for the season.
Which has the higher probability of batting 300 next season?
SMDH

 

[AM64]

You did cover it in a liberal sort of mindset, adding probabilities of future choices, and the future, into a statement that clearly indicates the past and nothing more. Now lets look at the facts:


almost had = past

maybe/might/possible. etc. = future.

Once it becomes "almost had" it is in the past. Therefore, the end result in both cases that "almost had" = no, not did not, flunked, etc.

In sentence form:
Hillary Clinton almost got elected president.

I almost thought about running for president.

Which one of us is the president? (Not which one would have a better chance in the future. Which one IS?)

In the Clinton (and the liberal) world that depends on the meaning of "is".

 

[LouderVol]

apparently she is in a commercial during the super bowl as well. working on bringing paper ballots back to GA. with a republican.

not a fan of a political ad in the super bowl.

 

[AM64]

Really?
I almost batted 300 for the season.
I was nowhere near batting 300 for the season.
Which has the higher probability of batting 300 next season?
SMDH

Shhhh, shake it more quietly, please.