Probably as many times as he's critical of Trump, and someone comes along and says it's just because he's sad that Hillary lost.

Probably as many times as he's critical of Trump, and someone comes along and says it's just because he's sad that Hillary lost.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Is it really any surprise that you failed to notice that I wasn't the person that originally brought up Hillary Clinton? Is it really a shock?

Are you suggesting he isn't sad that Hillary lost?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

IT'S Only the Jorr default position whenever there is any Trump criticism. If it isn't his then it is others with "We wouldn't have this asshole if the other asshole wasn't running against him" crap.

I never said you did. You just argued it very quickly.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

According to you the vast majority of the country is disappointed that she lost.

Jorr refutes every criticism of Trump with people being mad about Hillary.

Jorr refutes every criticism of Trump with people being mad about Hillary. I rarely comment anymore so I don't know how you ascertained that I'm the person that first mentioned it. Again not surprising though. My Hillary reference was only after 4 pages of the usual drivel about people being mad she lost.

I think Jorr is the one mad she lost.

No, but MANY powerful people with loud voices obviously are.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

I think Jorr is the one mad she lost.

I didn't say you mentioned it first!

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

The best thing about Trump being elected is that he stopped Clinton from becoming president. And if Clinton had won, the best thing about that would have been that she stopped Trump. And I think a whole lot of Americans share those opinions.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Are you saying that the RESIST! people aren't upset that Clinton lost?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

There is nothing good about Trump being President. He has the chance of being the worst President in history. Nothing good about that. When this is over no one will be better off because of it.

I'm saying it's not a significant movement. Trump's birther stuff received much more traction. There isn't a widespread movement to place Hillary Clinton in office. If so who's their leader?

I understand that opinion. You're a guy who doesn't want to stray too far from the status quo. Your politics are not dissimilar to those of Boilermaker Rick, which is why it's odd that you're beefing on him. Trump may be bad for a short time but he can be a disruptive force in a time that calls for disruption.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Linda Sarsour. Seriously, RESIST! is much larger than the silly birther crap.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

He really hasn't disrupted anything. His Twitter beefing is ridiculous and thus far is Presidency has been marked by inactivity. His attempts at legislating have been a joke.

You're looking at him through a traditional lens. For good or bad he has drastically changed the American political landscape. I would say that for most people the neoliberal era has not been positive.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

I'm looking at him from a governing perspective. Nothing is getting done and there is too much emphasis placed on Trump and his temperament. Trump and his psyche. Trump and his personality. Trump and his business dealings. Trump and his numerous media wars. While all of this is going on how exactly is the country being served? The guy that had nothing to talk about on the campaign unsurprisingly has no program that he seeks to promote.

Where is the "Trump Doctrine"?

Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?

Because in my opinion it is a desperate attempt to explain away an election result that many people didn't see coming and became apoplectic about once the unthinkable happened. People don't want to admit that Trump's win was equal parts Obama legacy, and having an atrocious opponent. It's easier to attribute it to Russian meddling. I have a hard time believing people hadn't already formed their opinion of Trump and Hillary long before any Russian involvement. MANY people surveyed after the election said they were either apathetic about whether Russia helped Trump, and in fact, MANY said they were actually glad if Russia did help him win. I don't believe that would have been the case had there been actual, real, tampering of votes or systems. Even Trump voters would have drawn that line in the sand. In this information age, people are not really concerned with the source of leaks of juicy gossip. Whether a domestic hacker or a Russian hacker had leaked the DNC's e-mails showing them trying to bury Bernie, it didn't matter to voters.

At some point you guys are going to stop crying that somebody who isn't even a member of the Democratic Party got screwed by the Deomcratic Paety right?

I've got to consider your stance to be partisan then. I've already said that the investigation you claim is "desperate attempt to explain away an election result" had unofficially began well before we had an "election result." The narrative you're crafting doesn't square with the history.

Are you suggesting this investigation would be ongoing had Clinton won?

And how is this any different than what Fredo Trump tried to do? http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/u ... ire-233446

Other than the fact that MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times didn't dedicate themselves to blowing that story up and when they did report it, it was a negative spin of Manafort rather than foreign collusion by the DNC.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

I had no idea this had happened.

I had no idea this had happened.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.