President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[frank ryan]

The Weinstein thing is cause to think about Trump. Here is a handy list of all the women who reported Trump sexually assaulted. That's more than Bill Clinton, and that without being a competent executive like Clinton was. Good job family values party!

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2017/10/11/editor-lists-all-women-said-president-trump-sexually-assaulted-them?utm_content=inf_10_2867_2&utm_source=se&utm_medium=inf&utm_campaign=SE-INF&tse_id=INF_556be490aeb411e7952ec9abf6008d70

[Tarik]

The Weinstein thing is cause to think about Trump. Here is a handy list of all the women who reported Trump sexually assaulted. That's more than Bill Clinton, and that without being a competent executive like Clinton was. Good job family values party!

https://www.advocate.com/politics/20...2ec9abf6008d70

Man with power and money -.-

[Moliere]

The Weinstein thing is cause to think about Trump. Here is a handy list of all the women who reported Trump sexually assaulted. That's more than Bill Clinton, and that without being a competent executive like Clinton was. Good job family values party!

https://www.advocate.com/politics/20...2ec9abf6008d70

That list is shorter than the list of people the Clintons have had killed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Uncle Ted]

The Weinstein thing is cause to think about Trump. Here is a handy list of all the women who reported Trump sexually assaulted. That's more than Bill Clinton, and that without being a competent executive like Clinton was. Good job family values party!

https://www.advocate.com/politics/20...2ec9abf6008d70

Yeah, I wonder if Drumpf realizes his list is not as long as Weinstein's yet (which is getting longer by the minute)? I expect when he does he will start adding to his own list on twitter. Of course, some of these women may have thrown themselves at Weinstein for his money...

p73lr9al8arz.jpg

But Hillary is going to give her Weinstein money to charity so it is all good.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That list is shorter than the list of people the Clintons have had killed.

[BYUMizzou]

I don't think there is equivalence. Preserving or creating an ideological majority on the SCOTUS has the potential to set significant and long-lasting precedents on numerous constitutional and legal issues. Legislative enactments can be undone in the next term (unless you're Trump and you waste your political capital). Regulatory rules can be reversed almost instantly. But SCOTUS precedents, they tend to last, and spill over in to other areas, and they are not subject to the electorate's whim except through appointment of justices. So it is not the same.

I preferred McMullin or Gary Johnson over either of the major party candidates, but the undeniable fact was that the only states where either of them had even a remote shot at winning a single electoral college vote was Johnson in NM and McMullin in Utah (or possibly Idaho). It would have been more likely for aliens to land on the White House lawn or dinosaurs to come back from extinction than my vote for Johnson or McMullin to mean anything in Missouri.

I was 99% sure that I would hate Hillary's nominee for the supreme court. I thought there was maybe a 50% shot that Trump would nominate someone who was somewhat palatable to me. The list he leaked before the election confirmed this, and I voted for Trump based primarily on these two principles.

I agree with Creekster that the Supreme Court tends to have much more lasting impact than whoever occupies the white house or sits in congress. Gorsuch hasn't figured out how to express disagreement without hostility, and that disappoints me. On the other hand, philosophically, I strongly support the idea of federalism and separation of powers, and I don't think Gorsuch is a terrible judge because he's demonstrated a willingness to base his decisions on these principles.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I preferred McMullin or Gary Johnson over either of the major party candidates, but the undeniable fact was that the only states where either of them had even a remote shot at winning a single electoral college vote was Johnson in NM and McMullin in Utah (or possibly Idaho). It would have been more likely for aliens to land on the White House lawn or dinosaurs to come back from extinction than my vote for Johnson or McMullin to mean anything in Missouri.

I was 99% sure that I would hate Hillary's nominee for the supreme court. I thought there was maybe a 50% shot that Trump would nominate someone who was somewhat palatable to me. The list he leaked before the election confirmed this, and I voted for Trump based primarily on these two principles.

I agree with Creekster that the Supreme Court tends to have much more lasting impact than whoever occupies the white house or sits in congress. Gorsuch hasn't figured out how to express disagreement without hostility, and that disappoints me. On the other hand, philosophically, I strongly support the idea of federalism and separation of powers, and I don't think Gorsuch is a terrible judge because he's demonstrated a willingness to base his decisions on these principles.

So Trump may drag us into a war, destroy the Republican Party, and do other untold damage to our nation, but by golly we won’t get a liberal on the Supreme Court!

[BYUMizzou]

So Trump may drag us into a war, destroy the Republican Party, and do other untold damage to our nation, but by golly we won’t get a liberal on the Supreme Court!

A war with whom? North Korea? That's not going to happen because they have nukes and are crazy enough to use them.

The republican party killed itself. Trump didn't do that, at least not on his own. The tea party faction of the Republican Party is as much to blame as Trump.

What untold damage to our nation is Trump causing? He's so impotent and so incapable of drawing together groups with diverse viewpoints that he can't/won't accomplish anything beyond token gestures towards his policy goals. 99% of any "damage" he inflicts can be undone with a pen by whoever comes after him.

[Uncle Ted]

So Trump may drag us into a war, destroy the Republican Party, and do other untold damage to our nation, but by golly we won’t get a liberal on the Supreme Court!

If he just destroys the republican party so the libertarians can take over then it will all be worth it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

A war with whom? North Korea? That's not going to happen because they have nukes and are crazy enough to use them.

The republican party killed itself. Trump didn't do that, at least not on his own. The tea party faction of the Republican Party is as much to blame as Trump.

What untold damage to our nation is Trump causing? He's so impotent and so incapable of drawing together groups with diverse viewpoints that he can't/won't accomplish anything beyond token gestures towards his policy goals. 99% of any "damage" he inflicts can be undone with a pen by whoever comes after him.

You underestimate the damage Trump has done/is doing/will do.

Hey, weren't you claiming the other day that you are too liberal for CougarBoard? Yikes. Speaks volumes about CB I guess.

[BYUMizzou]

You underestimate the damage Trump has done/is doing/will do.

Hey, weren't you claiming the other day that you are too liberal for CougarBoard? Yikes. Speaks volumes about CB I guess.

I don't think I ever claimed I was too liberal for CB. What I did say was:

I have a pretty good handle on what this site is all about. I'm pretty far to the right of a big chunk of regular users here. That's ok. The nice thing here is if I think someone is a prick, I can say that, get if off my chest, then move on. They'll probably tell me I'm a prick back. We'll both be right. We'll both probably realize it and maybe try not to be as big a prick in the future. It's something that seems to work well here, as evidenced by the cohabitation (at least before the site name change) of UTah and BYU fans

For eight years we heard all kinds of hyperbole about how Obama was permanently damaging the country. While I think there was some truth to some of those claims, they were broadly overblown. In my opinion, you're seeing the same type of hyperbole and overreaction to Trump. Not that I like the guy. He's an idiot and a clown. But the lasting damage to the US isn't anything as significant or lasting as some would want you to believe.

[BYUMizzou]

As an added comment, I think the largest danger and damage being done in our country today is by the populace ourselves. The polarization and refusal to have a civil conversation with someone who has opposing viewpoints is much more likely to cause lasting damage to the country than anything some buffoon in the White House can or will do.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't think I ever claimed I was too liberal for CB. What I did say was:

My bad.

For eight years we heard all kinds of hyperbole about how Obama was permanently damaging the country. While I think there was some truth to some of those claims, they were broadly overblown. In my opinion, you're seeing the same type of hyperbole and overreaction to Trump. Not that I like the guy. He's an idiot and a clown. But the lasting damage to the US isn't anything as significant or lasting as some would want you to believe.

I hope you are right.

[byu71]

I read this thread everyday, just didn't feel like posting and increase the pain and anger for some.

I would like to ask though, what substantive things would be better if Hillary won.

My opinion is a progressive judge and a lower gain in the market.

By the way I have always thought Trump is a jackass and I change channels he speaks (as I did when Obama spoke). That being said, how would things be different with a president Hillary?

[frank ryan]

I read this thread everyday, just didn't feel like posting and increase the pain and anger for some.

I would like to ask though, what substantive things would be better if Hillary won.

My opinion is a progressive judge and a lower gain in the market.

By the way I have always thought Trump is a jackass and I change channels he speaks (as I did when Obama spoke). That being said, how would things be different with a president Hillary?

Here’s a quick and simple one. She wouldn’t constantly tweet embarrassing stuff.