The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
nohero said:
Our President at 8:41 am this morning, on who we should keep in our thoughts this Memorial Day weekend -
"Who’s going to give back the young and beautiful lives (and others) that have been devastated and destroyed by the phony Russia Collusion Witch Hunt? They journeyed down to Washington, D.C., with stars in their eyes and wanting to help our nation...They went back home in tatters!"
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1000718611688943616?s=12
Huh? How many lives have been devastated and destroyed? Who? Absolutely bizarre. Is he losing it or is this a very odd tactic?
nohero said:
mtierney said:I think this is a simple question -
Stop the presses! I voted for BHO! Along with millions of Americans I saw hope for a less divisive America. The first African American President was an amazing advance. His public persona spoke elegance and intellect, his family was a new delight in the WH.
I believed in hope.
Some day, historians will write the how and why Mr Obama did not live up to expections.
Please describe the circumstances where President Obama stopped meeting your expectations.
maybe it was when he didn't end racism.
jamie said:
nohero said:Huh? How many lives have been devastated and destroyed? Who? Absolutely bizarre. Is he losing it or is this a very odd tactic?
Our President at 8:41 am this morning, on who we should keep in our thoughts this Memorial Day weekend -
"Who’s going to give back the young and beautiful lives (and others) that have been devastated and destroyed by the phony Russia Collusion Witch Hunt? They journeyed down to Washington, D.C., with stars in their eyes and wanting to help our nation...They went back home in tatters!"
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1000718611688943616?s=12
all of his tweets make sense if you consider that the audience is his ardent supporters. It doesn't have to make sense as long as it riles them up agains Trump's antagonists.
“A social media troll, by definition, is someone who creates conflict on sites like Twitter, Facebook and Reddit by posting messages that are particularly controversial or inflammatory with the sole intent of provoking an emotional (read: angry) response from other users.”
This word gets thrown about and at me frequently here — so I looked it up.
Can someone who as been blogging here (2001 starter) and this thread particularly (15+K) honestly be considered as such? No, the wimpy word is unfurled when reasoned retorts are unavailable. Childish that.
If I have offended anyone, chalk it up to starting my second week on a liquid diet. 
mtierney said:
“A social media troll, by definition, is someone who creates conflict on sites like Twitter, Facebook and Reddit by posting messages that are particularly controversial or inflammatory with the sole intent of provoking an emotional (read: angry) response from other users.”
This word gets thrown about and at me frequently here — so I looked it up.
Can someone who as been blogging here (2001 starter) and this thread particularly (15+K) honestly be considered as such? No, the wimpy word is unfurled when reasoned retorts are unavailable. Childish that.
If I have offended anyone, chalk it up to starting my second week on a liquid diet.
Maybe I am missing something from your definition, but where does it say that you cannot be considered to be a troll if you posted since 2001? And out of curiosity, what is the cut-off date? Say if you had started posting in 2018, would you consider yourself a troll? Because that is what you are somehow suggesting.
mtierney said:
If I have offended anyone, chalk it up to starting my second week on a liquid diet.
What proof is the liquid?
Dennis_Seelbach said:
mtierney said:What proof is the liquid?
If I have offended anyone, chalk it up to starting my second week on a liquid diet.
ouch
Dennis_Seelbach said:
mtierney said:What proof is the liquid?
If I have offended anyone, chalk it up to starting my second week on a liquid diet.
If I could find humor in that comment, I would say it’s funny. 
I can understand why you don't find that funny given the necessity for your particular liquid diet. But the term "liquid diet" does often reference alcohol so you sort of opened yourself up to kidding.
I found the tweet from Trump posted above to be funny but I guess I would not have if I was mourning someone I knew who died in a War this Memorial Day.
Who is the tweet referring to??
and mtierney, sorry about the liquid diet, so tiresome. hope it doesn't go on much longer!
mjc said:
Who is the tweet referring to??
Do you really think there is an answer?
mtierney said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:If I could find humor in that comment, I would say it’s funny.
mtierney said:What proof is the liquid?
If I have offended anyone, chalk it up to starting my second week on a liquid diet.
It was certainly meant that way. If it missed the mark, I sincerely apologize.
Year and a half in, still dazed...
Mrs Clinton ran a bad campaign and she had/has too much baggage. End of story.
That story is not about Hillary Clinton. Go back to the other thread and respond to me and others
mtierney said:
https://nyti.ms/2xsn5Wh
Year and a half in, still dazed...
Mrs Clinton ran a bad campaign and she had/has too much baggage. End of story.
Uh, she won...by almost 3 MILLION votes!!!
The fix was in. Even tRump admitted that it was rigged DURING the campaign...
Uh, she won...by almost 3 MILLION votes!!!
The fix was in. Even tRump admitted that it was rigged DURING the campaign...
It is very ironic that the US political system, fearing the "tyranny of the majority", created its own destructor. They created the Electoral College to make sure that the people wouldn't accidentally elect a dangerous populist, but to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” So the only reason that Trump (having lost the popular vote quite decisively) is President, is thanks to the brilliant scholars who created the EC. Goes to show you that these guys (and hence the Constitution itself) are by no means infallible.
LOST said:
That story is not about Hillary Clinton. Go back to the other thread and respond to me and others
Oh, but I have - over and over — but there are so many questions!
For the record in no particular order:
I respect the office of the presidency and the president and the millions of American voters who made a choice.
I am not Mr Trump’s confessor, defense attorney or the prosecutor .
You all seem to believe you are judge and jury, however.
Most often if I am asked a thoughtful question, I do so. When answers are demanded, not so much. It becomes an interrogation.
mtierney said:
https://nyti.ms/2xsn5Wh
Year and a half in, still dazed...
Mrs Clinton ran a bad campaign and she had/has too much baggage. End of story.
Some of us consider Trump's sexual assault to be baggage, but a lot of people consider it a good thing.
gerritn said:
It is very ironic that the US political system, fearing the "tyranny of the majority", created its own destructor. They created the Electoral College to make sure that the people wouldn't accidentally elect a dangerous populist, but to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” So the only reason that Trump (having lost the popular vote quite decisively) is President, is thanks to the brilliant scholars who created the EC. Goes to show you that these guys (and hence the Constitution itself) are by no means infallible.
Uh, she won...by almost 3 MILLION votes!!!
The fix was in. Even tRump admitted that it was rigged DURING the campaign...
Little did they suspect the electoral college would be reduced to this:
"Electors, although often personally eminent, independent, and respectable, official became voluntary party lackeys and intellectual nonentities to who whose memory we might justly paraphrase a tuneful satire: 'They always voted at their Party's call. And never thought of thinking for themselves at all.' As an institution the Electoral College suffered atrophy almost indistinguishable from rigor mortis." - Supreme Court Justice Jackson
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/opinion/sunday/tradwives-women-alt-right.html
OMG! I am now part of a recognized social movement! Who knew?
From 1954 to 1973, I was wife, homemaker, chief cook and bottle washer, partner, mother of four full time, PTA and JWC presidents, civic volunteer, etc.
Joining the work force, I still kept the old jobs as well 
Lesson learned: if one doesn’t conform to the current party line, one becomes a threat. Wow!
mtierney said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/opinion/sunday/tradwives-women-alt-right.html
OMG! I am now part of a recognized social movement! Who knew?
From 1954 to 1973, I was wife, homemaker, chief cook and bottle washer, partner, mother of four full time, PTA and JWC presidents, civic volunteer, etc.
Joining the work force, I still kept the old jobs as well
Lesson learned: if one doesn’t conform to the current party line, one becomes a threat. Wow!
Did you miss the part of the article that revealed these women are white supremacists?
ml1 said:
mtierney said:Did you miss the part of the article that revealed these women are white supremacists?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/opinion/sunday/tradwives-women-alt-right.html
OMG! I am now part of a recognized social movement! Who knew?
From 1954 to 1973, I was wife, homemaker, chief cook and bottle washer, partner, mother of four full time, PTA and JWC presidents, civic volunteer, etc.
Joining the work force, I still kept the old jobs as well
Lesson learned: if one doesn’t conform to the current party line, one becomes a threat. Wow!
Wow !!!
Who would have known? Might it have been the title? "The Housewives of White Supremacy".
I have often thought that John McCain has help enabling the take-over of the GOP by Trump when he elected Sarah Palin as his running mate. And from his latest book, to his credit, he seems to realize that and regret it. But the article below makes an interesting point that the GOP in general (in this case Boehner) paved the way for Trump to take over, for example by catering to what was then the Tea Party (a bunch of lunatics, but at the time GOP thought they were a useful tool for fighting Obama) https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/01/opinions/republicans-paved-the-way-for-their-own-demise-zelizer/index.html
that is the slant that gives stay at home moms the shive.
The right to chose “traditional homemaker/fulfilled woman” is denigrated — white or black . Are there crazies in this movement? You betcha — as there are in any social change startup .
Homemakers are not “less than” but actually needed more than ever — kids need someone there for them.
mtierney said:
that is the slant that gives stay at home moms the shive.
The right to chose “traditional homemaker/fulfilled woman” is denigrated — white or black . Are there crazies in this movement? You betcha — as there are in any social change startup .
Homemakers are not “less than” but actually needed more than ever — kids need someone there for them.
You need to get out more. I see a lot of very talented women in our towns who have chosen to stay at home when their kids are little. And we all benefit from this because these women do so much for the community as they apply their talents to local concerns. Yes, there are some men too, but it is mostly women.
mtierney said:
The right to chose “traditional homemaker/fulfilled woman” is denigrated
Really? By whom? Where? When? Examples?
(I know, I know)
mtierney said:
that is the slant that gives stay at home moms the shive.
The reason the writer is taking the slant that these stay-at-home moms are white nationalists is this: The article is specifically about stay-at-home moms who are white nationalists.
“But running alongside what could be mistaken for a peculiar style of mommy-vlogging,” she writes, “is a virulent strain of white nationalism.“
In your case, you’ve mistaken the “recognized social movement” of tradwives — the subject of the article you posted — for stay-at-home moms in general.
mtierney said:I respect the office of the presidency and the president and the millions of American voters who made a choice.
An interesting way to phrase things when 3 MILLION more voters chose HRC. Trump may have won the EC with some help from his slavic friends but a questionable EC victory combined with a resounding defeat in the popular vote makes him one of (if not the) least legitimate Presidents in the history of the Union.
mtierney said:
I am not Mr Trump’s confessor, defense attorney or the prosecutor .
You all seem to believe you are judge and jury, however.
Even if we were just to consider the things that Trump HAS PUBLICLY ADMITTED TO, your continued support of this man would be an indication of profound moral bankruptcy.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I think this is a simple question -
Please describe the circumstances where President Obama stopped meeting your expectations.