ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Trump's Easily-Debunked Lie

[ Posted Thursday, February 16th, 2017 – 17:53 PST ]

President Donald Trump gave a press conference today, in which he uttered more than one blatant falsehood. The fact-checkers are, once again, going to have to pull an all-nighter just to keep up with them all. But while they're busy disproving the weightier of these lies, I thought I'd concentrate on just the easiest to debunk. Call me lazy if you will, but this one is just so laughably wrong that it would be downright hilarious if it weren't so obvious that Trump has such a deep-seated need to believe in it.

Donald Trump's victory in the Electoral College was one of the closest wins in American history. It was not "the biggest since Ronald Reagan" at all. It was one of the smallest, in fact, of all time. It was definitely not (as Trump has insisted many times) a "landslide" in any way, shape, or form. He squeaked by, and nothing he says (or believes) is going to change that fact.

America has held 58 presidential elections. This counts every election (including re-elections), which is why this number is higher than the 45 presidents we've had. Since the Electoral College has grown over time (from the 69 who voted in George Washington's first election up to the 538 who voted last year), the only way to adequately compare victories is by percentage.

Donald Trump got 56.5 percent of the Electoral College, for a total of 306 votes out of 538. This means his margin of victory was 6.5 percent. This puts him thirteenth from the bottom on the all-time list. Here are the closest races in American presidential history, in descending order:

32.2% -- [1824] -- John Quincy Adams
50.1% -- [1876] -- Rutherford B. Hayes
50.4% -- [2000] -- George W. Bush
51.4% -- [1796] -- John Adams
52.2% -- [1916] -- Woodrow Wilson
52.9% -- [1800] -- Thomas Jefferson
53.2% -- [2004] -- George W. Bush
54.6% -- [1884] -- Grover Cleveland
55.2% -- [1976] -- Jimmy Carter
55.9% -- [1968] -- Richard Nixon
56.2% -- [1848] -- Zachary Taylor
56.4% -- [1960] -- John F. Kennedy
56.5% -- [2016] -- Donald Trump

There are some notable names on that list, which we'll get to in a moment, but the one thing that sticks out is perhaps the core of Trump's wildly inaccurate claims about his Electoral College victory -- he beat both of George W. Bush's victories. Well, bully for him! But before we get into analyzing relative presidential victories, let's take a look at the other end of that list -- the biggest Electoral College victories of all time. Here are the top ten:

100.0% -- [1789] -- George Washington
100.0% -- [1792] -- George Washington
99.6% -- [1820] -- James Monroe
98.5% -- [1936] -- Franklin D. Roosevelt
97.6% -- [1984] -- Ronald Reagan
96.7% -- [1972] -- Richard Nixon
92.0% -- [1804] -- Thomas Jefferson
91.0% -- [1864] -- Abraham Lincoln
90.9% -- [1980] -- Ronald Reagan
90.3% -- [1964] -- Lyndon B. Johnson

Those are some pretty spectacular landslides. George Washington got every single Electoral College vote -- twice! Nobody's ever going to beat that record, one assumes. James Monroe also would have swept the board if it hadn't been for one "unfaithful elector" from New Hampshire; but then again, he ran unopposed, so this victory isn't as impressive as it first might seem. F.D.R. was only eight votes shy of a blowout in 1936. Reagan came within 13 votes in his second election, and 49 votes in his first -- also a pretty spectacular two-time record. One footnote for the Lincoln win: 1864 was in the midst of the Civil War, so none of the Southern states even had electors, which is really why Lincoln's re-election was so lopsided. And L.B.J. was elected a year after J.F.K. had been assassinated, so he was still riding a pretty big wave of sympathy.

Two names are of particular note, because they appear on both lists. This is a measure of how a president can get elected in very divided times and then bring the country together behind him. Thomas Jefferson and Richard Nixon both started off with razor-thin margins, but then got re-elected in landslides. In Jefferson's case, you can see how closely divided the country was because the 1796 and the 1800 elections were both so close. The 1800 election was the first to get thrown into the House of Representatives, because the Electoral College result was in dispute (both candidates got 73 Electoral Votes, despite the fact that the Electoral College was only supposed to have 138 people in it). But then in 1804, the Federalist Party was beaten decisively in Jefferson's re-election.

Looking at the rest of the list of the closest victories, there are a few historical comments worth making. The election of 1824 was a complete fiasco from beginning to end. No candidate won an Electoral College majority, and four candidates got some Electoral College votes. The candidate who got the most Electoral College votes was Andrew Jackson, but John Quincy Adams met with the Speaker of the House before the House voted, and during the meeting may have struck what was later called a "Corrupt Bargain" to throw the votes his way. Jackson raged about this corrupt deal for four years, and rode the issue right into the White House in 1828. But because the presidential election was thrown to the House, Adams won with only 32.2 percent of the total Electoral College vote, making him the only president in history with a negative margin of victory. The election of 1876 was probably the most contentious in all of American history, with another rather corrupt bargain struck to hand Rutherford B. Hayes the victory, even though Samuel Tilden won the popular vote. This bargain also ended Reconstruction in the South, adding to its contentiousness. And then, of course, we all remember the Bush v. Gore election, which was the most contentious in modern times.

The point, though, is that there are some very prominent presidents with closer victories than Trump. There's fodder for bragging there, even if you stick to the facts. Although Trump's victory was only the 46th biggest (out of 58), he can still accurately say he beat both of Dubya's records. He can boast his victory was bigger than Thomas Jefferson's first election, and he'd be right. That's a pretty powerful name right there. Trump could brag he'd beaten both Adamses, father and son. Jimmy Carter's always a favorite for Republicans to demean, so Trump could favorably compare his victory to Carter's and still be on solid factual ground. His election was slightly bigger than J.F.K.'s, another impressively memorable president. J.F.K.'s election was a cliffhanger, which was only decided when the final state counted its votes.

What Trump cannot get away with, however, is any suggestion that he's even in the same league as Ronald Reagan. Or anyone else other than George W. Bush, counting back to Reagan. Trump got 306 Electoral College votes. Barack Obama got 332 in 2012 and an impressive 365 in 2008. You can quibble about his second win, but the first one was a definite landslide -- almost 100 votes more than Obama needed to win. Obama's victory percentages were 61.7 and 67.8 percent of the total Electoral College vote, putting him in 32nd and 37th place on the all-time list, or near the middle of the pack.

To suggest that Trump did better than George H. W. Bush is ludicrous, because the first Bush got a whopping 426 Electoral College votes, a victory of 79.2 percent, and the 22nd-best of all time. Now that's what a landslide looks like, to state the obvious. Ronald Reagan topped 90 percent both times, and won 49 states in his second election. Stacked up against any of these three victories, Trump's looks pretty small indeed.

So Trump didn't (as he claimed again today) win a bigger victory in the Electoral College than "anyone since Reagan." Obama beat him twice, after all. Trump didn't even meet the standards for the claim when it was first made, as "a bigger victory than any Republican since Reagan," since the first Bush's victory was such a landslide. Trump's victory looks very small indeed stacked up to any of the three elections Trump so conveniently forgets, in fact.

Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote. But he didn't win a "landslide" by any stretch of the imagination. He won more votes than George W. Bush ever managed -- that is the one bragging point Trump can honestly make. He beat Dubya, it is a fact. But in the past century, the only other presidents Trump beat on this score were Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon's first election, and John F. Kennedy. That's it. Those are the facts. Someone really needs to sit Donald Trump down and explain this to him, so he won't fall so flat on his face when asked about it again. I mean, some political lies are hard to debunk or interpret, but this one is the easiest one of all to disprove. Every time Trump lies about it just brings attention to the fact that Trump's victory margin was so small, in fact.

[Correction: This article has been corrected. When I originally wrote it I actually took Trump at his word that he got 306 Electoral College votes. This was a foolish thing to do (for obvious reasons), because the truth is he only got 304 votes. This gives him only 56.5 percent of the total, although I had initially reported it as 56.9 percent. The change does not move Trump's victory margin in the overall list, though, he is still 13th from the bottom out of 58. I apologize for the error, and promise I'll never take Trump's word for anything again before rigorously fact-checking it.]

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

188 Comments on “Trump's Easily-Debunked Lie”

  1. [1] 
    neilm wrote:

    There you go with facts and logic again CW.

    Michale - tell us again how 45's approval rating is phenomenal and increasing.

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    A very interesting "Thinking Allowed" podcast on "Terrorism - Does it Work?"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08dnwrp

    The podcast is based on a book by Richard English, a Belfast-born professor of politics at the University of St Andrews "Does Terrorism Work?".

    I'll post a link to a review in the Guardian on the following post.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    Review of above book:

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jul/24/does-terrorism-work-history-review-richard-english

    TLDR; No, primary objective are seldom achieved, but secondary objectives are.

  4. [4] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I think NBC's Peter Alexander deserves recognition for holding Trump's feet to the fire regarding Trump's lies.

    Alexander, a correspondent for NBC News, sought to correct Trump on those figures, and pressed him to explain how he could call reporting by outlets like The New York Times and CNN “fake news” while using inaccurate figures himself.

    “Why should Americans trust you?” asked Alexander.

    “I was given that information,” Trump said, cutting Alexander off. “I don’t know. I was just given it. We had a very, very big margin.”

    “Why should Americans trust you when you accuse the information they receive of being fake, when you provide information that’s not accurate?” Alexander asked.

    “I was given that information,” said Trump. “Actually, I’ve seen that information around. But it was a very substantial victory. Do you agree with that?”

    “You’re the president,” Alexander replied.

    "I was given that information." By whom? Whoever gave you that info needs to be fired for providing you with dishonest numbers. They are making you look like a HUGE idiot, so you definitely need to purge them from your staff.

    "I've seen that information around." Yeah, they just all happen to be previous articles quoting your same lies on the subject matter.

    Here is the most pitiful part of it all:

    But it was a very substantial victory. Do you agree with that?

    Trump is desperate for praise! Someone pat him on the head and tell him how great he is, quick!!! And Alexander's response could not have been better! Instead of answering the question how Trump so desperately wanted him to, Alexander simply states, "You're the president." A very substantial snub!

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Correction Note

    This article has now been corrected. Fool that I am, I took Trump's word that he had won 306 EV. He didn't -- he only got 304. Just goes to show you should never trust anything that comes out of Trump's mouth.

    Mea culpa.

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    I love history. Facts are such irrefutable things, and the numbers don't lie. Remember, 45 had 2 faithless electors... 45 doesn't!

    Oh, come on. Where is 45's "really big brain" when he needs it? He feigns ignorance when he's called out on his repetitive "landslide" lies yet hurls insult after insult at the press for lying and a myriad of other whining complaints. I have never seen such a pathetic display at a press conference in my entire life. Surreal.

    PT is the bigliest big league sore winner I remember in my lifetime; he really needs to get over the election.

  7. [7] 
    TheStig wrote:

    It was bound to happen, but I saw the term Trumpgate for the first time today.

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    So Trump informs the Ninth Circuit he will rescind his travel ban. Trump will not seek review from the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court... at least not in Washington v. Trump.

    No surprise there.

    "See you in court." Where I will concede. LOL :)

  9. [9] 
    MHorton wrote:

    What he doesn't get about the "repeat a lie enough times" thing is that it only works if you control the flow of information.

  10. [10] 
    MHorton wrote:

    Plus, he's going to run into an old axiom.

    "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    MHorton,

    Brought forward from the previous commentary...

    The right sees value in conformity and order, the left sees value in rebellion and change.

    Where the problem happens is that they each forget the other is ALSO right.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with left/right tension; to me, that's the perfect government. We need progressives to dream, to think big; to see the world the way it should be, not the way it is.

    And we need conservatives to make sure we don't end up homeless in the process.

    Winning has become more important than doing what needs to be done, and that's the one and only problem that really stands before us. 45 is a walking example of the idea that you should win at all costs.

    That is one of the most awesomest, logical, rational, even handed and dead on balls accurate comments I have ever read..

    Kudos...

    "And I don't impress easily.. WOW!!!! A BLUE CAR!!!!"
    -Homer Simpson

    :D

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    There you go with facts and logic again CW.

    Michale - tell us again how 45's approval rating is phenomenal and increasing.

    I just did in the previous commentary..

    RASMUSSEN has President Trump at 55%... :D

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    The fact-checkers are, once again, going to have to pull an all-nighter just to keep up with them all.

    The problem is that all the Fact Checkers that are reported are all Anti-Trumpers and have PROVEN that they will lie to push their agenda..

    As such, it doesn't mean squat..

    Who are patriotic Americans going to believe???

    President Trump??

    Or the lying media who has flat out STATED that their job is to take down Trump????

    I'll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count..

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    Off topic Request For Assistance..

    Is there any easy way to set up Windows 10 to automatically reboot at a given time???

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    Donald Trump's victory in the Electoral College was one of the closest wins in American history. It was not "the biggest since Ronald Reagan" at all.

    It was if you consider the context...

    All of your stats and such fail to take into account the context of this election.

    And, in that context, President Trump's win was a HUGE landslide victory..

    This is undeniably factual..

    This article has now been corrected. Fool that I am, I took Trump's word that he had won 306 EV. He didn't -- he only got 304. Just goes to show you should never trust anything that comes out of Trump's mouth.

    Mea culpa.

    Only because of faithless scumbag electors.. The fact is President Trump won 306 electoral votes..

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    I love history. Facts are such irrefutable things, and the numbers don't lie. Remember, 45 had 2 faithless electors... 45 doesn't!

    I also remember that NOT-45 had MORE faithless electors than President Trump..

    No one else here remembers that.. :D

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    Mhorton,

    That is one of the most awesomest, logical, rational, even handed and dead on balls accurate comments I have ever read..

    Kudos...

    And that's in a forum that is replete with most awesomest, logical, rational, even handed and dead on balls accurate comments... :D

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    So Trump informs the Ninth Circuit he will rescind his travel ban. Trump will not seek review from the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court... at least not in Washington v. Trump.

    That's because President Trump is going to release another travel restriction order early next week..

    An order that will take into account all the legal issues the Left Wingery had AND will likely add MORE terrorist countries to the mix.. :D

    The Left got played... BIG TIME... :D

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    What he doesn't get about the "repeat a lie enough times" thing is that it only works if you control the flow of information.

    Exactly!!

    And that's why the media's anti-Trump lies are so insidious and dangerous..

    Because the media controls the flow of information..

    But that is changing and changing fast.. By using twitter and rallies, President Trump is going directly to the American people...

    And while many here may cherry pick polls and gleefully point to President Trump's low numbers in those cherry picked polls, the fact is that, based on the ONLY poll that matters around these here parts, President Trump's job approval numbers are steadily rising....

    PLUS there is the fact that, as dismal as many here THINK President Trump's poll numbers are, the FACT is that the media's poll numbers and honesty numbers are much much MUCH worse than President Trump's...

    This is fact...

    So, in a battle of trust between President Trump and the media...???

    President Trump wins in a landslide... :D

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    And Alexander's response could not have been better! Instead of answering the question how Trump so desperately wanted him to, Alexander simply states, "You're the president." A very substantial snub!

    I agree.. Alexander DID get a very substantial snub..

    President Trump forced Alexander to utter words that I am certain grates on Alexander's nerves..

    President Trump forced Alexander to say, "You're the president"

    Alexander probably HATED to have to say it, but he was forced to concede that on national television..

    :D

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    In an effort to create our own "graph" of the RCP POLL OF POLLS President Trump Job Approval rating, I have decided to post the numbers here..

    That way we will always have a reference... Hopefully RCP will get off their asses and install a graph soon..

    Yesterday when we were discussing this, President Trump's JA rating was at 44.9...

    It's taken a slight downward jaunt overnight and is currently at 44.6, a .3 point drop..

    So, we'll see how it fares thru the day and the coming weeks...

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    The problem is that all the Fact Checkers that are reported are all Anti-Trumpers and have PROVEN that they will lie to push their agenda..

    The problem is 45 is anti-facts. He is a fact torturer, and poor fact checkers are just trying to alleviate the pain.

    But really, this is just cognitive dissonance Michale - 45 lies constantly and has done since July 2015 - but that isn't something the fanboys can accept, so they construct a myth that 45 is always factual and everybody else is out to get him.

    This is Alex Jones level of thinking.

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    The problem is 45 is anti-facts.

    No, not at all..

    President Trump is anti-MEDIA-facts..

    And THAT is because the media has PROVEN that they are anti-Trump first, Democrats second and journalists a distant third..

    But really, this is just cognitive dissonance Michale - 45 lies constantly and has done since July 2015 -

    And President Obama lied constantly. Yet the vast majority here had NO PROBLEM with those lies..

    Which shows that it's not LYING that is the issue.. It's the fact that it's a guy with a '-R' after his name who is doing the lying...

    but that isn't something the fanboys can accept, so they construct a myth that 45 is always factual and everybody else is out to get him.

    Then you just proved that I am NOT a fanboy because I concede that that President Trump DOES lie. :D

    But so what?? ALL presidents lie..

    You didn't have a problem with President Obama lying..

    Why should you have a problem with President Trump lying??

    Because the lying isn't the issue.. It's the fact that a Republican (in name only) is doing the lying..

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    President Trump is anti-MEDIA-facts..

    The media aren't talking about the election results - 45 is. And CW just wrote a column that addressed one, just one, of 45's whoppers.

    Are you contending that 45 never lies?

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    You didn't have a problem with President Obama lying..

    Why should you have a problem with President Trump lying??

    Oh, really. Point out one time I said Obama lied and it was OK.

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    Here are some lies that I want you to tell me are not lies Michale:

    1. CW's column above - is CW lying or is 45?

    2. Is the murder rate in our country the highest it has been in 47 years?

    3. Are terrorist attacks in the United States not being reported?

    4. Are only Muslim refugees allowed in to the U.S. but Christian ones blocked?

    5. Was the inauguration audience the largest ever?

    These are just a sample of claims since 45 was inaugurated. Are all 5 true?

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    So I read through 45's remarkable presser - the man is unhinged.

    He lives in a world I see fairly frequently - the 19th hole world. This is the world of the big talkers who accept any story that they like as fact and dismiss the rest as "you can't believe everything you read in the papers". Solutions to difficult problems have simple answers and everybody else is stupid.

    One of the things I look forward to in retirement is never having to have to deal with the 19th hole world again.

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    1. CW's column above - is CW lying or is 45?

    CW is mistaken... :D

    2. Is the murder rate in our country the highest it has been in 47 years?

    Wouldn't surprise me...

    3. Are terrorist attacks in the United States not being reported?

    Considering the STATED anti President Trump bias in the media, it wouldn't surprise me..

    4. Are only Muslim refugees allowed in to the U.S. but Christian ones blocked?

    Under President Obama, it sure looked that way...

    5. Was the inauguration audience the largest ever?

    Depends on what time the picture was taken.. I wouldn't put it past the MSM to lie and manipulate the facts.. :D

    Remember how NBC doctored the George Zimmerman audio??

    Now here's one for you..

    Did media journalists STATE that it was their duty to stop Trump??

    Yes... Yes they did...

    He lives in a world I see fairly frequently - the 19th hole world. This is the world of the big talkers who accept any story that they like as fact and dismiss the rest as "you can't believe everything you read in the papers". Solutions to difficult problems have simple answers and everybody else is stupid.

    And yet.... And yet... And yet...

    He has been HUGELY successful in business... He had beat 17 well versed and well traveled politicians... He DECIMATED the biggest, meanest, most well funded political campaign juggernaut in the history of the planet..

    So, on the one hand, we have your biased partisan opinion...

    And on the other hand, we have the FACTS, which paint a totally different picture of our President....

    So, who should I believe??

    You, because you're a friend??

    Or the facts because they are, well, the facts...

    I'll be honest and admit it's a tough choice.. :D

    "I could use a good ass-kicking, I'll be very honest with you..."
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    So I read through 45's remarkable presser - the man is unhinged.

    Wasn't it awesome!!!

    I laughed my ass off..

    To see the MSM totally body-slammed to the mat over and over and over again...

    LOVED IT!!!! :D

    It's like seeing President Jack Ryan in action... :D

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    Wouldn't surprise me...

    Well with that level of rigor ...

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    Tell the truth... If President Obama had done that to the press... You would have been saying the EXACT same things I said in #29.... :D

    You just have to realize that more than a few anti-Trump Left Wingers HAD to have enjoyed the hell out of seeing the MSM slapped down like the putrid smelling lapdogs they are... :D

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    1. CW's column above - is CW lying or is 45?

    CW is mistaken... :D

    Or, to be more accurate CW is not viewing the data in it's proper context...

    Neither is anyone else...

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    LOVED IT!!!! :D

    It's like seeing President Jack Ryan in action... :D

    That says it all. It doesn't matter that 45 lied, just that the theater was entertaining. And no, if Obama had done this I'd have been deeply disappointed.

  34. [34] 
    michale wrote:

    And no, if Obama had done this I'd have been deeply disappointed.

    You say that now.. But there was enough Fanboy cheering when Obama slammed down the press to know that the Left would have LOVED it if Obama did what Trump did to the MSM...

    :D

    It doesn't matter that 45 lied, just that the theater was entertaining

    Yer still taking President Trump literally, not seriously..

    It's that attitude that won the election from the President...

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    From the previous commentary..

    It seems to me that talking about what the Democrats - or should I say, politicians, in general, of any stripe - need to do in terms of motivating "their base" is old, left/right thinking that get us nowhere, fast.

    The base, on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, is useless..

    It's fanatics and true believers who's way of thinking (MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY) never accomplishes anything..

    It's the middle, the place that most of us here are at.... THAT is where things get done and good things happen...

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    Or, to be more accurate CW is not viewing the data in it's proper context...

    Really? So 304 EV is the biggest win since Reagan?

    Or do you mean it is the win that made you happiest since Reagan? Isn't that the context?

    45 lies constantly. He lies about easy to verify subjects. He lies like no other person I've ever seen lie. His defenders know it so they try to deflect blame (inventing unfair fact checkers and their pesky unfair facts) or create a bizarro world where he isn't lying.

    Just own it and cut the crap.

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    Really? So 304 EV is the biggest win since Reagan?

    Considering it was expected that President Trump would get ZERO EV, yea... 306 EV is the biggest win since Reagan..

    Context... It's all about context...

    45 lies constantly.

    So did Obama.. So did NOT-45... You never had a problem with any of that..

    So you don't have a moral platform to condemn President Trump's lies..

    He lies like no other person I've ever seen lie.

    And so did Obama and so did NOT-45.....

    Just own it and cut the crap.

    I already have... I don't care if President Trump lies about unimportant crap..

    My point is that you don't care about the lying either.. You just care that it's someone with an '-R' after their name who is the one lying...

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    My point is that you don't care about the lying either.. You just care that it's someone with an '-R' after their name who is the one lying...

    The facts that prove this are conclusive...

  39. [39] 
    neilm wrote:

    I care about the truth a lot more than the -X after somebody's name. An attempt at false equivalency is noted - however 45 lies more in one press conference than any other politician I've heard lie in the whole of 2016.

    I get you don't care. But that means that you don't care about the truth. Your choice.

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    Or, to be more accurate CW is not viewing the data in it's proper context...

    No, you're just trolling here. And you know it. And I know it. No worries.

    Next.

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    This not a laughing matter. I'm sorry, delegitimizing the press is unAmerican
    -Chuck Todd

    Suck it, Chuck..

    Attempting to de-legitimize the President Of The United States is worser unAmerican...

    You have no moral or ethical leg to stand on, Todd....

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    No, you're just trolling here. And you know it. And I know it. No worries.

    TRANSLATION: I have no logical or rational response and concede the round to you.

    I get it.. It's OK... :D

    I care about the truth a lot more than the -X after somebody's name.

    Your actions belay that claim...

    Where is your unprompted condemnation of Obama's lies or NOT-45's lies??

    If you can show me that, I will gladly retract my conclusion and issue directly and personally unto you, a heartfelt and sincere apology...

    Until then, I gots to calls em as I sees em...

    I get you don't care. But that means that you don't care about the truth. Your choice.

    Yer absolutely right..

    I *DON'T* care about the truth.. Because the truth is subjective... It's the Left Wingery's "truth" that NOT-45 won the election...

    Facts are what matters.. Facts in the proper context matters more..

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    is worser unAmerican...

    Have a ball with that one.. :D

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    Sorry media — this press conference played very different with Trump’s supporters
    http://nypost.com/2017/02/16/sorry-media-this-press-conference-played-very-different-with-trumps-supporters/

    You see?? It's ALL about the context...

    Corporatists, globalists open-border elitests HATED President Trump's Press Conference...

    Patriotic Americans LOVED it...

    Those in the middle likely loved seeing the Lame Stream Media skewered six ways from Sunday..

    I expect a bump in Trump's Job Approval... :D

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump’s detractors immediately panned the show as madness, but they missed the method behind it and proved they still don’t understand his appeal. Facing his first crisis in the Oval Office, he was unbowed in demonstrating his bare-knuckled intention to fight back.

    He did it his way. Certainly no other president, and few politicians at any level in any time, would dare put on a show like that.

    In front of cameras, and using the assembled press corps as props, he conducted a televised revival meeting to remind his supporters that he is still the man they elected. Ticking off a lengthy list of executive orders and other actions he has taken, he displayed serious fealty to his campaign promises.

    Sure, sentences didn’t always end on the same topic they started with, and his claim to have won the election by the largest electoral college margin since Ronald Reagan wasn’t close to true.

    Fair points, but so what? Fact-checkers didn’t elect him, nor did voters who were happy with the status quo.

    Trump, first, last and always, matches the mood of the discontented. Like them, he is a bull looking for a china shop. That’s his ace in the hole and he played it almost to perfection.

    Yep, definitely a bump in the JA rating.. :D

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump’s detractors immediately panned the show as madness, but they missed the method behind it and proved they still don’t understand his appeal.

    Oh I totally get his appeal. He gives a big middle finger to people his supporters don't like. I'm just one of those people - you know, people that expect decency and facts from their elected officials.

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    Yep, definitely a bump in the JA rating.. :D

    For the record, that is NOT the JackAss rating.. heh :D

  48. [48] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh I totally get his appeal. He gives a big middle finger to people his supporters don't like.

    No, you DON'T get his appeal...

    President Trump gives the middle finger to those who DESERVE to get the middle finger and, due to rampant political correctness, never got the middle finger they so richly deserve...

    THAT is the appeal of President Trump...

    I'm just one of those people - you know, people that expect decency and facts from their elected officials.

    But ONLY the elected officials who have '-R's after their names...

    There is no evidence to support the claim that you expect decency and facts from elected officials who have '-D's after their names...

    Or, to be more accurate, there is no evidence that you CARE if you don't get decency and facts from elected officials with '-D's after their names...

    I know, I know.. You have denied that this is the case.. But you have laid out no facts to support the denial.. Ergo, I go where the facts take me, unpleasant as that may be for the both of us...

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    I know, I know.. You have denied that this is the case.. But you have laid out no facts to support the denial.. Ergo, I go where the facts take me, unpleasant as that may be for the both of us...

    In other words, I would LOVE to groveingly crawl on the floor, waddle over to you and give you a sincere and public apology for my wrong conclusion...

    But I am going to need FACTS to support that..

    I am sure you understand....

  50. [50] 
    neilm wrote:

    President Trump gives the middle finger to those who DESERVE to get the middle finger and, due to rampant political correctness, never got the middle finger they so richly deserve...

    So I do get it. All the people you believe should get a middle finger are getting one from 45. That is his primary appeal, and it is so gut-wrenchingly emotional that the fanboys will overlook anything and everything so long as he comes out on stage once in a while and performs for them.

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    So I do get it. All the people you believe should get a middle finger are getting one from 45. That is his primary appeal, and it is so gut-wrenchingly emotional that the fanboys will overlook anything

    No, not overlook ANYTHING...

    But exaggerating the size of an inaugural crowd?? Exaggerating the scope of his electoral win??

    Yea, I am going to overlook that... :^/

  52. [52] 
    neilm wrote:

    45's Fine Tuned Machine Watch - Filling the 696 Key Confirmation Positions

    2/16:

    Nobody even nominated .. 661
    Nominated but not confirmed .. 23
    Confirmed .. 12

    2/17

    Nobody even nominated .. 662
    Nominated but not confirmed .. 21
    Confirmed .. 13

    So, we've made some progress, one more person confirmed = 13/696

    But in an feat only 45 could achieve, we have gone from 661 posts without even a suggested candidate to 662.

    Fine Tuned Machine Rating: D-

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    If there was one takeaway from President Trump’s first news conference Thursday, it was this: the president will hold more of them.

    He loved it, and Americans who voted for Donald Trump may have enjoyed it, too. And that was the point.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/02/16/defending_rocky_start_trump_regains_his_mojo.html

    Yep... That was EXACTLY the point..

    And if ya don't get the point, then ya STILL don't get President Trump...

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    45's Fine Tuned Machine Watch - Filling the 696 Key Confirmation Positions

    2/16:

    Nobody even nominated .. 661
    Nominated but not confirmed .. 23
    Confirmed .. 12

    2/17

    Nobody even nominated .. 662
    Nominated but not confirmed .. 21
    Confirmed .. 13

    So, we've made some progress, one more person confirmed = 13/696

    But in an feat only 45 could achieve, we have gone from 661 posts without even a suggested candidate to 662.

    Fine Tuned Machine Rating: D-

    And President Obama's stats were about the same or worse at this time in his presidency..

    Did anyone complain about that???

    {{chhhiiirrrrpppppp}} {{{ccchhhiiiirrrrppppp}}}

    Not a single complaint could be heard from the Left or from Weigantians..

    President Trump is doing remarkably well for someone who has never held a political office, let alone the highest office in the world...

    He deserves a little slack and grace period.. But everyone on the Left is loathe to give him that.

    Ya'all are judging based on regular politician criteria.. And that's why ya'all are constantly wrong...

  55. [55] 
    neilm wrote:

    Uber-President Bannon just informed Secretary of State Tillerson that he would pick the Deputy Secretary of State for Tillerson after Bannon's minion and orange hand-puppet rejected Tillerson choice Elliot Abrams because he had written a scathing article.

    You can't make this up.

  56. [56] 
    neilm wrote:

    And President Obama's stats were about the same or worse at this time in his presidency..

    Oh really, care to post a link?

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    But exaggerating the size of an inaugural crowd?? Exaggerating the scope of his electoral win??

    Yea, I am going to overlook that... :^/

    Nothing President Trump has done to date warrants the kind of bigotry, hatred and rancor we have see from the Globalists, Corporatists, Open Border Elitists and the Lame Stream Media...

    Ergo, the *ONLY* logical and rational conclusion that is possible is that this is all nothing but rank and smelly partisan politics at work...

    That's it...

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh really, care to post a link?

    If I have the time, I will... But knowing that any link I post will be ignored, there really isn't much incentive for me to do so.. I mean, if there was a history of people conceding points when the facts prove them wrong (JM, Listen et al) then I would have an incentive to do so...

    But there's not, so I don't....

    But I still might. Just depends on how busy I am this weekend... :D

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    Uber-President Bannon just informed Secretary of State Tillerson that he would pick the Deputy Secretary of State for Tillerson after Bannon's minion and orange hand-puppet rejected Tillerson choice Elliot Abrams because he had written a scathing article.

    Oh really, care to post a link??

    heh :D

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    http://circa.com/politics/doj-also-target-of-president-trumps-call-for-investigations-into-leaks

    And WHO was just shit-canned from the DOJ???

    Smells like a Democrat Rat in the woodpile.. :D

  61. [61] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    CW is right about the number of electors.

    either you accept the electoral college as the flawed system it is, or you don't. donald complaining about the validity of faithless electors is exactly the same as hillary supporters complaining about the electoral votes in general. either we accept the system as it is, or we scrap it for a new one. the system as it is gave donald the win with 304, and given the range of alternatives, i think he and his supporters ought to be happy about it.

    JL

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    either you accept the electoral college as the flawed system it is, or you don't. donald complaining about the validity of faithless electors is exactly the same as hillary supporters complaining about the electoral votes in general.

    Agreed..

    the system as it is gave donald the win with 304, and given the range of alternatives, i think he and his supporters ought to be happy about it.

    Oh we are, we are...

    We just don't like it when the anti-Trumpers try to rewrite recent history or cherry pick the facts that makes it worse..

    Present company excepted, of course.. :D

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh, really. Point out one time I said Obama lied and it was OK.

    You said it was "OK" by omission..

    If you constantly denigrate and castigate a guy with an -R after their name for doing something and then remain silent when a guy with a -D after their name does the EXACT SAME THING, what is the ONLY logical and rational conclusion???

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    Linguistic Lesson..

    What is it "AN -R" but it's "A -D"???

  65. [65] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    irrespective of other anti-trump people, CW isn't rewriting history or cherry-picking facts, he's laying out all the facts and pointing out the discrepancy between the president's reality and real reality.

  66. [66] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump's claim of inheriting a mess is as stupid as The Menendez Brothers claiming they are orphans.

  67. [67] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @64,

    the word "r" is pronounced "are" which begins with a vowel sound. the word "d" is pronounced "dee" which begins with a consonant sound. that's why.

    JL

  68. [68] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump's incoherent press conference suggests he may actually know a thing or two about incredibly cheap street drugs

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    irrespective of other anti-trump people, CW isn't rewriting history or cherry-picking facts, he's laying out all the facts and pointing out the discrepancy between the president's reality and real reality.

    But he is doing so without any context... That's my point..

    the word "r" is pronounced "are" which begins with a vowel sound. the word "d" is pronounced "dee" which begins with a consonant sound. that's why.

    Ahhhh That makes sense.. Thanx. :D

  70. [70] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Here's a good headline:

    Navy Seal Declines Job of Circus Seal

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump's incoherent press conference suggests he may actually know a thing or two about incredibly cheap street drugs

    That's an opinion that is influenced more by partisan ideology than anything else..

    Granted, the supporters of the president are also influenced..

    By patriotism...

    One is good, one is bad.. :D

  72. [72] 
    neilm wrote:

    But knowing that any link I post will be ignored, there really isn't much incentive for me to do so.

    Just post the link and save us the snowflake analysis.

    I'll read it - that is your problem - I do read your attempts to source your alternative facts.

  73. [73] 
    neilm wrote:
  74. [74] 
    neilm wrote:
  75. [75] 
    neilm wrote:

    Links provided, now, let's see yours before you comment on those - i.e. no trying to distract

  76. [76] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    the context CW provides extensive, perhaps even excessive, all the way from george washington to john quincy adams. i believe your objection is not with the context, it's with the conclusion.

    a correct and positively spun conclusion would be that it was a historic upset. truman v. dewey, the most historic of upsets, wasn't a landslide, it was an upset. if the president isn't comfortable working within the context of reality, he should draw conclusions that are more factually supported.

    JL

  77. [77] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump's incoherent press conference suggests he may actually know a thing or two about incredibly cheap street drugs

    Probably the influence of the Secret Service - I'm surprised 45 hasn't had to visit Cartegena for a few fact-finding weekends.

  78. [78] 
    MHorton wrote:

    Michale, after a whole day of doing well, once again you begin trolling with your lies.

    Once again you're going to slander anyone who doesn't support 45 completely as unpatriotic.

    Quit lying, and quit trolling. It doesn't matter what people EXPECTED. 45's claim that his win was largest since Reagan is a lie.

    It might have been the most unexpected. The most surprising.

    But it was in no way, shape or form, the largest win.

    It appears to me the reason you like him is because he's like you; a lying troll.

    Quit lying and quit trolling; you've proven you can do better, so do it.

    You can't say "everyone who supports 45 is a patriot and therefore has the moral high ground"

    That's just not true, and it's propaganda.

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    if the president isn't comfortable working within the context of reality

    if?

  80. [80] 
    MHorton wrote:

    I'm just going to put this here.

    All these "What about Obama" lines are literally a Soviet propaganda technique.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

  81. [81] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Harry S. Truman is a much more favorable comparison to make anyway. incidentally, truman won 303 electoral votes, 1 fewer than trump, but won by a larger margin because strom thurmond won a few electoral votes, leaving dewey with fewer than 200.

    JL

  82. [82] 
    TheStig wrote:

    From my perspective, the most bizarre portion of Trump's press conference was his handling of the question from the Ami Magazine reporter. It was a T-ball of a question: he should have been able to hit it out of the park, grinning, nodding waving to the crowd as he minces around the bases like a more overweight Babe Ruth. Instead, he whiffs it - and in effect, charges the mound. Trump has severe comprehension/anger management problems. This is nothing new, but the problem isn't getting any better. Slow learner. Sad.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/donald-trump-news-conference-anti-semitism/

  83. [83] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @neil [79]

    touche

    JL

  84. [84] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale, after a whole day of doing well, once again you begin trolling with your lies.

    This is the tell - when the trolling starts you know the mental wheels are coming off from dealing with the excessive cognitive dissonance - doubly so in this case; (1) trying to keep convincing himself that 45 isn't a pathological liar despite overwhelming evidence AND (2) trying to square the "great businessman" belief with the incoherent babbling all through the presser.

  85. [85] 
    neilm wrote:

    All these "What about Obama" lines are literally a Soviet propaganda technique.

    Another tell - when Michale can't defend a point you know you've won when he brings up an Obama false equivalence.

    45 has basically the same tell - he reverts to bragging about the election and bashing Hillary.

  86. [86] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @MH [78],

    it's perfectly acceptable to point out michale's inaccurate statements, and there are many, but i don't believe he name-called you. please don't start up with this again.

    JL

  87. [87] 
    neilm wrote:

    TS [82] - that was really bizarre - why doesn't he just clear the room and get Sean Hannity and the Fox Five to lob safe questions he has already seen at him?

    He could put a few others at the back of the room as hate bait and not call on any of their questions.

  88. [88] 
    michale wrote:

    MHorton

    Do we REALLY want to start this up again?? :^/

    Michale, after a whole day of doing well, once again you begin trolling with your lies.

    Which lie was that..

    Once again you're going to slander anyone who doesn't support 45 completely as unpatriotic.

    That's an opinion that is factually supported...

    Quit lying, and quit trolling. It doesn't matter what people EXPECTED. 45's claim that his win was largest since Reagan is a lie.

    It most certainly DOES matter what was expected..

    If we are in a contest where I am expected to LOSE with ZERO points and I end up winning with 306 points, that is, indeed, a landslide of sorts..

    Is it spin?? Yes..

    Is it accurate?? Yes..

    You can't say "everyone who supports 45 is a patriot and therefore has the moral high ground"

    Yes I can and I have the facts to support it..

  89. [89] 
    TheStig wrote:

    87-

    The short answer: Trump is a putz. He is slow witted. His itchy trigger finger is a compensation mechanism.

  90. [90] 
    michale wrote:

    I'll ask again...

    If someone constantly denigrates and castigates a guy with an -R after their name for doing something and then remains silent when a guy with a -D after their name does the EXACT SAME THING, what is the ONLY logical and rational conclusion???

    The ONLY logical and rational conclusion is that LYING is not really a problem for said someone...

    It's WHO is doing the lying that is the point..

    A logical and rational conclusion, logically and rationally arrived at..

    I always seem to get attacked when I ask questions that no one wants to answer.. :D

  91. [91] 
    michale wrote:

    He is slow witted.

    Once again, the FACTS say something COMPLETELY different...

  92. [92] 
    michale wrote:

    Another tell - when Michale can't defend a point you know you've won when he brings up an Obama false equivalence.

    And when YOU get caught in political bigotry, you lash out to avoid answering the question.. :D

    We all have our little foibles.. :D

  93. [93] 
    michale wrote:

    a correct and positively spun conclusion would be that it was a historic upset. truman v. dewey, the most historic of upsets, wasn't a landslide, it was an upset.

    I can accept that distinction..

  94. [94] 
    neilm wrote:

    If someone constantly denigrates and castigates a guy with an -R after their name for doing something and then remains silent when a guy with a -D after their name does the EXACT SAME THING, what is the ONLY logical and rational conclusion???

    That you are suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance.

    Heard of Hans Christian Andersen? He wrote a little story you need to read.

  95. [95] 
    neilm wrote:

    He is slow witted.

    Once again, the FACTS say something COMPLETELY different...

    Yes, he is also half-witted.

  96. [96] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @JL I'm not name calling. I'm using terms that factually describe what's going on.

    He's lying and trolling. Why are you so insistent on defending him, when it's clear what he's doing?

    He's insulted all of us here, in a backhanded fashion, by calling us unpatriotic and basically traitors for questioning their lies.

    He's a liar and a troll. I'll say it every single time I see it.

    You want to keep it off these comments? Talk to your boy.

  97. [97] 
    neilm wrote:

    And when YOU get caught in political bigotry, you lash out to avoid answering the question.. :D

    Oh I know I'm a political bigot. Happy to accept that charge. But that doesn't explain why CW could write a whole article pointing out just one of 45's lies, or explain the bizarre reaction to the antisemitism question.

  98. [98] 
    neilm wrote:

    a correct and positively spun conclusion would be that it was a historic upset. truman v. dewey, the most historic of upsets, wasn't a landslide, it was an upset.

    I can accept that distinction..

    But that isn't what 45 is saying - or do you think it is? If so, why?

  99. [99] 
    michale wrote:

    He's a liar and a troll. I'll say it every single time I see it.

    Well, it was fun while it lasted... :^/

    I'll use forbearance for as long as I can..

  100. [100] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh I know I'm a political bigot. Happy to accept that charge.

    If yer happy, I am happy..

    It's not what I said, but as long as you're happy, I'm happy.. :D

    or explain the bizarre reaction to the antisemitism question.

    Anti-whatsawhosits???

    Where did THAT come from...???

  101. [101] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @93,

    if you can accept the distinction, can you now drop the contention that the president calling his victory a "landslide" was somehow accurate? whether a lie or an error, it was not an accurate description of what occurred.

    JL

  102. [102] 
    michale wrote:

    But that isn't what 45 is saying - or do you think it is? If so, why?

    I am saying in one context, President Trump is correct... Historic upset, Historic landslide, who cares?!?

    Only the people who hate the President, that's who....

  103. [103] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @Michale it will last exactly as long as you refrain from insulting us by forcing words into our mouths, accusing people of hypocrisy when that's not even relevant, and telling us that pepole who question 45 aren't patriots.

    I'm a patriot; I signed my name on the dotted line, and I'd do it again. I'd die for this country; the idea that you would dare insult us with that charge because we DARE question a liar who stands in front of us and outright lies; No. I will not just sit here and pretend that's appropriate behavior from adults or Americans.

    Quit the lying, quit the trolling, and stick to the facts.

  104. [104] 
    michale wrote:

    Yes, he is also half-witted.

    And the facts say something completely different..

    Don't you find it fascinating that you switch from and two adherence to facts really REALLY fast.. :D

    I sure do...

  105. [105] 
    MHorton wrote:

    "I am saying in one context, President Trump is correct... Historic upset, Historic landslide, who cares?!?"

    From the guy who says he values facts.

  106. [106] 
    MHorton wrote:

    "I am saying in one context, President Trump is correct... Historic upset, Historic landslide, who cares?!?"

    Also, he was more specific. He said it was the biggest win since Reagan.

    He didn't mess up. He lied.

  107. [107] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @96,

    He's lying and trolling.

    this is an opinion. it's a prejudicial one, carrying the assumption that michale's error is intentional, but i can live with it.

    He's a liar and a troll

    this is name-calling, and crosses the line between harsh criticism and flame-bait. please note the distinction between criticizing the action and the name-calling the person. when we don't have to scroll ninety-seven posts to get to any real content, we'll all be glad you did.

    JL

  108. [108] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @102,

    i care. CW cares. you claim to care. facts matter. factually, it was an upset. factually, it was not a landslide. therefore, either the president lied, or he didn't know what the word landslide meant. CW contends the former; i personally lean toward the latter.

    JL

  109. [109] 
    TheStig wrote:

    NeilM

    "why doesn't he just clear the room and get Sean Hannity and the Fox Five to lob safe questions he has already seen at him?"

    But the orthodox reporter was SO MUCH BETTER for Trump than a Hannity. Hannnities are a dime a dozen. The question was beautifully framed and pitched towards an audience familiar with rabbinical thinking. Jews in other words. Targeted audience. The question gently prompted the correct answer (very rabbinical)...if you take a millisecond or two to work out the phrasing. Trump engaged his mouth before he fully engaged his brain. Slow thinking. Limited skill set. Not out of the norm, but not Presidential.

    The reporter should have used finger puppets. It's fun to imagine what THAT would look like.

  110. [110] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump is a man of many tells. It's as Morse Code. "I'm smart" signals "Uh- Oh. Somebody noticed I'm in way over my head"

  111. [111] 
    neilm wrote:

    or explain the bizarre reaction to the antisemitism question.

    Anti-whatsawhosits???

    Where did THAT come from...???

    That was a reference to the question from Ami Magazine reporter. It was a question about the increase in antisemitism recently but 45 took it as a charge of antisemitism against him and went off on a rant (that wasn't a rant, even though it was really ;)

  112. [112] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @110,

    always a concern whenever someone starts touting their own intelligence.

    i'm smarter than you.
    ~the usual suspects

    https://youtu.be/obi535yDzSw

  113. [113] 
    michale wrote:

    i care. CW cares. you claim to care. facts matter.

    Yes, CW cares.. He called out Obama on his lies.. Even awarded him THE LIE OF THE YEAR..

    You care. I believe you also called out Obama on his lies. And even NOT-45....

    But as to the rest......

  114. [114] 
    michale wrote:

    always a concern whenever someone starts touting their own intelligence.

    Yep.. Speeches replete with "I"s and "ME"s are always a concern.. :D

  115. [115] 
    michale wrote:

    That was a reference to the question from Ami Magazine reporter. It was a question about the increase in antisemitism recently but 45 took it as a charge of antisemitism against him and went off on a rant (that wasn't a rant, even though it was really ;)

    Of course it was....

  116. [116] 
    michale wrote:

    Being anti-Semitic is simply one of the multitude of accusations leveled against the President..

    Along with being Hitler, etc etc etc...

  117. [117] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don't you find it fascinating that you switch from and two adherence to facts really REALLY fast.. :D

    No, these are conclusions, not facts. I can't run psychological tests to determine if 45 is slow, but he sure looks like it to me.

    You think he is a successful businessman, and credit him with superhuman powers to defeat political machines, thus conclude that he is not a slow-wit or half-wit, but I personally think that he isn't very smart and just talked to a lot of people in a 'regular' way.

    A lot of 45's supporters have been listening to educated people talking in long words, and looked around them and concluded:

    1. Things are going really well in America for people who use long words and are well educated - they are rich but me and my kids and friends are getting poorer and that isn't fair

    2. Maybe the well educated politicians are looking out for their will educated kids and friends - so we need somebody like us in there - and that is what 45 sounded to them - you heard it time and again.

    Any I wrong?

  118. [118] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Sorry media — this press conference played very different with Trump’s supporters

    You see?? It's ALL about the context...

    Patriotic Americans LOVED it...

    Those in the middle likely loved seeing the Lame Stream Media skewered six ways from Sunday..

    I expect a bump in Trump's Job Approval... :D"

    AND YET, what you cited was ONLY ONE man's editorial and an OPINION piece at that, with absolutely no polls or anything else to back up his assertions.

    People LOVE watching disasters, plane crashes, car and train wrecks too. It's called "rubbernecking" after all. It's great entertainment and a vicarious thrill for some people, UNTIL it happens to them.

    When it comes to Michale and his insistence on Trump winning by a landslide if you put things in context, I can only offer this:

    The Keeper: "She (insert Michale here) has an illusion, and you have reality. May you find your way as pleasant."

    FROM Star Trek, TOS episode "The Cage."

  119. [119] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @113,

    facts don't cease to be factual simply because some people are a bit more consistent than others in their criticism of public figures. it was still not a landslide, and the president still said it was.

    JL

  120. [120] 
    michale wrote:

    No, these are conclusions, not facts. I can't run psychological tests to determine if 45 is slow, but he sure looks like it to me.

    OK... Then explain how he was able to be so successful in business if he is "slow"...

    Explain how he was able to beat 17 "smart" and savvy politicians and other men and women..

    If the President is "slow" how could he have beat THE biggest, meanest, and most well-funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet...

    Explain this FACTS in the context of your "conclusion" that President Trump is slow..

    Try to employ Occam's Razor when you explain these facts..

    I am putting a 1000 quatloo bet that you can't or won't address these facts...

    :D

  121. [121] 
    michale wrote:

    facts don't cease to be factual simply because some people are a bit more consistent than others in their criticism of public figures. it was still not a landslide, and the president still said it was.

    In that context, I am not talking about President Trump or the facts..

    In THAT missive I am referring to the people who have no moral foundation to hold President Trump accountable for his lies..

  122. [122] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK... Then explain how he was able to be so successful in business if he is "slow"...

    Daddy's money and lawyers. And stiffing people.

  123. [123] 
    neilm wrote:

    Explain how he was able to beat 17 "smart" and savvy politicians and other men and women..

    I did. They sounded smart (well most of them, Carson and Perry are fellow knucke draggers, but they made the mistake of trying to sound smart).

  124. [124] 
    neilm wrote:

    Try to employ Occam's Razor when you explain these facts..

    I already did. Read [117].

  125. [125] 
    michale wrote:

    I already did. Read [117].

    You didn't explain the facts of President Trump's success in the context of your conclusion that President Trump is "slow" or "half witted"...

    Not in 117 at least..

    You did in 122 and 123, but you ignored Occam's Razor...

  126. [126] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @JL I have concluded he is lying based on the fact that he goes out of his way to misconstrue things, and will patently misrepresent facts in order to attack people.

    After I see you lie about things, you no longer get the benefit of the doubt.

    I proved over and over again on previous threads that was was outright lying about things he said. Not mistaken. Lied.

    After you are caught lying, every time you lie, I will call it that.

    Not everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

  127. [127] 
    michale wrote:

    And you didn't touch the fact that President Trump kicked the SHIT outta NOT-45 with a HISTORIC UPSET..

    "GEEE I wonder why that is!!??!"
    -Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

    :D

  128. [128] 
    michale wrote:

    (well most of them, Carson and Perry are fellow knucke draggers,

    So a respected neuro-surgeon is a "knuckle-dragger"... :D

    Yea... No political bigotry there... :D

  129. [129] 
    neilm wrote:

    I have to hang around with a lot of successful, wealthy people Michale. I meet a LOT of people like 45 - they are thick as mince but through abundant self confidence and the right contacts and luck they project an image of wealth success - some even are rich and successful.

    I'd say about 10% of the rich, successful people I know fall into this category, mostly the offspring of family businesses like 45.

    Thus his projections of wealth don't really cut it with me. I want to know why he is hiding his tax returns - there has to be a reason and it is likely that he has way less income than he claims. I'd also like to see his balance sheet - I can see the golf clubs and his name on buildings - but what is the debt structure for his organization - and who does he owe money to?

    So the outward signs of success that impress many people are red flags for me when coupled with lack of transparency. His history of bankruptcy and the complaints from suppliers add to the suspicion that he isn't all he seems.

  130. [130] 
    neilm wrote:

    So a respected neuro-surgeon is a "knuckle-dragger"... :D

    I went to medical school - surgeons are human butchers.

  131. [131] 
    michale wrote:

    I went to medical school - surgeons are human butchers.

    And your assessment of Dr Carson as a "knuckle-dragger" has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that he has a '-R' after his name?? :D

  132. [132] 
    neilm wrote:

    And your assessment of Dr Carson as a "knuckle-dragger" has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that he has a '-R' after his name?? :D

    No - he didn't say anything sensible about politics. He may we excellent in his field and have great eye-hand coordination coupled with a lot of experience in brain architecture and structure, but that does not translate to running a large organization and being insightful about complex policy.

  133. [133] 
    michale wrote:

    No - he didn't say anything sensible about politics. He may we excellent in his field and have great eye-hand coordination coupled with a lot of experience in brain architecture and structure, but that does not translate to running a large organization and being insightful about complex policy.

    Not knowing about politics does not make him a "knuckle-dragger".....

  134. [134] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Neilm-

    130-

    Thanks for that. I'm visiting a orthopedic surgeon next week to see if my Achilles tendon needs splicing.

    129-good job on that. I would add that intelligence is multidimensional. You can be strong one axis, and very weak on others.

    Notice I used the term slow witted to describe Trump. By that, I mean that he doesn't he doesn't seem to process very fast...the best evidence of this is his word salad speech pattern. Trump tends to be impulsive, he acts before adequate processing. An important part of overall intelligence is self awareness, which includes knowing what your weaknesses are. Being superb in one dimension can make you very successful at something. That's my rough definition of street smart. Trump seems street smart. Highly specialized, remains to see how well he succeeds outside of his salesman niche.

  135. [135] 
    neilm wrote:

    Not knowing about politics does not make him a "knuckle-dragger".....

    Thinking he can be President when he has absolutely no experience does. He would laugh at somebody who told them that their experience as a car mechanic allowed them to perform complex brain surgery, so the fact that he doesn't understand that being President requires a similar level of proven experience does.

    Too many people think that being President is simple, but would scoff at 45 if he claimed he could be a top golfer, a neuro-surgeon or a astro-physicist.

  136. [136] 
    michale wrote:

    Thinking he can be President when he has absolutely no experience does.

    No, it doesn't...

    Too many people think that being President is simple, but would scoff at 45 if he claimed he could be a top golfer, a neuro-surgeon or a astro-physicist.

    Still wouldn't make him a knuckle-dragger...

    If I had made a claim such as that (calling her a knuckle-dragger because she thought she could be POTUS) about, say NOT-45, I would be accused of lying..

    Aren't you happy I am more civilized than that?? :D

    I know I am...

  137. [137] 
    neilm wrote:

    Thanks for that. I'm visiting a orthopedic surgeon next week to see if my Achilles tendon needs splicing.

    Hope I didn't dent your confidence - but seriously, this was not meant to single out surgeons - in fact they get immediate feedback and tend to learn on the job. A study of radiologists who were asked to determine if a patient has signs of cancer by looking at multiple x-rays was far more disturbing. The same radiologists, when given the same x-ray at a later point in their tests gave different answers. And the answers were all over the place and not very well tied to the actual results.

    Medicine is far more of an art than a science.

    All the same, I hope your Achilles tendon is OK.

  138. [138] 
    neilm wrote:

    If I had made a claim such as that (calling her a knuckle-dragger because she thought she could be POTUS) about, say NOT-45, I would be accused of lying..

    Not a liar - but somebody who either ignores a lot of pertinent experience (even Republicans called her an excellent Sec State until it became clear she was running) or believes a lot of lies about nonsense hit jobs like Benghazi!!! and Emailgate.

  139. [139] 
    neilm wrote:

    Too many people think that being President is simple, but would scoff at 45 if he claimed he could be a top golfer, a neuro-surgeon or a astro-physicist.

    Still wouldn't make him a knuckle-dragger...

    Oh come on - if 45 claimed that he was going to enter the U.S. Open and expected to win because he is the World's best golfer, you'd laugh your head off and conclude he was a knuckle dragger.

  140. [140] 
    michale wrote:

    Not a liar - but somebody who either ignores a lot of pertinent experience (even Republicans called her an excellent Sec State until it became clear she was running) or believes a lot of lies about nonsense hit jobs like Benghazi!!! and Emailgate.

    The only pertinent information is that she ran and she lost..

    TWICE...

    But she is not a knuckle-dragger.. She is many many MANY things, but a knuckle-dragger is not one of them..

    Oh come on - if 45 claimed that he was going to enter the U.S. Open and expected to win because he is the World's best golfer, you'd laugh your head off and conclude he was a knuckle dragger.

    Nope.. I would conclude he was delusional, but based on everything else I know about him a "knuckle-dragger" would be the LAST thing I would call him..

    *I* am a knuckle-dragger and I got the scars to prove it.. :D

    Dr Ben Carson may be delusional about his capabilities.. But, based on the totality of his life, a "knuckle-dragger"???

    Not possible...

  141. [141] 
    neilm wrote:

    Interesting look at the twittersphere and political polarization:

    http://www.aalto.fi/en/current/news/2017-02-16-003/

  142. [142] 
    michale wrote:

    - in fact they get immediate feedback and tend to learn on the job.

    Sounds like the Trump presidency... :D

  143. [143] 
    neilm wrote:

    We are using different definitions of the term "knuckle-dragger" - let's use delusional instead because we agree on the definition of that.

  144. [144] 
    michale wrote:

    knuckle dragger

    Reminiscent of the hunched over cave man, with his arms to the ground. An insult used against those of extremely low intelligence, or general stupidity.
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=knuckle%20dragger

    Anyone who thinks that a Republican gifted neuro-surgeon is a "knuckle dragger" is simply playing partisan politics...

    Nothing more..

    I am sorry, Neil. I don't mean to offend you but I calls em as I sees em...

  145. [145] 
    michale wrote:

    We are using different definitions of the term "knuckle-dragger" - let's use delusional instead because we agree on the definition of that.

    Fair enough... Completely in agreement...

    Please ignore #144 then... :D

    Once again, 2 seconds too early... :D

  146. [146] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Post 124 - An hypothesis sliced out by Occam's razor can be true. The razor is more about utility than arriving at truth. Given adequate predictive power, simplicity is preferred to complexity. NASA predicts trajectories just fine with falsified Newtonian physics.

  147. [147] 
    michale wrote:

    NASA predicts trajectories just fine with falsified Newtonian physics.

    You mean.... "alternate facts" ?????

    heheheheheheheehehehehe

  148. [148] 
    neilm wrote:

    Cuba Alarmed By Presence Of Russian Client State Only 90 Miles Away

    http://www.breakingburgh.com/cuba-greatly-concerned-presence-russian-client-state-90-miles-away/

  149. [149] 
    neilm wrote:

    Headline: Cuba Alarmed By Presence Of Russian Client State Only 90 Miles Away

  150. [150] 
    michale wrote:

    Headline: Cuba Alarmed By Presence Of Russian Client State Only 90 Miles Away

    Fake News :D

  151. [151] 
    neilm wrote:

    I know - I tried to share the link to the satirical article, but it got caught in the nanny net - search on the headline and you'll find it.

  152. [152] 
    michale wrote:

    I know - I tried to share the link to the satirical article, but it got caught in the nanny net - search on the headline and you'll find it.

    But you can understand why Fake News is so much fun.. :D

    And had absolutely NO EFFECT on the election... :D

  153. [153] 
    neilm wrote:

    And had absolutely NO EFFECT on the election... :D

    That is if you know it is satirical - but look at the guy who shot up the pizza parlor in DC - he believed something far more outlandish than this satire and he was not alone.

    Hillary was one of the most honest politicians in the 2016 election and 45 was by far the least honest, but too many people believed lies about her.

  154. [154] 
    michale wrote:

    And the Presser Bump I predicted is beginning..

    RCP POLL OF POLLs has a slight uptick in President Trump's Job Approval rating to 44.7.. a .1 uptick...

    You wanted to graph it.. We're gonna graph it... :D

  155. [155] 
    michale wrote:

    That is if you know it is satirical - but look at the guy who shot up the pizza parlor in DC - he believed something far more outlandish than this satire and he was not alone.

    And I can find morons like that on the Left...

    I thought we had all agreed that a single moron does not an entire group paint??

    Hillary was one of the most honest politicians in the 2016 election and 45 was by far the least honest, but too many people believed lies about her.

    You mean too many people believed the FACTS about her...

  156. [156] 
    michale wrote:

    NOT-45 was THE most corrupt and dishonest candidate in the history of US presidential elections.

    And I am willing to bet that quite a few here agree with that assessment...

  157. [157] 
    neilm wrote:

    NOT-45 was THE most corrupt and dishonest candidate in the history of US presidential elections.

    And I am willing to bet that quite a few here agree with that assessment...

    Boring.

  158. [158] 
    Paula wrote:

    Just four weeks into his term, 56 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as President, according to a Gallup's daily poll released Friday.

    The anti-American-moron contingent, of course, still loves them their criminal-underling to President Bannon.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-new-disapproval-high-gallup-tracking-poll

  159. [159] 
    michale wrote:

    Boring.

    But dead on ballz accurate.. :D

  160. [160] 
    michale wrote:

    The anti-American-moron contingent, of course, still loves them their criminal-underling to President Bannon.

    Ahhhh I see how it is..

    It's perfectly OK for Paula to claim that Trump supporters are anti-American...

    But when I claim that ANTI-Trump supporters are the ones who are Anti-American, I get attacked...

    Hypocrisy much??? :D

  161. [161] 
    michale wrote:

    And I am willing to bet that quite a few here agree with that assessment...

    I know at least 3, probably 4 people agree with that assessment..

    That's good enough for me.. :D

  162. [162] 
    neilm wrote:

    And I am willing to bet that quite a few here agree with that assessment...

    I know at least 3, probably 4 people agree with that assessment..

    That's good enough for me.. :D

    Yeah, but in the real world it is nonsense. And boring.

  163. [163] 
    neilm wrote:

    But when I claim that ANTI-Trump supporters are the ones who are Anti-American, I get attacked...

    Let's all agree that patriotism isn't defined by supporting 45 or thinking he is a danger to America, or anything in between.

    When we start picking who is a real American and who isn't we lose focus on the true enemy ... Belgium!

  164. [164] 
    Paula wrote:

    So 45 tweets:

    The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!

    What an ass he is.

    Trump supporters should just up and move to Russia where they can live in the totalitarian regime they want to have here. Meanwhile true American patriots will stand up against this despicable wanna-be dicatator.

  165. [165] 
    Paula wrote:

    Report: Trump transition ordered government economists to cook up rosy growth forecasts

    http://www.vox.com/2017/2/17/14651208/trump-budget-forecast

    ...Trump’s budget was put together with “transition officials telling the CEA staff the growth targets that their budget would produce and asking them to backfill other estimates off those figures.

    That is what propagandists do, plain and simple.

  166. [166] 
    Paula wrote:

    Trouble is coming.

    The deplorables with their guns will object when Trump is inevitably taken down -- he will be, one way or another -- and the question is whether they will be foolish enough or wicked enough to start shooting.

    If they don't, we may squeak out of this coup without violence. If they do it will get ugly.

  167. [167] 
    neilm wrote:

    The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!

    At least he likes the Washington Post.

  168. [168] 
    TheStig wrote:

    In response to Trump's Press Tweets I have called my Congressman's local office. I have used my firm and angry voice. Script as follows:

    The President's blanket condemnation of the media is an assault on the First Amendment

    I find his remarks ignorant, outrageous and unpatriotic

    I consider this a moment of crisis

    Mr. Republican Congressman. Are you outraged by the President's remarks? If so, have you communicated your outrage to the President and other members of your party? Are your objections on record? If not, why not?

    Do you believe in rule of law and accountability?

    Do believe certain lines should not be crossed?

    I will hold you and your party to account for actions taken, or not taken at this pivotal moment.

    I urge other Weigentians to call their congressional reps and give them Holy Hell. Calls carry more freight than E-mails. Speak up now, while we still can.

    I dunno, maybe nobody cares?

  169. [169] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think that's a great idea, TS.

    Your script sounds good and, with the right tone - not too angry, more pleading- if I had a congressional rep I would be making my voice heard, too.

    It's important that the voices of resistance are heard and are sustained and, above all, are constructive. The voices of reason must prevail or we're all doomed.

    I wonder what we'll all be thinking and saying 4 years from now ...

  170. [170] 
    neilm wrote:

    I urge other Weigentians to call their congressional reps and give them Holy Hell.

    My congressman refused to attend the inauguration, so I'm not too worried about his stance on this.

    But kudos TS!

    I see tweets like today's and yesterday's bizarre performance as indicators that 45 is losing it and is just lashing out more and more. He is focused on the media at the moment, but when he starts a fight with the Republican Party the real entertainment starts. We had the first slap on the wrist with Puzder when at least 12 Republican senators discovered a backbone.

    Here are some areas where 45 may overreach and get slapped down again:

    1. Trying to scrap the Iran deal

    2. Pushing through funding for the wall if the CBO estimates start to escalate - especially as the current plan is 800 miles short and calls for a fence rather than a wall

    3. Deficit estimates - Congress is forced to use the CBO numbers, and if they are dramatically different from the CEA numbers (especially if some clown is nominated to head the CEA) and the deficit hawks find their spines there could be a huge battle

    4. Repealing Obamacare without a replacement in sight, or with a requirement from 45 to actually cover poor people

  171. [171] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I start to worry when one group of Americans start calling the other group unpatriotic. That movie doesn't end well.

  172. [172] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    Do you know anything about how the problematic areas of the ACA can be fixed. I mean without repealing it?

    I read somewhere a while ago that there are solutions and that they are well known but no one seems to be advocating for them, at least not vocally.

    Or, is it just a matter of acknowledging that healthcare is not like any other issue and that a single payer system is the only way to go?

  173. [173] 
    Paula wrote:

    [167] TheStig:

    Amen!

    I have made similar calls, although what I asked yesterday was: "what did you know and when did you know it? Are you going to support investigation the administration's ties to Putin/Russia or be part of the cover-up? Did you watch Trump's press conference and not see a highly disturbed person? When will be the moment you place country before party?"

    The young man I spoke with, surprisingly, told me he would pass on my concerns. Previous to the yesterday's presser the folks at Portman's office were...unreceptive.

    But your script re: Press tweets is terrific.

    And millions of Americans most definitely care. Even, I'll concede, some Republicans. But where is their Red line?

  174. [174] 
    neilm wrote:

    Do you know anything about how the problematic areas of the ACA can be fixed. I mean without repealing it?

    Sorry Elizabeth - I've not looked into this for a while. My understanding is that it is a complex piece of legislation that requires TLC to tune it for the first decade or so until the kinks can be smoothed out, but the Republicans blocked required maintenance hoping that it would implode on its own.

  175. [175] 
    neilm wrote:

    Anybody care to play in my new game "Which Head of State said this":

    “You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things. But nobody talks about that.”

  176. [176] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    I've concluded that Trump is in over his head, never really wanted to be in this position but, over the course of a long campaign, he caught the bug.

    Now, he's in a difficult situation and he's acting the only way he knows how to act, as a privileges and entitled businessman with more than one character flaw.

    The best way to fight against him and his supporters and the policies they think are best for the country is to consistently point out why those policies are flawed or anathema to the United States of America and counter them with constructive criticism and better alternatives.

  177. [177] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ...but the Republicans blocked required maintenance hoping that [the ACA] would implode on its own.

    Yes, I know! Don't you think Democrats should be talking about this particular obstructionism more forcefully and explaining what that maintenance looks like?

  178. [178] 
    Paula wrote:

    [175] Elizabeth:
    The best way to fight against him and his supporters and the policies they think are best for the country is to consistently point out why those policies are flawed or anathema to the United States of America and counter them with constructive criticism and better alternatives.

    That's fine as far as it goes. But its just the beginning as Trump and his regime aren't the least bit interested in either criticism or alternatives. Josh Marshall (TPM.com) nailed it months ago: Trump is about Dominance Politics, the #1 rule of which is that he is never wrong and he must not be beaten.

    Bannon is genuinely horrible person who exercises considerable influence on 45, and the rest of the GOP is trying very hard to shovel through a series of appalling measures on several fronts while they have the window of control. They will do nothing to reign in DT for as long as they can get away with it.

    Your response is way too measured for the situation confronting us.

  179. [179] 
    Paula wrote:

    rein in

  180. [180] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Your response is way too measured for the situation confronting us.

    Measured doesn't have to mean less than muscular or not results-oriented.

    I'm not thinking that it would stop this administration or congressional Republicans from doing what they will do. I'm not sure what will.

    But, I am saying that Democrats in Washington and around the country should take this opportunity - a lack of up-wing presidential leadership - to start putting forth a positive agenda for progressive change ... something that should have been done in the election campaign ... like the campaign for the midterms is already underway

  181. [181] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I start to worry when one group of Americans start calling the other group unpatriotic. That movie doesn't end well.

    What else would YOU call a group of Americans who voted for open borders and putting the US into a new world order where America is simply a cog in a global corporatist machine no better than any other 3rd world hell hole cog??

    I suppose delusional would also fit, but doesn't capture the essence of the stoopidity of the action..

    Unpatriotic is the only description that logically and rationally fits...

    But, I am saying that Democrats in Washington and around the country should take this opportunity - a lack of up-wing presidential leadership - to start putting forth a positive agenda for progressive change ... something that should have been done in the election campaign ... like the campaign for the midterms is already underway

    As CW points out in the current FTP the problem is that Democrats aren't facing their real problems... They think that the ONLY problem is one of messaging.. They cannot come to grips with the FACT that the MESSAGE is the problem..

    It's been a problem Democrats have been unable to face despite FOUR shellackings, each more brutal than the last...

  182. [182] 
    michale wrote:

    Yeah, but in the real world it is nonsense. And boring.

    No.. In your Democrat world it's nonsense.. In the REAL world, it's reality..

    And you can't face that and neither can the majority of the Democrat Party...

    See my comment to Liz above and CW's MDDOTW award in the latest FTP ......

    You can't handle the facts and that is why we have President Trump and that is why the Democrat Party will continue to be the Minority Party til at least 2024...

  183. [183] 
    michale wrote:

    You can't handle the facts and that is why we have President Trump and that is why the Democrat Party will continue to be the Minority Party til at least 2024...

    Amend that to say:

    Democrats can't handle the facts and that is why we have President Trump and that is why the Democrat Party will continue to be the Minority Party til at least 2024...

    My bust...

  184. [184] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Amend that to say:

    Has someone told you not to be so personal?

    But, that's not really your problem, is it ... :)

  185. [185] 
    michale wrote:

    Has someone told you not to be so personal?

    Not in so many ways.. :D

    But, that's not really your problem, is it ... :)

    Nope... My problem around here is that I don't toe the Party line.. :D

    But hay, whatcha gonna do?? :D

  186. [186] 
    michale wrote:

    Are you up early or up late?? :D

  187. [187] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes.

  188. [188] 
    michale wrote:

    hehe :D

Comments for this article are closed.