The Many Faces of US Politics...

[No wides]

Celebrities need to concentrate on acting and singing.

Why?

Ashley Judd, Ted Nugent, George Clooney, Clint Eastwood, Charlie Daniels and Beyoncé as as entitled as anyone to march and protest and advocate for their valued causes.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/jan/06/beyonce-new-years-eve-concert

Catch a grip - hypocritical whinge!

And that contradicts my point how?

She has no interest in democracy just the dollar and her own self importance. Bit like you in many ways but with nicer tits.

So because she purportedly values money and narcissm over all else (who else does that remind us of?), she is not entitled to free speech?

Your logic and clear thinking is as foolproof as ever.

Why does she reject a democratically elected president but happy to accept military dictators as long as she gets the dollar.  Unfortunately in this social media era knobs hang on celebs every words because she has nice tits and can sing a bit. Catch a grip kid.

[No wides]

Celebrities need to concentrate on acting and singing.

Why?

Ashley Judd, Ted Nugent, George Clooney, Clint Eastwood, Charlie Daniels and Beyoncé as as entitled as anyone to march and protest and advocate for their valued causes.

They are indeed, but they are not entitled to think their voice carries any more intellect or weight than those on the street looking up at them. They are not experts in politics, they are famous because they can act or sing.

The problem is in this 'celebrity' age, people ascribe far too much weight to what George fecking Clooney thinks about politics or world events. As far as I'm concerned he's a doctor in ER or Greys Anatomy or something.  Media organs like the Independent over here lap it up, and it sickens my shite.

Unlike the rest of us, they have a platform from which to raise issues and public awareness. Very or not one agrees with what they say, they're entitled to say it. Sometimes its for the better, sometimes its ignorant, bigotted or naïve in the extreme.

Its up to the rest of us to point out the error of their ways where and when necessary.

Sweet Jesus the world would be lost without you.

[J70]

Trump won because people firmly rejected the direction and policies of the Democratic Party. Hillary offered 4 more years of Obama and that's not what people wanted. You of course are free to believe whatever you want....and if you continue to believe that, rather than admit and address the failings of the progressive agenda, expect another hammering in 2018

But what is "people"?

But 2.86 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton. The difference between Obama's 2012 vote and Hillary Clinton's 2016 vote was 71,000.

11 million more people voted for Democratic candidates in the 2016 elections than for Republicans.

So your claim is demonstrably and obviously false, and the raw numbers say so.

Trump won because he got just enough votes in key states to swing the electoral college his way.

That's a totally different scenario to the falsehood that "the people voted to reject the Democrats", and it's one that people who live in the Republican echo chamber like yourself so far show absolutely no sign of coming to terms with.

Believe whatever you want to believe.  It won't work out too well for you in 2018 either

You haven't argued with the accuracy of my points, I note.

"The people" did not reject the Democrats, or even Clinton. They may not have been enthusiastic about voting for her or the party, but that's a different argument entirely.

Trump won only via the vagaries of the electoral system, not via the vote of the people.

It's a fact you would do well to take note of.

Don't stop believin.....

(Was listening to MSNBC last week.....you have to go back to the 1920s to find a period when the Democratic Party were in as much of a shambles as they are today. The leaders of the party are all in their 70s or even close to 80.....hahaha)

Yet the GOP was in a complete shambles in '08 after Rove telling us he was building a permanent GOP majority after '04. Events/policies can change things very quickly and sharply.

Now of course that doesn't mean that the Dems will follow suit and find a united, focused message/cause on which to build a rebounding movement like they did (it was a tumultuous period with the economic collapse), but it does show how things can swing, especially if Trump ends up being completely undisciplined or the GOP completely overreaches in their actions. Both sides have a solid base of 45-47%. Doesn't take a giant swing to change it.

[J70]

Celebrities need to concentrate on acting and singing.

Why?

Ashley Judd, Ted Nugent, George Clooney, Clint Eastwood, Charlie Daniels and Beyoncé as as entitled as anyone to march and protest and advocate for their valued causes.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/jan/06/beyonce-new-years-eve-concert

Catch a grip - hypocritical whinge!

And that contradicts my point how?

She has no interest in democracy just the dollar and her own self importance. Bit like you in many ways but with nicer tits.

So because she purportedly values money and narcissm over all else (who else does that remind us of?), she is not entitled to free speech?

Your logic and clear thinking is as foolproof as ever.

Why does she reject a democratically elected president but happy to accept military dictators as long as she gets the dollar.  Unfortunately in this social media era knobs hang on celebs every words because she has nice tits and can sing a bit. Catch a grip kid.

Where have I mentioned ANYTHING about the correctness or otherwise of Beyoncé's positions? Or Ted Nugent's? Or any of the other people I listed?

[whitey]

Trump won because people firmly rejected the direction and policies of the Democratic Party. Hillary offered 4 more years of Obama and that's not what people wanted. You of course are free to believe whatever you want....and if you continue to believe that, rather than admit and address the failings of the progressive agenda, expect another hammering in 2018

But what is "people"?

But 2.86 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton. The difference between Obama's 2012 vote and Hillary Clinton's 2016 vote was 71,000.

11 million more people voted for Democratic candidates in the 2016 elections than for Republicans.

So your claim is demonstrably and obviously false, and the raw numbers say so.

Trump won because he got just enough votes in key states to swing the electoral college his way.

That's a totally different scenario to the falsehood that "the people voted to reject the Democrats", and it's one that people who live in the Republican echo chamber like yourself so far show absolutely no sign of coming to terms with.

Believe whatever you want to believe.  It won't work out too well for you in 2018 either

You haven't argued with the accuracy of my points, I note.

"The people" did not reject the Democrats, or even Clinton. They may not have been enthusiastic about voting for her or the party, but that's a different argument entirely.

Trump won only via the vagaries of the electoral system, not via the vote of the people.

It's a fact you would do well to take note of.

Don't stop believin.....

(Was listening to MSNBC last week.....you have to go back to the 1920s to find a period when the Democratic Party were in as much of a shambles as they are today. The leaders of the party are all in their 70s or even close to 80.....hahaha)

Yet the GOP was in a complete shambles in '08 after Rove telling us he was building a permanent GOP majority after '04. Events/policies can change things very quickly and sharply.

Now of course that doesn't mean that the Dems will follow suit and find a united, focused message/cause on which to build a rebounding movement like they did (it was a tumultuous period with the economic collapse), but it does show how things can swing, especially if Trump ends up being completely undisciplined or the GOP completely overreaches in their actions. Both sides have a solid base of 45-47%. Doesn't take a giant swing to change it.

At the end of the day it's about jobs and the economy and healthcare .  If Trump can deliver he and the Republicans will do just fine.  If they don't deliver they'll get turfed out and rightly so.

Senior Democrats made complete fools of themselves at the weekend. 

[foxcommander]

Celebrities need to concentrate on acting and singing.

I give you madonna

a little jail time for these comments to reflect perhaps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdjebS2toK0

mental bint.

[J70]

Idiotic thing to say on Madonna's part.

Just like Trump and other right wing pols who have suggested "second amendment solutions" to Democratic politicians and policies.

[foxcommander]

At this stage the protests smack of spoiled children not getting their way

Can the democrats just accept the result and let the country move on. Russians didn't vote so to keep complaining of interference in the result is false.
Frances Fitzgerald and co attended the democrat conference thus throwing the official backing of the irish nation behind Hilary. Isn't it the same thing? (well done FG on backing the right horse!)

time to work with the president and by all means make him accountable for the mistakes he makes from this day forward, not on past words or actions. That's if they really want to improve the country.
I just see them as trying to piss trump off at every turn. It will show them up to be petty, just what they cried about during the Obama years

[Eamonnca1]

Trump won because people firmly rejected the direction and policies of the Democratic Party. Hillary offered 4 more years of Obama and that's not what people wanted. You of course are free to believe whatever you want....and if you continue to believe that, rather than admit and address the failings of the progressive agenda, expect another hammering in 2018

Trump won because the electoral college (AKA affirmative action for rednecks) gives a veto to a small number of states. Clinton got over two million more votes than Trump did. Fact.

[whitey]

Electoral College is the system we operate under..... and Democrats start off with a HUGE advantage under that system.  It only became a vestige of rascism when she had her arse handed to her on election night


www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/in-2016-race-an-electoral-college-edge-for-democrats/2015/03/15/855f2792-cb3c-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html

" if you add up all of the states that are either "safe" for the eventual Democratic nominee or "favor" that nominee, you get 217 electoral votes. (A candidate needs to win 270 to be elected president.) Do the same for states safe or favoring the Republican standard-bearer, per Gonzales's rankings, and you get just 191 electoral votes."


Not to mention she outspent him 2:1

[seafoid]

Compare her to a few months ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maL6-l3DdHk

Conway looks really unwell.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/23/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts-lies

[LeoMc]

Tearing up the TPTP and rewriting the NAFTA doesn't bode well for whomever the Brits sed to negotiate their post Brexit trade deals.

[Oraisteach]

Yes, Eamonn, the antiquated anti-democratic Electoral College, designed to prevent rather than install tyranny, did the Democrats in.  Add to that a deliberate and systematic strategy to suppress the minority vote as well as Russian interference (and likely collusion) contributed too.  Shovel a widespread gerrymandering to render the House out of reach, and there you have it.  The so-called "progressive agenda" was scuttled from the get-go by the GOP's pledge to obstruct each and every Obama initiative.  On top of that, throw in a resistance among some to vote for a woman under any circumstance as well as a gullible electorate educated by Fox and Breitbart.

And, Foxcommander, the marches are not temper tantrums by the petulant.  Rather, they are a reaction to what a Trump presidency actually means, and now I'm sick of hearing the mantra "give him a chance"; his appointees and nominees were his chance, and look who he picked.  Sessions as Attorney-General--racist! Perry in Energy--imbecile who thought the job entailed being an embassy door for the fossil fuel industry. Climate change denier in charge of EPA.  Exxon oil billionaire in charge of State.  Goldman Sach out the wazoo.  King of foreclosures in charge of Treasury.  Ben Carson over HUD.  DeVos in charge of Education, she who has carried on a crusade against public schools.  Bannon and Kellyanne Conway, and Spicer, the Goebbels of "alternative facts" and leading an all-out assault on freedom of speech and a free press.

[Eamonnca1]

Electoral College is the system we operate under..... and Democrats start off with a HUGE advantage under that system. 

I believe this is known as an "alternative fact."

The electoral college means that the value of a vote in a solid blue state like California is worth a fraction of a vote in Wyoming. In fact California has the least powerful voters in the country, the most powerful are in Arizona. https://wallethub.com/edu/how-much-is-your-vote-worth/7932/

[sid waddell]

Compare her to a few months ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maL6-l3DdHk

Conway looks really unwell.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/23/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts-lies

Perhaps the Russians have poisoned her like they did with yer man Yuschenko in the Ukraine that time?