Does it matter to you if Trump fails?

[L'Emmerdeur]

The reality is closer to -- no Democrats who railed against military action under Bush, railed against it under Obama. You can bet they'll rail now.

Bullshit, Forty Two; you are so full of it that it's coming out of your ears.

On June 3, 2011 the United States House of Representatives passed H.Res. 292. The resolution stated the "President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale" for the military campaign in Libya, and said the "President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is to rescue a member of the Armed Forces from imminent danger" and gave him, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General 14 days to explain his strategy in Libya and to convince Congress the attacks are justified by U.S. interests.



[source]

It's just like how Democrats swooned over the "fact" that Obama deported more illegals than any other President. Now, deporting people is a mortal sin.

More bullshit. When Democrats pointed to the record of deportation during Obama's presidency it was to counter the common lies of wingnuts that Obama was "soft on illegals" and that Obama "isn't doing enough to protect our borders." It wasn't "swooning," and your scare quotes around the word fact are bullshit as well.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

Is not even two weeks of Trump's small hands groping America and already civil liberty is damaged! Dangerous executive orders, dangerous cabinet picks, evil sentient sewage golem Bannon rise to power.... even if Trump tiny hands make improvement of economy, which is doubt.... costs to fabric of America is too high.

Also Putin very scary man, not want for Putin to be influencing government! Trust me, I'm know this!

[tattuchu]

Is not even two weeks of Trump's small hands groping America and already civil liberty is damaged! Dangerous executive orders, dangerous cabinet picks, evil sentient sewage golem Bannon rise to power.... even if Trump tiny hands make improvement of economy, which is doubt.... costs to fabric of America is too high.

Also Putin very scary man, not want for Putin to be influencing government! Trust me, I'm know this!

[tattuchu]

The reality is closer to -- no Democrats who railed against military action under Bush, railed against it under Obama. You can bet they'll rail now.

Bullshit, Forty Two; you are so full of it that it's coming out of your ears.

On June 3, 2011 the United States House of Representatives passed H.Res. 292. The resolution stated the "President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale" for the military campaign in Libya, and said the "President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is to rescue a member of the Armed Forces from imminent danger" and gave him, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General 14 days to explain his strategy in Libya and to convince Congress the attacks are justified by U.S. interests.

Not to mention the fact that Bush invaded Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, as a response to 9/11 That's kinda the crux of the argument against Bush's military action, at least in large part. And as far as pursuing the real culprit, he didn't do enough.

"Oh, I'm not too worried about Osama bin Laden." --Bush

The fuck???

[pErvinalia]

You have plenty to lose.

Not as much as we would if the war hawk, Hillary, had been elected.

Maybe, maybe not. But you do in fact have a lot to lose by letting a narcissistic man-child govern by tantrum.

Indeed, but it remains to be seen what he will ultimately do. I, for one, am not Chicken Little.

Except when it comes to the regressive left..

[pErvinalia]

Is not even two weeks of Trump's small hands groping America and already civil liberty is damaged! Dangerous executive orders, dangerous cabinet picks, evil sentient sewage golem Bannon rise to power.... even if Trump tiny hands make improvement of economy, which is doubt.... costs to fabric of America is too high.

Also Putin very scary man, not want for Putin to be influencing government! Trust me, I'm know this!

Avtomat is back!

[Brian Peacock]

How long do you think Trump et al will blame Obama or Clinton for their own political choices?

[JimC]

For at least 3 and a half years...

[Svartalf]

What do you think will go in the DJFrump memorial library?

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

What do you think will go in the DJFrump memorial library?

I am think there will be bronze casting of tiny hands, genuine hairpiece worn by Trump. anal beads Bannon make pull to Trump anus, and prison memoirs of treason conviction?

[Brian Peacock]

And a section of "The Beautiful Wall" displayed behind bullet-proof glass.

[Scot Dutchy]

How about his wife's dodgy photos.

[Forty Two]

The reality is closer to -- no Democrats who railed against military action under Bush, railed against it under Obama. You can bet they'll rail now.

Bullshit, Forty Two; you are so full of it that it's coming out of your ears.

On June 3, 2011 the United States House of Representatives passed H.Res. 292. The resolution stated the "President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale" for the military campaign in Libya, and said the "President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is to rescue a member of the Armed Forces from imminent danger" and gave him, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General 14 days to explain his strategy in Libya and to convince Congress the attacks are justified by U.S. interests.



[source]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll411.xml

On that Libya Resolution - Democrats voted against it 135 to 45. Thus Democrats overwhelmingly opposed that resolution. Are you saying that the 45 democrats who voted against the resolution were "railing" against it? If that's what you're saying, then fine, but are you sure you want to occupy that territory in this discussion? The Democrats overwhelmingly supported Obama's military excursions. A few voted no.

It's just like how Democrats swooned over the "fact" that Obama deported more illegals than any other President. Now, deporting people is a mortal sin.

More bullshit. When Democrats pointed to the record of deportation during Obama's presidency it was to counter the common lies of wingnuts that Obama was "soft on illegals" and that Obama "isn't doing enough to protect our borders." It wasn't "swooning," and your scare quotes around the word fact are bullshit as well.

Look, Democrats swooned because the supported Obama's removal numbers. Did you see people taking to the streets to protest the evil and immoral numbers? The removals having been increased to record levels should raise the ire of any good Democrat, shouldn't it? The point I'm making is that the Democrat supporters are hypocrites, because when people said "you're not doing enough to secure the border," they lauded the numbers of removals and said words to the effect of "see, Obama is deporting more than ever!" And, they said that without adding ".... and he shouldn't be," or "and that's a bad thing." They didn't hold signs calling him a xenophobe. They didn't calling him a racist. They didn't say he hated immigrants, and all that. Of course they didn't, because Obama is such a good, kind, caring fellow, that even if he's deporting more people than any President in US history, he's still doing the liberal and progressive thing.

What is it ? Were Democrats all like "Obama's super tough on illegal immigrants," and were IN FAVOR of that toughness? If so, then why are they protesting it now? Why is it evil now? Or, were Democrats all like "Obama's super tough on illegal immigrants, and boy howdy did we let him know how bad his policies were!?" If so, then why didn't they take to the streets under Obama? Why didn't they camp outside the white house with signs descrying his inhuman deportation record?

[Forty Two]

But, let's not pretend that Obama really was deporting more. The numbers, as was often the case with the Obama administration, were masterfully manipulated to show what they needed politically. A close examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S.were less likely to be deported under Obama than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data. Expulsions of illegal aliens who were living in in the United States fell steadily since his first year in office, and were down more than 40% from 2009 to 2014.

So, how did the Obama Administration make it look like he was tough on illegal immigrants? The number of people deported at or near the border went up — primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency's deportation statistics. The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now. In past administrations, most people caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called "voluntary returns," and were not counted as deportations. Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement's deportation statistics. Under Obama, those catch-and-release folks were counted as removals and deportations.

See the sleight of hand? Reduce deportations in actual fact, while fudging the numbers up by redefining the terms and including people who were not previously considered deportations in the numbers regarding deportations! That way, we can be soft on illegal immigration and claim to be tough on illegal immigration at the same time!

That's classic Obama Administration.

[L'Emmerdeur]

On that Libya Resolution - Democrats voted against it 135 to 45. Thus Democrats overwhelmingly opposed that resolution. Are you saying that the 45 democrats who voted against the resolution were "railing" against it? If that's what you're saying, then fine, but are you sure you want to occupy that territory in this discussion? The Democrats overwhelmingly supported Obama's military excursions. A few voted no.

I was using objective, verifiable fact to counter your polemic "railing" nonsense. I personally know several Democratic voters who "railed" against military actions that took place during the Obama presidency. Does that prove anything? No it doesn't, just like your bullshit statement about how "no Democrats who railed against military action under Bush, railed against it under Obama" is completely free of any actual content. I know that you have trouble accepting facts that contradict your asinine blithering, but I can't help you with that.

It's just like how Democrats swooned over the "fact" that Obama deported more illegals than any other President. Now, deporting people is a mortal sin.

More bullshit. When Democrats pointed to the record of deportation during Obama's presidency it was to counter the common lies of wingnuts that Obama was "soft on illegals" and that Obama "isn't doing enough to protect our borders." It wasn't "swooning," and your scare quotes around the word fact are bullshit as well.

Look, Democrats swooned because the supported Obama's removal numbers. Did you see people taking to the streets to protest the evil and immoral numbers? The removals having been increased to record levels should raise the ire of any good Democrat, shouldn't it? The point I'm making is that the Democrat supporters are hypocrites, because when people said "you're not doing enough to secure the border," they lauded the numbers of removals and said words to the effect of "see, Obama is deporting more than ever!" And, they said that without adding ".... and he shouldn't be," or "and that's a bad thing." They didn't hold signs calling him a xenophobe. They didn't calling him a racist. They didn't say he hated immigrants, and all that. Of course they didn't, because Obama is such a good, kind, caring fellow, that even if he's deporting more people than any President in US history, he's still doing the liberal and progressive thing.

You're lying, Forty Two. There was no Democratic "swooning." You may be able to find somebody "lauding the numbers" but so far you haven't produced a single piece of evidence to support the nonsense you're spewing.

Obama's administration was enforcing the law, as was its duty. He didn't employ xenophobic catch-phrases to drum up anti-immigrant hysteria like your beloved orange-faced sack of shit does, and you apparently find it unacceptable that people oppose that sack of shit while admiring Obama.

What is it ? Were Democrats all like "Obama's super tough on illegal immigrants," and were IN FAVOR of that toughness? If so, then why are they protesting it now? Why is it evil now? Or, were Democrats all like "Obama's super tough on illegal immigrants, and boy howdy did we let him know how bad his policies were!?" If so, then why didn't they take to the streets under Obama? Why didn't they camp outside the white house with signs descrying his inhuman deportation record?

None of your ridiculous caricatures of Democratic voices have any relation to reality. I've already explained why Democrats pointed to the numbers, and it had nothing to do with "swooning." While they may not have actually agreed with the actions of the Obama administration, it was relevant to point to facts that contradicted the lies of the wingnuts.