US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[ilherman]

A MASSIVE amount!!! Next question?

Like double than Trump...

So what was your point in your OP?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

So what was your point in your OP?

Trump suffered a massive loss by losing 39 seats when he claims the country is in the best shape it has ever been in.
Those are the facts not the Hannity Kool-Aid spin you tried to put on it.

[zh cohen]

A Democrat congresswoman-elect is defending a CNN contributor who called for the annihilation of the state of Israel.

www.twitter.com/RashidaTlaib/status/1068321710791950337

[yesitsme]

A Democrat congresswoman-elect is defending a CNN contributor who called for the annihilation of the state of Israel.

www.twitter.com/RashidaTlaib/status/1068321710791950337

Why dont you just look at the facts?

https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/1068348265173852160

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1068335892950106113.html

1. The position that CNN was wrong to end Marc Lamont Hill’s contributorship over his anti-Semitism is perfectly legitimate and defensible—and is the position I tend to take on such controversies, very much including anti-Israel figures. But I disagree this time. I’ll explain why
2. There are two reasons. The first is the nature of the job. If MLH were, idk, an exec at a construction company or something, firing him over his views would be insane and cruel. But that’s not the case here—and indeed he’s not in danger of losing his day job.
3. CNN gig is the network bringing him on occasionally to opine on current affairs. His views on current affairs are riddled w/overt bigotry. I also thought Fox was right to banish its guest who made anti-Semitic comments about Soros. No reason to bring the guy back on air. None.
4. My views on Fox not bringing back on bigoted pundits are unremarkable. When the same principle is applied to CNN, it’s considered censorious—even though MLH has a far more prestigious and influential place in politics and culture than the Fox guy you don’t even remember.
5. And that, one suspects, is one reason for the hypocrisy: leftists think pawns can be taken off the board at will but please leave the bishop alone. That anti-Semites are considered so valuable to liberalism (the Forward defense of Sarsour et al) is a chilling admission.
6. The second reason is the nature of the comments. He did not call some Jewish guy greedy or scheming or whatever. No dog whistles. He used the single most famous genocidal anti-Israel call to arms in existence. To a room full of states who take such action!
7. And in the same speech, he told a room full of representatives of terror-supporting anti-Semitic states to *ignore calls for nonviolence regarding the Jewish state.* I think it’s kind of getting lost just how completely psychotic his speech actually was.
8. When he concluded with the famous genocidal slogan, the entire hall was electric with enthusiastic applause. It was like watching a between-the-wars Bavarian beer hall times a hundred.
9. But there’s a key difference: it wasn’t just a hall of angry people. It was a hall of representatives of countries around the world, at the headquarters of the world body, with that body’s imprimatur.

Have you completely lost your goddamned minds?
10. Now again, you can defend his pundit job without defending his remarks. But the campaign to portray this as just a political disagreement is disingenuous in the extreme. If your position is there are no lines, fine. But if a line exists, MLH is on the wrong side of it. /fin
Anyhoo that’s where I’m coming from. I cannot imagine defending MLH’s conduct—because it’s indefensible. But I absolutely *can* understand defending his paid CNN role to occasionally come on air and vomit nonsense. It is tv, after all. Thanks for listening.


https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1068281199683035136

[zh cohen]

Why dont you just look at the facts?

I'm not sure what you are saying.

[BZ12]

Here is some more facts. Presidents don't always lose in the mid-terms or get destroyed like Trump did.
President John F. Kennedy's Democrats lost just four seats in the House and gained three seats in the Senate.
And in 1998, President Bill Clinton gained five seats in the House and stayed even in the Senate.[/b]

Trump suffered a massive loss by losing 39 seats when he claims the country is in the best shape it has ever been in.
Those are the facts not the Hannity Kool-Aid spin you tried to put on it.

What a farce!! OD on Maddow? Or simple ignorance? You put Hannity to shame! MSNBC should give you primetime!

When John F. Kennedy was narrowly elected in 1960, Democrats actually lost 20 House seats about 40 percent of their 1958 gain and another 2 in 1962 midterms.
The Republican Revolution Midterms of President Bill Clinton's first term gave a 54-seat swing from Democrats to Republicans, the Republican Party gained a majority of seats in the United States House of Representatives for the first time since 1952 and a majority of votes for the first time since 1946. It was also the largest seat gain for the Republican Party since 1946, and the largest for either party since 1948. In result The Republicans would go on to remain the majority party of the House for the following 12 years, including 1998 until the 2006 elections.

[aygart]

What a farce!! OD on Maddow? Or simple ignorance? You put Hannity to shame! MSNBC should give you primetime!

When John F. Kennedy was narrowly elected in 1960, Democrats actually lost 20 House seats about 40 percent of their 1958 gain and another 2 in 1962 midterms.
The Republican Revolution Midterms of President Bill Clinton's first term gave a 54-seat swing from Democrats to Republicans, the Republican Party gained a majority of seats in the United States House of Representatives for the first time since 1952 and a majority of votes for the first time since 1946. It was also the largest seat gain for the Republican Party since 1946, and the largest for either party since 1948. In result The Republicans would go on to remain the majority party of the House for the following 12 years, including 1998 until the 2006 elections.

How did Kennedy get elected in midterms?

[chinagel]

How did Kennedy get elected in midterms?

You leave w/o saying bye an come back w/o saying hello?

[BZ12]

How did Kennedy get elected in midterms?

He was elected in 1960 however his party lost 20 seats, a historic figure, and lost another two seats in the following midterms

[ChaimMoskowitz]

What a farce!!

You can't dispute any fact I posted so you spew nonsense. Losing 39 seats in a mid-term is a massive defeat. Try and spin it anyway you want and it is still be a massive defeat!!! THOSE ARE THE FACTS!!! Not some Hannity drinking Kool-Aid you keep spewing. According you a massive 39 seat defeat is a win. ROFLMAO!!!

[ChaimMoskowitz]

He was elected in 1960 however his party lost 20 seats, a historic figure, and lost another two seats in the following midterms

It has no bearing on Trumps massive 39 seat lost!!!

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Here is another fact according to Forbes: Since 1946, the average midterm loss for the president's party is 25 seats.
The average loss is 25 and Trump lost a massive 39 seats. That is massive 50+% increase over the average. This while he claims the best economy ever.
Lets see the Hannity Kool-Aid drinkers dispute these MASSIVE facts!!! 
@BZ12 & @ilherman

[ilherman]

There's nothing to dispute. Looking back the last few elections which me and you remember it is actually normal to lose seats. Considering he added seats to the senate and did better than Obama is showing that he obviously is a better president. Still, even good presidents, like Reagan lose seats. Drink your Maddow water. But it won't change facts.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

There's nothing to dispute.

The fact is on average they lose 25 seats. He lost a massive 39 seats. I thought you were disputing that losing 39 seats is not a massive loss. As long you are not disputing the massive loss we are all good.

[good sam]

CNN and Fox (guess which is which).

I agree with Fox on this one. Even the CNN article admits close to the end that there's no evidence of collusion.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

CNN and Fox (guess which is which).

I agree with Fox on this one. Even the CNN article admits close to the end that there's no evidence of collusion.

Top one is Fox and bottom is CNN. Did I win?
Where in Mueller's mandate does it mention collision?

[aygart]

Top one is Fox and bottom is CNN. Did I win?
Where in Mueller's mandate does it mention collision?

Please explain the difference between collusion and coordination.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Please explain the difference between collusion and coordination.

Sure, right after you answer my question where in the mandate it says collusion?

[aygart]

Sure, right after you answer my question where in the mandate it says collusion?

As far as I know it does not.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

As far as I know it does not.

So it has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation.

Collusion - secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy
Coordination - the organization of the different elements of a complex body or activity so as to enable them to work together effectively