President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Dems look like they'll have the same top three leaders in the House. I have no serious beef with any of them - I just figured one of them would step aside to pave the way for someone who might be on the good side of 60.

 

This sums it up pretty well.

 

(C)Own it Mississippi.

 

Thread.

 

FWIW, I live in Mississippi and generally vote Republican. I simply don't care for the modern Democrat party and their vision (particularly among the younger generation of Democrats) of what they want America to be.
I voted for Espy in both the general election and today.
At best, Hyde-Smith is an empty suit who brings nothing of substance to the table. At worst, she's a moronic racist. Either way, she's not someone I want representing a state that is already facing a perpetual image problem. All she had to do to win this runoff 60-40 without any sort of incident was not say anything stupid, and she couldn't even do that.
Espy was a palatable alternative. Not a total leftist wacko Democrat. Somebody more toward the center who wouldn't embarrass our state. Somebody who is also somewhat tied into Washington who might be able to do some good for our state. People always criticize pork projects, but let's face it. Bringing those federal dollars home is a large chunk of a senator or representative's job.

The main reason I filled in the box next to Espy's name, however, was because it was a two-year term. I figured on two things if he won:
1) It wouldn't change the balance of power in the Senate.
2) Hyde-Smith would go away and the Republicans could find somebody better in 2020 to retake the seat. Now I fear we're going to be stuck with this moron for a generation unless she gets primaried in two years.

 

And to think he deprives us of all this by not going to the Correspondents Dinner

 

I ask this out of a genuine sense of curiosity? What about the modern Democratic party (and could give a time frame about when the modern Democratic Party started. 1972 with McGovern? Some other year?) do you find objectionable?

 

I didn’t say anything about basing it on that premise. You accused me of forcing my beliefs on women. Aren’t you doing the same thing when it comes to guns? Don’t you want to outlaw guns because YOU think it’s wrong? Just like I think abortion is wrong?

If your answer is no, then you want to ban certain guns, but you don’t think that side is right. Which makes no sense.

My point is OF COURSE I believe my side is right. I believe a fetus is a person, and abortion is wrong. You believe a fetus isn’t and abortion isn’t wrong. We both think our sides are right. EVERYBODY thinks their side is right. Right?

 

Actually, yes, you did base your claim on those two assumptions.

No, I don't want to outlaw guns. I'm not one of those people calling for the second amendment to be repealed. I do believe stricter regulation is a good idea, but that isn't the same thing. Once again, you are jamming quite a bit of wrong into one relatively short post.

Check the wording on your second paragraph and try again. What makes no sense is your attempt to express something there.

Everybody believes their side is right, but we don't all try to build a claim on those assumptions the way you did. You asked me if you had my positions right, then included two premises that are incorrect. I explained to you why you were wrong. The rest is just you babbling.

 

Thanks for this candid and illuminating post.