It is not only ....

[KeithE]

[Dave Roberts]

Did we really expect a billionaire to care about the middle and lower classes. It's like the Titanic--keep the gates locked to keep them on the lower decks.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

Our senator, Toomey, wouldn't conduct a town hall after he co-sponsored the trumpcare senate bill, but people scheduled and held them anyway, at every office he has in the state, for a week. One of the local Pittsburgh stations found out from one of his staffers that the calls flooding into his office opposed to trumpcare were coming in so much volume, that it shut the whole exchange down for a while. I didn't have any idea where Toomey's office was in Pittsburgh, but got a pretty good idea last Thursday when I saw the crowds, and the line, down the sidewalk, around the corner, and into a crowfed park. People don't often pay a lot of attention to the details of most legislation, but there sure is a high awareness that this bill is aimed at giving billionaire tax cuts and cutting off Medicaid and insurance subsidies.

Looks like Bernie Sanders may be the guy who's rallying the troops. At any rate, I hope they keep pushing for the billionaire tax cut and they keep offering crapola health bills. It sure gets people angry at them.

[Dave Roberts]

[Sandy]

What we have is the most incompetent president in history, to the tenth power, who required and solicited the help of a foreign power to get elected and hides behind old line, unprovable claims of media bias. He's been six months of less than zero. I hear arguments in the press about his "base" still being loyal, but not seeing that. And it's not just the "coastal elite" that is recognizing this massive failure. His opposition made their strongest showing in decades in special elections in deep red states, gaining over 15% on average since last November. The icing on the cake is that for seven years, the obstructionist Republicans have whined and wailed against Obamacare, declaring it failed, attempting to bankrupt it to kill it, and the buffoon claims the repeal will be the first thing he signs on his first day in office. All of this while the evidence of his campaign's total collusion with the Russians to illegitimately elect him mounts. The country is in major trouble.

[Jon Estes]

[KeithE]

Jon's blind eye to collusion evidence belies the truth that Trump's base is not being loyal as Sandy Insists. The base appears to be about 36-40%. Sad (as Trump would say).

Collusion evidence is mounting - it started quietly with an FBI investigation in June 2016, continued with the firing of that investigator (Comey), then failure to disclose several Russian/ campaign members mtgs, then despite denials revelations of Trump Jr 2016 meeting explicitly to get dirt on Hillary / 3 hours later Trump Sr says he will release "next Monday " ( he didn't - what happened? Russians didn't come through??), revelations of Russian hacking into several states voter registration, and continuing with secret meetings with Putin today. Let those that have eyes, see.

[Jon Estes]

[KeithE]

Evidence is not proof. But evidence has been mounting. Your mind appears to be closed.

Also collusion is not necessarily illegal but falsified SF forms are.

[Sandy]

Dozens of unexplained, unreported "meetings" between Trump campaign officials and Russian intelligence agents over a two year period, with all of the "oops" moments. First Flynn didn't meet anyone from Russia. Then oops, well, he did and got fired for lying to the Veep about it. Then it was Sessions who claimed not to have met with any Russian officials in Cleveland, until there was a camera capture of him meeting with the ambassador. Then it was, "oops, forgot about that. Ok, I'll recuse myself." Then it was Manafort. "Oops. Yeah, I forgot that I worked for the Russians as a representative of theirs to our government and got over a million dollars for it." So he gets set aside as campaign manager. Then it was Conway, "Oh, yeah, I guess those two guys in that video of me in that meeting for over an hour were Russians (one of them was Kislyak), oops, I forgot that." And now there's the ongoing saga of Donald Jr. and his emails, and the inadvertent but outright admission of collusion. The evolution of the Trump administrations excuses has gone from "There were no meetings with Russians," to "OK, OK, oops. We were busy and so the eight top officials of our campaign don't remember which meetings were with Russians and which ones were with Mexicans," to another line, "OK, you caught us multiple times on camera and in emails meeting with Russians, but they weren't about the election, they were about adoption of Russian orphans," to the latest line, "OK, we colluded with them, but what's wrong with that?"

You're way out of date on this, Jon, and terribly uninformed. The line for you Trump cheerleaders now isn't "there was no collusion," it's "OK, there was collusion but there's nothing illegal or wrong with that, because anybody would take information about their political opponent and use it regardless of where it came from, right?"

There is something drastically wrong with Americans who are not horribly sickened by this.

[Jon Estes]

[Sandy]

[Jim]

Definition of collusion (M-W): secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose. In order for collusion to occur it must be a secret agreement but everyone in the world (meaning only the important people in D.C.) seems to know about Russian-collusion, ergo, not being a secret, collusion did not occur; however, if it DID occur, precisely how was it manifested? At the ballot-box, individual citizens secretly colluded with Trump and each other to elect him. This precisely satisfies the definition. The Russian-collusion garbage was initiated during Obama's swan-song by his “people” in order to get Hillary elected but she had SECRETLY (those servers in her bathrooms) colluded with whatever and whomever for whatever purpose wherever – like her getting the debate questions SECRETLY by colluding with CNN. In this case, the collusion MO was recognized...Brazile, Podesta, Schultz torpedoing Sanders, unlike the non-collusion (no MO explained) by the Russians with anyone. Sanders went down (collusion operative) but Trump didn't (collusion not a factor).

[Jon Estes]

[Sandy]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ry-clinton

Just one of many. No crickets chirping here.

Go to any credible news source or news website, not junk like World Net Daily or Limbaugh or Coulter, real news that has produced stories, evidence, actual named and accurate sources and facts. I'd suggest MSNBC, since no one has proven their evening line-up wrong yet, and some archive reading of the Washington Post and The New York Times. If you want conservatives who are documenting and reporting all of this, you've got Joe Scarborough, Chris Wallace and Nicole Wallace. There is evidence, there are credible sources. You either read them and see the truth or you keep supporting the hypocrisy of the empty philosophy and human wisdom that is required to keep cheerleading for the orange haired buffoon.

Everything that is in my previous post is a substantiated fact. Prove one thing that isn't. Yeah, thought so. You're not paying attention.

[Jon Estes]

[Jim]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[Sandy]

Of course, anything that isn't exactly fixed on a conservative perspective is always labelled "liberal" by political conservatives. But they're not interested in what is fair, they are only interested in what promotes their own view, or bashes the other. Anything related to "consumer rights" will be labelled "liberal" by conservatives, because they aren't for consumer rights. It's not a matter of "liberal" or "conservative" slant, the key is in "well documented fact." That's the main difference between news sources. Conservatives don't like facts, especially facts that don't support their perspective, but the news sources they label as "liberal" are usually well documented with facts, and the more "liberal" they are, the more they go out of their way to be fair.

I see no evidence whatsoever to support the contention that the Public Citizen is wrong, and that these are not facts. Doesn't matter whether they are liberal, conservative or Hottentot. Call them "propaganda talking points" all you want, David, but if you provide absolutely zero evidence and no facts to dispute what is here, you have no argument. Sort of like your contention that climate change is not happening. Keith provides facts, you provide propaganda that a simple google search proves wrong.

[KeithE]

[KeithE]