The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

First it was Hunter Biden and now it is Gov Andrew Cuomo ... lol. Liberal privilege is everything white privilege it supposed to be but pay no attention to the liberal behind the curtain pointing you away.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9297995/ABC-CBS-CNN-MSNBC-avoid-broadcasts-sexual-harassment-claims-against-Gov-Cuomo.html

Hypocrisy, thy name is CF...

Please humor me ... what would I be a hypocrite about?

Cuomo is in some trouble for COVID stuff, too.  He's apparently a dick, in general...has a brash style that makes him hard to work for.

Without getting in the weeds,  I just want to point out Chris Cuomo is banned from covering his brother by the network.

Governor, relatively minor allegations, uncorroborated.  Not really national news.   Should local NY stations giving this story air time?  Yes, some but not much.  Should the national media? No.

And before you say. but what about Trump... Trump was president his scandals are national news.  If this level of  allegation was leveled against DeSantos it shouldn’t be national news unless it is extremely slow news day. 

That was after he wasn't covering him any longer ... lol. He covered him just fine over the last few years since he was first "banned".

From the New York Post .... CNN claimed Wednesday that it has reinstated a “rule” that prevents Chris Cuomo from “interviewing or covering his brother” — after the host completely ignored the nursing home death cover-up scandal engulfing Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Last year, Chris Cuomo repeatedly interviewed his older brother about the coronavirus pandemic, engaging in often-cringey banter that initially helped boost the ratings for the 9 p.m. “Cuomo Prime Time.”

But the controversy over the Cuomo administration’s admitted cover-up of nursing home death numbers — exclusively revealed by The Post last week — hasn’t been mentioned on Chris’ hour-long show.

That's just silly. I would have said DeSantis and yes the liberal media is dying for him to make a mistake. He would be getting crucified on all channels for both the nursing home scandal as well as the sex allegations. They constantly make up crap on Ronald DeSantis trying to make him look worse than California and New York! haha

CF, are you saying that it is journalistic malpractice to fail to address mention allegations of scandal?
Because Fox News ran interference for Trump for 5 solid years, not least for COVID over the last year.

If there is any criticism you wish to make of liberals or the left, it probably shouldn't be for anything similar to actions done for or by Trump.  You guys have completely abandoned all pretense at a moral high ground with your undying support of that dirtbag.

If it was a Republican, Fox’s only reporting would be to discredit Lindsey Boylan.

For the most part, the "news" stopped being reporting many years ago and became biased opinions instead of the news.  I hate that there is "left wing media" and "right wing media".  Unfortunately, most people in the US are so intellectually lazy that they would rather hear "news" that supports their own opinions rather than just straight up reporting on events that allow us to make up our own minds about the stories.   I probably didn't phrase that very clearly but my point is that it is really hard to a source of news that is not biased.  The Wall Street Journal used to be really good but even they seem to have more of an agenda over the last 20 years or so. 

This is so true.

Seems to me that news started becoming "biased" at almost exactly the same time that the Fairness Doctrine was repealed and personalities like Rush Limbaugh appeared & started criticizing the "liberal media" non stop.

But I am interested to hear whether conservatives have a different timeline... when do y'all think mainstream news stopped being objective and neutral?

I don't know that I am really all that conservative although I guess I am on some issues.  But I think you are right in that the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine had at lease "some" influence on the change.  There are probably a handful of contributing factors, not the least of them being the growing intellectual laziness of society.  It used to be that a pretty large percentage of people were inquisitive and very interested in current events and by "interested", I mean interested to the point of wanting to hear factual information rather than being spoon fed what to think.  The fact that way too many people are more interested in "Keeping Up With The Kardashians" than they are in the world around them created an intellectual vacuum that made it very easy for biased editorials disguised as "news" to come in and fill that void. 

you just described Rupert Murdocks strategy entirely. This was the fox news MO for a long time and the "left" does a very poor job of copying the strategy.

Just to add to my previous statement: I think the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine was a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for the polarization of news.  The other necessary factor was the creation of 24-hour cable news, which turned news programming from a loss-leading public service (as it was for the broadcast news organizations) to a revenue-generating ratings vehicle.

LOL ... kind of like all the drama thrown at Trump for bombing Iranian terrorists have suddenly gone silent when Biden did it. Remember ... it wasn't that long ago that Trump went off on his own and was starting WW3 so he could stay in office but for Biden it's just another day supporting our democratic president. hahahaha


I honestly have no clue so that could very well be. Seeing as how I couldn't stomach Rush in the 90s I absolutely never listened to him. Even in the later years I could only take so much of him and that usually wasn't by choice. I like his policies but understood that he is over the top for ratings. When I think of the 90s shock jocks were the in thing and he went extreme conservatism for similar effects. This is also when people like Howard Stern took off and that is more of what I was listening to.

The same people on my timeline (and there weren't many) who were up in arms about Trump's strikes on Iran are pretty much the same people giving shit to Biden for it.

There will always be criticism for military strikes, but for all the stuff Trump did, I'd say that was on the low end of criticism.

I was actually kinda ok with how pathetically weak Trump was internationally, at least he didn't start a war.

not a fan of random bombing from Biden .. and not a fan of Biden not pushing for the $15 minimum wage. I think it's stupid to not push for it.

He just can't get it.

There's no path because he doesn't have the votes.  He's got 48 Democrats that support it.  The risk of bringing down the entire COVID relief bill just isn't worth it, because he simply doesn't have the support.

I'm all for overruling the parliamentarian and forcing the vote for certain things.  Start with getting rid of the filibuster, then expand voting rights.  Once you do that, you can just put a $15 minimum wage vote on the floor and it may or may not pass with 50 votes.

He abandoned it weeks ago when he told a reporter in an interview that he didn't think they could get it.

It's fine to not succeed .. it's not fine to not try.

Yeah, he didn't have the votes weeks ago.  It's not a matter of trying.

Manchin and Sinema said they are against it.

So, first they had to ask the parliamentarian if they could put it in the bill at all.  They were waiting to see if it was even an option.  The parliamentarian said no.

So, while they technically could fire the parliamentarian and put in one that would say yes, #1 that would go against Biden's unity message and the respecting of norms, #2 it would potentially undermine the whole bill because they literally don't have the votes to pass it, even if it was down to 50.  For the record, I'm all about doing whatever you can to pass whatever you want, because you can't play by a set of rules the other side doesn't play by.   But it's not worth the risk to lose the whole package over one minor thing.


The best chance of it passing would be to do all that stuff and just DARE Manchin and Sinema to vote against it, hoping that they'd cave at the zero hour and vote yes anyway.  But even if they succeed, Manchin loses his name as a swing-vote and probably loses the Senate seat to a Republican.

It's just politically unfeasible.  They simply do not have the votes of support.

A COVID relief bill should only be related to COVID. There's probably all sorts of pork and bullshit in that bill not related to COVID. They spending all that money and sending people $1400 in crumbs. The debt is gonna be our downfall

Here's some liberal infighting for the conservatives to enjoy!

Trump bombed and killed far more civilians than Obama, but he Didn't Start A New War, so he gets credit from the anti-establishment left.  Priorities!

Biden bombed Iranian militias in Syria in retaliation for their recent attack on Americans in Iraq.

Direct quote:

“I really want this in there but it just doesn't look like we can do it because of reconciliation,” Biden told the group, according to a person in the room. “I’m not going to give up. But right now, we have to prepare for this not making it.”

I am forced to wonder whether you also blame Bernie Sanders - the head of the Budget committee who was responsible for presenting the argument to the parliamentarian that a minimum wage hike qualified under reconciliation - for "not trying."

If you overrule the parliamentarian, getting rid of the filibuster won't even matter because you'll lose Manchin and/or Sinema on the up or down vote for [whatever you overruled the parliamentarian on].

I understand that concern, but that just isn't the way that the US Government works.  Pork is part of the process.  Little favors and greasing the palms of this state or that to get your way is literally how it's always worked since the country has been formed.  That's the nature of the beast.

Not necessarily, if you get rid of the filibuster, you can do the $15 minimum wage bill "clean".   It doesn't have to be part of anything else, whereas you have to attach it to a larger budget bill, as is.

So, you could lose those two Dems and there very well could be 2 or many more republicans that would sign on.  The concept of the increase is generally pretty popular.  Or it might still get voted down, but then it's only voted down by those that voted against it and they can't hide behind other issues.

You're joking, right?  Tell me you are joking.

You cannot seriously believe that a bill - a $15 minimum wage bill, no less! - that did not have enough votes to pass because of a lack of Democratic support would be pushed over the finish line by Republicans.  That is not an even remotely credible claim.

Just to clarify, here:
"Overruling the parliamentarian" and "eliminating the filibuster" are two very different things.

If you overrule the parliamentarian, you can include the $15 minimum wage (or anything else you want, I suppose) in the COVID bill.  And then the entire COVID bill goes down in flames, because Manchin and Sinema bail after you overrule the parliamentarian.

If you eliminate the filibuster, then you can probably pass a $15 minimum wage, or voting rights, or DC statehood (etc.) on an up-or-down vote.  But you don't have the votes to eliminate the filibuster.  So this is a non-starter.

I know what overruling the parliamentarian is.  I also know eliminating the filibuster.  I get it totally.

If you overrule, you can include $15 in the COVID bill.  But it goes down (potentially).  Correct.
If you eliminate the fillibuster, you can get whatever you need on 50 votes.  Also true.

Eliminating the filibuster is possible, when tied to something like voting rights.  You're not getting 60 votes to pass that, so you can encourage Manchin and Sinema to fall to party lines...pick THAT as your spot.  Die on that hill, is what I'm saying.

As for the $15 passing stand-alone: I think it's definitely possible, but probably not likely.  It's not a democratic idea and could be introduced independent of party with bipartisan support.  It's got support among voting people, in general.  The Trump base is a weird animal.  They aren't Paul Ryan conservatives.

I'm with you spider. you're spot on here. which is why you put up a $15 dollar minimum wage bill for a vote .. and who votes against it votes against it .. that's the nature of the beast.. then you primary them if they in your party and seriously blocking a law that over 70% of the population approve of. Or you know .. propose $15  .. negotiate with the opposition and compromise at $13.

Govern. Don't just chuck it out because you really were only paying lip service to it. We all know that the companies that bankrolled your campaign really don't want to see it happen. And they're your real constituents whenever there's a conflict with a populist position.

Any kind of $15 minimum wage should be in tiers related to age and/or work experience with a requirement to hire a certain amount of employees in each tier. If two people are hired on the same day, a kid in 10th grade shouldn't be making the same amount as someone middle age who's been in the workforce for 15 years.

Yes, and that strategy makes sense, but not as part of the COVID bill.

Within the COVID bill, they'll vote against it because the parliamentarian recommended against it, because it's not COVID, because the bill is too big and expensive.  It will get muddy.

If you get rid of the fillibuster, you can run a straight up/down on just the $15, it will have a chance of getting GOP support OR DEM support for opponents.

This is delusional.

It is true that the Trump base is not Paul Ryan conservatives; Paul Ryan conservatives have policy goals.
Trumpists' only policy goal is owning the libs.  They would have no reason at all to sign on to any Democratic bill.

The first part of this is specifically against the law. Age is a protected class you cannot discriminate against.

The 2nd part just makes no sense. The job is the job .. if it pays $15 an hour, it pays $15 an hour .. unless you can negotiate more for yourself.

Your entire post is actually very much against the spirit of capitalism and free enterprise. So you want government now to set some sort of age tiers that private companies must hire against by law?
I'm gonna assume you're not a socialist, so that puts you squarely in the right wing government control of business camp. Congratulations, you're a fascist.

Maybe.  If it were a dem thing, I'd agree.  But I don't think the minimum wage is a dem thing.

It's pretty popular on the ends of both sides, but not in the middle.  I think the stand-alone $15 has something like 70% approval.

I mean Josh Hawley supported a $15 wage for companies with 1 billion in revenue.  And he was attacked for it and accused of cowtowing to the Trump base.

I am not saying it would pass -- but if you just ran it by itself (because you need to ditch the fillibuster anyway for voting rights reform), you would at least see and could use those "no" votes in rural areas to get some blue collar votes back.

Dave, a $15 minimum wage doesn't have nearly as much public approval as universal background checks for gun purchases, which is usually north of 90%.  How many Senate Republicans do you think would vote for that?

Polling only means so much.

No idea.

I think you might be missing my point.  Some of these Republicans say they will vote for it or are gray-areaed and will vote against it because it's part of a larger package they can't support.  If you run these popular ideas as straight up/down votes, you can either squeeze a few votes out OR force a situation where they have to answer to their constituents.

So, sure -- they may vote against background checks, but then they'd be targeted for TV ads in close districts, if they're trying to run as moderates.

They would either have to vote for the stuff or pay a political price -- where as part of a bigger bill where they need 60 to pass, it's a bed of nails with lots of excuses.

Good don't base it on age, base it on SS work credits. SS work credits aren't a protected class and that would probably work more accurately anyhow.

Anyhow, thanks for making my point for me. And it makes plenty of sense. Most hourly jobs in the pay range we're talking you don't negotiate anything. You take it or leave it. The only way to make more is through raises and bonuses.

Say currently a job pays entry level employees with no experience $10/hr. And you have a 36 year old single mother of 3 who's been at the company for 6 years and worked her way up to $14-16/hr. If they raise the minimum wage to $15/hr who's getting the raise? The teenage entry level employee making $10/hr or the single mother of 3 with 6 years experience already making $15/hr? You're crazy if you think the single mother is getting a $5 raise to match the entry level employee's raise to the new $15/hr. She ain't getting shit. Then what you'll have is an entry level employee and an employee with 6 years experience making roughly the same amount.

Before my parents died, for close to 15 years I worked for a major US retail company headquartered in Boca Raton. Although I worked in a different state, I dealt with corporate frequently. Over the past 10 years I've seen raises and benefits get cut and cut and cut. These MFs ain't spending a penny if they don't have to, in fact they're taking shit away. Actually, before I left I saw them hiring a bunch of entry level employees, training them, and slowly get rid of the tenured employees because $10/hour is cheaper than $15-16/hr.  The jobs we're talking about aren't rocket science. Most trained entry level employees are just as effective as tenured employees after the 3 month mark and much cheaper.  What you think they gonna do if they raise minimum wage to $15. Don't think for a minute that the company won't make up the difference somewhere else that will affect all of the employees negatively, not to mention the layoffs and overall reduction in the workforce.

So the reason to not raise the floor is that some people who already make more than the minimum will now make close to or at the minimum?  What kind of nonsense logic is that? That's the same logic that says that we won't find a cure for cancer because so many people have already died to cancer that curing people would be unfair. The mother of 3 in your scenario has multiple options. She can demand a raise, she can find a new job that pays better, she can join a union where collective bargaining presents her with better negotiating power.


So you worked at office depot and they suck as a company. There's also a reason they're HQ'd in Boca Raton FLORIDA. Because they want to take advantage of being a right to work state and they make it hard for their employees to form unions.

You're so close to this, post after post you keep describing how these big companies abuse their workers and how the "government" needs to pass laws to dictate how companies should behave. You will eventually arrive at the fact that this can be fixed by unionizing and by workers negotiating collectively with management.  It's not a coincidence that the decline in union membership went hand in hand with the increase in the income gap and an increase in poverty.

1st, you don't demand anything at these type jobs. These companies feel that you're lucky to have a job. 2nd, if the floor is raised then these type workers won't just be able to go find better paying jobs because the floor is now the ceiling also because the companies aren't going to willingly open their wallet after you already forced them to pay more. Raises and bonuses will go the way of the dinosaur.

Most companies are greedy and suck. That's not unique to OD.

I don't have a problem with unions, I'm all for them. However, I don't think that entry level employees, many of which it may be their first job, should be making $15/hr. It would be very easy to make a tiered system that's fair to everyone. Put the floor at $10/hr UP TO $15/hr based on SS credits. You can earn a maximum of 4 SS credits a year up to a maximum of 40 credits.
 
0-3 credits = $10.00/hr
04 credits = $10.50/hr
08 credits = $11.00/hr
12 credits = $11.50/hr
16 credits = $12.00/hr
20 credits = $12.50/hr
24 credits = $13.00/hr
28 credits = $13.50/hr
32 credits = $14.00/hr
36 credits = $14.50/hr
40 credits = $15.00/hr

That would actually solve the issue of raises up until the $15/hr mark. See, that's the problem. I don't have an issue with someone making $15/hr if they actually deserve it. I have an open mind and would be willing to compromise on the issue. But you're just stuck on giving everyone $15/hr and I can't agree with that. Some slacker clown that jumps from job to job, can't hold a job, gets fired/quits all the time, and just all around bad employees don't deserve $15/hr. They should have to earn their way to that mark. Like I said, a slacker clown entry level employee shouldn't be making the same as someone who's been in the workforce for 10 years.

Then we'll just disagree .. i think $15 today is the bare minimum for the part time high schooler and most people should be making over $20/hr

:D

Why do so many people seem to think that $15.00 an hour, which is, $31,200 a year is a lot of money? It's barely sustainable.
Mind you,I'm not looking to debate the whole thing. I just want to point out that $15.00 an hour is some sort promised land to some, and to others it's ridiculous to pay people THAT MUCH MONEY. It's a pittance.

It's not a lot of money for someone who works a job worthy of getting paid but to a kid who flips burgers, bags groceries, or sells popcorn at a movie theatre that's a lot of money.  If you want to make more then you should work at jobs that pay more than $15 an hour. I've said it before and I'll repeat ... there are tons of work in construction and manufacturing where there is opportunity to grow and succeed if a person wants it. The problem is no one wants to work any longer. They want to do an easy ass job and get paid like the carpenter or electrician's helper. Next they will want to be paid like the carpenter or electrician.

I think you have a warped perspective of things. part time work at $31k a year is at most what .. 20 .. 25K gross and way less than that in net pay.

I have the warped sense? You want to pay high school kids $15 an hour and give them full benefits. That's not crazy at all! SMH

At the minimum I want to pay high school kids $15 yes. I'd be more than happy if they ended up making more than that.

I don't know what "benefits" you refer to. I think healthcare isn't a benefit, it's a human right. It should never be tied to work in any way. What does McDonalds know about health care, what right should they have to dictate which cancer treatment someone should receive.

What a warped perspective of right and wrong you have to argue against a living wage and to be on the side of billionaire companies exploiting workers and treating the US taxpayer as a subsidy to their business. For every $7.50 worker that can't make ends meet is someone you pay for food stamps, or medicaid, or section 8 housing assistance. For someone who claims to not be a socialist, you are certainly supporting a welfare state.

You are correct that healthcare shouldn't be tied to employment.

First, there should be a database that lists the maximum that an insurance company can be charged for any procedure and/or medication. No more in network or out of network.

Second, require that insurance companies have one premium for everyone. Companies can set their own premiums, but they charge everyone the same. If you go to Walmart everyone pays the same for a can of beans, should be the same for insurance.

Third, require all insurance companies to sell nationwide. No more state lines.


But, no. I high school kid shouldn't be making $15 an hour as an entry level part time employee.

I like this one.

So how would we resolve the issue of some states having more lenient insurance requirements than others?  Seems like that would result in a race to the bottom, where every insurance company in the country operates out of the least restrictive state.

it's why banks are based out of delaware and cruise ships are based out of the bahamas

Federal standards.

Not exactly sure where we went from the land of opportunity to the land where everyone is forced to pay for everyone else but I sure wish I had a time machine to correct it. There is a huge reason Indians and Asians come here and succeed while our born in the US people struggle to collect benefits while playing victim to everything and everyone. It has everything to do with laziness.

I just watched a football coach from Georgia Tech tell his players that lazy people do a little work and think they should be winning while winners work as hard as possible and yet still fear they didn't work hard enough. That's our country in a nutshell. Or as John Maxwell says it ... before you can do what I do you have to "did" what I did. It doesn't just happen.

I guess that would be the time before the continental congress allowed for the continental army to be formed and paid. You know, since not everyone that lived in the states wanted independence.

I'm guessing you're also very against fire fighters. Maybe you'd prefer a private mercenary fire fighting force that you need to specifically pay to join. Kinda like a mafia protection racket. Also all roads need to collect tolls from anyone using them if they're from outside the city limits that laid down the asphalt. Cause to let everyone benefit from roads that you paid to build and maintain is surely only something that happens in "the land where everyone is forced to pay for everyone".

I guess we're now in the CFDolFan land of unintended and unthought out consequences. It's a place where someone can just take your home if they have more guns than you do since you probably don't pay for your own private security firm.

You live in a socialist country, you have all your life. Everyone has since people have had government. We have an unwritten and a codified social contract. There is no "good old days" of no socialism. We seem to be doing alright with fire fighters and with roads. And as long as we don't get too capitalistic (like texas) we tend to do ok with the electric grid as well. Don't be delusional about where you live, the reality is better than your fairy tale.

You do understand that "Land of Opportunity" was just a slogan, right? And a vague one, at best. For some, it meant an opportunity to prosper. For others, it meant the opportunity to be persecuted and, in many case, killed.

I can only believe the thousands of Native Americans that were slaughtered on their own land had a different opinion of your opportunities. Well, at least they did until they died, of course.

As expected, every Republican in the Senate voted against a $15 minimum wage.  8 Dems joined them.

Dave, you're crazy if you buy the hollow cries of economic populism coming from the right.  For all their BSing about the working class, neither Comrade Hawley nor Comrade Romney voted to raise the minimum wage.

Allowing your third point will drive the market on premiums for your second point.  And I agree with both.  Why should I be restricted to United Healthcare, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna and Atena just because I live in Florida?   Why can't I buy my health insurance from Buckeye Healthcare in Ohio or Lone Star Healthcare in Texas?

I think when we Republicans think working class we are thinking plumbers, welders, carpenters, truck drivers etc. and they are probably already making more than $15 an hour if they have been doing it any time.  We don't really lump in part time high school jobs like pizza delivery drivers, subway sandwich makers, and McDonalds fry cooks with 40 hour a week jobs that supports families.

I wouldn't limit my definition of the "working class" to "people who can afford a $50k pickup." Most of the jobs you listed are in heavily unionized trades.

Most of the workers in those fields are not unionized.

I don't really buy it.  There may be some that will jump on board, but there are others that will get called out for being fake populists.  The fillibuster being gone will force them to vote yes/no.  I think it will actually encourage bipartisanship.

Here's what I really think:

There are some Republicans (like Collins) who can vote for stuff that makes them appear moderate, when the votes gonna pass anyway.   There are probably several like that. 

A 50 vote threshold will likely get more GOP votes than a 60 vote threshold.  And it will allow straight up and down votes for simplier concept like minimum wage, without being attached to larger bills.

This is the dichotomy you see between Rs and Ds .. when this happens to a D, the party will not stand for it and people are after his head. Trump was accused of much more serious offenses and the Rs paint hummers with his face on a jesus body.

Orange man bad defense didn't take long.

Nah, just the "3-4 is less than 15-20" chapter in the basic mathematics textbook. ;)

Frankly, I don't think either one should be eligible for public office.

LMAO ... It's easier to attack Trump than it is to debate what Maine said as that would require facts.

Easy CF, don't push them too hard. Next move in their playbook is to call you a racist or something, LMFAO....

rape is quantifiably worse than sexual harassment .. that being said, yes they're both scum .. and both shouldn't ever be appointed dog catcher

my point wasn't which was worse, it was which can do bad things and still get support from his crowd

I think that Cuomo is going down because it sounds like he's also an asshole that bullies people he has power over.

If you're nice to people, you get the benefit of the doubt from people you've worked with.  It seems like this is part of a bigger personality issue.  Some of the stuff against Cuomo is gross -- like using your power over young women....other stuff is probably not a big deal because it was minor stuff taken out of context 20 years ago, but it doesn't happen in a vacuum -- it's a pile of accusations.  Again, if you're an asshole bully, you don't get support from people who think you were decent.

He may be forced to resign, but either way, he won't be re-elected.

I think you are confusing supporting his policies with supporting his behavior. I think Frank Sinatra is guilty of many of the same "sex" type things that Trump and even Cuomo is guilty of but everyone supported him as well. In the end it comes down to what they can do for you. Trump's policies align with me and since my guy didn't win the GOP nomination I'm kind of stuck with him ... warts and all.

If you truly are ignoring all of his behavior because you like some of his policies...shame on you.  Perhaps you should find a different politician with similar policies who doesn't have a lifelong history of molesting women and lying/threatening/insulting people virtually every time he opens his mouth (or touches a keyboard).

Surely there is at least one GOP politician out there who would qualify.

Isn't there?

Perhaps.  But Sinatra has been dead for 23 years and was irrelevant for many years before that.  It's not a very fair comparison to something happening today.

The difference is not meaningful; Trump has your vote either way (even to this day).  You would happily vote for him tomorrow if you could.

Then it's a good thing no one elected Sinatra president!  In contrast, you elected Trump and voted for him to be re-elected.  

Your excuse of the ends justify the means is no different than anyone else who abandons their morals to gain power.  It's not at all convincing, and makes this very thread a glaring example of rank hypocrisy.  I mean, by your standards, why should any Democrat care what Cuomo does?  He keeps us in power, which is all that matters according to you.

I don't remember seeing you call for Trump to be primaried in 2020.

The bottom line is that when your "morals" take a distant back seat to gaining political power, no one wants to hear your crocodile tears about corrupt Democrats.  You've abandoned all pretense at a moral high ground, and you can't even bring yourself to reject Trump even after he's lost.

^^^^ Spider no one was going to unseat Trump in 2020 so it would have been useless for me to ask to vote for Nikki Haley or someone else if even given the chance. And as far as him having my vote you are wrong. I've had this conversation at least 4 times now with other republicans and I really am hoping he doesn't plan on running in 2024. He gets a lot of votes just for the fact he pisses you guys off and I'm ready to move beyond that. With that said if he is the GOP nominee I'll probably be stuck voting for him. 

Sorry, that's not a credible excuse.  Even after you were "stuck" voting for Trump in 2016, no one forced you to come on this website and make excuses for him for the last four years.  You did that on your own.  You willingly sacrificed your own moral dignity, all for the sake of owning the libs.  Or, as you put it yourself:

I drove to Home Depot this morning to pick up some plants.

I saw multiple Trump flags on flagpoles in people's front lawns.  That shit is just weird. 

I'm not mad about it.  I just feel sorry for them.  It's just so incredibly odd and sad.

I've never made excuse for his tweets, sex with a stripper etc so not sure what you're referring to. I've called him an ass several times when referring to him but admit I align with many of his policies. Is it the fact I don't agree with with every false charge made about him by the same group that thinks there are 66 genders, that rioting and looting is OK as long as it's liberals and that full term abortions are a woman's right? That isn't ever gonna happen so just label me a racist whacked out Christian bigot and move along.   

Nothing has changed. You pay lip service to how disappointed you are with Trump's boorish behavior... as you praise his policies and actions, which you use to justify defending him.

At the end of the day, despite your protestations about how you have been Reluctantly Forced to support him, you're just another Trump voter.  You try to lecture others on morality while you support a man you concede is a dirtbag solely because he helps you accomplish your political goals.  You have no moral high ground to talk about Democrats and Cuomo.

You crack me up. You are among at least a few in here that live in your own realities. You hear and see whatever it is you want to with no regards to facts. I'm guessing you spend quite a lot of time alone. 

Easier to laugh than to face the truth...I get that. You're human, after all. And, if it makes you feel any better, I forgive you for hating liberals more than you love the country.

Trump is a slimeball who cares for nothing but himself. If he thought that becoming the owner of Qanon would put him back in office, he would embrace those nutjobs...with a healthy reach-around for emphasis, and agree to every whacked out conspiracy theory that says he is the Chosen One.

The moment that the rest of the GOP stands up to Trump and rejects him en masse, that's the moment that would truly "Make America Great Again."

Republican here. Not a Trump guy though. Didn't vote in either of the past two elections, because I didn't think that either candidate deserved my vote. But I've always wanted to see a president get into office that wasn't a career politician or a lawyer. For years I've wanted to have a president with a business or history background. Trump has made me reconsider my wishes.

Yessir...Trump's biggest business strength is his ability to drive a company into bankruptcy and to borrow money from whoever will lend him money without any intention of paying back the loan.

I don't disqualify Trump for his background.  I imagine you could lead, coming from a non political or legal background.

It's probably tough, since being a politician is its own job...and a hard one.  You have to deliver a message and make choices with political capital.  You can't fight every fight.  You're going to lose some fights you have to fight.  And you're going to lose some fights that you don't.  And you're going to win some fights that weren't worth fighting, because it costs too much.  It's a similar, but not an exact skillset as a business manager.

Again proving my point that several of you are living in your own little mind. You love to live in the sterotyoes your TV tells you about. Since I'm bored I'll play your game and I'm going to post a portion of a conversation I had this morning on FB with one of my gay and very liberal friends. Haha ... he's even a "Big City" who lives and works in the city of Chicago. I have as much friend love with him as I do with my MAGA friends. It might surprise you that I have gay friends and even some who have dance on Broadway and in Vegas.


We had been debating the rising gas prices and as a lib he was defending Biden. He then broke into jokes ...

Cory XXXX
Fun fact: my homosexual lover (ha!) gets annoyed with me every time we stop at a gas station because I announce the fluctuations of gas prices. I get that from my dad as he did the same thing when I was growing up and still does it.

Keith XXXX
Cory that’s just a man thing. Gas prices and weather updates ... 😂

CF, no one is saying that you go around slashing the tires and spitting in the food of liberals.  Yes, you can have a conversation and joke with them.  You do the same with us in the Dolphins forum!

But politically, when it comes to voting, you seem to be able to justify any action as long as you are owning the libs.