Trump’s Tots!

This rebuttal sounds like an NPR podcast

Bret Stephens in the NYT:

Bret: Imagine, Gail, if Trump turned the Oval Office into a meth lab. First, the president would call it fake news. Next, Mick Mulvaney would admit it is a meth lab, but that was O.K. because he hadn’t yet cooked up any meth, that his real intention was to teach chemistry to indigent 9th graders, and that Democrats are “anti-science.” Finally, his lawyers would insist that it’s unimpeachable because, if the president does it, it’s legal.

Pelosi applauded some truly awful portions of the speech but at least she gave you suckers a good gif at the end.

- Bernie advisor Matt Duss


I didn’t watch the SOTU, but as speaker Pelosi owes at least base courtesy to anodyne statements about the greatness or direction of our country. I’d be shocked if she applauded anything outrageous.

NPR review of STOU with Iowans had them appalled at Nancy. When the reporter asked about Trump making fun of the disabled reporter they said it was out of context to create fake news; didn't happen.

A while ago someone posted some stats that Trump's favorability among non-college educated whites was something big and his combined unfavorability among all other segments was off the charts low. Can someone point me towards that? Would like to review. Thanks.

Since I did not watch, I missed that he did a Welcome Home Soldier Surprise which is lol.

thephan wrote:NPR review of STOU with Iowans had them appalled at Nancy. When the reporter asked about Trump making fun of the disabled reporter they said it was out of context to create fake news; didn't happen.

I mean there is literally no way to change these people's minds; they see through orange-colored glasses. To anybody with any functioning brain cells, he was mocking the reporter. That said, that happened close to four years ago. Plenty of more recent vintage shit that Iowans could be asked about. And while I'm at it, I thought Pelosi acted childishly last night. Our country needs adults right now and her trying to go toe-to-toe with Trump on the playground serves no purpose.

CalvinBall wrote:Since I did not watch, I missed that he did a Welcome Home Soldier Surprise which is lol.

He did, which is tough to criticize even if Trump set it up. Of course, the reunion wouldn't have been necessary if Trump kept his campaign promise to bring our troops home from the Middle East.

traderdave wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Since I did not watch, I missed that he did a Welcome Home Soldier Surprise which is lol.

He did, which is tough to criticize even if Trump set it up. Of course, the reunion wouldn't have been necessary if Trump kept his campaign promise to bring our troops home from the Middle East.

I mean it is something they do at the half time of a high school basketball game. Using the soldier and his family to inflate Trump's own ego/image is something that you can criticize.

He's getting re-elected.

That was dumb, Nancy.

yep.

up there with 'deplorables'.

CalvinBall wrote:

traderdave wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Since I did not watch, I missed that he did a Welcome Home Soldier Surprise which is lol.

He did, which is tough to criticize even if Trump set it up. Of course, the reunion wouldn't have been necessary if Trump kept his campaign promise to bring our troops home from the Middle East.

I mean it is something they do at the half time of a high school basketball game. Using the soldier and his family to inflate Trump's own ego/image is something that you can criticize.

I am with you (especially that last bit) but, come on, a soldier is home with his wife and kids. Whether that happens at a basketball game or the SOTU, it is a good thing. I'd rather he did that to help his re-election chances than conspiring with foreign governments.

Let's all calm down a moment.

I was tooo tired last night, did not watch the speech, and have not watched it, but just the optics of it this morning tells me everything I need to know: things could not be going better for Trump; he won on impeachment, the economy is robust, people are feeling good about the direction of the country; and, thanks to Pelosi, Dems look like a bunch of spoiled babies who lost a game they shouldn't have started and so are throwing petulant little temper tantrums.

Long way to go but if the election were today with any Democrat, I would expect a bloodbath of epic proportions.

He...lost by 3 million votes.

I still think he's a favorite but November is very very very far away!

i agree that municipalities that use state police for primary coverage should pay towards that. wolf's new proposal has every municipality paying for it though and i'm not sure i understand the formula. the municipality i manage has it's own force. we would pay $8 per person for a total of $35k. our neighbor, who has it's own force and roughly 3k more residents would pay $3 per person for a total of $25k. the highest per person cost is $147 in pocopson twp. in chester co. the highest total is $3.08m in hempfield twp. in westmoreland co. it will be interesting to see if this comes to fruition.

it's based on how much you use it

it was proposed this way because republicans didn't want it at all; they don't want municipalities without police coverage to pay at all. this will likely be negotiated; this is highlighting the inequity.

how was the per capita determined for places that currently don't use PSP?

I was always under the impression that places who engaged PSP for daily patrol paid for it. That's not the case??

NOPE

Not paying for police coverage is yet another reason some of these townships have lower tax rates than boroughs and cities. They simply don't provide many services to their residents and mooch off others who do.