Trump Tells Freshman Women To Go Back To Their “Original” Countries

President Donald Trump caused another twitter storm this week with a highly offensive posting in which he told four female freshman members to go back to their “original countries” and that they “can’t leave fast enough.” It is a well-known trope used against immigrants. Most of us have heard it. My Sicilian immigrant grandparents heard it continually. It is a disgraceful thing to say to another citizen and it should be condemned by all Americans as unacceptable from an American president. In response to bipartisan criticism, Trump doubled down and tweeted “Their disgusting language and the many terrible things they say about the United States must not be allowed to go unchallenged.”

Here is the posting from Sunday:

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly …

… and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how. …

… it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

Those progressive congresswomen are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna S. Pressley of Massachusetts.

For the record, the “original” country form Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib and Pressley is the United States. Omar was a refugee from Somalia. Moreover, Omar is working to make this country a better place as all citizens should. It is her country. I strongly disagree with her policies and frankly I am not a fan. Her views have not “gone unchallenged,” as suggested by the President However, she is a fellow American who stood up to take part in our political system. Others have called for the same reforms as Omar and singling out her origins suggests that she is somehow less qualified or legitimate in working for such changes in her adopted country. She chose this country (as did my grandparents) and she has fulfilled her duty as a citizen to fight the freedoms and opportunities that brought her to these shores.

As President, Trump does great disservice to his office and his country with such offensive statements. He should apologize to these women and to the country.

270 thoughts on “Trump Tells Freshman Women To Go Back To Their “Original” Countries”

  1. …Interesting hysterics of Snowflakes & The NWO Global MSM….has omitted the crucial advice Trump gave to the belligerents..”Then come back and You Show Us fixed it !” …Common sensible request..The Somali Population has doubled in past Ten Years, Nigerians birth rates will exceed China’s in next couple of Decades..Zip it Up ! Just Zip it Africa ! Keep all the good African Stuff in Africa! Why has Tiny England got over On Million Somalis..Massive Crimes impacting our Indigenous folk. Hey We Have Rights Too..After 6500+ years of Graft !
    Africans never even invented a The Wheel, Or had a written history, or ever did Organised Oceanic exploration..But now Somalis re-invent..PIRACY !

  2. “I am Antifa” and said the attack was a protest against the establishment of “concentration camps” in the United States.”

    AOC Refuses to Condemn Antifa Terror Attack on ICE Facility

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez refused to condemn an Antifa terrorist attack on an ICE facility despite the terrorist invoking her “concentration camp” rhetoric in his own manifesto.

    69-year-old Willem Van Spronsen was shot dead by police on Saturday morning at an ICE facility in Washington State after he threw molotov cocktails in an attempt to ignite a propane tank. He was also armed with an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon.

    Van Spronsen was subsequently celebrated by some on the far-left and a copy of his manifesto emerged in which he stated, “I am Antifa” and said the attack was a protest against the establishment of “concentration camps” in the United States.

    When asked by a Rebel Media reporter earlier today whether she would condemn the attack, AOC refused to explicitly condemn it, saying only that she would make a statement about the incident later.

    “It’s easy to condemn a terrorist attack,” responded the reporter.

    “They firebombed an American facility, will you condemn them?” pressed the reporter.

    He then asked AOC if she felt any “responsibility” for the attack given that the terrorist invoked her “concentration camp” claim in his manifesto.

    “Are you responsible? Do you feel ashamed?” asked the reporter, as AOC walked away.

    As we reported earlier, CNN also refused to comment after it was revealed that Van Spronsen had appeared in one of their broadcasts during which the group he was a member of was described as the “good guys”.

    In a subsequent exchange, Rep. Ilhan Omar also refused to condemn the attack.

    1. Allan:

      AOC is a man. Have her hold her fingers up straight and flat, ring finger longer than index finger….okay, male trait. But not nec define…okay.

      Jaw line, if you put her jawline flat on a table, would it be square like a man, or angular downward like a woman. Jawlines never lie, unless they get it shaved down.

      What about those male cheek bones and indentations…looks pretty manly to me from an anatomical standpoint.

      All you have to do now is go in for your regular brow ridge shave downs, jawline shave downs, and some estrogen injections, pills, patches, etc.

      Though, they probably had her transition pre birth…

      But I guess we should look at her Q-angle to be very certain.

      I think Austin Powers said it best, “Its a man, baby.”

      I think there is also a group at Yale called “Skull & Bones.”

      Well, tis true, Skull and Bones never do lie, they always tell the truth in plain sight.

      Welcome to Tranny Land, my friend.

      We should look at Lindsey Graham next, he is looking awfully fem to me…

  3. Some people question Trumps tweets on the 4 anti-American congressional seat warmers.

    I sit and smile.

    Trump is Making Omar, Cortez and Tlaib into the Public Face of the Democrats

    It’s 2019 and there’s something tedious about Republicans following the media’s commands to twist their knickers when President Trump tweets.

    Sometimes Trump’s comments or purpose may be confusing, but this time around his intentions were obvious. He stepped into a Dem civil war being fought between the Dem establishment and a lefty insurgency, and set out to make the “squad” of Cortez, Omar, Tlaib and Co. into the public face of the Democrats. His comments were meant to get the Democrats to rally around them. And it worked.

    Yes his language makes a lot of Republicans uneasy, but his targets are the independents and swing voters who do indeed wonder why people who seem to constantly criticise this country don’t just leave.

    Trump wants to make Cortez, Omar and Tlaib into the public face of the Democrats by attacking them, forcing the Dems to defend them.

    The more outrage is stirred up, the more they become the politicians most associated with the Democrats. And, it should go without saying, this does nothing good for the Dem election prospects in 2020. __Greenfield

  4. “The point of the “Go back where they came from” Twitter salvo was to highlight the loyalties of the congresswomen currently enjoying the affectionate label “the Squad.” The Trump assertion is that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to fight for illegal immigrants over the larger interests of the country, with accompanying observations about Rep. Ilhan Omar’s focus on Somali refugees and Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s Palestinian roots, with trails leading from those specifics to an overall view of America that he finds annoyingly derisive…

    ….But as anyone paying attention will notice if they have eyes to see, Trump does not choose targets by race, but by the positions they take in opposition to his agenda. Those standing in his way may feel the heat of a thousand tweets, and some of them may contain factual hiccups and indelicate words. But the notion that they are born of racial animus is a concoction crafted by desperate foes.”

  5. No of what you said takes away from the fact that you are a lying sack of ****, Peter.
    So go ahead and continue to deflect away from that by giving a speech about where readers’ sympathies are, etc.
    Eventually, some people get fed up with the crap you consistently pull here and will call you on it.
    Given that you lie like a mattress, I’d be surprised if you haven’t heard that before.
    If not, then it’s way overdue.

  6. It is not “racist” to point out that America gives these radical American-hating Congresswomen freedoms and opportunities they would never have in a country like Somalia –or any country in the Middle East –with the exception of Israel.

    It is not “racist” for Trump to ask these Congresswomen if any of them would prefer to live in a Muslim country/society? Would they choose to raise their children in such a country? Would they enjoy free speech and freedom of expression in a predominantly Muslim society? Would they enjoy all the rights and freedoms and opportunities America has given each of them and their families?

    Trump is drawing attention to their utter disdain for America and he is saying please leave if you find America so distasteful. Please just leave and go solve problems in the countries you identify with more than America or being a proud, assimilated American. Please leave if you continue to use your position and your platform as duly elected Congresswomen to trash, criticize, condemn and apologize for America.

    Trump is criticizing their beliefs and their words and their actions. That is not “racist.”

    1. Member of Senate GOP leadership says Trump tweets are racist

      BY ALEXANDER BOLTON – 07/15/19 07:11 PM EDT


      Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairwoman Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said Monday that she thinks President Trump’s tweets suggesting that minority Democratic lawmakers “go back” to the countries they came from was racist.

      Ernst was pressed by reporters about Trump’s tweets from the weekend when she walked into a weekly leadership meeting in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) office.

      Asked if she thought Trump’s comments were specifically racist, Ernst acknowledged, “Yeah, I do.”

      She reiterated that view when asked on another occasion by a CNN reporter if she found Trump’s comments racist.

      “Uh, yeah. They’re American citizens,” she said, referring to Trump’s suggestion that Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), who all identify as racial minorities, go back to the counties they’re from.

      Of that group, only Omar, a native of Somalia, was born outside the United States.

      Ernst also called the comments “not constructive” and “not helpful.”

      Like other Republicans, she said Trump should focus on policies instead of personal attacks.

  7. I fully disagree as these same people have openly stated they refuse to assimilate and in the case of the four have already violated their oath of office.Not all of them are the same so it would to condemn all but even more wrong to do nothing about the ones who do fit that picture.

    1. Agreed. Ayanna Pressley is not one of them. The attention and criticism should be on AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

        1. Thank you. I erred in my evaluation. Pressley is indeed a “Justice Democrat” just as are the others.

  8. These two idiots ( or four, if we count JanF. and Anon and anon1 seperately) will be off discussing the number of jelly beans in a jar next.
    Keeping any exchange on topic with these loons is a pipe dream.

  9. “It is a well-known trope used against immigrants. Most of us have heard it. My Sicilian immigrant grandparents heard it continually. It is a disgraceful thing to say to another citizen and it should be condemned by all Americans as unacceptable from an American president. “
    In this false equivalency, I suspect your Italian grandparents didn’t criticize their adopted home at every turn, verbally supported terrorists hellbent to destroy America, were anti-Semitic or waged identity politics war against every contrary viewpoint holder. In short, your ancestors weren’t Anti-American. We can’t tolerate rule by people who hate us and that was Trump’s point.

    1. The professors frame of reference is the viewpoint of other faculty members, for whom America is a host country populated with a service class who attend to them, not a place they admire or cherish.

      1. I’ve met patriotic professors but many of the others were self-absorbed blowhards castigating the country for offenses both real and imagined. I wouldn’t have left my kids alone with a lot of them.

    2. Mespo should read a history book about the late 19th and early 20th century in America when labor unrest and suppression was violent, anarchists – some Italian – bombed and murdered, and anti-Semitism was the rule, not the exception in white America. How blacks were treated is whole nother book.

      1. Anon1:
        “Mespo should read a history book about the late 19th and early 20th century in America when labor unrest and suppression was violent, anarchists – some Italian – bombed and murdered, and anti-Semitism was the rule, not the exception.
        Thanks. Don’t need the book. I had family members testify about working conditions for coal miners before they died of black lung disease and others denied loans simply for their ethnicity. Somehow, they never whined or thought themselves victims or even thought that bombs or discrimination against other working-class Jews were justified. They just carried on. What a notion.

        1. Mespo, of course change follows “whining” – whatever that means – not passive acceptance, which is the point of elections and politics. Who is advocating for bombing and discriminating against Jews now in your supposed comparison, other than the white racists like the synagogue bomber?

          1. Whining doesn’t change things; legislation does. That’s why they testified. They didn’t block a highway or pelt some kid with a bike lock while wearing a mask.

            1. mespo, maybe you can state who is “whining” and who is “legislating”. While you’re at it which congresswoman hit somebody with a bicycle lock? You’re a little all over over the map here and not making much sense.

      2. Mespo referred specifically to Professor Turley’s grandparents, who were very likely good and decent people. In no way did he demonstrate ignorance of history.

        1. Allan doesn’t GAF about anti semitism or he’d talk about the synagogue killer. He just wants to bash the left, none of whom have killed Jews.

          1. He doesn’t ‘talk about the synagogue killer’ because in a country with 320 million people in it, there will always be a non-zero population of loser-lunatics. Robert Bowers was a complete loner whose only interactions with people were over the internet. What’s known of him suggests his attitudes and stances were idiosyncratic.

            1. TIA now makes excuses for 2 murderers from the right while pretending he cares about violence and anti-semitism. Allan preaches the same nonsense and expects to be taken seriously.

              1. I Don’t excuse any murderers. Have I said they don’t belong in jail? How silly can you get?

                Not everyone acts based on your type of emotion. Some actually think before they draw conclusions.

          2. It’s funny that at 9:21 AM I made a comment about Jews and anti-Semitism, just 2 or 3 posts below. I wonder what makes your warped brain think that that I should have made mention of that bomber. Your anonymity that uses a generic icon tells us what type of cr-p you are. I attribute all statements by any anonymous poster as postings from the Brainless Wonder but in this case it seems out of character. Could be but how do I know.

            Of course it is indeed fact the left is becomming more and more Anti-Semitic and tasteless. You are an example of that.

      3. Anti-Semitism in America continues and is growing on campus today.
        Anti-Semitic “hate crimes” are rising.
        The left is becoming more anti-Semitic.

    3. well said, mespo727272. Turley’s analogy was way off base, unusual for him. Perhaps he should discuss protesters pulling down the American flag on government property in Texas three days ago, and replacing it by hoisting Mexico’s flag –the national media were silent. I don’t remember this kind of blowback when Obama criticized rural Americans who relied on their “guns and bibles.”

    4. i had a grandparent from europe who scorned DPs. “displaced persons.” what they used to call refugees.

      he was proud to be an assimilated and naturalized american and never would have violated laws concerning migration, and he did not.

      to pay the price of naturalization, he served in the US army as a combat infantryman in France, spilled the blood of Germans and had some of his own spilled as well.

      He lived and went on to make a successful business and pay gobs of taxes over a lifetime. I’ll just leave it at that.

      I’d welcome migrants willing to pay that high a price. Most of them, aren’t quite so willing. That’s what this is all about really.

      Guys, I know some will say this is “Racist,” but I only care if it is true. If you think the people coming from central america by the millions today have the same cultural values and attitudes that the European migrants of a hundred years ago did, you’re fooling yourself.

      1. kurtz, the visibly hardest working people in my area are mostly short little brown guys, weekdays and weekends.

        1. probably they are the hardest workers but there’s more to civilization than hard work

          there’s more to values than valuing money

          culture is not something that can simply be taught on schools and social media. most of it comes from the family.

          there’s where biological, blood based connection between generations and cultures comes in like it or not

  10. “As President, Trump does great disservice to his office and his country with such offensive statements. He should apologize to these women and to the country.”

    I don’t think Trump owes anyone an apology for what he said. Politics is a dirty game and none of the people he names have passed up a chance to fling dirt Trump’s way.

    Now, will this attack redound badly against Trump? The people he attacked are from safe districts for Democrats. Nancy Pelosi herself said publicly that a glass of water running as a Democrat could have won AOC’s district.

    As rough as the President’s language has been, it’s what many of us are thinking (with the possible exception of AOC. I wouldn’t wish her on Westchester County, New York, which appears to be where Rep. Ocasio-Cortez came from before out-of-state supporters paid her to run from the Bronx).

    But the rest of these people? Rashida Tlaib openly calls herself a “Palestinian”. Ilhan Omar came to the US from Somalia, has tried to intercede for several fellow Somalians in trouble for their ISIS connections, and appears to have escaped prosecution not just for campaign finance fraud, but also for immigration fraud in the way she secured her brother’s entry into the United States.

    Reps. Omar and Tlaib are anti-Semitic on and off Capitol Hill, and have failed to conceal their distaste for our nation. I think that if (as they themselves say) they identify more with Palestine and Somalia than the United States, they should go back to these places – and rediscover why they are here and not there.

    1. treasonous is the word I was thinking of, at least when it comes to “abolish ICE” and “Decriminalize crossing the border”

          1. Treason is siding with the country that attacked America and then doing nothing about them doing it again, when you are the most powerful man in the world.

            Trump should go back to Moscow where he can suck up to Putin full time and be closer to his American killing buddy Kim.

  11. When will the Radical Left Congresswomen apologize to our Country, the people of Israel and even to the Office of the President, for the foul language they have used, and the terrible things they have said. So many people are angry at them & their horrible & disgusting actions!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 15, 2019

    If Democrats want to unite around the foul language & racist hatred spewed from the mouths and actions of these very unpopular & unrepresentative Congresswomen, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I can tell you that they have made Israel feel abandoned by the U.S.

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 15, 2019

    “We all know that AOC and this crowd are a bunch of Communists, they hate Israel, they hate our own Country, they’re calling the guards along our Border (the Border Patrol Agents) Concentration Camp Guards, they accuse people who support Israel as doing it for the Benjamin’s,….

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 15, 2019

    ….they are Anti-Semitic, they are Anti-America, we don’t need to know anything about them personally, talk about their policies. I think they are American citizens who are duly elected that are running on an agenda that is disgusting, that the American people will reject……

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 15, 2019

    ….What does it mean for America to have free Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants, no criminalization of coming into our Country – See how that works for controlling Immigration! They talk about Israel like they’re a bunch of thugs, not victims of the entire region. They wanted…

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 15, 2019

    … impeach President Trump on DAY ONE. Make them the face of the future of the Democrat Party, you will destroy the Democrat Party. Their policies will destroy our Country!” @LindseyGrahamSC Need I say more?

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 15, 2019

      1. No, my comment was intended to show that Ilhan Omar is a fraud! Posting her answer was to show that she refused to condemn Al Qaeda. That she is a terrorist sympathizer.

        Also, we know that there is enough evidence to prove that Omar married her biolgogical brother, committed fraud — and will almost certainly get away with it and not be investigated or prosecuted.

  12. Top Democrat: Why is Our Party Supporting Criminal Illegal Aliens?

    “I don’t understand it”.

    New Jersey Democrat George Norcross is amazed that his party is running on a platform of legalizing and giving free health care to up to 22 million illegal immigrants, asking, “Why is the Democratic Party supporting criminals that are here illegally?”

    The recently resurfaced comments were made at a Camden County Chamber of Commerce event.

    “I have at times told people in Washington, whether it was Majority Leader Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi: ‘Why is the Democratic Party supporting criminals that are here illegally,’” asked Norcross.

    “If you’re a criminal, you do not belong here. And the American public doesn’t want it. Why do we as a party support that? I don’t understand it. And that’s why the Democratic Party has not been attractive to certain elements of the working class of our country,” he added.

    Norcross’ remarks again highlight the mystery as to why nearly every Democrat running for president has advocated an open border amnesty while indicating that Americans will be forced to pay for illegals’ free health care.

    The Democrats’ move to embrace and normalize fringe voices within the party, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, doesn’t look like it will be a successful election strategy.

    As we highlighted yesterday, an internal poll of swing Democrat voters found that just 22% have a favorable view of AOC while a meager 9% have a favorable view of Ilhan Omar.

  13. These 4 freshmen women are fully drunk on themselves. Positive they are right on all things and certain they will deliver votes to the D party in 2020. Trump has fully elevated them to b the face of their party. My guess is people will search the nets and find their many many comments, tweets, etc. Particularly Omar referring to 9/11 as “some people did something”.

    There are vids of Tlaib **running from press** ambushes asking her about “impeach the MFer” and a few other things.

    Say whatever you want but FFS be strong enough to live with your words.

    There’s a lot in Tweet land. As well as Chakrabarti, Ocasio Cortez’s Chief of Staff. And down in the mud replies from the House Dem account which, so I gather, is controlled by Hakeem Jeffries.

    Earlier this month the Minneapolis Star Trib decided to take a look at that marriage of Ilhan Omar’s. They declined to last year and , iirc, endorsed her. If indeed she married her own brother in a visa fraud, she should b recalled.

    I don’t think this is going to go the way the D think it will.

  14. “Ms. GOODWIN: Yeah. So many people have talked about 1960 as being excruciatingly close. But, in fact, in 1976, if Ford had only won two more states, Hawaii and Ohio, which he lost by only a couple thousand votes, he would have won the Electoral College. And he was absolutely convinced he was going to win until those final results came in. It didn’t go on–it went on until the morning.”
    –Doris Kearns Goodwin

    One of Peter’s pet themes is the old “80,000 votes in states decided the election”, as if that’s some great “find” in analysing presidential election.
    1976 is one example where LESS THAN 10,000 VOTES in 2 states turned the election.
    2004 is a case where a c. 60,000vote shift in Ohio would have resulted in a Kerry win, despite losing the popular vote by about 3,000,000.

    1. Tom, you’re actually proving the point I made. Yes, Gerald Ford came seriously close. He won every state west of the Mississippi which was pretty significant.

      And because his victory was thin, Jimmy Carter became a generally unpopular president; especially after the halfway point. His last 2 years did not go well at all. I remember one night in the Carter era when Johnny Carson joked that the White House had become like the “Amityville Horror” with everyone yelling, “Get out, get out!”. That joke kind of symbolized Carter’s presidency. He was swept out in a landslide!

      Are you bringing up the Ford / Carter race because Fox viewers feel obliged to reduce every issue to a “What about?”..?? It sounds that way.

      I voted for Gerald Ford and never regretted it. I just wish Republicans were still as moderate as they were in Ford’s time. California Electoral Votes went to Ford.

        1. If Peter is not oblivious to the fact that some elections hinge on the outcomes of one or two or three states, and that relative narrow margins of victory can flip a state to one candidate or the other, then he’s done a good job of pretending that he’s unaware of that as well.
          He is “The Hannity of the Left”, although his HHHNN propaganda platform lacks the same ratings.

          1. “He is “The Hannity of the Left”,”

            Tom, Hannity is smart and pretty accurate with his facts and has been the first to reveal certain things that later were verified. Hill is duplicitous, lies a lot, isn’t smart and can’t get his facts straight. He doesn’t know much about JFK and knows even less of President Ford. He is an appendage of the Washington Post with as much information as the wrapper that keeps the delivered paper from becoming wet.

          2. Tom, is oblivious to the fact that weak victories often signal an unpopular president to be. Which makes perfect sense to anyone outside the rightwing bubble.

            Yet Tom would have us think that Trump’s weak victory was a miraculous event that somehow entitles him to a popular mandate. The logic seems to be that because the ‘polls were so far off’, Trump has a mandate to be as obnoxious as he wants. Like he can lose the Popular Vote by 2% and still claim a resounding victory.

            So Tom decided to flog this point at 1:40 am Pacific Time when he knew that most of us would be in bed. That’s how desperate Tom is to win this stupid argument. He stayed up late drinking coffee just to post all these comments creating the illusion that Shill was way, way off.

      1. One if Peter’s very favorite mantras is the “”80,000 votes in 3 states’ decided the election”. I’ve lost count of how many times he has repeatedly that, like he has made a great discovery of something that:s never happened before.
        I pointed out that some elections have hinged on a relatively few votes in a few key states. If Peter was aware of how tight the 1976 and 2004 elections were, he conceals that knowledge very well.
        I wasn’t asking for an involved, off-topic dissertation from him about points that we’re not even under discussion. I expect that, but maybe he can incorporate that into his ALL CAPITALIZED HHHNN PROOAGANDA BS, rather than pretending that he’s actually responding to a comment.

      2. I brought up the Ford-Carter election, and the 2004 election, to demonstrate to that moron that very close elections are not unprecedented.
        How and why Peter launch off into the “what about” stupidity is something he evidently feels was somehow a major off-topic propaganda point for him

      3. And because his victory was thin, Jimmy Carter became a generally unpopular president;

        No, Peter. He was despised at the end of his term because of (1) events and (2) bad policy decisions and (3) an obsessive-compulsive inability to set priorities and (4) a deficit of the sort of field knowledge and people skills that help you work Congress and (5) tiresome and demoralizing public reactions to everything.

        C’mon, you were there, Peter. You know this.

      4. I voted for Gerald Ford and never regretted it. I just wish Republicans were still as moderate as they were in Ford’s time.

        Ford was in politics because it was to him a more agreeable way of making a living than practicing law or running a paint store. He had certain biases (in part due to path dependency, in part due to being a provincial surburban bourgeois who found American life generally satisfactory). He also had a stronger emotional constitution than Nixon or Cater. These things matter. But he wasn’t a man with a well-articulated set of political principles.

        1. That’s true, Tabby, Ford lost because he lacked well-articulated principles. Nevertheless, he had more experience than Carter.

          Carter was a total outsider who had no relationship to Democratic party leaders (which became a real problem for him).

    2. Tom ignores the fact that none of his alternate examples happened and the person Americans voted for won the election, nor does he consider that if they had in 2004 for example, all the hypocrites like him would have had their hair on fire and they rightly would have called Kerry an unelected fraud, much as Trump is.

      His and others lame defense of the EC ignores the fact that it’s winner take all rules in all states but two is what makes it a threat to democracy and that feature was not part of the design. In as much as it exaggerates the importance of a states vote relative to others, it is in their self interest, but against that of voters, that it continue.

      1. Anon, Tom is using math from a textbook by Arthur Laffer that serves as a source for most Republicans. It’s that same math that says endless tax cuts can produce infinite prosperity. Like you can keep cutting taxes past the point of zero.

        Using Laffer’s math, a 2% deficit in the Popular Vote is a miraculous victory on par with Israel’s triumph in the 6 Day War. It becomes a miraculous victory because the ‘polls were so far off’. You see there’s a chapter in Laffer’s math book that says if polls were way, way, off then any fluke of an Electoral College victory is actually a landslide in terms of actual impact.

        So Tom, Tabby and Alan are totally dismayed that we’re not familiar with Laffer’s math. Laffer’s math, they believe, should be standard instruction in every American school.

        1. “It’s that same math that says endless tax cuts can produce infinite prosperity. Like you can keep cutting taxes past the point of zero.”

          The above statement is wrong and is proof Peter doesn’t know what the Laffer curve says and that Peter relies on distorted talking points that he constantly repeats on the net.

          Laffer demonstrated a curve, not a straight line and that curve represents taxable income elasticity. Peter, your total lack of knowledge reveals both a lack of ability and a lack of studiousness. You are downright lazy.

          1. I mentioned at least twice in an exchange with Peter
            earlier this year that I thought tax cuts had gone too far.
            He ended up, in that same exchange, lying about my stated position.
            (” The Republicans like you blah blah blah).
            Just like he’s lying now. Old habits are ingrained in fools like that.

        2. I didn’t mean to unfairly single you out for criticism, Peter.
          There are several others like you who are too feeble- minded to go very long without mentioning “FoxNews” “right-wing media bubble”, as though that is someone relevant to every exchange. Or an actual argument.
          You will have ample opportunity to launch into all kinds of non-sequiters involving your idiotic and irrelevant obsession with Fox News over the next 15-16 months until Election Day ( at least).
          And if your leader and idol David Brock has instructed you to cleverly use these key words hundreds of times more, I know that you will obediently comply.
          And you’re in great company with the other parrots like Natacha and JanF./ anon/ anon1, reciting the same lame talking points to tirelessly.
          Also, be sure to freely use CAPITAL LETTERS for the headlines whenever Peter “Scoop” Hill, and his HHHNN, report on a breaking story with one of you “news flashes”.😄😃😁😂

          1. Has anyone seen Tom today? I’m worried about him. That a.s whipping he took seems to have thrown him into a downward spiral.

            Hey Tom, if you read this, calm down man. It’s just the internet.

        3. I didn’t even know that I was discussing taxes with that fool Peter. I have found that my ten year old nephew knows more about both than Hollywood Hill, so I try to avoid wasting time on subjects he can’t or won’t grasp.
          I have never expressed the views that Peter generously “credits me” with making, but a little thing like chronic lying is no problem for that fraud.

          1. Tom, you’re just a howling sour apple today. What’s up with that??? Just crazed bitterness for the sake of bitterness.

            Random visitors to this site would be challenged to discern what you’re even arguing here. It’s just howls of empty outrage. You’re like the squawking crows I encounter on my canyon hikes.

            Sometimes crows get into verbal spats with other crows and the resulting disturbance sounds like an incident worthy of investigation. Like ‘who’ started ‘what’? That seems to be the effect you created here.

            1. ‘What’s up with that”?
              Pretty simple, really….I don’t like lying scum like Peter lying about what I’ve said and what I have not said.
              Hope that clears up the mystery for that weasel.

              1. Tom, do you honestly think random readers of these threads are going to empathize with you?? Like they’re going to see Tom Nash as the ‘protagonist’ here? How ridiculous!

                Random readers, scrolling these threads, will perceive Tom Nash as just a howling sour apple and nothing more. No one sympathizes with bawling wussies. That visual image alone is a turn-off to almost anyone. And that’s how you sound in these exchanges.

                Have your wife look at them. She’ll tell you your comments create an embarrassing hodgepodge of disjointed grievances.

            2. Peter, in your above discussion with Tom you said nothing about what is under discussion. You provided only empty rhetoric. You didn’t even bother to correct your total misunderstanding of the Laffer curve or anything else of significance. I explained the Laffer curve to you and not a word about it since.

        4. I’m laffing since most use basic ecnomics books that are no way making such claims while the ieft refuses to acknowledge the final admonishment and requirement of John Manyard Keynes which clearly states. “My system will work IF or as long as you can pay the interest.”

          I don’t even recall the name of Laffer in any of my economics resources be they left or right English, Austrian or USA by that name. so as long as once ad boredom we have a clue let’s take a peek.

          meep meep didnt take a road runner

          “The Laffer Curve is a theory developed by supply-side economist Arthur Laffer to show the relationship between tax rates and the amount of tax revenue collected by governments. The curve is used to illustrate Laffer’s argument that sometimes cutting tax rates can increase total tax revenue.Jun 19, 2019”

          from google

          Notice the word “sometimes’ where as Keynes made his rule ‘always’.

        5. I don’t understand that comment. I know what the Laffer curve is. I have no clue how this relates to some election. Ya lost me on that one Peter.

      2. I didn’t “ignore the fact” that the election did not swing either Ford or Kerry’s way; since that is matter of historical record, I thought that would have been obvious even to JanF/anon/anon1.

  15. (I’ve posted the Newsweek article that covers the multitude of excuses Hillary gives for losing.
    I thought it might serve as a menu of sorts, so that The Three Amigos might change the pace a bit, and not use their own Pet Excuse again and again and again.
    It didn’t take🙄.

Leave a Reply