An Argument for Impeachment That Hasn't Gotten Much Discussion

[McLoofus 35,182]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The origination of the divide we now face, in my opinion, was the left’s refusal to allow Trump to be President as he was duly elected.  From the start the Democrats told the public to resist, to get in the faces of all Republican law makers and shout them down.

With all due respect, you don't seem to have any recollection whatsoever of the 8 years prior to trump's presidency. 

And, once again, you are normalizing trump by referring to his "vibrato" and "style of campaigning", as though his extraordinarily deep and dangerous flaws are accessories, superfluous and immaterial to how this country is governed. You keep ignoring that the awful caricature of trump isn't a fabrication of the left-wing media, but an honest self-portrait decades in the making.  

[AuburnNTexas 7,127]

On 8/4/2019 at 11:17 AM, aubiefifty said:

wait now hoss...........you guys said obama was a crook and a liar. why you taking his word now?

You say he was not a crook and liar why don't you believe him know?  That type of statement is a two edged sword.

As a poster above said Trump would use the fact that this happened during Obama era and they did nothing to stop it so why is an issue now. By the way this was not the first election the Russians tried to influence so should other Presidents also be held accountable.

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

With all due respect, you don't seem to have any recollection whatsoever of the 8 years prior to trump's presidency. 

And, once again, you are normalizing trump by referring to his "vibrato" and "style of campaigning", as though his extraordinarily deep and dangerous flaws are accessories, superfluous and immaterial to how this country is governed. You keep ignoring that the awful caricature of trump isn't a fabrication of the left-wing media, but an honest self-portrait decades in the making.  

I purposely did not mention the previous 8 years as I know we would did agree as to the *resistance* level of his Presidency. The media was in love with the guy and I can’t remember one late night TV *comedian* that would tackle any form of discord. 

I don’t normalize his flaws, he arrived on the scene with them, as you mentioned. He is a typical New Yorker, one of those the I have told to *go back where you came from* on occasion when they tell me the south doesn’t know how to remove snow or drive in it.  It is his personality and the Dems and media are trying to use it against him as if he is sent from the devil himself.

The danger is the left will make *white supremacist* as irrelevant as being called a *racist* is by all the Presidential candidates and MSM and that should not happen.  White supremacy should be exposed as the evil it is and not, as you put it, normalized by everyone on the left.

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I purposely did not mention the previous 8 years as I know we would did agree as to the *resistance* level of his Presidency. The media was in love with the guy and I can’t remember one late night TV *comedian* that would tackle any form of discord. 

And exactly how did they assist him in getting laws passed? I thought you were preoccupied with both sides of the aisle to come up with real solutions? Your arguments are awfully malleable. 

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t normalize his flaws, he arrived on the scene with them, as you mentioned. He is a typical New Yorker, one of those the I have told to *go back where you came from* on occasion when they tell me the south doesn’t know how to remove snow or drive in it.  It is his personality and the Dems and media are trying to use it against him as if he is sent from the devil himself.

You literally just normalized his flaws. You truly can't help yourself. As for the devil himself, this is a photo of him and his wife holding a baby whose parents were just murdered, on his visit to an area where 20 people were just murdered. Look at him. Look at his face. Look at his wife's face. Look at them. 

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The danger is the left will make *white supremacist* as irrelevant as being called a *racist* is by all the Presidential candidates and MSM and that should not happen.  White supremacy should be exposed as the evil it is and not, as you put it, normalized by everyone on the left.

Or maybe POTUS shouldn't be a white supremacist. 

My God, you sound just like 64. The left de-legitimizing words is the biggest issue here? Some rich guy losing some business over his political affiliations is the biggest issue here? 

Less hope for humanity every single day. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

By the way, Hillary Clinton won 87% of the vote in New York City. I don't suggest you go to Manhattan trying to tell people that trump is a typical New Yorker. He's not.

That's actually the exact kind of xenophobic ignorance that Southerners are deservedly mocked for. 

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

11 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

And exactly how did they assist him in getting laws passed?

Actually I was talking more about perception than law being passed.  But talking about laws, Obama use the Executive Order liberally..

 

13 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You literally just normalized his flaws. You truly can't help yourself. As for the devil himself, this is a photo of him and his wife holding a baby whose parents were just murdered, on his visit to an area where 20 people were just murdered. Look at him. Look at his face. Look at his wife's face. Look at them

I take it you don’t like his personality?  Maybe you should send a text or email to him and tell him how he should act to please you?  I’m sure he would listen.

 

16 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Or maybe POTUS shouldn't be a white supremacist.

Maybe the left and you in particular should look up the definition of *white supremacist* and see if the POTUS’ face is next to the definition.  The way it is now, the left is calling everyone that voted for or will vote for Trump a white supremacist to shame them into not voting for him in 2020.  It’s not because he is one. It really is a silly strategy. Protesting over presidential donations after being outed by a Representative is in poor taste, but it is the way of the world now.

 

21 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Less hope for humanity every single day

Virtue signal much?

Agree to disagree.

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Actually I was talking more about perception than law being passed.  But talking about laws, Obama use the Executive Order liberally..

I take it you don’t like his personality?  Maybe you should send a text or email to him and tell him how he should act to please you?  I’m sure he would listen.

Maybe the left and you in particular should look up the definition of *white supremacist* and see if the POTUS’ face is next to the definition.  The way it is now, the left is calling everyone that voted for or will vote for Trump a white supremacist to shame them into not voting for him in 2020.  It’s not because he is one. It really is a silly strategy. Protesting over presidential donations after being outed by a Representative is in poor taste, but it is the way of the world now.

Virtue signal much?

Agree to disagree.

You'd done a decent job until just now of separating yourself from the rest. 

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

You'd done a decent job until just now of separating yourself from the rest. 

I’ll say the same for you, the virtue signaling is what got me.  How about you?

[homersapien 11,352]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The origination of the divide we now face, in my opinion, was the left’s refusal to allow Trump to be President as he was duly elected.  From the start the Democrats told the public to resist, to get in the faces of all Republican law makers and shout them down.  The words of Maxine Waters and others were followed....

 

So the "left" kept Trump from being President by "getting in the face of Republican law makers and shouting them down" even though Republicans held majorities in both houses?

Seriously?   Shouting in the faces of Republicans - who held the majority - kept "Trump from being president"?

That's a pretty fanciful analysis. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

50 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I don't suggest you go to Manhattan trying to tell people that trump is a typical New Yorker. He's not.

As someone who spends one week of every month in NYC, I second this.

[homersapien 11,352]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The Democrats put up road blocks (which they can do) for not only trivial things, but things that affect the living standards of all Americans just to frustrate Trump.  The best example of this is the immigration policy.  For years, both parties have campaigned on securing the boarders and no one has followed through. The Dems didn’t like Trump’s vibrato and style of campaigning, so they are determined to go full *open boarders* which is a complete departure from previous Democratic Presidents.  They appears to be doubling down in their resistance to boarder security because they are in too deep.  I have to ask, is this what is good for the country?  It appears that the Democrats just want to give a free pass to anybody that can vote without regard to the law, mob rule.

That's just wrong.

In fact, it was Bill Clinton who is responsible for legislation that allowed for the increase in deportations (and Ronald Reagan who passed legislation allowing for amnesty.)

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11515132/iirira-clinton-immigration

....Everyone remembers that in 1986, President Ronald Reagan passed an "amnesty" law. But what most people don't know is that in 1996 — fresh off the heels of signing welfare reform, and two years after signing the "crime bill" — President Bill Clinton signed a bill that overhauled immigration enforcement in the US and laid the groundwork for the massive deportation machine that exists today.......

 

.......There was no single provision of the 1996 law that was as dramatic as the 1986 "amnesty" law, signed by President Reagan, which is why he gets credit for the last major immigration reform. But the '96 law essentially invented immigration enforcement as we know it today — where deportation is a constant and plausible threat to millions of immigrants.

It was a bundle of provisions with a single goal: to increase penalties on immigrants who had violated US law in some way (whether they were unauthorized immigrants who'd violated immigration law or legal immigrants who'd committed other crimes).

Most immigration wonks call the 1996 law IIRIRA (pronounced "Ira-Ira") — and it's far from beloved by them. Here are some of their most significant complaints:

More people became eligible for deportation. Legal immigrants — including green-card holders — can be deported if they're convicted of certain crimes (which cover a broad umbrella of offenses, some of which aren't violent). But in 1996, Congress radically expanded which crimes made an immigrant eligible for deportation. And they made these changes retroactive.

"Overnight," says law professor Nancy Moravetz of NYU, "people who had formed their lives here — came here legally or had adjusted to legal status, were working here, building their families, had ordinary lives in which they were on the PTA and everything else — suddenly, because of some conviction, weren't even allowed to go in front of a judge anymore. They were just fast-tracked to deportation."

It got easier to deport people. Immigrants convicted of crimes weren't the only ones stripped of the ability to argue their case before a judge before getting deported. So did anyone apprehended within 100 miles of the border. And IIRIRA required the government to hold more immigrants in detention before deporting them — making it substantially harder for them to get lawyers.

These changes drastically reduced the amount of leeway that immigration judges and the executive branch had to exercise discretion in whether or not to deport an immigrant.

"Discretion was taken away from district directors and immigration judges almost entirely," says Doris Meissner, who was head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the time. "And so deportations started to go up, people were deported who otherwise would not have been deported."

The change to the law was so drastic that after a high-profile deportation of an immigrant over a minor crime led to public outcry, Republican members of Congress — including the lead author of IIRIRA — wrote the Clinton administration asking them to back down.

It got a lot harder for unauthorized immigrants to "get legal." For much of the 20th century, it was possible for at least some unauthorized immigrants to obtain legal status once they'd been in the US for a certain amount of time. Before 1996, for example, immigrants who'd been in the US for at least seven years could get legal status as long as they showed it would cause them "extreme hardship" to get deported.

These standards weren't easy to meet. But IIRIRA made them essentially impossible.

It limited "cancellation of removal" to immigrants who'd been in the US for at least 10 years. Instead of having to show that the immigrant herself would suffer "extreme hardship" if she was deported, she'd have to show that a US citizen (like her spouse or child) would suffer "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship." The simple fact that the family would be separated if she were deported wouldn't count. And the US could only grant this to 3,000 immigrants each year.

That essentially eliminated an existing back door to legal status. But IIRIRA did even more. It locked a front door to legal status, too.

Marrying a US citizen or permanent resident makes you eligible to apply for a green card. So does having an immediate relative who's a US citizen (like a child), as long as the citizen's over 18. These are true whether or not you already live in the US. And before IIRIRA, it was true regardless of whether or not you were legal to begin with.

Starting after IIRIRA passed in 1996, though, an unauthorized immigrant couldn't directly apply for legal status — even if he had married a US citizen, or qualified for a green card through a relative. Immigrants were banished for at least three years if they'd lived in the US without papers for six months; the banishment lasted 10 years if the immigrant had lived in the US without papers for a year or more.

You could waive these bars if you could show that your spouse or child would suffer "extreme hardship" — but you had to leave the country to do it, triggering the ban before you found out if you'd gotten the waiver. Many immigrants understandably felt it wasn't worth the risk........

 

Furthermore, the "open borders" rhetoric is coming from Republicans trying to portray Democrats - as party  - favoring a policy they have never promoted.  It's rhetorical hyperbole.

[homersapien 11,352]

1 hour ago, AuburnNTexas said:

You say he was not a crook and liar why don't you believe him know?  That type of statement is a two edged sword.

As a poster above said Trump would use the fact that this happened during Obama era and they did nothing to stop it so why is an issue now. By the way this was not the first election the Russians tried to influence so should other Presidents also be held accountable.

McConnell refused to join Obama in making a bipartisan revelation and response to Russia's interference.

This left Obama subject to being accused of trying to influence the election himself by simply bringing it up as an issue.  And that is exactly what would have happened, especially considering the Russians were trying to help Trump.  So any action Obama took - without having bipartisan support from Republicans - was bound to influence the election one way or the other.

But regardless of what Obama did or didn't do, Trump is now president and it is incumbent on him to 1) acknowledge it happened and 2) prevent it from happening again in 2020. 

Obama's inaction then does not relieve Trump of that responsibility now.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

26 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

As someone who spends one week of every month in NYC, I second this.

Love that town. Have some friends and family there. Hoping for an opportunity to visit again soon. 

[homersapien 11,352]

19 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Love that town. Have some friends and family there. Hoping for an opportunity to visit again soon. 

NPR had a segment this morning about how the NY theater business is booming.  There are now 29 shows running on Broadway.

Then there's the museums, sports events, restaurants, concerts........

I agree, it's a wonderful place to visit, even it you aren't inclined to live there.

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

39 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

As someone who spends one week of every month in NYC, I second this.

I have not left anything in NYC that I would ever have to go back and get.  JMO.

[McLoofus 35,182]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

NPR had a segment this morning about how the Theater business is booming.  There are now 29 shows running on Broadway.

Then there's the museums, sports events, restaurants, concerts........

I agree, it's a wonderful place to visit, even it you aren't inclined to live there.

I couldn't live there. Love the people and all the things you mentioned, but I need a little more personal space than NYC can afford. Which is a little ironic given how liberating it can be to float around in that town.

Ugh. Really fixating on all the awesome stuff up there now.

[AuburnNTexas 7,127]

36 minutes ago, homersapien said:

McConnell refused to join Obama in making a bipartisan revelation and response to Russia's interference.

This left Obama subject to being accused of trying to influence the election himself by simply bringing it up as an issue.  And that is exactly what would have happened, especially considering the Russians were trying to help Trump.  So any action Obama took - without having bipartisan support from Republicans - was bound to influence the election one way or the other.

But regardless of what Obama did or didn't do, Trump is now president and it is incumbent on him to 1) acknowledge it happened and 2) prevent it from happening again in 2020. 

Obama's inaction then does not relieve Trump of that responsibility now.

 

I never said it did. I said Trump would use it to say there is a double standard. I do think we should do more to protect our elections from Outside influence but there is a fine line in trying to do it. Most of what the Russians did was on Social Media with fake accounts how does the US government stop it without infiltrating the Social Media companies and who decides which accounts are real and which are fake.

In trying to stop it we open ourselves up to having a Big Brother Government and whoever is in charge decides who can say what. In a free democratic society it is much harder to suppress the Social Networks.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

25 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I have not left anything in NYC that I would ever have to go back and get.  JMO.

That's fine.  Lots of towns that I don't like too.  But your assessment of the people is very different from reality.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

35 minutes ago, homersapien said:

NPR had a segment this morning about how the Theater business is booming.  There are now 29 shows running on Broadway.

Then there's the museums, sports events, restaurants, concerts........

I agree, it's a wonderful place to visit, even it you aren't inclined to live there.

That's me.  I would never want to live there full time.  Company asked me to and I took less money to stay away.  However, a week a month there is a lot of fun.  Get to see some cool stuff and eat at great restaurants.

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

That's me.  I would never want to live there full time.  Company asked me to and I took less money to stay away.  However, a week a month there is a lot of fun.  Get to see some cool stuff and eat at great restaurants.

That would be an ideal scenario for me.

Been to Xi'an Famous Foods? They're all over the place now, it seems. McWifey brought me home a bowl of noodles on the plane once. My favorite. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

12 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

That would be an ideal scenario for me.

Been to Xi'an Famous Foods? They're all over the place now, it seems. McWifey brought me home a bowl of noodles on the plane once. My favorite. 

There's one right by the hotel I stay at.  It's ok.  Wasn't the biggest fan.  I have a rule that I try to not eat at the same place twice there too often because there are so many great options.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

There's one right by the hotel I stay at.  It's ok.  Wasn't the biggest fan.  I have a rule that I try to not eat at the same place twice there too often because there are so many great options.

Good rule up there. And I probably wouldn't be as fond of Xi'an if I were expensing my meals, lol. The price point is definitely part of the appeal. Can't beat Flushing prices in midtown Manhattan. 

[AuburnNTexas 7,127]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's just wrong.

In fact, it was Bill Clinton who is responsible for legislation that allowed for the increase in deportations (and Ronald Reagan who passed legislation allowing for amnesty.)

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11515132/iirira-clinton-immigration

....Everyone remembers that in 1986, President Ronald Reagan passed an "amnesty" law. But what most people don't know is that in 1996 — fresh off the heels of signing welfare reform, and two years after signing the "crime bill" — President Bill Clinton signed a bill that overhauled immigration enforcement in the US and laid the groundwork for the massive deportation machine that exists today.......

 

.......There was no single provision of the 1996 law that was as dramatic as the 1986 "amnesty" law, signed by President Reagan, which is why he gets credit for the last major immigration reform. But the '96 law essentially invented immigration enforcement as we know it today — where deportation is a constant and plausible threat to millions of immigrants.

It was a bundle of provisions with a single goal: to increase penalties on immigrants who had violated US law in some way (whether they were unauthorized immigrants who'd violated immigration law or legal immigrants who'd committed other crimes).

Most immigration wonks call the 1996 law IIRIRA (pronounced "Ira-Ira") — and it's far from beloved by them. Here are some of their most significant complaints:

More people became eligible for deportation. Legal immigrants — including green-card holders — can be deported if they're convicted of certain crimes (which cover a broad umbrella of offenses, some of which aren't violent). But in 1996, Congress radically expanded which crimes made an immigrant eligible for deportation. And they made these changes retroactive.

"Overnight," says law professor Nancy Moravetz of NYU, "people who had formed their lives here — came here legally or had adjusted to legal status, were working here, building their families, had ordinary lives in which they were on the PTA and everything else — suddenly, because of some conviction, weren't even allowed to go in front of a judge anymore. They were just fast-tracked to deportation."

It got easier to deport people. Immigrants convicted of crimes weren't the only ones stripped of the ability to argue their case before a judge before getting deported. So did anyone apprehended within 100 miles of the border. And IIRIRA required the government to hold more immigrants in detention before deporting them — making it substantially harder for them to get lawyers.

These changes drastically reduced the amount of leeway that immigration judges and the executive branch had to exercise discretion in whether or not to deport an immigrant.

"Discretion was taken away from district directors and immigration judges almost entirely," says Doris Meissner, who was head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the time. "And so deportations started to go up, people were deported who otherwise would not have been deported."

The change to the law was so drastic that after a high-profile deportation of an immigrant over a minor crime led to public outcry, Republican members of Congress — including the lead author of IIRIRA — wrote the Clinton administration asking them to back down.

It got a lot harder for unauthorized immigrants to "get legal." For much of the 20th century, it was possible for at least some unauthorized immigrants to obtain legal status once they'd been in the US for a certain amount of time. Before 1996, for example, immigrants who'd been in the US for at least seven years could get legal status as long as they showed it would cause them "extreme hardship" to get deported.

These standards weren't easy to meet. But IIRIRA made them essentially impossible.

It limited "cancellation of removal" to immigrants who'd been in the US for at least 10 years. Instead of having to show that the immigrant herself would suffer "extreme hardship" if she was deported, she'd have to show that a US citizen (like her spouse or child) would suffer "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship." The simple fact that the family would be separated if she were deported wouldn't count. And the US could only grant this to 3,000 immigrants each year.

That essentially eliminated an existing back door to legal status. But IIRIRA did even more. It locked a front door to legal status, too.

Marrying a US citizen or permanent resident makes you eligible to apply for a green card. So does having an immediate relative who's a US citizen (like a child), as long as the citizen's over 18. These are true whether or not you already live in the US. And before IIRIRA, it was true regardless of whether or not you were legal to begin with.

Starting after IIRIRA passed in 1996, though, an unauthorized immigrant couldn't directly apply for legal status — even if he had married a US citizen, or qualified for a green card through a relative. Immigrants were banished for at least three years if they'd lived in the US without papers for six months; the banishment lasted 10 years if the immigrant had lived in the US without papers for a year or more.

You could waive these bars if you could show that your spouse or child would suffer "extreme hardship" — but you had to leave the country to do it, triggering the ban before you found out if you'd gotten the waiver. Many immigrants understandably felt it wasn't worth the risk........

 

Furthermore, the "open borders" rhetoric is coming from Republicans trying to portray Democrats - as party  - favoring a policy they have never promoted.  It's rhetorical hyperbole.

This is true to a point whether it was Reagan or Clinton the laws that were passed at those times had bi-partisan support.  I agree there are many things in these laws that are unfair. Somebody living here for multiple years who has established roots and a family should not be deported for some minor criminal act. I also think a country should be able to control who comes into their country to live.  We need a total reform of the laws. Our laws need to allow us to protect our borders, control entry, and be humane while increasing the number of legal immigrants as needed.  

From a purely economic standpoint if we allowed all the people who want to come to this country because of extreme poverty we would be overwhelmed.  We are a country of immigrants and we should always have immigrants come to this country.  I here some people talk about the time when we had open borders and they say it didn't hurt us they are right not only didn't it hurt us but it helped us. We had a huge country with vast natural resources and a small population it was a win win for those leaving a country with no future and coming to a country with opportunity and a need for people. 

At the time of open borders we did not have Drug Cartels bringing in drugs, we didn't have ease of travel where people could come to our borders from other countries and enter. Most of the people waiting at our borders in Mexico trying to get in come from Central America ( my wife is from El Salvador) most are hard working, family loving, responsible people with very few skills that are needed in this country.  As more and more things are taken over by automation and robots they would be the first to lose their jobs. I feel for these people and I understand their desire to come here, there is just no way we can handle unfettered immigration.  That is a cold hard economic fact. 

We do need a complete overhaul of our immigration laws.  We have to address those who are here illegally but have established roots we need to be able to deport people who have committed serious crimes, and we need to allow those who are basically good people but who have some minor offense to be allowed to stay. We need a flexible immigration policy that is not just x number of people from this country every year. Economy is booming and we have more jobs then people increase the number allowed that year.  No law will be perfect but a blind monkey could probably write better laws on immigration then what we currently have. At the beginning of the Obama administration Democrats controlled both House and Senate and could easily have passed immigration laws that were fairer. They didn't the Republicans have been equally at fault.  The Republican's push the wall as if it would be a panacea it might help in some areas but would not fix the problem. The Democrats block the wall at every turn they say it would cost to much but compared to total government spending it is a pittance. If they let Trump build his wall or gave him more money then currently the Republicans would be forced to compromise. 

We need to start with the Dreamers. When Obama first did his Executive Order on the Dreamers I said I agreed with what he was trying to do but that no Executive Order could overturn an existing law. It would have eventually gone to the Supreme Court where I am sure it would have been overturned even by Judges who agreed what it was trying to do. If Supreme Court did not overturn it they basically would be giving all future Presidents the ability to change law by Executive Order. Trump overturning Obama's Executive Order put it back to  Congress where it always belonged.  

It is time to bring a little sanity back to Washington. We need a bi-partisan Dreamer Law with nothing attached to it, not the wall for the Republicans or cutting funding for Ice for the Democrats.  both sides can fight over details of how far to go but at the least they are legally recognized as being allowed to stay in the US , to work in the US and to go to school in the US as to eventual path to Citizenship whether a quick path or a longer path that is not that important.  I honestly believe that passing a Dreamer Law could bring down some of the animosity and members of Congress might actually start talking with each other and begin the process of writing a fair set of immigration laws that allowed us to be more humane while still protecting our borders.

I also think the Republicans are their own worst enemies if we had fairer Immigration laws I think you would see a huge number of Hispanics move to the Republican Party. The Hispanic Family of today is similar to the American families of the 50's and 60's. Church oriented, family oriented, very conservative on many social issues, much closer to the Republican party then the Democratic party. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, McLoofus said:

By the way, Hillary Clinton won 87% of the vote in New York City.

President Trump won majority of the votes in Staten Island. 

9 hours ago, McLoofus said:

I don't suggest you go to Manhattan trying to tell people that trump is a typical New Yorker. He's not.

Why would someone go to Manhattan and do that????? President Trump is from Queens. 

For the record, if you think President Trump is tough, you would not last a day in New York City. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

As someone who spends one week of every month in NYC, I second this.

As someone who also travels to NY for work (and vacation  ), I disagree. People in NYC make POTUS look like an angel. We both know there is nothing - for the most part - but a**holes in NYC. 

To be honest it depends on where you are in the city lol. President Trump fits the mold, but there's no shortage of people who "exceed" him.