I am not going to waste time pointing out the litany of things both illegal and immoral that disqualify him from the job and embarrass the country and lower the respect of the office, at this point anyone who doesn't see it is being unreasonable, ridiculously obtuse and in out and out denial.

There are at least two crimes - sexual assault and obstruction of justice - that he is on tape committing. That is actual fact. It's on video.

but whatever. To say that people are dispicable for coming after him though? Again, he's on video committing two crimes. There are questions of treason. Considering Clinton was nearly impeached for sex, and Obama was accused of being a foreign born communist Muslim, I think it's hilarious to use the 'poor me' defense.

But again, forget that - the guy can't string together a full sentence that would be acceptable in a grade five public speaking competition.
- James_Tanner

really reaching here james.

Obama is a mooslim. not using any poor me excuse at all so not sure where you get that from.

You should post more

While trump is in a whole other level of ridiculousness, a lot of what you say is apt.
I sorta keep flip flopping on what's worse, this narcissistic idiot clown show or self serving business as usual snake charmer crooks.

And as much as it still shocks me that guy is the president of the effing country, I think there's something positive to be said about democracy here. Even if he hoodwinked everyone, the people were frustrated with the system and they showed that the democratic proces hasn't entirely been stolen from them by lobbyists and corporations. Right or wrong, the people still hold power
- HB77

Can people overcome tribalism? We're on a hockey forum. We're all rooting for our guys to beat their guys. This ain't the place for political rants. I shouldn't have even posted that earlier, I just want Jimmy to get the picture. I mean isn't it in the COC not to get political or religious?

We are all here to talk about a silly game. To analyze the poop out of something that ultimately doesn't matter. To get a break from the scary stuff happening out there. We don't need it in here too.

See that's your problem. You're outraged with an out-and-out buffoon being in office, but you're fine with a slime-ball like Harper.

All politicians at that level do deplorable things. Trump just doesn't know what subtlety is.

In a way, it's good that he got voted in, because people that are normally not politically engaged have been jolted awake and are realizing how very screwed up the two party system has become. Resistance is mobilizing and some genuine change for the better can come out of it. Of course it can get real ugly, but something big will happen either way.

Now contrast that to another sack of garbage like Hillary Clinton (or Barry Obama) slithering into office and quietly doing the same terrible things (endless war for profit, the steady scaling back of civil liberties, consolidating economic power even further, destruction of the environment, etc, etc etc etc.) while lying through her teeth. This with just enough of a veneer of civility to keep people resigned to being governed by the "grownups in the room".

Career politicians are professional bullpoopters. Kids know this. Don't root for one side because they're more media-savvy.
- kinigitt

If not for the threat of nuclear war, I'd probably agree with your take on Trump. Certainly I am not 'fine' with Harper - I just wasn't terrified when he was in charge.

And there is some perspective now - Trump makes Bush/Harper look good by comparison. Hell, I'd take President Ted Cruz about now!

But you do have a point. I would just like to say though, that I only supported Hillary Clinton in comparison to Trump, and that I very much do not cheer for, like, or respect the democratic party.

You should post more

While trump is in a whole other level of ridiculousness, a lot of what you say is apt.
I sorta keep flip flopping on what's worse, this narcissistic idiot clown show or self serving business as usual snake charmer crooks.

And as much as it still shocks me that guy is the president of the effing country, I think there's something positive to be said about democracy here. Even if he hoodwinked everyone, the people were frustrated with the system and they showed that the democratic proces hasn't entirely been stolen from them by lobbyists and corporations. Right or wrong, the people still hold power
- HB77

I don't necessarily agree with you here because over three million more people voted for Clinton - the Electoral College, put in place to prevent populism, ironically, rubber stamped him. That isn't power to the people.

Trump won by such a low margin that the voter suppression tactics used by the Republican Party, in addition to gerrymandering districts, basically won them the election.

Furthermore, Trumps base is made up entirely of white people, mostly baby-boomers who've been brainwashed by a decade of Fox News.

Trump is extremely unpopular with minorities, women, the educated, and the young.

The white male Baby Boomers still elect the President. That is a sad fact.

So while I do take your point - as a certain amount of people were so fed up they voted for the chaos choice, no doubt, I just caution against thinking that that is enough to find a positive in this mess.

It is still morally abhorrent that someone who only represents the thoughts and ideas of a single generation of people, clinging to a white-America glorified past that never was, is the President.

Let us not forget that this only worked because he appealed, on purpose, to low-information voters, the uneducated and the racist.

Some positives can be found, but mainly let's face facts: if most people didn't spend 25% of their day with their face stuffed in a phone screen, he wouldn't be President.

a former president was also a Hollywood movie star. how about that....


your hatred towards Trump is wonderful. The more people hate him makes me think he is the right man for the job at this time.
- rinaldo

Tanner forgot that we also have a President that ate a DOG!!!!!!!!!!!

If not for the threat of nuclear war, I'd probably agree with your take on Trump. Certainly I am not 'fine' with Harper - I just wasn't terrified when he was in charge.

And there is some perspective now - Trump makes Bush/Harper look good by comparison. Hell, I'd take President Ted Cruz about now!

But you do have a point. I would just like to say though, that I only supported Hillary Clinton in comparison to Trump, and that I very much do not cheer for, like, or respect the democratic party.
- James_Tanner

so the threat of a nuclear war is what has your panties in a bunch?

I don't necessarily agree with you here because over three million more people voted for Clinton - the Electoral College, put in place to prevent populism, ironically, rubber stamped him. That isn't power to the people.

Trump won by such a low margin that the voter suppression tactics used by the Republican Party, in addition to gerrymandering districts, basically won them the election.

Furthermore, Trumps base is made up entirely of white people, mostly baby-boomers who've been brainwashed by a decade of Fox News.

Trump is extremely unpopular with minorities, women, the educated, and the young.

The white male Baby Boomers still elect the President. That is a sad fact.

So while I do take your point - as a certain amount of people were so fed up they voted for the chaos choice, no doubt, I just caution against thinking that that is enough to find a positive in this mess.

It is still morally abhorrent that someone who only represents the thoughts and ideas of a single generation of people, clinging to a white-America glorified past that never was, is the President.

Let us not forget that this only worked because he appealed, on purpose, to low-information voters, the uneducated and the racist.

Some positives can be found, but mainly let's face facts: if most people didn't spend 25% of their day with their face stuffed in a phone screen, he wouldn't be President.
- James_Tanner

UHHH...All Republicans are Generally unfavored by minorities. Probably b/c Libs Give away everything. Trump also got a larger % of minorities than Romney or McCain.


Millions of Libs have been brainwashed by NBC, CBS, MSNBC, on and on and on!

Have you ever watched FOX!!!???? They have more liberal Panelists on in one day than MSNBC has on all week.


Tanner does it AGAIN!!!!! He has to find a way to bring Politics to a Hockey site.

Hey.....you got your independent investigator, sooooooo I guess when nothing comes of it than all of this collusion, Russian B.S. etc will die w/ it right???

I don't necessarily agree with you here because over three million more people voted for Clinton - the Electoral College, put in place to prevent populism, ironically, rubber stamped him. That isn't power to the people.

Trump won by such a low margin that the voter suppression tactics used by the Republican Party, in addition to gerrymandering districts, basically won them the election.

Furthermore, Trumps base is made up entirely of white people, mostly baby-boomers who've been brainwashed by a decade of Fox News.

Trump is extremely unpopular with minorities, women, the educated, and the young.

The white male Baby Boomers still elect the President. That is a sad fact.

So while I do take your point - as a certain amount of people were so fed up they voted for the chaos choice, no doubt, I just caution against thinking that that is enough to find a positive in this mess.

It is still morally abhorrent that someone who only represents the thoughts and ideas of a single generation of people, clinging to a white-America glorified past that never was, is the President.

Let us not forget that this only worked because he appealed, on purpose, to low-information voters, the uneducated and the racist.

Some positives can be found, but mainly let's face facts: if most people didn't spend 25% of their day with their face stuffed in a phone screen, he wouldn't be President.
- James_Tanner

I don't necessarily agree with you here because over three million more people voted for Clinton - the Electoral College, put in place to prevent populism, ironically, rubber stamped him. That isn't power to the people.

Trump won by such a low margin that the voter suppression tactics used by the Republican Party, in addition to gerrymandering districts, basically won them the election.

Furthermore, Trumps base is made up entirely of white people, mostly baby-boomers who've been brainwashed by a decade of Fox News.

Trump is extremely unpopular with minorities, women, the educated, and the young.

The white male Baby Boomers still elect the President. That is a sad fact.

So while I do take your point - as a certain amount of people were so fed up they voted for the chaos choice, no doubt, I just caution against thinking that that is enough to find a positive in this mess.

It is still morally abhorrent that someone who only represents the thoughts and ideas of a single generation of people, clinging to a white-America glorified past that never was, is the President.

Let us not forget that this only worked because he appealed, on purpose, to low-information voters, the uneducated and the racist.

Some positives can be found, but mainly let's face facts: if most people didn't spend 25% of their day with their face stuffed in a phone screen, he wouldn't be President.
- James_Tanner

you have a link with those numbers? don't recall ever seeing 3mm

voter suppression tactics, will you listen to yourself. Demos been having dead people vote for God knows how long.

What are Dems brain washed by? Freebies by the govt?

if white male baby boomers still elect the president how did Obama get into office?

I don't necessarily agree with you here because over three million more people voted for Clinton - the Electoral College, put in place to prevent populism, ironically, rubber stamped him. That isn't power to the people.

Trump won by such a low margin that the voter suppression tactics used by the Republican Party, in addition to gerrymandering districts, basically won them the election.

Furthermore, Trumps base is made up entirely of white people, mostly baby-boomers who've been brainwashed by a decade of Fox News.

Trump is extremely unpopular with minorities, women, the educated, and the young.

The white male Baby Boomers still elect the President. That is a sad fact.

So while I do take your point - as a certain amount of people were so fed up they voted for the chaos choice, no doubt, I just caution against thinking that that is enough to find a positive in this mess.

It is still morally abhorrent that someone who only represents the thoughts and ideas of a single generation of people, clinging to a white-America glorified past that never was, is the President.

Let us not forget that this only worked because he appealed, on purpose, to low-information voters, the uneducated and the racist.

Some positives can be found, but mainly let's face facts: if most people didn't spend 25% of their day with their face stuffed in a phone screen, he wouldn't be President.
- James_Tanner

wow that is racial profiling there James. Guess all the law enforcement agencies and other public works who supported trump fall into your 3 categories.

I lobe it people still so mad Trump is king. The more hate the better the pick.

you have a link with those numbers? don't recall ever seeing 3mm

voter suppression tactics, will you listen to yourself. Demos been having dead people vote for God knows how long.

What are Dems brain washed by? Freebies by the govt?

if white male baby boomers still elect the president how did Obama get into office?
- rinaldo

Dont bother!!!!!

Its hilarious.

99% of Republicans/Conservatives you talk to have no problem discussing rationally about the faults of their candidates / elected officials. Bush, Trump, Reagan, etc..........I have no problem discussing pro's/con's of each....Every Lib I ever talked to demonizes every Republican no matter if their policies will help them or not, but ask them to say negatives about Obama, Clinton(s), etc they say nothing.


When Obama gave away Top Secret Info, it was called a "mistake", When/if Trump did, its called treason.


And by the way, All Presidents have the power to declassify top secret info if they so please.....it happens on a daily basis



Tanner.....how many times a day did the kids in school give you wedgies?????????

I don't necessarily agree with you here because over three million more people voted for Clinton - the Electoral College, put in place to prevent populism, ironically, rubber stamped him. That isn't power to the people.

Trump won by such a low margin that the voter suppression tactics used by the Republican Party, in addition to gerrymandering districts, basically won them the election.

Furthermore, Trumps base is made up entirely of white people, mostly baby-boomers who've been brainwashed by a decade of Fox News.

Trump is extremely unpopular with minorities, women, the educated, and the young.

The white male Baby Boomers still elect the President. That is a sad fact.

So while I do take your point - as a certain amount of people were so fed up they voted for the chaos choice, no doubt, I just caution against thinking that that is enough to find a positive in this mess.

It is still morally abhorrent that someone who only represents the thoughts and ideas of a single generation of people, clinging to a white-America glorified past that never was, is the President.

Let us not forget that this only worked because he appealed, on purpose, to low-information voters, the uneducated and the racist.

Some positives can be found, but mainly let's face facts: if most people didn't spend 25% of their day with their face stuffed in a phone screen, he wouldn't be President.
- James_Tanner

I'm not so sure gerrymandering got the job done quite as well as you think.
Minorities and younger generations are often responsible on their own for marginalizing their vote by flocking to districts where the dems already have a landslide in place.
I'll try to find a tedtalk I found on this subject. Was pretty interesting.

Not in any way marginalizing the abhorrent behaviour of white republicans trying to suppress the minority vote. just sayin. Also, the dems aren't above this practice when they're in power either.

the republican base only represents about 38% of the voting public. With that said, there's an obvious disconnect between voter turnout and the majority beyond a flawed electoral system . I think flawed polling data and outright indifference had as much to do with it as hoodwinked voters.

End of the day, I don't disagree with much of what you said here. Just wanted to point out a few things.

.
- James_Tanner

You're off the rails again. Plenty of other folks voted for the guy. That narrative affords the sore loser party the opportunity to maintain that they're still the winners, because they're superior to the dumb racist plebs that voted him in.

You can't have it both ways, just like a team that loses hockey games in may isn't the best team in the nhl.

I'm not so sure gerrymandering got the job done quite as well as you think.
Minorities and younger generations are often responsible on their own for marginalizing their vote by flocking to districts where the dems already have a landslide in place.
I'll try to find a tedtalk I found on this subject. Was pretty interesting.

Not in any way marginalizing the abhorrent behaviour of white republicans trying to suppress the minority vote. just sayin. Also, the dems aren't above this practice when they're in power either.

the republican base only represents about 38% of the voting public. With that said, there's an obvious disconnect between voter turnout and the majority beyond a flawed electoral system . I think flawed polling data and outright indifference had as much to do with it as hoodwinked voters.

End of the day, I don't disagree with much of what you said here. Just wanted to point out a few things.
- HB77

Alot of this.


As an aside, would you say the threat of nuclear war is exacerbated or diminished by a president that is willing to work with those boogeymen russkies, you know, the other major nuclear power of the globe?

Hillary Clinton famously wanted to escalate tensions with Russia over her plans for Syria.

Less tension between belligerent nuclear super powers is better, right?

Trump has done and continues to do terrible things, but the one commendable thing he's doing (even if it is incidental to furthering his business interests) is what the liberal pundits are squealing and writhing about. THAT, is irony.

Alot of this.


As an aside, would you say the threat of nuclear war is exacerbated or diminished by a president that is willing to work with those boogeymen russkies, you know, the other major nuclear power of the globe?

Hillary Clinton famously wanted to escalate tensions with Russia over her plans for Syria.

Less tension between belligerent nuclear super powers is better, right?

Trump has done and continues to do terrible things, but the one commendable thing he's doing (even if it is incidental to furthering his business interests) is what the liberal pundits are squealing and writhing about. THAT, is irony.
- kinigitt

You're being less than honest in your argument here. I don't think anyone is against better relationships with Russia - but the USA has a moral authority to be against someone who commits genocide and suppresses the press.

There is also the problem of their hacking the election. Undue influence on that scale is an act of war, and if Trump is complicit in that - which it looks more like he is every day - then that is extremely serious and completely renders whether or not Hilary Clinton would have antagonized Russia a moot point.

Everyone always does these dumb false equivalencies, as if just by hating Trump you automatically think everything Democrats do is good.

Also, a nuclear war is 100% made more likely by an incompetent, impetus, emotional, thin skinned President with a tough guy attitude (complete with the fact that it's a masquerade for being a whiner and a wimp) than by any other President having a conflict with Russia.

The problem isn't international relations, it's incompetence.

You're off the rails again. Plenty of other folks voted for the guy. That narrative affords the sore loser party the opportunity to maintain that they're still the winners, because they're superior to the dumb racist plebs that voted him in.

You can't have it both ways, just like a team that loses hockey games in may isn't the best team in the nhl.
- kinigitt

If I had ever seen one intelligent, well-spoken, mature person support Trump I might think you had a point. But honestly, the people who go on TV and support him are ridiculous, as are the people at his rallies.

I am sure they exist, mathematically the odds say they must, but I have honestly not seen or encountered one.

If we pretend there isn't an intellectual divide in this county/ continent just because it's not very nice to talk about it, we'll never get anywhere.

Objectively speaking, Trump's campaign had real, actual, strategy sessions about conning low-information voters and racists. That is unquestionable.

You're being less than honest in your argument here. I don't think anyone is against better relationships with Russia - but the USA has a moral authority to be against someone who commits genocide and suppresses the press.

There is also the problem of their hacking the election. Undue influence on that scale is an act of war, and if Trump is complicit in that - which it looks more like he is every day - then that is extremely serious and completely renders whether or not Hilary Clinton would have antagonized Russia a moot point.

Everyone always does these dumb false equivalencies, as if just by hating Trump you automatically think everything Democrats do is good.

Also, a nuclear war is 100% made more likely by an incompetent, impetus, emotional, thin skinned President with a tough guy attitude (complete with the fact that it's a masquerade for being a whiner and a wimp) than by any other President having a conflict with Russia.

The problem isn't international relations, it's incompetence.
- James_Tanner

where is this proof? anyone bueller?

You're being less than honest in your argument here. I don't think anyone is against better relationships with Russia - but the USA has a moral authority to be against someone who commits genocide and suppresses the press.

There is also the problem of their hacking the election. Undue influence on that scale is an act of war, and if Trump is complicit in that - which it looks more like he is every day - then that is extremely serious and completely renders whether or not Hilary Clinton would have antagonized Russia a moot point.

Everyone always does these dumb false equivalencies, as if just by hating Trump you automatically think everything Democrats do is good.





Also, a nuclear war is 100% made more likely by an incompetent, impetus, emotional, thin skinned President with a tough guy attitude (complete with the fact that it's a masquerade for being a whiner and a wimp) than by any other President having a conflict with Russia.

The problem isn't international relations, it's incompetence.
- James_Tanner

:

Painfully true

When I'm with my family in Alberta, I'm a bleeding heart commie across the board.

When I'm discussing politics with fellow university students in Vancouver, I'm a staunch fascist that believes in unfettered capitalism ...

Can't seem to make it clear that I see rationality in both sides. Apparently that's unacceptable

I'm not so sure gerrymandering got the job done quite as well as you think.
Minorities and younger generations are often responsible on their own for marginalizing their vote by flocking to districts where the dems already have a landslide in place.
I'll try to find a tedtalk I found on this subject. Was pretty interesting.

Not in any way marginalizing the abhorrent behaviour of white republicans trying to suppress the minority vote. just sayin. Also, the dems aren't above this practice when they're in power either.

the republican base only represents about 38% of the voting public. With that said, there's an obvious disconnect between voter turnout and the majority beyond a flawed electoral system . I think flawed polling data and outright indifference had as much to do with it as hoodwinked voters.

End of the day, I don't disagree with much of what you said here. Just wanted to point out a few things.
- HB77

In a general election, no it didn't. But a Majority of Americans are centrists or liberal leaning and the general politics of the R-House and Senate are extreme, by historical standards.

Their majorities in the house and Senate are actually not that great, and if 70% of people didn't disagree with their policies, they'd have a much bigger majority based on the way they have doctored the systems with gerrymandering.

Given the extremity of their agenda, and how unpopular their ideas are, it's a huge affront to democracy that they do have a small majority in both houses. But you are right, gerrymandering has little effect on a general election.

where is this proof? anyone bueller?
- rinaldo

I don't recall a single time that the FBI / CIA released their proof on something like this to the Public.

The fact is, six intelligence agencies reached the same conclusion and if you know anything about how they co-operate with each other, you know that if they all have the same conclusion it's true.

Furthermore, sanctions were already made, and there isn't anyone who disputes it actually happened.

The question is what did Trump have to do with it, if anything? There is no question of Russian interference. None. It happened.

In a general election, no it didn't. But a Majority of Americans are centrists or liberal leaning and the general politics of the R-House and Senate are extreme, by historical standards.

Their majorities in the house and Senate are actually not that great, and if 70% of people didn't disagree with their policies, they'd have a much bigger majority based on the way they have doctored the systems with gerrymandering.

Given the extremity of their agenda, and how unpopular their ideas are, it's a huge affront to democracy that they do have a small majority in both houses. But you are right, gerrymandering has little effect on a general election.
- James_Tanner

Tool bag!!! When democrats gerrymander when they have power, its OK, but not for Republicans. OMG. You are a dummy. When libs do something its for the greater food, but when republicans do it, its. Cheating, it unethical. Just admit your a hypocrite and be honest. At least you could be respected for sticking to what you believe and not sneering other side because you dont agree with them....again, you are a tool bag

I don't recall a single time that the FBI / CIA released their proof on something like this to the Public.

The fact is, six intelligence agencies reached the same conclusion and if you know anything about how they co-operate with each other, you know that if they all have the same conclusion it's true.

Furthermore, sanctions were already made, and there isn't anyone who disputes it actually happened.

The question is what did Trump have to do with it, if anything? There is no question of Russian interference. None. It happened.
- James_Tanner

Obama made the sanctions dummy. As far as where you say "6 agencies". Name the actual people who said this and not the "u named source". As far as interference.......this is the outcome they wanted! Unrest.. They didnt don't son trump could win. Holly crap, Clinton's did as much business with Russia as Trump!!!!! Uranium sale, etc.

1) You're being less than honest in your argument here. I don't think anyone is against better relationships with Russia - but the USA has a moral authority to be against someone who commits genocide and suppresses the press.

2) There is also the problem of their hacking the election. Undue influence on that scale is an act of war, and if Trump is complicit in that - which it looks more like he is every day - then that is extremely serious and completely renders whether or not Hilary Clinton would have antagonized Russia a moot point.

3) Everyone always does these dumb false equivalencies, as if just by hating Trump you automatically think everything Democrats do is good.

4) Also, a nuclear war is 100% made more likely by an incompetent, impetus, emotional, thin skinned President with a tough guy attitude (complete with the fact that it's a masquerade for being a whiner and a wimp) than by any other President having a conflict with Russia.

5) The problem isn't international relations, it's incompetence.
- James_Tanner

1) No, it (frank)ing doesn't. As a nation founded on genocide and non-stop warfare (let's just clear out these indians and we'll have plenty of liebensraum to grow some cotton) it doesn't have the moral authority. It just IS the authority.

I'll make it real simple for you to understand: less war=good. More war=bad.

2) No proof. Even if some thin proof emerges, it is LAUGHABLE that this is a fixation of theirs. Remember a guy named Boris Yeltsin? Remember the first 9/11? I'll give you a hint it happened in Chile. This is something where the use of the word "hilarious" would be appropriate. The whole world laughs at americans and their pet canadians when they hear this crap about "interfering with american elections"
The Russian boogeymen didn't elect Trump. Plain and simple.

3) You're riding shotgun on the democrat bandwagon with the bunk talking points you repeat in your HOCKEY BLOG so I just assumed you were a cheerleader. My bad.

4) Show your work. He's a bellicose nimrod, but nukes are bad for business. He's not entirely stupid.

5) It goes wayyyyy deeper than mere incompetence. It's a systemic failure of huge proportions that is rooted in a tradition of political treachery. Steady slide to the bottom of the standings for close to 50 years. Time to blow it up and sack the management team. I'm trying to bring it back to hockey here.

I don't recall a single time that the FBI / CIA released their proof on something like this to the Public.

The fact is, six intelligence agencies reached the same conclusion and if you know anything about how they co-operate with each other, you know that if they all have the same conclusion it's true.

Furthermore, sanctions were already made, and there isn't anyone who disputes it actually happened.

The question is what did Trump have to do with it, if anything? There is no question of Russian interference. None. It happened.
- James_Tanner

no it didn't happen. sorry try again.

any links to these conclusions?

no it didn't happen. sorry try again.

any links to these conclusions?
- rinaldo

Sanctions were levied against Russia by Obama RE: the annexation of Crimea. Economic show of force. He took a measured approach. Likeable guy. Very charismatic. Good public speaker. A damn sight more accomplished as a politician than Trump.

Still a liar (Guantanamo? Pulling out of Afghanistan?)

Traitor to his citizens and voting base (bailouts, surveillance state, kow-towing to insurance companies)

And last but not least a quiet killer and war criminal (the expansion of extra-judicial assassination by drone, including of U.S. citizens, as well as the murder of hundreds of civilians with said drone program)