Trump's First Year

[burrrton]

burpon, here ya go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew

This is you.

Thanks, largent. Clever.

[edit]

You edited to add *this*??

"Do you wear a wig when you sing it?"



Got any Jerk Store jokes, too?

[idhawkman]

Well, Hawktalk, we're still here! One down, three to go!

Although the headlines in some news agencies are very misleading as some are calling Trump's average approval rating "the worst in history" or "worse than any of his predecessors", Trump's average approval rating for his first year is lower by far than any first year POTUS since they started tracking it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... tp&ffid=gz

This is an election year, so it will be interesting to see how things shake out. IMO with those kind of poll numbers, most R's will be distancing themselves from Trump.

Should be interesting.

You spelled 7 wrong in your post River...

[RiverDog]

You spelled 7 wrong in your post River...

Yea, you wish.

Unless for some reason Trump is not on the ticket, 2020 will mark the first time since I started voting in 1972 that I voted for a Democrat for POTUS.

[idhawkman]

Yea, you wish.

Unless for some reason Trump is not on the ticket, 2020 will mark the first time since I started voting in 1972 that I voted for a Democrat for POTUS.

And yet you don't even know who it is. 2020 will be one of the biggest landslide victories for reelection in history. Hard to beat Reagan's reelection but Trump will come close.

[Largent80]

Whoever it is, it won't be the Rumpster.

[Aseahawkfan]

I won't go as far as Riverdog. No way I vote for a Democrat unless he's some kind of conservative Democrat that doesn't support the triggered left platform I despise.

I doubt Trump will come close to Reagan's re-election numbers. Reagan knew how to sway crowds in a positive way, even those that didn't agree with him tended to respect his oratorical abilities. Grandpa Reagan was far more likable than Crazy Uncle Trump. If the economy doesn't collapse and people's finances are going welll, Trump may get the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" voters that don't want a smooth sailing boat taken off course. That may propel him to a second term. If the economy is going badly and the market falls hard at the wrong time, his stupid comments will come back to haunt him and push him out of The White House. His re-election is heavily dependent on the state of the economy as with most presidents, and even more so with Trump as his economic promises are what won him The White House.

[Largent80]

Evidently nobody is paying attention to the disdain of Trump.

People that voted for him realize what they did, there isn't a single thing he can do to ever hope to "win" again.

[Largent80]

That stock market and Mueller inquiry is going well.....

[Seahawks4Ever]

It is a mixed bag. Some things he has done I agree with, others I don't. He is his own worst enemy and would actually doing a lot better if he would demonstrate a little restraint, but that's never going to happen. At first I cringed every time he tweeted and I wished he would stop it all together. Now I understand its power, and if he would use it a bit more sparingly he would be much more effective.

The Dems. have NO Message other than they re against anything Trump is for, like a military parade. Why not? We defeated ISIS when under the Obama Admin. everyone was saying it would be a long hard "generational" fight. Then, when the gloves were taken off we kicked their behinds and crushed them. So, why NOT celebrate that victory???

My take on the whole Russian thing is that Trump panicked when the FBI came to them and told them to look out for the Russians and he had had dealings with them going way back. Experienced campaign people should have straightened him out that he couldn't do "business as usual" as a candidate and/or POTUS. Instead, they egged him on, mainly because they themselves were already working for the Russians. People like Paul Manafort and General Flynn new better and are the ones that should be punished. Don Jr. was and is an idiot and was lead astray by Manafort . Did Trump and his campaign coordinate with the Russians to defeat HRC ? Yeah, they DID. BUT, that doesn't mean she would have won. He main enemy was FBI Director Comey, she even blamed him in her book.

So, put Manafort in jail, slap the Trump campaign with some fines and restrictions for 2020 and lets move on. There will be NO impeachment, and the sooner the Dems. accept that fact the better off they will be. Then maybe they can concentrate on a real message other than "we hate Trump".

Oh, I wish Trump would lead those idiots in congress, especially that moron Speaker and Turtle. He should be leading them not the other way around. Trump should play the Dems against the Reps instead of freezing out one side. The "base"" isn't going anywhere, time to EXPAND his outreach.

Do you know what the Dems worst nightmare is? That DJT learns how to actually BE the POTUS. I mean, he is much more powerful than he realizes.

Edit; OK it appears that there is a bi-partisan deal in the Senate to do a regular 2 year budget. OK, Trump called for bi-partisanship by congress and byjove he got it! Looks like he IS learning how to lead, effectively. Did he need to threaten another govt. shut down? No, but, he made the point that he wanted something done and for both sides in congress to quit messing around.

[Largent80]

Ever look at the people standing behind Rump at his speaches?

They look like they cleaned them up off the streets and said, "how would you like to be on tv?". That's his "base"

Guess what?...all the people that wanted something different or to simply vote against Clinton are actually partially more intelligent than you think they are and even with their mental problems they aren't going to let this mistake happen again.

And after this buffoon is outed, all of his tax BS for the rich and the rest of his ridiculous agenda will be thankfully in all our rear view mirrors.

[burrrton]

all of his tax BS for the rich

I'm not rich, and I got a significant tax cut. Find a different criticism of the tax reform (there are plenty of valid ones)- you sound like an Occupy skidmark whining about things like that.

[Aseahawkfan]

Ever look at the people standing behind Rump at his speaches?

They look like they cleaned them up off the streets and said, "how would you like to be on tv?". That's his "base"

Guess what?...all the people that wanted something different or to simply vote against Clinton are actually partially more intelligent than you think they are and even with their mental problems they aren't going to let this mistake happen again.

And after this buffoon is outed, all of his tax BS for the rich and the rest of his ridiculous agenda will be thankfully in all our rear view mirrors.

This is why Trump wons. Smarmy liberals thinking the can talk trash about Republican voters while not acknowledging the very real issues they feel are troubling this nation. Keep on fueling Trump's base by making them seem like bad,dirty, uneducated people just like you've been doing for years which culminated in a President like Trump. Never mind all the criminals, homeless drug addicts, and sanctuary city folks you are supporting that dirty up the cities and places these people live in that drive them to vote for someone like Trump because you won't do anything about those types of people even as they make America into a cesspool.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm not rich, and I got a significant tax cut. Find a different criticism of the tax reform (there are plenty of valid ones)- you sound like an Occupy skidmark whining about things like that.

To the Democratic voters, only rich people invest or benefit from tax breaks. Not us working folks that like to invest our money rather than buy cigarettes, brand new cars, eat out of all the time, drink too much, and generally spend our money on wasteful activities while complaining about Wall Street corruption. We're all just too stupid to know how to invest and must be protected from the Wall Street predators.

[Largent80]

This is why Trump woms?

I think you meant wombs.

It would be awesome if he would crawl back up into one.

[burrrton]

To the Democratic voters, only rich people invest or benefit from tax breaks. Not us working folks that like to invest our money rather than buy cigarettes, brand new cars, eat out of all the time, drink too much, and generally spend our money on wasteful activities while complaining about Wall Street corruption. We're all just too stupid to know how to invest and must be protected from the Wall Street predators.

I'm not even talking about stocks or 401Ks- my paycheck just went up due to Trump's tax cuts more than my last raise (which, to be fair, wasn't a huge raise due to a number of factors, but you still notice it).

This dopey talking point that an across-the-board tax cut only benefits the rich is ridiculous and self-defeating- people are going to see their paychecks going up and remember all the people who said they wouldn't (or that if they did, it was insignificant).

[Aseahawkfan]

This is why Trump woms?

I think you meant wombs.

It would be awesome if he would crawl back up into one.

I wonder what you will do if he wins again. Slit your wrists because life is so bad?

[Largent80]

You need to worry about yourself dude, you seem obcessed with everyone else.

And while being wrong about them at the same time.

What's that stain on your MAGA hat?

[Seahawks4Ever]

Do we really need to know about the marital problems of one of Trump's underlings? I think not! It was said that maybe Rob could be blackmailed and so they couldn't give him a Security Clearance. It is ALL out in the open now so I guess no one could blackmail him now so how about the FBI approving Rob for that Security Clearance now because the possibility of him being blackmailed just dropped below ZERO!

[RiverDog]

And yet you don't even know who it is. 2020 will be one of the biggest landslide victories for reelection in history. Hard to beat Reagan's reelection but Trump will come close.

Yes sir. That just shows you how much I dislike Donald Trump, that I'd blindly offer up my vote to the person most likely to displace him from office.

The only way I'd NOT vote for a Dem for POTUS in 2020 would be if they nominate Hillary again, something that is extremely unlikely, and if they did, I still wouldn't vote for Trump, I'd vote for a 3rd party or independent candidate like I did in 2016.

As far as Trump's possible re-election being on the order of Reagan's re-election win, you are delusional if you honestly think that Trump under any circumstances would win anywhere close to what Reagan did in in 1984. In his re-election bid, Reagan won 525 out of 538 electoral votes, including every state in the nation except his opponent's home state of Minnesota, and won nearly 59% of the popular vote. Even hugely popular presidents like FDR in the middle of WW2 and a war hero like Ike didn't win as big as Reagan did in '84. Trump could reverse global warming and it wouldn't make any difference in states like California and New York.

Assuming that he gets re-nominated, if Trump wins in 2020 it will be by a very similar formula to the one that put him in the White House in 2016.

[Largent80]

Rump really wasn't even elected, OMG the electoral college !!!!!!....what a joke it is, so the landslide is going to land on the head of anyone dumb enough to still support him.

I'm hoping any viable candidates from any party or even non party start stepping forward RIGHT NOW.

If Bernie had done it earlier he would have won easily.

Rumps election has done one awesome thing and that is waking people up to considering running. There is a story of a woman that after the election decided to run in her state and WON.

This is going to be , in the end what America needed in spite of the man himself. Politics as we knew it are going to change and the change begins with this buffoon being in office. It's going to be awesome to see everything he did in 4 years, undone in a matter of months. So if you STILL support this dude, good luck in the future because your shades need to come off.

People that spout off...Liberal-Conservative, and still point fingers are the LOSERS in society. Aseahawkfan is right there at the head of the class. Telling me I'm a liberal. Doesn't know me, sees text and makes a judgement.....

BRILLIANT and D U M B.

He (and his ilk) is the real reason someone like the Rumpster Fire got elected

[RiverDog]

This is why Trump wons. Smarmy liberals thinking the can talk trash about Republican voters while not acknowledging the very real issues they feel are troubling this nation. Keep on fueling Trump's base by making them seem like bad,dirty, uneducated people just like you've been doing for years which culminated in a President like Trump. Never mind all the criminals, homeless drug addicts, and sanctuary city folks you are supporting that dirty up the cities and places these people live in that drive them to vote for someone like Trump because you won't do anything about those types of people even as they make America into a cesspool.

Yea, that keeps the pot stirred alright, and is counterproductive to their cause. All it does is get them fired up. But conservatives are just as bad at contributing to the ever widening gulf between the opposing political sides. My neighbor has a bumper sticker on his car that reads "Hillary for Prison in 2016". That kind of rhetoric is just as bad as the left trashing conservatives. Social media is just rife with this crapola. I've had to unfollow or unfriend a number of my Facebook friends because they just wouldn't stop posting garbage like that.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yea, that keeps the pot stirred alright, and is counterproductive to their cause. All it does is get them fired up. But conservatives are just as bad at contributing to the ever widening gulf between the opposing political sides. My neighbor has a bumper sticker on his car that reads "Hillary for Prison in 2016". That kind of rhetoric is just as bad as the left trashing conservatives. Social media is just rife with this crapola. I've had to unfollow or unfriend a number of my Facebook friends because they just wouldn't stop posting garbage like that.

I don't dispute that. The fuel each other like politics is a sport and they're rooting for their team. Then they pretend they want unity and the politicians pay lip services to it while running campaigns to tear people apart that the masses eat up. Bread and circuses as they called it back in Rome.

[burrrton]

Rump really wasn't even elected, OMG the electoral college !!!!!!....what a joke it is

What... does this even mean?

[RiverDog]

I don't dispute that. The fuel each other like politics is a sport and they're rooting for their team. Then they pretend they want unity and the politicians pay lip services to it while running campaigns to tear people apart that the masses eat up. Bread and circuses as they called it back in Rome.

Sad isn't it? I used to talk politics a lot, but anymore I'm afraid to. I never have discussed politics at work or anytime I was around my subordinates as I felt there was too much potential for a conflict of interest, but I was always able to talk about it in a barber shop or bowling alley amongst strangers and casual friends.

[RiverDog]

Rump really wasn't even elected, OMG the electoral college !!!!!!....what a joke it is, so the landslide is going to land on the head of anyone dumb enough to still support him.

I'm hoping any viable candidates from any party or even non party start stepping forward RIGHT NOW.

If Bernie had done it earlier he would have won easily.

Rumps election has done one awesome thing and that is waking people up to considering running. There is a story of a woman that after the election decided to run in her state and WON.

This is going to be , in the end what America needed in spite of the man himself. Politics as we knew it are going to change and the change begins with this buffoon being in office. It's going to be awesome to see everything he did in 4 years, undone in a matter of months. So if you STILL support this dude, good luck in the future because your shades need to come off.

People that spout off...Liberal-Conservative, and still point fingers are the LOSERS in society. Aseahawkfan is right there at the head of the class. Telling me I'm a liberal. Doesn't know me, sees text and makes a judgement.....

BRILLIANT and D U M B.

He (and his ilk) is the real reason someone like the Rumpster Fire got elected

Your post is a little difficult for me to follow, but I'll try to addess your points.

First of all, the electoral college: There's no way anyone can predict how the election would have gone had we elected our presidents by popular vote vs. the electoral college. You can't simply take the popular vote results of the past election and project it onto a theoretical campaign without the electoral college. Both sides would have run their campaigns much differently. And as far as it being a joke, it's been a part of our system since the founding of the country and it isn't going away anytime soon, so you might as well deal with it. We do not live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic, or representative democracy.

We won't see any viable candidates for the 2020 election starting to emerge until well after the mid term elections. Hopefully we'll see some fresh faces.

Would Sanders have beaten Trump? As in the point about the electoral college, it's impossible to tell. Once again, both campaigns would have been much different. Personally, I think you're right, that Sanders would have won, but that's just a gut feeling. But Sanders had his own problems. He's not a Democrat, he's an independent that caucuses with the Dems. It's unclear whether or not he would have been able to muster the same type of support from Dem political machine that HRC was able to do. Plus he's one of the most liberal legislators in Congress, and politicians at the extreme ends of the political spectrum usually have a hard time winning in a general election.

As far as the remaider of your diatribe, Trump voters cast their votes for a variety of reasons. As you noted, many voted for him because he wasn't HRC. A lot of voters in some of the traditional industries of steel, auto, coal, etc, that have been hit hard by foreign competiton liked his "America First" theme. And there are a lot of military and defense type folks that have major issues with Democrats in general regarding national security issues. The point is that not all Trump voters are a bunch of toothless hillbillies sitting on the tailgate of a '73 Ford drinking moonshine.

[Aseahawkfan]

Rump really wasn't even elected, OMG the electoral college !!!!!!....what a joke it is, so the landslide is going to land on the head of anyone dumb enough to still support him.

I'm hoping any viable candidates from any party or even non party start stepping forward RIGHT NOW.

If Bernie had done it earlier he would have won easily.

Rumps election has done one awesome thing and that is waking people up to considering running. There is a story of a woman that after the election decided to run in her state and WON.

This is going to be , in the end what America needed in spite of the man himself. Politics as we knew it are going to change and the change begins with this buffoon being in office. It's going to be awesome to see everything he did in 4 years, undone in a matter of months. So if you STILL support this dude, good luck in the future because your shades need to come off.

People that spout off...Liberal-Conservative, and still point fingers are the LOSERS in society. Aseahawkfan is right there at the head of the class. Telling me I'm a liberal. Doesn't know me, sees text and makes a judgement.....

BRILLIANT and D U M B.

He (and his ilk) is the real reason someone like the Rumpster Fire got elected

What part of I didn't vote for Trump did you not understand? If anything I helped your side by not voting since I usually vote Republican. I did my part by not voting for a candidate I didn't believe in. Did you do your part by not painting all conservatives with a broad brush to fuel their hate? Or did you vote for Sanders taking votes away from Hilary that would have helped her win the White House? I am left to wonder.

We'll place a bet next election if Sanders runs. He won't win the White House. Republicans will have a field day drumming up doubts about Sanders being able to negotiate with the Middle East given their view of Jewish people. I'm still astounded how little modern people understand about religion not so much in country as outside with many nations we negotiate with, especially Muslim nations. You want to seriously see the Middle East lose their mind about America, elect a Jewish president and watch the propaganda train on Al Jazeera and Middle Eastern news stations. That would be fun.

[RiverDog]

Sanders has more going against him than his religion. He's 76 years old, meaning that he'd be 79 if he were to run in 2020. Plus he's not a member of the Democratic party, which is one of the reasons why he couldn't beat HRC for the nomination in 2016.

[burrrton]

The whole 'hypocrite Socialist' thing might play in, too.

[c_hawkbob]

hypocrite my arse, he's been more consistent with his message throughout his career than anyone.

[Aseahawkfan]

Sanders has more going against him than his religion. He's 76 years old, meaning that he'd be 79 if he were to run in 2020. Plus he's not a member of the Democratic party, which is one of the reasons why he couldn't beat HRC for the nomination in 2016.

Maybe so, but religion is a big one given the religious make up of the American electorate and our interaction in the Middle East. Even Nixon knew to keep Kissinger out of the Middle East when it came to international negotiations. Age isn't as much of a factor as Trump showed. 71 isn't what it once was and neither is 76. Like I said, I don't agree with the Democrats, but I understand they are not dumb either. They know how to vet candidates and challenge for The White House. They may take a shot on a Jewish candidate some day, but Sanders isn't that guy.

I know the Republicans put Goldwater on the ticket at one point. He had converted to a Christian denomination prior to running as far as I recall.

And Sanders socialism is a big one. It may energize the youth, but big business would likely work against him. Lots of well-funded groups would be smearing him like they were driving a truck through a mud puddle.

[burrrton]

hypocrite my arse, he's been more consistent with his message throughout his career than anyone.

Consistency isn't the issue- "consistently" whining about that which he's taking advantage (in spades!) is. He bitches and moans about Capitalism but owns three f*cking houses on the government dole.

He can shut the fck up about "TEH RICH". He's one of them, and laughing at all the dummies who rally behind his calculated rhetoric (but I think it would *kill* him in a general).

[RiverDog]

Maybe so, but religion is a big one given the religious make up of the American electorate and our interaction in the Middle East. Even Nixon knew to keep Kissinger out of the Middle East when it came to international negotiations. Age isn't as much of a factor as Trump showed. 71 isn't what it once was and neither is 76. Like I said, I don't agree with the Democrats, but I understand they are not dumb either. They know how to vet candidates and challenge for The White House. They may take a shot on a Jewish candidate some day, but Sanders isn't that guy.

I know the Republicans put Goldwater on the ticket at one point. He had converted to a Christian denomination prior to running as far as I recall.

And Sanders socialism is a big one. It may energize the youth, but big business would likely work against him. Lots of well-funded groups would be smearing him like they were driving a truck through a mud puddle.

Actually Henry Kissinger did counsel Richard Nixon regarding issues in the Middle East, and believe me, he was no friend of Israel's. Here's a pretty startling quote from him from back in the day: "The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy, and if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern.

Kissinger stayed on as Gerald Ford's Secretary of State after Nixon resigned. During that time...and I've lived it as I was between my freshman and sophomore years in college when Nixon resigned...and I never once heard or read of any mention or accusations, by Arabs or anyone else, about his being Jewish and it affecting American foreign policy. If you can find information to the contrary, I'd be delighted for you to enlighten me. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

There's a big difference between age 71 and 79, more than there is between 61 and 69. Heck, Bernie would be 83 by the time his term ended in 2025. You start pushing the human body into it's late 70's-early 80's you have to start worry about difficult to detect diseases like dementia and Alzheimer's. Trust me, if Sanders runs in 2020, age will be a major issue, especially if Trump doesn't run and the R's put up a younger candidate. The Dems are making a big stink about Trump's mental fitness. They'd be putting themselves in a hypocritical position if they were wanting to put an 80 year old in the White House.

[Seahawks4Ever]

STORMY DANIELS????? Give me a break. This is the least burger of nothing burgers that I have ever seen. Ken Star lost a great deal of his credibility when he went chasing Clinton's bimbo eruptions after he couldn't find any real evidence the Clintons had broken the law.

Mueller would be well advised to not touch this Trump/Daniels case with a 40 foot pole.

I don't care that Trump more than a decade before he ran for president apparently may have disrespected his own wife. That is where it rests, with Melania. This is between the president, his wife, and the interloper and nobody else.

[RiverDog]

Mueller would be well advised to not touch this Trump/Daniels case with a 40 foot pole.

Mueller doesn't have the authority to investigate anything that doesn't relate to the Russian election meddling or crimes that may have arisen from it.

[Aseahawkfan]

Actually Henry Kissinger did counsel Richard Nixon regarding issues in the Middle East, and believe me, he was no friend of Israel's. Here's a pretty startling quote from him from back in the day: "[i]The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy, and if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern.

It's listed under Kissinger's biography on Wikipedia that Nixon specifically kept Kissinger from interacting with Arab leaders in the Middle east. It doesn't matter to Arabs what Kissinger thinks. They believe what they believe absent evidence. I did some reading on Kissinger. It was made quite clear he was kept out of diplomatic envoys to the Middle East with Arab leaders because he was Jewish.

Prejudices are not rational. People often vote or react based on irrational impulses. I figure as long as you been around, you would know this. Maybe you haven't interacted enough with Arab/Musliim people to truly understand how deeply the divide is between the Jew and the Arab and how tightly we are wound with that region.

Kissinger stayed on as Gerald Ford's Secretary of State after Nixon resigned. During that time...and I've lived it as I was between my freshman and sophomore years in college when Nixon resigned...and I never once heard or read of any mention or accusations, by Arabs or anyone else, about his being Jewish and it affecting American foreign policy. If you can find information to the contrary, I'd be delighted for you to enlighten me. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Then explain why with all the extremely wealthy, intelligent, highly capable Jewish men that not a one has come close to winning The White House? Or why we have had only one Catholic president in the history of our nation? Or why so many presidential candidates spend time catering to the religious base of both parties? The burden of proof is not on me, it's on you. You show me why it doesn't matter other than your opinion. Show me vote wise and show me proof a Jewish person can win the White House. That the margins for victory will tolerate a loss of a particular religious voting block due to a Jewish background. The proof will occur when it happens because it has never happened.

There's a big difference between age 71 and 79, more than there is between 61 and 69. Heck, Bernie would be 83 by the time his term ended in 2025. You start pushing the human body into it's late 70's-early 80's you have to start worry about difficult to detect diseases like dementia and Alzheimer's. Trust me, if Sanders runs in 2020, age will be a major issue, especially if Trump doesn't run and the R's put up a younger candidate. The Dems are making a big stink about Trump's mental fitness. They'd be putting themselves in a hypocritical position if they were wanting to put an 80 year old in the White House.

Age would likely be an issue. Sanders has so many holes in his political stances, I think the Republicans would eat him alive.

[RiverDog]

Kissinger may not have interacted directly with Middle Eastern leaders (neither did anyone else), but he was Nixon's primary foreign policy advisor, so much so that it caused a rift between Dr. K and the Secretary of State. Besides, Kissinger's main efforts during that period of time was the Paris Peace Talks aimed at ending the Vietnam War.

As far as there being a political bias in this country against Jews, you need to look at more examples than just the POTUS as that's just too small of a sample size for it to be any kind of a statistical indicator. Jews make up just 2.5% of the US population and with only 8 candidates to have been elected as POTUS in the past 50 years, you wouldn't expect a Jew to have been elected President.

Congress might be a better indicator, with 100 Senators elected once every 6 years and 435 Representatives elected every 2 years:

There was a time when an American Jewish politician was rare or even unheard of. Today, although still a minority, the concept of "Jews in politics", a Jew seeking public office, is hardly unusual. Although less than 2.5% of the US population is Jewish, 10% of the US Senate follow the Judaic faith, and almost 7% of the House of Representatives.

https://www.ranker.com/list/current-jew ... amous-jews

[Aseahawkfan]

Kissinger may not have interacted directly with Middle Eastern leaders (neither did anyone else), but he was Nixon's primary foreign policy advisor, so much so that it caused a rift between Dr. K and the Secretary of State. Besides, Kissinger's main efforts during that period of time was the Paris Peace Talks aimed at ending the Vietnam War.

What do you mean neither did anyone else? That is false. Hugely false. We had dealings with the Middle East in the 60s. Where are you divining this information from? Well, that's ok. I also found out it was false Kissinger didn't engage in negotiations with Middle Eastern leaders. Apparently wikipedia is wrong, surprise, surprise. Kissinger negotiated quite a bit, especially with Iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_visits_to_the_Middle_East

As far as there being a political bias in this country against Jews

This was not said. You are expanding what was said to attempt to win an argument that was not being made. There is not a political bias against Jews in the entire nation, just enough of a a bias to make the presidency difficult. Same bias exists against every religion except the protestant denominations given how many Catholics we have in this nation, yet only one has become president.

, you need to look at more examples than just the POTUS as that's just too small of a sample size for it to be any kind of a statistical indicator. Jews make up just 2.5% of the US population and with only 8 candidates to have been elected as POTUS in the past 50 years, you wouldn't expect a Jew to have been elected President.

No. I don't. We're talking solely the presidency. Not some general bias against Jewish folk.

Congress might be a better indicator, with 100 Senators elected once every 6 years and 435 Representatives elected every 2 years:

There was a time when an American Jewish politician was rare or even unheard of. Today, although still a minority, the concept of "Jews in politics", a Jew seeking public office, is hardly unusual. Although less than 2.5% of the US population is Jewish, 10% of the US Senate follow the Judaic faith, and almost 7% of the House of Representatives.

https://www.ranker.com/list/current-jew ... amous-jews

We're not talking lower level houses. I'm not talking about a general political bias towards Jews. You are adding something I did not say. You argued religion does not matter for the POTUS, I argued that it does. That is the debate you have to prove. You have to show religion doesn't matter when winning the presidency. POTUS only. Nothing else.

Jewish representatives have been in Congress for a long, long time. That should be an indicator to you that the presidency is something different given such a large percentage comparatively of Jewish folk in Congress, yet not one has been president. They are over-represented in Congress from a population perspective. Jewish people have been the governors of many states and mayors in major cities like New York, yet not one has been president or come close.

You're claiming religion doesn't matter. I"m saying it does. For example, only one president has been Catholic in the history of the presidency with 22% of the population Catholic. We have had a strong Catholic voting block for a long time.

Times can change as JFK and Obama proved, but religion matters as does race as does wealth level. And a variety of other factors if you want to take The White House. The White House is a different animal than the Congress or state or local government. Until you prove otherwise, religion matters as does gender and race. One candidate elected creates a precedent of possible change.

So get back to the original debate. That is that religion matters for the president. Prove religion doesn't matter when it comes to being president.

[burrrton]

You argued religion does not matter for the POTUS, I argued that it does.

Wha? His argument is that it's dumb to argue this country has a problem with certain religions based solely on the Presidential election, and I'm sorry, but he's right- game, set, match.

You're basing your argument on the science of small numbers, he's illustrating pretty clearly that the country doesn't give a sht what religion you are.

Sorry, but find a new argument. It shouldn't be that big a deal to let go of this one.

[RiverDog]

The United States Senate is a lower level house? Tell that to Mr. Obama. Along with governorships, being a US Senator is almost a prerequisite to gaining a major party nomination for POTUS. Many of those Jewish Senators and governors have won state wide elections in very diverse states, both red and blue states. If there were a strong nation wide bias against Jews, it undoubtedly would have surfaced in state wide elections.

Here's a list of successful Jewish politicians from both parties that are spread all across the country in various states: Arlen Spector, Republican Senator from PA. George Allen, Republican governor of VA. Carl Levin, Democratic Senator from MI. Michael Bennett, Democratic Senator from CO. Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, Democratic Senators from CA. Jacob Javits, Republican Senator from NY (from '57 to '81), Paul Wellstone, Democratic Senator from MN. Ron Wyden, Democratic Senator from OR. And although he wasn't raised as a Jew, Barry Goldwater, R from AZ, had a Jewish background (his dad was Jewish) along with a Jewish sounding last name.

I'm sure that a religious bias exists for some people, just like a racial bias undoubtedly still exists, and in a close election, it could be a deciding factor. But I don't think it's to the point where it would immediately disqualify a person like Bernie Sanders.

[Aseahawkfan]

The United States Senate is a lower level house? Tell that to Mr. Obama. Along with governorships, being a US Senator is almost a prerequisite to gaining a major party nomination for POTUS. Many of those Jewish Senators and governors have won state wide elections in very diverse states, both red and blue states. If there were a strong nation wide bias against Jews, it undoubtedly would have surfaced in state wide elections.

Here's a list of successful Jewish politicians from both parties that are spread all across the country in various states: Arlen Spector, Republican Senator from PA. George Allen, Republican governor of VA. Carl Levin, Democratic Senator from MI. Michael Bennett, Democratic Senator from CO. Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, Democratic Senators from CA. Jacob Javits, Republican Senator from NY (from '57 to '81), Paul Wellstone, Democratic Senator from MN. Ron Wyden, Democratic Senator from OR. And although he wasn't raised as a Jew, Barry Goldwater, R from AZ, had a Jewish background (his dad was Jewish) along with a Jewish sounding last name.

I'm sure that a religious bias exists for some people, just like a racial bias undoubtedly still exists, and in a close election, it could be a deciding factor. But I don't think it's to the point where it would immediately disqualify a person like Bernie Sanders.

You're making my argument for me pointing out all these Jewish politicians and yet not one Jewish president.

I don't mean to be rude, I answer every point you made in this post in my previous post. You don't seem to be comprehending that the presidency is the highest rank in the nation and Congress is a lower house compared to the presidency. You don't want to acknowledge something that is commonly accepted in political circles, have at it. Until a Jewish president is elected or a Mormon or a woman, we have only two exceptions: one for a Catholic and one for a president of mixed African-European ancestry that visibly looks African. As in you can't explain why Jewish people are strongly represented in politics including Congress, yet not one has come close to president. The presidency is a different matter where your religion, your race, your gender, and other factors matter. For a person that claims to have read extensively on presidents, you seem very uninformed as to how they vet candidates for the president.

You're dead in the water right now until a Jewish president is elected. I can pretty much guarantee you that both the Democrats and Republicans know this. For whatever reason this country likes WASP presidents. JFK and Obama being the exceptions. Two in our history. Is there likely to be more in the future? Sure. At what point, no idea. Right now in a nation with very tight elections, the religion of the presidential candidate is a major factor for candidate vetting.

Until you can come up with a better argument RD, I'm done. This was never an argument about a general bias against Jewish politicians as you seem to be trying to make it, this was strictly a debate concerning the presidency where there is enough of a bias against Jewish folk to cost the points needed to win the highest office in the land.