Donald Trump calls Meryl Streep overrated

[SueEllenRules!]

I'll gladly stop "droning on" about it when you and SueEllenRules! stop bashing everybody that didn't vote for Hillary.

BD Calhoun-to-English translation: we should stop expressing our opinion about the average mentality of a Trump supporter because at least Hillary didn't win. And that's what's really important.

you'll never accept that anybody besides a deplorable or an idiot would vote for Trump.

Oh, I'm sure there are people who fall somewhere on the spectrum in between who could probably be described as profoundly misguided. At best. What other explanation is there for being willing to vote for a depraved sociopath? That said, I do have to admit that this meme really resonates with me:

It's not even remotely that simple from my point of view.

It's exactly that simple from my point of view.

 

[Frank Underwood]

If only you were one-tenth as outraged by the fact that a foreign government actually managed to successfully determine the outcome of the election. It's absolutely astounding to me that because Bernie got screwed out of the nomination from your point of view, you simply don't give a sh!t that Russia handed the presidency to their candidate of choice. Thank God Bernie has his priorities straight even if some of his supporters have their heads planted firmly where the sun doesn't shine.


Actually, the emojis were simply an expression of exasperation because it's entirely pointless to have a counterpoint on this subject since you don't hear it and you don't care. Your rabid contempt for Hillary Clinton is the only thing that matters, despite the fact that her political career is now effectively over. Somehow, she's far more relevant to every discussion than Trump being in bed with Putin ever could be.


More like the people who believe this guy:

Like a dog with a bone.


And yet, they still didn't rig the election, screwing people out of the opportunity to vote them out. But I suppose being deprived of the most basic franchise of a democracy is a small price to pay for more b!tchery about Hillary Clinton.

This entire post can be summed up in one sentence: Russia elected Trump. And as per usual, I'm going to counter by saying that is a misleading statement perpetrated by the media and the Democratic Party. Over 50% of Democrats believe Russia tampered with the election votes as opposed to hacking into emails from the DNC and John Podesta. That was obviously the goal, so mission accomplished.

There has been no evidence found that Russia or anybody altered votes. As much as you and establishment Democrats keep saying that Russia handed the election to Trump, it's simply not true. Unless, of course, it's because people were rightly pissed off to learn that the DNC was conspiring against Bernie Sanders. But Democrats like you don't care what was done to him, you only care that Russia made it public.

I've always said Hillary stands on political expediency rather than principle, and then it came out that she admitted to having both a public and private stance on the issues. I don't condone a foreign government hacking and releasing private emails, but I'm also not going to pretend I'm disappointed to get that kind of transparency. We should have it anyway, and from the RNC too.

And until we stop bombing countries around the world, inserting ourselves in foreign affairs, and advocating election tampering (like Hillary Clinton did in 2006), we really can't take the moral high ground here.

BD Calhoun-to-English translation: we should stop expressing our opinion about the average mentality of a Trump supporter because at least Hillary didn't win. And that's what's really important.

Express whatever opinion you want, but don't turn around and get on me for expressing mine. You both complain about my Hillary and Democratic establishment posts when your's are just as one sided, if not more so. Even though I do criticize Hillary and the Democratic Party a lot, I also criticize Trump and the Republicans. At the same time, if either side comes out in favor of policies I agree with, I give them credit for that too.

Two flawed candidates ran against each other, and one of them had to win. Would you like being lumped in with the Hillary supporters that protest by destroying property? Because they're deplorable too. Both sides have their good and bad supporters. When I point out that Trump took a stronger stance against TPP and campaigned harder to protect Social Security and Medicare, it's to show why decent people voted for him too.

Oh, I'm sure there are people who fall somewhere on the spectrum in between who could probably be described as profoundly misguided. At best. What other explanation is there for being willing to vote for a depraved sociopath? That said, I do have to admit that this meme really resonates with me:

Because policy positions resonate just as much, if not more so than depraved rhetoric. When you favor TPP, yet are dismissive of universal health care and an entire generation of millennials, you begin loosing ground.

It's exactly that simple from my point of view.

I can see that. Yet you accuse me of having no grey in my world.

 

[Frank Underwood]

That was obviously not going to happen 11/8/16.

No it wasn't, but it won't happen at all unless people start to break free from the shackles of the two party system.

I'd prefer to see reform come from within the Democratic Party, but I'm not holding my breath. As long as the establishment believes they are great and don't need to change, it will be an uphill battle.

You delve into life's intricacies and ponder away in great depth and the ultimate solution at the end of the sophisticated thought-provoking process is "let the chips fall where they may". Practical.

I ultimately saw two flawed candidates who supported policies I vehemently disagree with, yet also supported a few I do agree with. So I was willing to vote third party, and take a chance on either candidate winning.

Of course, it's worth noting that I live in the blue state of Washington. It was going to go to Hillary, regardless of my vote.

"That said" indicates a contradiction. If you don't care, you don't care period. Regardless, I'm happy to join you in not caring now.

The contradiction is that I will never feel ashamed for how I voted, yet I will certainly explain why I voted the way I did.

But I'm glad you're joining me in not caring now anyway.

 

[McGarrett]

BDcalhoun is the most real genuine poster on here.. His convictions are not compromised. . and he holds the representatives of his party accountable..

We would be a lot better off if people voted with a similar mindset..

He is an example and NOT fake..

 

[SueEllenRules!]

This entire post can be summed up in one sentence: Russia elected Trump. And as per usual, I'm going to counter by saying that is a misleading statement perpetrated by the media and the Democratic Party.

The difference between Trump winning and losing came down to <80,000 votes and you can state unequivocally that Russia didn't affect the outcome?

Over 50% of Democrats believe Russia tampered with the election votes as opposed to releasing emails from the DNC and John Podesta.

Why wouldn't they believe that, all things considered? 17 federal intelligence agencies concluded that Russia was behind the hacking. And I personally believe they're capable of doing practically anything to install their guy in office. In fact, it's also entirely possible that Trump and/or his campaign were directly involved in it:

6 different agencies have come together to investigate Trump's possible Russia ties

• Reports from BBC, McClatchy, the New York Times, and others make distinct but overlapping claims about the collaborative investigation into a host of questions about the Trump team’s possible connections with the Kremlin.
• Crucially, all the reports indicate that this investigation began before the FBI was fed the now-infamous dossier alleging that Russian operatives had sensitive information that would embarrass and undermine Trump, and that there was “a continuing exchange of information during the [presidential] campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.”
• The BBC report, published on January 12, claims that after the CIA was allegedly shown a tape with a compromising conversation about money being funneled from the Kremlin to Trump’s campaign, a joint task force was formed. Personnel from the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency, Justice Department, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and representatives of the director of national intelligence formed an interagency working group to look into the matter.

That was obviously the goal, so mission accomplished.

Better suspicious than terminally naive.

There has been no evidence found that Russia or anybody altered votes.

Either way, I prefer zero influence by the Russian government on the outcome of our elections.

As much as you and establishment Democrats keep saying that Russia handed the election to Trump, it's simply not true.

You simply don't know that. It was certainly their intention and, lo and behold, they got what they wanted.

Unless, of course, it's because people were rightly pissed off to learn that the DNC was conspiring against Bernie Sanders. But Democrats like you don't care what was done to him, you only care that Russia made it public.

Actually, I don't care what Russia made public. I do care that their candidate of choice is now sitting in the Oval Office.

I've always said Hillary stands on political expediency rather than principle, and then it came out that she admitted to having both a public and private stance on the issues. I don't condone a foreign government hacking and releasing private emails, but I'm also not going to pretend I'm disappointed to get that kind of transparency. We should have it anyway, and from the RNC too.

And until we stop bombing countries around the world, inserting ourselves in foreign affairs, and advocating election tampering (like Hillary Clinton did in 2006), we really can't take the moral high ground here.

This post can also be summed up in one sentence: Hillary Clinton is a rotten b!tch who got what she had coming to her and by any means necessary.

Express whatever opinion you want, but don't turn around and get on me for expressing mine.

You can critique our opinions, but yours are off limits?

You both complain about my Hillary and Democratic establishment posts

What you call "complaining about," I call "challenging the validity of."

when your's are just as one sided, if not more so.

Yeah, but we're right.

Even though I do criticize Hillary and the Democratic Party a lot, I also criticize Trump and the Republicans.

Funny, but it seems like it's Hillary and the Democrats you've been on a relentless tirade about since the election. I've somehow missed the equal time you've given Trump and the Republicans. And it's not Hillary who now occupies the White House nor the Democrats who control Congress.

At the same time, if either side comes out in favor of policies I agree with, I give them credit for that too.

Thank God I was raised to never trust Republicans as far as I could throw them. I hate having to learn everything the hard way.

Two flawed candidates ran against each other, and one of them had to win.

Say what you want about Hillary (God knows I've heard it all), but she was both qualified and temperamentally fit for the presidency, she didn't build a campaign based on blatant bigotry, and she certainly wasn't in bed with the Russian government. Whatever her flaws, she wasn't even close to to same league as Trump, just as he's nowhere near the same league as her when it comes to qualifications. To have you (and others) repeatedly attempt to lump them into the same category is both maddening as well as incredibly disingenuous.

Would you like being lumped in with the Hillary supporters that protest by destroying property?

Certainly not and they should be prosecuted for it. Although, how do you know they were Hillary supporters? They may have simply been Trump protesters.

Because they're deplorable too.

You consider property damage in the same league of depravity as that of the deplorables? Like the nutjob at the Trump rally chanting "Jew-S-A!" Or the Klan, who endorsed Trump?

Both sides have their good and bad supporters.

I'll put my side up against theirs any day of the week.

When I point out that Trump took a stronger stance against TPP and campaigned harder to protect Social Security and Medicare, it's to show why decent people voted for him too.

But any moron would know that Trump is full of hot air. You can see it from outer space.

Because policy positions resonate just as much, if not more so than depraved rhetoric.

It certainly doesn't with me. Trump's depraved rhetoric should have automatically disqualified him with all decent people. As for his so-called policy positions, the vast majority of those were either snake oil or just as depraved as his rhetoric.

When you favor TPP, yet are dismissive of universal health care and an entire generation of millennials, you begin loosing ground.

I'm well aware that many millennials are used to having everything handed to them by their parents and expect the same from the government. Well, here's a news flash: the Republicans certainly aren't going to give it to you. They only give stuff away to trust fund babies.

I can see that. Yet you accuse me of having no grey in my world.

Gray is actually one of my favorite colors. But sometimes things are clearly black and white.

 

[Frank Underwood]

The difference between Trump winning and losing came down to <80,000 votes and you can state unequivocally that Russia didn't affect the outcome?


Why wouldn't they believe that, all things considered? 17 federal intelligence agencies concluded that Russia was behind the hacking. And I personally believe they're capable of doing practically anything to install their guy in office. In fact, it's also entirely possible that Trump and/or his campaign were directly involved in it:

6 different agencies have come together to investigate Trump's possible Russia ties

• Reports from BBC, McClatchy, the New York Times, and others make distinct but overlapping claims about the collaborative investigation into a host of questions about the Trump team’s possible connections with the Kremlin.
• Crucially, all the reports indicate that this investigation began before the FBI was fed the now-infamous dossier alleging that Russian operatives had sensitive information that would embarrass and undermine Trump, and that there was “a continuing exchange of information during the [presidential] campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.”
• The BBC report, published on January 12, claims that after the CIA was allegedly shown a tape with a compromising conversation about money being funneled from the Kremlin to Trump’s campaign, a joint task force was formed. Personnel from the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency, Justice Department, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and representatives of the director of national intelligence formed an interagency working group to look into the matter.

Better suspicious than terminally naive.


Either way, I prefer zero influence by the Russian government on the outcome of our elections.


You simply don't know that. It was certainly their intention and, lo and behold, they got what they wanted.


Actually, I don't care what Russia made public. I do care that their candidate of choice is now sitting in the Oval Office.

Russia hacked and released emails, but they did not alter votes. Releasing illegally obtained information to the public did not take away the public's right to vote for whomever they wanted. I've said a million times that I don't condone what Russia did, but to claim that they installed Trump in the White House is extremely disingenuous. The DNC tried to install their candidate of choice and failed, which is likely what they're upset about.

This post can also be summed up in one sentence: Hillary Clinton is a rotten b!tch who got what she had coming to her and by any means necessary.

Because saying I don't condone Russian hacking, while simultaneously pointing out that Hillary advocated election tampering in Palestine is the same as calling her a "rotten bitch."

The most I'm calling her in this situation is hypocritical.

You can critique our opinions, but yours are off limits?


What you call "complaining about," I call "challenging the validity of."

Critiquing my opinions is fine. But telling me I post too much about Hillary is not an attempt to "challenge the validity of" my argument, it's an attempt to control what I post about.

On top of that, saying a person should feel humiliated because of who they voted for crosses the line from political discussion to trolling.

Yeah, but we're right.

Everybody is right in their own insulated bubble.

Funny, but it seems like it's Hillary and the Democrats you've been on a relentless tirade about since the election. I've somehow missed the equal time you've given Trump and the Republicans. And it's not Hillary who now occupies the White House nor the Democrats who control Congress.

Yes, because we all immediately stopped talking about Bush when Obama took office. But that didn't matter because he was a Republican, right?

Hmm, could the relevancy be that Trump beating Hillary is still topical because of how unexpected it was? You and Gabriel post about it as well, you've just taken a different position than I have.

I also wasn't aware that I need to give "equal time" to Trump and Republicans. I give criticism and praise as I see it.

Thank God I was raised to never trust Republicans as far as I could throw them. I hate having to learn everything the hard way.

I once felt that way, but I've become more open minded as a result of paying closer attention to policy decisions. Thirteen Democrats voted against an amendment that would have allowed Americans to purchase cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. Meanwhile, Republicans such as John McCain and even Ted Cruz voted for it. Trump just signed an executive order ending TPP, which had been supported by Obama and Hillary.

And you wonder why I judge politicians by their actions and not their party affiliation?

Say what you want about Hillary (God knows I've heard it all), but she was both qualified and temperamentally fit for the presidency, she didn't build a campaign based on blatant bigotry, and she certainly wasn't in bed with the Russian government. Whatever her flaws, she wasn't even close to to same league as Trump, just as he's nowhere near the same league as her when it comes to qualifications. To have you (and others) repeatedly attempt to lump them into the same category is both maddening as well as incredibly disingenuous.

You're the one who keeps saying I lump them into the same category. All I said is that I find them both to be flawed, but I never said equally.

I've said many times that I find Trump petulant and repugnant, but I still couldn't overcome my disdain for Hillary's neoliberalism. Hence why I let them battle it out and voted my conscience.

Certainly not and they should be prosecuted for it. Although, how do you know they were Hillary supporters? They may have simply been Trump protesters.

That shows you're willing to think the worst of people who support Trump, but not Hillary.

You consider property damage in the same league of depravity as that of the deplorables? Like the nutjob at the Trump rally chanting "Jew-S-A!" Or the Klan, who endorsed Trump?


I'll put my side up against theirs any day of the week.

Property damage costs people money. Verbal abuse hurts emotionally. They are two different types of abuse that are not comparable, but still deplorable in their own right.

Instead of pitting one candidate's supporters against another's, why can't we just call out the bad people on both sides? This rabid hatred both sides have for each other feels like a prime example of divide and conquer.

But any moron would know that Trump is full of hot air. You can see it from outer space.

It's a classic case of the con man vs. the career neoliberal politician. Pick your poison folks.

It certainly doesn't with me. Trump's depraved rhetoric should have automatically disqualified him with all decent people. As for his so-called policy positions, the vast majority of those were either snake oil or just as depraved as his rhetoric.

Issues such as the TPP, Social Security, and Medicare are not depraved, and are also reasons why some people voted for him. Do you take a chance on a guy like Trump, or the NAFTA and TPP supporting politician?

I'm well aware that many millennials are used to having everything handed to them by their parents and expect the same from the government. Well, here's a news flash: the Republicans certainly aren't going to give it to you. They only give stuff away to trust fund babies.

Like Hillary, you're making the argument right wingers make. Having universal health care and publicly funded colleges would only make us like the other industrialized nations that care about health and education. I'm not talking about trust fund millennials, I'm talking about poor and middle class young adults who are trying to make a better life for themselves. And poor people deserve access to better health care too.

But I'm glad you made that argument. It made me finally understand why you support the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party over the Bernie Sanders wing.

Gray is actually one of my favorite colors. But sometimes things are clearly black and white.

So you're allowed to have issues that are black and white to you, but I'm not? Par for the course with all of the double standards here.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

Russia hacked and released emails, but they did not alter votes. Releasing illegally obtained information to the public did not take away the public's right to vote for whomever they wanted.

Nobody claims the voting machines were penetrated.

Releasing illegally obtained information to the public did not take away the public's right to vote for whomever they wanted.

Nobody claims the public's right to vote was taken away.

I've said a million times that I don't condone what Russia did, but to claim that they installed Trump in the White House is extremely disingenuous.

"Extremely disingenuous"? Utter nonsense.

The illegally obtained emails (along with Comey's groundless 11th hour shenanigans) could have easily affected the 77,000 people whose votes decided the outcome of the election.

Obviously there is no definitive way to gauge the extent of the clout the emails had on those people's ultimate choice save for re-running the election in an alternate universe, but it is highly plausible.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Nobody claims the voting machines were penetrated.

Nobody claims the public's right to vote was taken away.

With statements such as "Russia hacked the election" and "Russia handed Trump the Presidency," that is the impression given. Why else would over 50% of Democrats believe Russia meddled with the votes?

"Extremely disingenuous"? Utter nonsense.

The illegally obtained emails (along with Comey's groundless 11th hour shenanigans) could have easily affected the 77,000 people whose votes decided the outcome of the election.

Obviously there is no definitive way to gauge the extent of the clout the emails had on those people's ultimate choice save for re-running the election in an alternate universe, but it is highly plausible.

It's not utter nonsense. Russia is not directly responsible for Trump's Presidency. If people were influenced by the content of the emails, that is an indirect result.

If they had altered the vote count, the claims that Russia "installed their chosen candidate" would have much more validity to them. I certainly would have been more outraged had that been the case.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

With statements such as "Russia hacked the election" and "Russia handed Trump the Presidency," that is the impression given. Why else would over 50% of Democrats believe Russia meddled with the votes?

There will always be superficial people who don't read or comprehend beyond the headlines or quick easily digestible soundbites and don't get what the actual allegation here is.

Russia did meddle. But they did so by releasing the contents of illegally obtained emails, which could have easily affected enough voters to sway the election is Trump's favor.

If people were influenced by the content of the emails, that is an indirect result.

Of course it's an indirect result, for crying out loud. What else did you think it was?

And it is the result of illegal meddling of a foreign power whose specific intent was to help Trump get into the White House. And they achieved the desired result.

Or do you think Putin wanted to see his arch enemy Hillary Clinton in the White House by hacking and releasing the DNC (and not the GOP) emails?

 

[Angela Channing]

While we all argue over the election result, Trump is unleashing his policies of hate. Hillary is old news but what Trump is doing is very real and very current: unleashing his policies of hate against Mexicans, Muslims, women seeking to control their bodies and people that cannot afford health insurance. The damage he has already done to the USA's reputation worldwide is immense.

I'm so proud of the millions of women worldwide that marched against Trump's hate last weekend. Trump may have been elected President but the people don't have to give him a blank cheque to do what he wants unchallenged. When we focus our criticism on the past, on Hillary and on the Democratic Party, it is what Trump and his rabid right wing supporters want because it draws attention from him and allows him the freedom to use his power to bully others.

 

[Angela Channing]

It's not utter nonsense. Russia is not directly responsible for Trump's Presidency. If people were influenced by the content of the emails, that is an indirect result.

If they had altered the vote count, the claims that Russia "installed their chosen candidate" would have much more validity to them. I certainly would have been more outraged had that been the case.

Respectfully, is there an inconsistency with your argument or maybe I'm misinterpreting what you have said?

Russia hacking emails and planting false news to help Trump doesn't outrage you very much because they weren't directly responsible for how people voted. If that's the case, why are you so outraged by the DNC favouring Hillary over Bernie when they also weren't directly responsible for how people voted?

A foreign government influencing the outcome of the Presidential election is not considered to be as bad as a political party trying to influence their own party's choice in a primary? Have I misunderstood your position?

 

[Frank Underwood]

While we all argue over the election result, Trump is unleashing his policies of hate. Hillary is old news but what Trump is doing is very real and very current: unleashing his policies of hate against Mexicans, Muslims, women seeking to control their bodies and people that cannot afford health insurance. The damage he has already done to the USA's reputation worldwide is immense.

I'm so proud of the millions of women worldwide that marched against Trump's hate last weekend. Trump may have been elected President but the people don't have to give him a blank cheque to do what he wants unchallenged. When we focus our criticism on the past, on Hillary and on the Democratic Party, it is what Trump and his rabid right wing supporters want because it draws attention from him and allows him the freedom to use his power to bully others.

You're right, we can't allow Trump to do whatever he wants unchallenged. That's why we need Democrats like Bernie Sanders to hold him accountable when it comes to the good things he promised, while actively opposing policies that would hurt the people and the environment. When I criticize Democrats, it's not to draw attention away from Trump. It's because I personally believe corporate Democrats are hurting the party. Obama and Hillary supported TPP, while Trump put a stop to it. Thirteen Democrats voted against buying cheaper medications from Canada, while Ted Cruz voted for it. I want a Democratic Party that works for the people.

I'm not saying Republicans are saints just because they occasionally support good policies. But Democrats should never be to the right of Republicans on any issue, and I believe that is what's hurting them.

Respectfully, is there an inconsistency with your argument or maybe I'm misinterpreting what you have said?

Russia hacking emails and planting false news to help Trump doesn't outrage you very much because they weren't directly responsible for how people voted. If that's the case, why are you so outraged by the DNC favouring Hillary over Bernie when they also weren't directly responsible for how people voted?

A foreign government influencing the outcome of the Presidential election is not considered to be as bad as a political party trying to influence their own party's choice in a primary? Have I misunderstood your position?

I'd say that's a slight misinterpretation, so I'll try to clarify my position.

The reason I'm more angry at the DNC is because they were actively working to undermine the Sanders campaign. They scheduled few debates, and at times few people would watch to decrease his exposure. They talked about attacking his faith, they talked about pushing the narrative that the Sanders campaign "was a mess," and a Clinton lawyer was even giving the DNC strategy advice on how to deal with Sanders.

You are correct in that the DNC is not responsible for how people voted. But the difference is they were blatantly stacking the deck against Sanders, while Russia only exposed their unethical and biased actions. The information was illegally obtained, of course, and I don't condone that. However, I do believe transparency into the DNC and RNC's activities should be mandatory to prevent them from propping up their preferred candidate.

 

[Frank Underwood]

There will always be superficial people who don't read or comprehend beyond the headlines or quick easily digestible soundbites and don't get what the actual allegation here is.

Russia did meddle. But they did so by releasing the contents of illegally obtained emails, which could have easily affected enough voters to sway the election is Trump's favor.

Now that I agree with.

Of course it's an indirect result, for crying out loud. What else did you think it was?

It's not about what I think, it's about what over half of Democrats think. I knew all along it was an indirect result, but there are Democrats who act as if it was an elaborate coup d'etat.

And it is the result of illegal meddling of a foreign power whose specific intent was to help Trump get into the White House. And they achieved the desired result.

Or do you think Putin wanted to see his arch enemy Hillary Clinton in the White House by hacking and releasing the DNC (and not the GOP) emails?

No, I think you're right on the money. I believe we should have transparency into both the DNC and RNC's activities, but I don't want it to come from a foreign power hacking into emails.

 

[Karin Schill]

Just read in the paper this morning that Trump has ordered an investigation into possible voter fraud. I am not sure what he can stand to win from it as he's already in office.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Just read in the paper this morning that Trump has ordered an investigation into possible voter fraud. I am not sure what he can stand to win from it as he's already in office.

It's because he's an egotistical child. Just like he denounced the electoral college in 2012, yet called it genius when he won because of it. Even Republicans like John McCain have said there is no evidence of voter fraud, and that Trump should focus on actual issues. But he's too much of a narcissist for that. In his deluded mind, the only way he could have lost the popular vote so decisively is if millions of votes were cast illegally.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

Just read in the paper this morning that Trump has ordered an investigation into possible voter fraud. I am not sure what he can stand to win from it as he's already in office.

Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous (and everyone with a brain knows it), but there is actually a twofold purpose behind his madness:
1) To perpetuate the fallacy among his looney tune supporters that voter fraud is the only way that Republicans can lose elections, despite the fact there's no evidence of it whatsoever.
2) To stroke his own bruised ego after losing the popular vote by 2.8 million to Hillary Clinton.

 

[Willie Oleson]

And how much is this investigation going to cost?

But maybe it's a good thing that he keeps himself occupied with trivial stuff.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

And how much is this investigation going to cost?

Who knows? Maybe he'll make Mexico pay for that, too.

But maybe it's a good thing that he keeps himself occupied with trivial stuff.

From your mouth to God's ears.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Stupid, weak, homo-repressed idiot Jon Voight. He says we should never trash Dubya or Trump, calling it "treason," but it's apparently okay to do so to Obama.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

I am not sure what he can stand to win from it as he's already in office.

He's an infantile narcissist who lives in a delusional bubble where he always comes out as the #1 winner in everything. Hence his annoying habit of speaking in hyperboles (in his limited vocabulary, of course). Everything about him is always the biggest, the most tremendous and the most amazing ever, period.

He can't stand the fact Hillary Clinton beat him in the popular vote by a record-shattering 3 million votes and he absolutely can't stand the fact Obama's original inauguration crowd was three times bigger than his own. Or that his crowd was dwarfed by the women's march on Saturday.

This is the man who on his first day as President gets on the phone with National Parks Service chief to demand they find photos that make his crowd look bigger. Then goes to the CIA and rambles on at length in front of the memorial wall about his crowd and dishonest media not reporting how yuuuge it was. And then sends that Spicer guy to tell the media his crowd was the biggest in the history of the US - period.

Even on Wednesday, he was still trying to persuade ABC's David Muir by literally taking him to a framed photo of his crowd in the White House and saying - "it's massive... look has far it goes!"

He's sick. And history books won't be kind to him.