With Rice, Gates and Baker testifying in support of the nomination, it will sail through.

Quite apart from the fact that there are Democratic senators up for reelection in 2018 who are vulnerable and will support this and other nominations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good pick, endorsed by Ms Rice who voted for Obama and wasn't an ardent Trump supporter. I like Condelezza Rice and which she'd get it

Also endorsed by Bob Gates and Jim Baker.

These are all serious foreign policy professionals.

And all three on the Exxon payroll, which is really the critical fact.

Anonymous wrote:Good pick, endorsed by Ms Rice who voted for Obama and wasn't an ardent Trump supporter. I like Condelezza Rice and which she'd get it

Also endorsed by Bob Gates and Jim Baker.

These are all serious foreign policy professionals.

Good pick, endorsed by Ms Rice who voted for Obama and wasn't an ardent Trump supporter. I like Condelezza Rice and which she'd get it

Anonymous wrote:Excellent selection like most of Trump's appointments.

Lol

Excellent selection like most of Trump's appointments.

No, but she has nice fake boobs.

Anonymous wrote:You mean Putin's agenda.

Got it.

Dark times for the United States.

You probably believe that Melania, having been born in Eastern Europe, is a double agent.

Not a mandate. You sound foolish when you try to claim it. There is a difference between a presidential mandate and a party having control of the three branches of government.

??, ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????????? ?????.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:306 Electoral votes and losing the popular vote by almost 3 million is nothing close to a landslide.

The presidency, control of the senate, control of the House, 33 Republican governors and the same number of state legislatures.

Call it what you want ........

Rs are objecting to Tillerson. McConnell is asking for an investigation into Russian hacking. Trump does not control all of those Rs.

But you do have California ........

Anonymous wrote:306 Electoral votes and losing the popular vote by almost 3 million is nothing close to a landslide.

The presidency, control of the senate, control of the House, 33 Republican governors and the same number of state legislatures.

Call it what you want ........

306 Electoral votes and losing the popular vote by almost 3 million is nothing close to a landslide.

You mean Putin's agenda.

Got it.

Dark times for the United States.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Trumpkins are very bad at logic. Unsurprisingly.

But they thrashed Hillary in the election!

BTW, I did not vote for Trump but the reality is that he came out of nowhere and destroyed 16 other Republicans, the Bush and Clinton dynasties and the establishment of both parties. And he did that all with the help of the Trumpkins!

Not bad ........

You mean whe he won on a technicality and lost by close to 3 million vote. Or when he sold out his base by appoint a bunch of billionaires. Or by his historically low approval rating.

Yeah, yeah .......... but he will be president for the next four years. And with Pelosi's help maybe the next eight years.

I am all for Hillary running again in 2020. Remember that glass ceiling needs to be broken

Still unclear if he will even make it to inauguration. The republicans will jettison him when convenient, too much baggage. The transition has been an utter disaster and is only half over.

Sure, hang your hopes on that wishful thinking .... like we all assumed that Hillary was going to win in a landslide. The landslide part was right but it was Trump who won 306 electoral votes.

And what you need to get used to is that it is Trump who is appointing a SoS nominee - and Hillary is taking selfies while hiking except when she is praying for faithless electors to do something now that the recount has gone the wrong way!