View Full Version : Trump's Shutdown Trap - Smoke Out the Resistance
Saw this posted elsewhere and enjoyed the read. I don't know if it will/can happen but it might be good.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/14/smoke-out-resistance/
"As one of the senior officials working without a paycheck, a few words of advice for the president’s next move at shuttered government agencies: lock the doors, sell the furniture, and cut them down.
Federal employees are starting to feel the strain of the shutdown. I am one of them. But for the sake of our nation, I hope it lasts a very long time, till the government is changed and can never return to its previous form.
The lapse in appropriations is more than a battle over a wall. It is an opportunity to strip wasteful government agencies for good."
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/trumps_shutdown_trap.html
"Has President Trump suckered Democrats and the Deep State into a trap that will enable a radical downsizing of the federal bureaucracy? In only five more days of the already "longest government shutdown in history" (25 days and counting, as of today), a heretofore obscure threshold will be reached, enabling permanent layoffs of bureaucrats furloughed 30 days or more."
Interesting angle. I’d love for it to be true and see a mass extinction of beaurocratic federal glut.
We could cut 90% of the fed.gov and be so much better off.
It will be interesting to see what happens with this shutdown no matter how the chips fall.
Doc Safari
01-15-19, 13:08
I hope he's that smart. Reagan stood up to the the air traffic controllers and fired them when they tried to illegally strike. Maybe he's reading from the same playbook.
that would be funny and now its published if it had any chance its gone most likely ? but who knows
sadly I am not sure he can lay off so many as those in charge wont let it happen
this demise of our country and the over reach and power of our gov is a bit like trying to slow down a train or a tanker by putting your foot out I feel
Doc Safari
01-15-19, 13:38
that would be funny and now its published if it had any chance its gone most likely ? but who knows
sadly I am not sure he can lay off so many as those in charge wont let it happen
this demise of our country and the over reach and power of our gov is a bit like trying to slow down a train or a tanker by putting your foot out I feel
To a certain extent, if you leave people furloughed without pay long enough they will have to move on to other jobs just to survive, so it's not just a matter of evoking some layoff rule.
that would be funny and now its published if it had any chance its gone most likely ? but who knows
sadly I am not sure he can lay off so many as those in charge wont let it happen
this demise of our country and the over reach and power of our gov is a bit like trying to slow down a train or a tanker by putting your foot out I feelI agree. People need to STFU about this stuff. It's like telling AQ that we were killing them using their cell phones.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
The idea that you can get rid of 90% of federal workers is just ludicrous. Most of what the federal government does is either contracted our or just moving money around to pay for programs.
There are only about 2.79M federal workers. Getting rid of 90% would mean taking it to 279,000. That means you can keep DHS and DOJ, combined, and nothing else.
Not going to happen.
If this article is correct, and it's not, then once again you are seeing conservatives govern by soundbite, even if it isn't effective.
And unless you reorganize the federal government (which Trump hasn't tried) the Democrats will wait until they win in 2020 or 2024 and restock the government with their people.
MountainRaven
01-15-19, 14:07
I see that the myth of 64-dimensional chess playing DJT is still alive and well.
I hope he's that smart. Reagan stood up to the the air traffic controllers and fired them when they tried to illegally strike. Maybe he's reading from the same playbook.
This is what we're hoping for!
This is what we're hoping for!
And yet we still have federal air traffic controllers.
Aren't going to shrink the government like that...
And yet we still have federal air traffic controllers.
Aren't going to shrink the government like that...
Well, yeah. But he fired the ones that were illegally striking. Got rid of the turds and started over.
Doc Safari
01-15-19, 15:32
And yet we still have federal air traffic controllers.
Aren't going to shrink the government like that...
The air traffic controller issue wasn't about shrinking the government. You should probably read up on it. It was about the air traffic controllers illegally going on strike, and Reagan called their bluff by firing all of them. Of course new ones were hired since it's an essential occupation. But the ones who went on strike found out how serious Reagan was about not backing down.
So the only real simliarity between the two incidents is that you have a president who could have knuckled under, or who stuck to his guns and won the argument.
The air traffic controller issue wasn't about shrinking the government. You should probably read up on it. It was about the air traffic controllers illegally going on strike, and Reagan called their bluff by firing all of them. Of course new ones were hired since it's an essential occupation. But the ones who went on strike found out how serious Reagan was about not backing down.
So the only real simliarity between the two incidents is that you have a president who could have knuckled under, or who stuck to his guns and won the argument.
I feel for the fed workers who ARE WORKING and not getting paid, but I am GLAD he is sticking to his guns! It's so refreshing to not have a politician in the WH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_previous_experience
Of the 44[a] different people who have served as President:
26 Presidents were previously lawyers.
22 Presidents had previous military experience; 9 were generals in the US Army.[2]
18 Presidents previously served as U.S. Representatives; 6 of 18 held this office prior to the four 'previous positions' shown in this table. Only one – James A. Garfield – was a Representative immediately before election as President. Only John Quincy Adams served as a U.S. Representative after being President. Additionally, after being president, John Tyler served in the Provisional Confederate Congress and was later elected to the Confederate House of Representatives, but he died before taking his seat.[3]
17 Presidents previously served as Governors; 16 were State Governors; 9 were Governors immediately before election as President. Only one, William Howard Taft, served as a Territorial Governor.
16 Presidents previously served as U.S. Senators; only 3 immediately before election as President. Only one president, Andrew Johnson, ever served as a U.S. Senator after his presidency.
14 Presidents previously served as Vice President. All except Richard Nixon were Vice Presidents immediately before becoming President; 9 of the 14 succeeded to the Presidency because of the death or resignation of the elected President; 5 of those 9 were not re-elected.
8 Presidents were out of office (for at least one year) immediately before election as President.
8 Presidents previously served as Cabinet Secretaries; 6 as Secretary of State; 5 of the 8 served immediately before election as President.
7 Presidents had previous experience in foreign service.[4]
5 Presidents had never been elected to public office before becoming President: Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, Herbert Hoover, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Donald Trump. Most of these had, however, been appointed to several prominent offices. Hoover's contributions toward the Treaty of Versailles preceded his appointment as Secretary of Commerce. Taylor, Grant and Eisenhower led U.S. forces to victory in the Mexican–American War, American Civil War and World War II, respectively – each occupying the highest-ranking command post of their time. Trump is the group's sole exception, having never held any public office nor any military position.
2 Presidents served as Party leaders of the House of Representatives, James A. Garfield and Gerald Ford.
1 President served as an ordained minister, serving as a pastor in the Disciples of Christ (Christian) Church. James A Garfield. [5] [6]
1 President served as Speaker of the House of Representatives, James K. Polk.
1 President served as President pro tempore of the United States Senate, John Tyler.
1 President served as Party leader of the United States Senate, Lyndon B. Johnson.
1 President served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Howard Taft. He did so after his presidency.
1 President served as President of the United States for two non-consecutive terms, Grover Cleveland.
1 President served no major elective or appointive offices, or periods of military service prior to election to the Presidency, Donald Trump.
The air traffic controller issue wasn't about shrinking the government. You should probably read up on it. It was about the air traffic controllers illegally going on strike, and Reagan called their bluff by firing all of them. Of course new ones were hired since it's an essential occupation. But the ones who went on strike found out how serious Reagan was about not backing down.
So the only real similarity between the two incidents is that you have a president who could have knuckled under, or who stuck to his guns and won the argument.
My point is that in this thread alone you have multiple Trump supporters ascribing multiple motives for Trump's shutdown.
He could be trying to build the wall.
Or he could be trying to shrink government.
Or he could be trying to improve the government that we have.
Which is it? Or is it more convenient to keep shifting the narrative around to keep Trump looking like he's got a plan when he clearly doesn't.
To a certain extent, if you leave people furloughed without pay long enough they will have to move on to other jobs just to survive, so it's not just a matter of evoking some layoff rule.
You guys forget that such a trap has consequences: unemployment is now beginning to float back up and many of the furloughed workers are eligible for unemployment benefits:
https://money.cnn.com/2013/10/01/news/economy/shutdown-federal-unemployment-benefits/index.html
Long term I'm not so sure it wouldn't be just shooting ourselves in the foot.
The other side of this shutdown exercise in brinkmanship is that in past shutdowns furloughed employees have ultimately been paid for their furlough time, in essence a double paid vacation.
Let us all be honest here. this is no more than a class of personalities that is going to cost us, the taxpayers, several million dollars each day it is extended.
And yet we still have federal air traffic controllers.
Aren't going to shrink the government like that...
Reagan didn't shrink the government: In fiscal 1982, which began before Reagan took office, there were 2,110,000 federal employees, according to OPM. In fiscal 1985, that number was 2,252,000, more than today.
He also tripled the debt:
In 1980, Jimmy Carter's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.
Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.
His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight. https://mises.org/library/sad-legacy-ronald-reagan-0
My point is that in this thread alone you have multiple Trump supporters ascribing multiple motives for Trump's shutdown.
He could be trying to build the wall.
Or he could be trying to shrink government.
Or he could be trying to improve the government that we have.
Which is it? Or is it more convenient to keep shifting the narrative around to keep Trump looking like he's got a plan when he clearly doesn't.
How do you know? Even if he didn't come up with a plan himself, you don't think he has advisors?
Doc Safari
01-15-19, 16:32
Bottom line: Trump knows if he doesn't win the fight over the wall, then he's like George H.W. Bush breaking his promise "Read my lips: No new taxes."
It's going to make or break his presidency and he knows it.
It's as simple as that.
How do you know? Even if he didn't come up with a plan himself, you don't think he has advisors?
Are you implying, against evidence, that he listens to advisors?
Bottom line: Trump knows if he doesn't win the fight over the wall, then he's like George H.W. Bush breaking his promise "Read my lips: No new taxes."
It's going to make or break his presidency and he knows it.
It's as simple as that.
Trump's presidency has amounted to nothing and stands only to get worse from here.
Even if he got his wall, it isn't going to do anything.
Trump's presidency has amounted to nothing and stands only to get worse from here.
Even if he got his wall, it isn't going to do anything.
Nothing?! The unemployment rate doesn’t speak for itself?
My iPhone XS Max is better than your android!
Doc Safari
01-15-19, 17:44
For Trump to be able to pick SCOTUS judges instead of Hillary Clinton justifies his presidency all by itself in my book.
I hope he's that smart.
I'd like to hope so too, but he's not.
For Trump to be able to pick SCOTUS judges instead of Hillary Clinton justifies his presidency all by itself in my book.
That implies that Trump was the only candidate that could beat Clinton. I don't think that is accurate.
Nothing?! The unemployment rate doesn’t speak for itself?
So in 18 months when we are about the vote while in a recession will it be Trump's fault?
So in 18 months when we are about the vote while in a recession will it be Trump's fault?
Why do you think we’ll be in a recession?
My iPhone XS Max is better than your android!
Why do you think we’ll be in a recession?
Because we are long overdue, rates are rising and markets are slowing.
It's not bad... you just need to be careful about claiming the credit.
Because we are long overdue, rates are rising and markets are slowing.
It's not bad... you just need to be careful about claiming the credit.
We were just in one 10 years ago. That’s “long overdue”?
My iPhone XS Max is better than your android!
We were just in one 10 years ago. That’s “long overdue”?
My iPhone XS Max is better than your android!
From 1945 to today an expansion has usually lasted 57 months, on average. If this expansion lasts until July of this year it will be the longest in history, after the 1990s.
thopkins22
01-15-19, 21:49
We were just in one 10 years ago. That’s “long overdue”?
My iPhone XS Max is better than your android!
We also never actually healed the issues that led to the last one, instead just dropping rates to throw free money to the market. We’ve set ourselves up for a worse one.
We also never actually healed the issues that led to the last one, instead just dropping rates to throw free money to the market. We’ve set ourselves up for a worse one.
Instead of a real estate issue we've got a corporate debt bubble, a student loan debt bubble and of course subprime auto loans.
Super exciting.
Trump's presidency has amounted to nothing and stands only to get worse from here.
Even if he got his wall, it isn't going to do anything.
I was and am against the wall in Israel, for reasons that don't need to be listed here. But the one thing that is 100% for sure it worked. Suicide bombers have gone done to zero.
If the USA builds a wall on the southern border it will be 90% effective, to say other wise is just not realistic.
He’s just an asshole.
No multidimensional Rick Sanchez Quasar gambit to it.
I was and am against the wall in Israel, for reasons that don't need to be listed here. But the one thing that is 100% for sure it worked. Suicide bombers have gone done to zero.
If the USA builds a wall on the southern border it will be 90% effective, to say other wise is just not realistic.
Why can’t we just have mines?
They are cheap and when Julio is bleeding and screaming at the bloody stump that used to be his leg, everyone else will disinclined to hop that border.
Learn English, get vaccinated, be independent, wait your turn and don’t commit crime. Too easy.
OR...OR... hear me out, fix your own country.
It might take hardcore armed revolution and blasting that song from Revenge of the Nerds they played during that montage where the fixed up that house but is totally doable
He’s just an asshole.
No multidimensional Rick Sanchez Quasar gambit to it.
Trump? He’s not an asshole, he’s just standing up to the sleazy bastards in Congress about something that’s worth a damn and we’re not used to it.
My iPhone XS Max is better than your android!
Trump? He’s not an asshole, he’s just standing up to the sleazy bastards in Congress about something that’s worth a damn and we’re not used to it.
I could buy that if it wasn’t for the junior-high name calling rhetoric that he routinely employs on Twitter and in the media. He’s just an asshole that is just totally incapable of managing his ego. Worse...he’s also a newbie politician that is inclined to employ staff and advisors that support his newbie politician assumptions about the way things work and fires them when they don’t. Make no mistake, however, I voted for him anyway and would do so again. Despite his obvious shortcomings, he is still the lesser of available evils.
thopkins22
01-16-19, 08:51
I was and am against the wall in Israel, for reasons that don't need to be listed here. But the one thing that is 100% for sure it worked. Suicide bombers have gone done to zero.
If the USA builds a wall on the southern border it will be 90% effective, to say other wise is just not realistic.
So a country that’s the size of New Jersey, where every able bodied male and female are in the military, where bombs still go off routinely gets to claim that its wall is the effective and critical thing?
Sure.
thopkins22
01-16-19, 08:55
Trump? He’s not an asshole, he’s just standing up to the sleazy bastards in Congress about something that’s worth a damn and we’re not used to it.
My iPhone XS Max is better than your android!
He’s sleazy, an asshole, a terrible leader, ostentatious, gaudy, not very good at business, and is going to lead to the destruction of the Republican Party.
Or we can pretend that having the policies of a union boss is a good thing as long as he doesn’t like brown people enough. Brown people that aren’t models and will prostitute themselves to him anyway....
He’s sleazy, an asshole, a terrible leader, ostentatious, gaudy, not very good at business, and is going to lead to the destruction of the Republican Party.
Or we can pretend that having the policies of a union boss is a good thing as long as he doesn’t like brown people enough. Brown people that aren’t models and will prostitute themselves to him anyway....
Thanks for your opinion.
Doc Safari
01-16-19, 09:13
Sometimes you need an asshole to get the job done.
What if General Sherman had been more the type of person who likes to get along, follow the crowd, and not make waves?
Sometimes you need an asshole to get the job done.
What if General Sherman had been more the type of person who likes to get along, follow the crowd, and not make waves?
I agree completely. And sometimes the person is effectively, but inaccurately, portrayed as an asshole simply because his agenda is anathema to them. I think that that is true with Trump, but he makes their job easier because he is an asshole.
It's a fine line though....being enough of an asshole to get the job done, but too much of an asshole to lead effectively.
thopkins22
01-16-19, 09:29
Thanks for your opinion.
Sure thing.
I will say this, if you believe in free trade, and free market capitalism, he is setting us back by thirty years.
If you believe that the government should not be picking winners and losers(never mind one man,) he is setting us back.
I will defend the ideas of men like John Smith, Friedman, and Hayek till the day that I die. I’ve never felt shame at defending those ideas, even when there were obvious failures...because they’re still the best ideas going. Just as soon as I get get the impression he’s learned who those three men are, I’ll back off.
thopkins22
01-16-19, 09:45
Sometimes you need an asshole to get the job done.
What if General Sherman had been more the type of person who likes to get along, follow the crowd, and not make waves?
What job is he getting done? Is the job driving away the only intelligent and capable men that were willing to stand with him? Sure. He’s great at it.
It is easy to be infatuated with yourself and your accomplishments. Any narcissistic asshole can do that. Humility, diligence and self-awareness are rare. Sherman had it. Does our current President?
“I hereby state, and mean all that I say, that I never have been and never will be a candidate for President; that if nominated by either party, I should peremptorily decline; and even if unanimously elected I should decline to serve."
Outlander Systems
01-16-19, 09:47
https://pics.me.me/pick-up-pick-up-that-can-or-that-can-of-2548226.png
Doc Safari
01-16-19, 09:50
What job is he getting done? Is the job driving away the only intelligent and capable men that were willing to stand with him? Sure. He’s great at it.
It is easy to be infatuated with yourself and your accomplishments. Any narcissistic asshole can do that. Humility, diligence and self-awareness are rare. Sherman had it. Does our current President?
“I hereby state, and mean all that I say, that I never have been and never will be a candidate for President; that if nominated by either party, I should peremptorily decline; and even if unanimously elected I should decline to serve."
I'm just happy he's disrupting the status quo. We have needed that for decades. I hope he brings the government bureaucracy down and I don't care if he does it through skill or incompetence.
I'm just happy he's disrupting the status quo. We have needed that for decades. I hope he brings the government bureaucracy down and I don't care if he does it through skill or incompetence.
Agreed...unless he fails totally and the polarization that his unfortunate rhetoric has fostered provides a rationale for majority movement to the increasingly extreme left.
Doc Safari
01-16-19, 10:01
Agreed...unless he fails totally and the polarization that his unfortunate rhetoric has fostered provides a rationale for majority movement to the increasingly extreme left.
That could happen. You never know. I'm hoping that by the time the so-called "shutdown" ends that enough government employees will have self-attrited that the bloated federal system is a shadow of it's former self. That's probably unrealistic, but it might slow down the Deep State machine enough that it takes them a decade to rebuild. I know--put down the crack pipe. But I can dream, can't I?
The lowest paid workers will leave first, and their positions will be filled quickly. They are also the ones most affected by this shutdown. The GS-5 type workers don't make a whole lot of money to build a savings cushion.
Agreed...unless he fails totally and the polarization that his unfortunate rhetoric has fostered provides a rationale for majority movement to the increasingly extreme left.
That's what is worrying me. We will find out if the extreme Left will devour it's own very soon. I think all of the Extreme Left are running for POTUS. Well not including the career Left that already have better / safer jobs.
Oh, speaking of POTUS from the Left..... beware of Terry McCauliffe from VA.... I think he's in for 2020 but keeping it quiet. I think he's going to be a late entry after the herd has thinned. He helped BLUE Virginia and feels owed so they could toss it to him.
That's what is worrying me. We will find out if the extreme Left will devour it's own very soon. I think all of the Extreme Left are running for POTUS. Well not including the career Left that already have better / safer jobs.
Oh, speaking of POTUS from the Left..... beware of Terry McCauliffe from VA.... I think he's in for 2020 but keeping it quiet. I think he's going to be a late entry after the herd has thinned. He helped BLUE Virginia and feels owed so they could toss it to him.
As politics becomes increasingly polarized, everyone is moving to the left or right. My fear is that as that polarization continues, those moderates that had been in the middle will move off to the left. Trump's inability to keep his ego from blurting/tweeting his every thought isn't helping. I suspect a lot of people might share his world-view, but just won't ultimately be able to vote for him because he's just so distasteful in his public presentation. The more things don't go his way, the more he distastefully blurts/tweets. I fear he is sowing the seeds of his own destruction. Sad, because he was once our best hope.
I agree the one positive is the fact that the Democrats are in more disarray than the GOP. The only unifying theme in their entire party is "Donald Trump is bad". Other than that, they've go nuthin'. If only Trump wasn't so hell-bent on helping them validate that one common theme.
Despite his obvious shortcomings, he is still the lesser of available evils.
Are uou talking about the Dem's candidate? Or saying that Rand Paul, Cruz or Rubio would have been worse?
Are uou talking about the Dem's candidate? Or saying that Rand Paul, Cruz or Rubio would have been worse?
I'm sure he's talking about Hillary. I voted for Cruz in the primaries, buy obviously for Trump in the general election.
Sure thing.
I will say this, if you believe in free trade, and free market capitalism, he is setting us back by thirty years.
If you believe that the government should not be picking winners and losers(never mind one man,) he is setting us back.
I will defend the ideas of men like John Smith, Friedman, and Hayek till the day that I die. I’ve never felt shame at defending those ideas, even when there were obvious failures...because they’re still the best ideas going. Just as soon as I get get the impression he’s learned who those three men are, I’ll back off.
I'm interested in hearing why you think Hayek's philosophy of the economy which I dumb down by saying 'it isn't a machine, it is people, and it will self-correct' is better for us than Keynesian theory, which I dumb down by saying 'the economy is a machine, it needs minor tuning (regulation) to run best?'
I ask this because from what the few books I've read (and admittedly struggled to understand) it seems that while Hayek's philosophy seems to work better in a vacuum, Keynes's seems to be more appropriate when you factor in people.
The fact of human nature is that 'most' humans act out of selfish interest. Those that are in a position to choose, often make career choices that offer them the most economic promise versus the most self-satisfaction. Notice I said 'those that are in a position to choose.' Most people are still 'forced' to take the best offer the local employment situation gives them.
Continuing on, selfish interest/the profit motive is why a landlord, whose properties are paid for, will raise the rent, simply to make more money, without making any improvements to the property. Selfish interest/the profit motive is why the commercial currently running on TV that says 'I got $36,000 dollars cash back, and I used it to offer my employees health insurance' is for the most part bullshit. The average business owner is going to pocket that money and take the wife to Tahiti.
The totally free market is not evil unto itself, but unregulated, cost will rise to a level that leaves the bottom, let's say 1/2 of the population needing government assistance to live little more than a subsistence existence.
Minor regulatory adjustments are necessary to prevent that from happening. Unfortunately, government tends to over-regulate and hasn't hit the sweet spot, yet. That doesn't mean that Keynesian theories are incorrect, just not applied as effectively as they could be.
Sorry if this was a derail.
Are uou talking about the Dem's candidate? Or saying that Rand Paul, Cruz or Rubio would have been worse?
They didn't win the primary. It was Trump or Hillary.
I'm not a Republican so didn't vote in any primary but would have preferred Cruz, followed by Rubio. I don't have a particular problem with Rand Paul, but Libertarian Conservatives aren't really electable to the Presidency and even if he had won the nomination he didn't stand a chance. I would have deemed him a wasted vote as a third party candidate, but if it was just between him and Hillary, certainly I would have supported him even though he couldn't have beat her.
...
I like that he wan't a politician coming into this and he isn't playing by their rules. We definitely needed this disruption in the way things have always been done.
thopkins22
01-16-19, 14:20
I'm interested in hearing why you think Hayek's philosophy of the economy which I dumb down by saying 'it isn't a machine, it is people, and it will self-correct' is better for us than Keynesian theory, which I dumb down by saying 'the economy is a machine, it needs minor tuning (regulation) to run best?'
I ask this because from what the few books I've read (and admittedly struggled to understand) it seems that while Hayek's philosophy seems to work better in a vacuum, Keynes's seems to be more appropriate when you factor in people.
The fact of human nature is that 'most' humans act out of selfish interest. Those that are in a position to choose, often make career choices that offer them the most economic promise versus the most self-satisfaction. Notice I said 'those that are in a position to choose.' Most people are still 'forced' to take the best offer the local employment situation gives them.
Continuing on, selfish interest/the profit motive is why a landlord, whose properties are paid for, will raise the rent, simply to make more money, without making any improvements to the property. Selfish interest/the profit motive is why the commercial currently running on TV that says 'I got $36,000 dollars cash back, and I used it to offer my employees health insurance' is for the most part bullshit. The average business owner is going to pocket that money and take the wife to Tahiti.
The totally free market is not evil unto itself, but unregulated, cost will rise to a level that leaves the bottom, let's say 1/2 of the population needing government assistance to live little more than a subsistence existence.
Minor regulatory adjustments are necessary to prevent that from happening. Unfortunately, government tends to over-regulate and hasn't hit the sweet spot, yet. That doesn't mean that Keynesian theories are incorrect, just not applied as effectively as they could be.
Sorry if this was a derail.
The very fact that people are selfish is why it works. Costs may rise on one thing, but a competitive service will emerge, because it doesn’t make sense to avoid servicing millions of people because the profit margin isn’t quite as high. Show me the millions of people that would be left homeless because rent went up a little bit, and I’ll find investors to undercut that rent with economy housing and I’ll make a fortune.
The classic examples tend to point to the conditions Charles Dickens and later Marx wrote about right? It was awful I’m sure. But people weren’t going back to the farms. Unrepentant and unfettered capitalism, while imperfect...was better. The same is true in China today. People kill themselves at the Apple factories...but they don’t seem to go back to the rice fields....
Left to their own devices, there are no losers in any transaction in a capitalist system...and incentives galore to provide products/services to the less wealthy.
The “pie” is not finite. It can grow exponentially, and there is nothing but ourselves preventing everyone from having a healthy slice...and the pie wants to grow, and it wants to be served efficient, and the idea that one person or one group of people, or even everyone together can figure out how to slice a pie that doesn’t want to be stagnant is where it falls apart.
With all of that said, I’m not 100% ideologically consistent, and don’t want to privatize public lands, and I’m occasionally against things like windmills where they destroy a vista, and so forth.
I fear he is sowing the seeds of his own destruction. Sad, because he was once our best hope.
I agree the one positive is the fact that the Democrats are in more disarray than the GOP. The only unifying theme in their entire party is "Donald Trump is bad". Other than that, they've go nuthin'. If only Trump wasn't so hell-bent on helping them validate that one common theme.
I feel the same way. It looks like Kasich and Romney are gearing up for a payback. Kasich has joined CNN and Romney is already on the warpath. They are hell bent to destroy what remains of the R party. What they seem to not get is that no one likes them outside of their neighborhood.
Yet, Trump always seems to have something up his sleeve. Who knows what will happen between now and Nov 2020. He can't bring the same show on the road and win again though.
Bill O'Riley seems to think the Dem power brokers are going to guilt M. Obama into running and that she will win hands down. The only good part of that would be that Hillary will probably have a heart attack.
I feel the same way. It looks like Kasich and Romney are gearing up for a payback. Kasich has joined CNN and Romney is already on the warpath. They are hell bent to destroy what remains of the R party. What they seem to not get is that no one likes them outside of their neighborhood.
Yet, Trump always seems to have something up his sleeve. Who knows what will happen between now and Nov 2020. He can't bring the same show on the road and win again though.
Bill O'Riley seems to think the Dem power brokers are going to guilt M. Obama into running and that she will win hands down. The only good part of that would be that Hillary will probably have a heart attack.
I wouldn't vote for Kasich or Romney of Satan himself were their opponent.
I'm pretty much at the point where I want the spoiler, regardless of what their ideology is. If they can and absolutely will cause the establishment pols pain and suffering, I'm in. The only thing that would bring me joy more than watching McConnell, Graham and McCarthy go down in flames, would be watching Pelosi, Schumer, Hoyer and Durbin go down in flames. If they were all on the same plane and it went down? Well let's party like its 1999!
I'll admit I'm tired of the struggle. I'm all for anything that damages the extreme left. But if we can't have that, then I'm resigned to accept their ascendancy and supremacy to the point where we can start some honest to goodness face shooting. I'm all about making some domestic enemies either pay their overdue tab, or pay the boatman for a ride to the other side. :mad:
Doc Safari
01-16-19, 17:01
I wouldn't vote for Kasich or Romney of Satan himself were their opponent.
Romney or Kasich? I wouldn't piss on either one of them if their guts were on fire.
So a country that’s the size of New Jersey, where every able bodied male and female are in the military, where bombs still go off routinely gets to claim that its wall is the effective and critical thing?
Sure.
Bombs do not go off routinely your 20 years out of step.
Why do we have no more suicide bombings in pre 67 Israel, a part of it is the wall.
Bombs do not go off routinely your 20 years out of step.
Why do we have no more suicide bombings in pre 67 Israel, a part of it is the wall.
That's not comparable, though. The US has a much longer border with much smaller consequences for unchecked migration.
I would say the drugs that flow into our nation from the southern border does more harm over a longer period of time than the suicide bombers
I'm just happy he's disrupting the status quo. We have needed that for decades. I hope he brings the government bureaucracy down and I don't care if he does it through skill or incompetence.
The main thing he's disrupting is the validity of the GOP. Trump is like the summation of what happens when you let people with little understanding of complex issues have free rein at "fixing" things. Trump is most likely going to serve as a vaccination against populism and a boost to Democrats as he pushes the fence sitters' swing votes away from the so-called "right".
Americans don't like chaos. That's the French. More people are going to look for candidates that don't promise bread, circuses and pointless walls.
Adrenaline_6
01-16-19, 20:31
The main thing he's disrupting is the validity of the GOP. Trump is like the summation of what happens when you let people with little understanding of complex issues have free rein at "fixing" things. Trump is most likely going to serve as a vaccination against populism and a boost to Democrats as he pushes the fence sitters' swing votes away from the so-called "right".
Americans don't like chaos. That's the French. More people are going to look for candidates that don't promise bread, circuses and pointless walls.
Really? Trump won the presidency. You were there. That was as chaotic as all get out. I think, like the MSM, you are again under estimating the real voters.
I would say the drugs that flow into our nation from the southern border does more harm over a longer period of time than the suicide bombers
And you think those are being carried in backpacks over the border?
Really? Trump won the presidency. You were there. That was as chaotic as all get out. I think, like the MSM, you are again under estimating the real voters.
Won the election, lost the popular vote, lost the House 2 years later. The few extra votes he got outside of the true believers were people that thought he would make things better, not worse.
Won the election, lost the popular vote, lost the House 2 years later. The few extra votes he got outside of the true believers were people that thought he would make things better, not worse.
Hey, it's my favorite propoganda spouting lib. I hope you had fun on your vacation, and I'm curious to see how long you last this time.
Adrenaline_6
01-16-19, 20:52
Won the election, lost the popular vote, lost the House 2 years later. The few extra votes he got outside of the true believers were people that thought he would make things better, not worse.
Again, he won the election and was already very chaotic, the popular vote is meaningless, everyone here that knows anything understands why, so it is a moot point, and losing the house was, and is the norm and was expected. He gained Senate seats which was not expected. So the point of the US not liking chaos is false that is the only point I was making.
Again, he won the election and was already very chaotic, the popular vote is meaningless, everyone here that knows anything understands why, so it is a moot point, and losing the house was, and is the norm and was expected. He gained Senate seats which was not expected. So the point of the US not liking chaos is false that is the only point I was making.
The point I was making is that the majority of voters did not call for a broken government disaster. He promised to drain the swamp and instead hires lobbyist after lobbyist - that isn't the chaos people were looking for when they took him at his word.
This all just sounds like a new re-writing of history. Now people will be claiming that Trump promised to raise the deficit, fire all competent advisors and get investigated.
Won the election, lost the popular vote, lost the House 2 years later. The few extra votes he got outside of the true believers were people that thought he would make things better, not worse.
How exactly are things not better on nearly every front?
Read the constitution, this country is not a democracy troll.
SeriousStudent
01-16-19, 21:16
Godel - stop.
You were banned, came back, and immediately picked up where you left off. Just. Stop.
The only reason you come here is to post in General Discussion. Read the mission statement here and come back in a week.
SeriousStudent
01-16-19, 21:22
Oh, and just an FYI:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?161075-M4Carbine-net-General-Discussion-Policy-Enforcement
If all someone wants to do is post in GD, they probably should go sign up for Facebook. Cuz they ain't gonna to stay here long.
Averageman
01-16-19, 21:37
I would say the drugs that flow into our nation from the southern border does more harm over a longer period of time than the suicide bombers
And you think those are being carried in backpacks over the border?
There is plenty of photographic evidence that shows it happening in certain areas. As of now you're more likely to die of an opiate overdose than a car accident.
In certain area's a wall pushes that stuff further out in to the desert, which complicates matters a bit for them.
SeriousStudent
01-16-19, 21:48
And just an FYI, it's a really bad idea to send a PM to a moderator trying to pick a fight.
Thanks for the help.
Oh, and just an FYI:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?161075-M4Carbine-net-General-Discussion-Policy-Enforcement
If all someone wants to do is post in GD, they probably should go sign up for Facebook. Cuz they ain't gonna to stay here long.
Or TOS!
And just an FYI, it's a really bad idea to send a PM to a moderator trying to pick a fight.
LOL
echo5whiskey
01-16-19, 22:16
You guys forget that such a trap has consequences: unemployment is now beginning to float back up and many of the furloughed workers are eligible for unemployment benefits:
https://money.cnn.com/2013/10/01/news/economy/shutdown-federal-unemployment-benefits/index.html
Long term I'm not so sure it wouldn't be just shooting ourselves in the foot.
The other side of this shutdown exercise in brinkmanship is that in past shutdowns furloughed employees have ultimately been paid for their furlough time, in essence a double paid vacation.
Let us all be honest here. this is no more than a class of personalities that is going to cost us, the taxpayers, several million dollars each day it is extended.
FWIW, federal employees who opt for unemployment have to pay back whatever they receive once they are back-paid. I hear you on the furlough aspect, though. Anyone in my agency who takes any leave of any type is listed as "furloughed" per policy--much higher than the agency's. They will be receiving back-pay for those days, as well as not being charged for leave. For those of us who are considered "excepted," i.e. working without pay, it removes the incentive for people to show up to work. For those of us who do show, being forced to work additional hours and not receiving pay (yet) is like a double-whammy. For the record, I do support border security and understand the "why" behind the argument; but for now life sucks.
SeriousStudent
01-16-19, 22:23
Thanks for the help.
...
You're welcome.
I am not even remotely interested in playing games with people whose sole purpose here is to engage in urinary distance measurements.
I truly don't give an obese rodent's bottom what someone's political beliefs are. For the longest time, my best friend here was a guy name Montana Dave. We were polar political opposites. Dave was a terrific guy, whose health took an unfortunate downturn. :(
He was a very kind gentlemen, and any of you would have delighted to enjoy a glass with him on his beautiful ranch. He made his beliefs known with polite and well-reasoned statements, and was never ever rude.
I miss Dave, and even more, I miss his civility.
This place should never be an echo chamber. But there will be civil discourse, even if it means we're down to just two people complaining about who won the Heisman this year.
Averageman
01-16-19, 22:49
My BIL is a Corrections Officer at a Federal Prison and he's not getting paid.
I guess he'll be back paid, but he's looking for a part time job to help out until this is over.
Wow, Godel. You don't leave me much cover here.
My BIL is a Corrections Officer at a Federal Prison and he's not getting paid.
I guess he'll be back paid, but he's looking for a part time job to help out until this is over.
Yes, that part does suck, and I feel for those people.
My iPhone XS Max is better than your android!
Averageman
01-17-19, 01:35
Yes, that part does suck, and I feel for those people.
I guess if you take those jobs you better pad your savings account to handle this type of thing. With three kids and one of them about to graduate and go to college, that money just isn't there.
Averageman
01-17-19, 01:38
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otcesYKBqLE
Okay, now Nancy claims they can't do a "State of the Union Address" because the Secret Service hasn't been paid in over twenty days and she feels it to "Dangerous" for the POTUS until the Shutdown ends.
If he's smart he will tell everyone to tune in and do it from the Oval Office.
I guess if you take those jobs you better pad your savings account to handle this type of thing. With three kids and one of them about to graduate and go to college, that money just isn't there.
I know that I would be pissed if I was forced to pay dues into a union that appears to be doing nothing.
The president and the democrats are at an impasse, neither side can budge. They can get away without paying federal employees, if the shutdown lasts long enough that EBT cards are not refilled, chaos will be the watchword.
echo5whiskey
01-17-19, 06:21
I know that I would be pissed if I was forced to pay dues into a union that appears to be doing nothing.
The president and the democrats are at an impasse, neither side can budge. They can get away without paying federal employees, if the shutdown lasts long enough that EBT cards are not refilled, chaos will be the watchword.
The union is working on stuff; it's just that most of it will happen in-house with the respective agencies.
Outlander Systems
01-17-19, 07:11
Lmfao at anyone who doesn’t see the shutdown as a massive win.
Lmfao at anyone who doesn’t see the shutdown as a massive win.
Pay yo taxes
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's not comparable, though. The US has a much longer border with much smaller consequences for unchecked migration.
The wall in Israel is 440 miles long, so about 25% of the southern USA border.
Smaller consequences, really?
Drugs that are killing Americans to the tune of 40 people a day are coming across that border.
Third world illness that had been wiped out in the USA, are making a comeback in the USA.
Anchor babies artificially changing the political landscape and I don't care about the color of peoples skin. But you should learn about the greatness of the American Dream beyond just free money. They also are allowed to bring in extended family which go on public support.
A new caravan is on the way to American, if we don't safe guard the country, we will become Europe.
So if a wall can work at 440 miles, why can't it work across the whole southern border?
Outlander Systems
01-17-19, 07:51
Daily reminder that income taxes literally pay to service the nation’s debt to the private bank known as the “Federal” reserve.
Pay yo taxes
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The wall in Israel is 440 miles long, so about 25% of the southern USA border.
Smaller consequences, really?
Drugs that are killing Americans to the tune of 40 people a day are coming across that border.
Third world illness that had been wiped out in the USA, are making a comeback in the USA.
Anchor babies artificially changing the political landscape and I don't care about the color of peoples skin. But you should learn about the greatness of the American Dream beyond just free money. They also are allowed to bring in extended family which go on public support.
A new caravan is on the way to American, if we don't safe guard the country, we will become Europe.
So if a wall can work at 440 miles, why can't it work across the whole southern border?
I could be wrong but I took his comment to mean smaller consequences for the illegal alien, not the USA.
My iPhone XS Max is better than your android!
The wall in Israel is 440 miles long, so about 25% of the southern USA border.
Smaller consequences, really?
Drugs that are killing Americans to the tune of 40 people a day are coming across that border.
A wall won't do a single thing to stop this. Those drugs come across on otherwise legal traffic, including Cars, Trucks, and even shipping.
Third world illness that had been wiped out in the USA, are making a comeback in the USA.
This is due to a decrease in vaccination rates, not people coming across the border.
Anchor babies artificially changing the political landscape and I don't care about the color of peoples skin. But you should learn about the greatness of the American Dream beyond just free money. They also are allowed to bring in extended family which go on public support.
False pretty much across the board.
A new caravan is on the way to American, if we don't safe guard the country, we will become Europe.
Fear mongering doesn't = reality. The caravans are coming to crossings to apply for asylum. Whether it is a stunt or not, a wall won't change that one bit.
So if a wall can work at 440 miles, why can't it work across the whole southern border?
Because the reality is that the only way a wall would work is if it was contiguous around the entire country and was patrolled by armed guards at all time.
Of course all of the points you brought up are the same disproven talking points that come up all the time. They rely on people not doing any additional research, because that additional research will show that the wall is an even bigger waste of money than the TSA. Hell I used to support the idea until I actually looked deeper into the issue.
The fact is that most illegals don't come across the border. They are overstays from legal visits. Most drugs don't come across the border in the dead of night, they come across in otherwise legal passages. Even most of the people who live in that area don't want the wall. And the only way to do it is to steal land from people. But hey, who cares about people rights when it can win you some votes from Stormfront crowd.
Of course all of the points you brought up are the same disproven talking points that come up all the time. They rely on people not doing any additional research, because that additional research will show that the wall is an even bigger waste of money than the TSA. Hell I used to support the idea until I actually looked deeper into the issue.
The fact is that most illegals don't come across the border. They are overstays from legal visits. Most drugs don't come across the border in the dead of night, they come across in otherwise legal passages. Even most of the people who live in that area don't want the wall. And the only way to do it is to steal land from people. But hey, who cares about people rights when it can win you some votes from Stormfront crowd.
A wall would reduce the illegal drug traffic through our southern border. No one is claiming it will stop it completely. Perhaps if the border patrol spent less time chasing illegals, they could also intercept more vehicular shipments.
thopkins22
01-17-19, 09:21
Of course all of the points you brought up are the same disproven talking points that come up all the time. They rely on people not doing any additional research, because that additional research will show that the wall is an even bigger waste of money than the TSA. Hell I used to support the idea until I actually looked deeper into the issue.
The fact is that most illegals don't come across the border. They are overstays from legal visits. Most drugs don't come across the border in the dead of night, they come across in otherwise legal passages. Even most of the people who live in that area don't want the wall. And the only way to do it is to steal land from people. But hey, who cares about people rights when it can win you some votes from Stormfront crowd.
Completely agree. And I’d also point out that many if not most of the drugs that are actually killing people in real numbers are manufactured right here in the good ole USA or brought in legally.
A wall would reduce the illegal drug traffic through our southern border. No one is claiming it will stop it completely. Perhaps if the border patrol spent less time chasing illegals, they could also intercept more vehicular shipments.
It would have an almost insignificant impact on it. Around 90 % of all drugs come across at ports of entry.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics
thopkins22
01-17-19, 09:26
A wall would reduce the illegal drug traffic through our southern border. No one is claiming it will stop it completely. Perhaps if the border patrol spent less time chasing illegals, they could also intercept more vehicular shipments.
It won’t have any lasting impact at all on the amount of available drugs in this country. It’s like trusting your home security to a privacy fence when there is a billion dollars worth of gold inside. Nothing will stop it except lowering demand for illegal narcotics.
It won’t have any lasting impact at all on the amount of available drugs in this country. It’s like trusting your home security to a privacy fence when there is a billion dollars worth of gold inside. Nothing will stop it except lowering demand for illegal narcotics.
So just say F it and not even try?
You're welcome.
I am not even remotely interested in playing games with people whose sole purpose here is to engage in urinary distance measurements.
I truly don't give an obese rodent's bottom what someone's political beliefs are. For the longest time, my best friend here was a guy name Montana Dave. We were polar political opposites. Dave was a terrific guy, whose health took an unfortunate downturn. :(
He was a very kind gentlemen, and any of you would have delighted to enjoy a glass with him on his beautiful ranch. He made his beliefs known with polite and well-reasoned statements, and was never ever rude.
I miss Dave, and even more, I miss his civility.
This place should never be an echo chamber. But there will be civil discourse, even if it means we're down to just two people complaining about who won the Heisman this year.
Man, that's a huge bummer about Montana Dave :(
I really liked him and hated it when he wasn't around the forum anymore. I never knew what exactly happened to him. No doubt he was a super cool and respectful guy even though we didn't always agree.
thopkins22
01-17-19, 09:46
So just say F it and not even try?
Reduce the demand for illegal immigration. Lots of unemployed Americans...that we are paying to not do jobs Mexicans are happy to do, and in fact risk a lot to do.
Reconsider the minimum wage so that employees can hire Americans at the wages they can afford.
Stop pretending that I get to tell you what you put in your own body. I don’t want to spend money on your treatment, but I already do that now...and I also pay an insane amount of money trying to stop the drugs that have a much larger payoff for the cartels. We cannot stop drugs. We will never stop drugs no matter what we do. Some of them we shouldn’t even be trying to stop.
The death penalty exist in Malaysia and the Philippines for trafficking marijuana(and here in the US too on the books anyway,) and I can assure you that it’s everywhere.
We should have learned that prohibition is not the way to stop something people want.
I guess if you take those jobs you better pad your savings account to handle this type of thing. With three kids and one of them about to graduate and go to college, that money just isn't there.
I did and I have. I can last for a lot longer than the young people with families to support, who've not yet climbed the ladder. Most of them are faring OK missing the first paycheck, but it looks probable they'll miss a second check soon and that will cause chaos. I'm worried about them. :(
I'll say this though, I'm seeing an outpouring of local community support for our staff and it's having a very positive impact on morale. When the chips are down the politicians are nowhere to be seen, but your local community is hopefully this supportive.
Oh and if it were up to me, these bickering children on capital hill would be getting their hides tanned every morning, with a promise of more to come if they don't come together and hammer something out. Especially Pelosi. She's acting like a spoiled, petulant little brat. :mad:
Of course all of the points you brought up are the same disproven talking points that come up all the time. They rely on people not doing any additional research, because that additional research will show that the wall is an even bigger waste of money than the TSA. Hell I used to support the idea until I actually looked deeper into the issue.
The fact is that most illegals don't come across the border. They are overstays from legal visits. Most drugs don't come across the border in the dead of night, they come across in otherwise legal passages. Even most of the people who live in that area don't want the wall. And the only way to do it is to steal land from people. But hey, who cares about people rights when it can win you some votes from Stormfront crowd.
Point of order. Criminal illegal aliens who've been previously deported don't get Visas to overstay. They do re-cross the border illegally, and they're the most costly, problematic illegals we have to deal with. Will walls stop them? Maybe, maybe not. Not having walls certainly doesn't stop them, that's for sure. :(
Oh, and drug mules have absolutely been caught hauling bales of Mexican ditch weed across the border illegally. These days they're more likely to be hauling backpacks full of meth and opioids, which is less bulky and more money per pound. It's the huge hauls of heroin and cocaine coming across concealed in vehicles at ports of entry, but drugs and humans are routinely smuggled on foot too.
It would have an almost insignificant impact on it. Around 90 % of all drugs come across at ports of entry.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics
Again, those stats are for seized drugs, not all drugs entering the United States. Logic would dictate that more seizures would occur where you have an entry point, an agent and detection equipment/resources all in one location. Dogs, x-rays, sniffer technology and plenty of staff are obviously going to result in higher catch rates. You're not going to have a high catch rate when you don't have resources present.
I'm not arguing that walls/fences will stop or even decrease the amount of drugs and illegals attempting to come across. What it will do though is funnel traffic into more concentrated locations, where targeted enforcement can increase catch rates. It's easier to plug a hundred leaks than 10,000 leaks. It's a pretty simple concept.
Reduce the demand for illegal immigration. Lots of unemployed Americans...that we are paying to not do jobs Mexicans are happy to do, and in fact risk a lot to do.
These American are too damn lazy and worthless to do the jobs the Hispanics are doing.
So just say F it and not even try?
I don't think those folks are saying 'eff it and don't even try.' I think the thought is that a solid wall along the southern border is not realistic. I believe our border should be duck butt tight, but I don't think a physical wall is the best way to do it.
One of the problems with building a solid wall are the border cities.
thopkins22
01-17-19, 10:34
These American are too damn lazy and worthless to do the jobs the Hispanics are doing.
Yes. I can show you millions of Americans sitting at home collecting checks, while millions of illegal aliens are putting roofs on your house and picking your vegetables.
Obviously most Americans work hard, and some illegals are here to suck on the teat. But it would do more to stem the flow than any fence. People are here because there is a better life here and the market wants the labor. There is no excuse for Americans not fulfilling the demand for labor first. They don’t because we’ve created a system that actively discourages them from doing those jobs.
Oh and if it were up to me, these bickering children on capital hill would be getting their hides tanned every morning, with a promise of more to come if they don't come together and hammer something out. Especially Pelosi. She's acting like a spoiled, petulant little brat. :mad:
Glad for your Community support. I don't live near any major Federal employment centers, so the impact here has been minimal, which is part of the problem. Until folks get on the stick and contact their elected reps demanding they get this situation resolved, there won't be any movement in the near future.
At this point both sides are at fault. In general discussion on this forum, "The Echo Box" if you would, the consensus is that Leader Trump is doing what is right and necessary. Most polls show support for President Trump's position falling.
Unfortunately, this is apparently the hill he has chosen to die on, and he is going to take the Republican Party down with him. At this point, I have to admit I could give an eff less, except for all these 'assault rifles' I have and love to shoot.
Doesn't really matter to him, at the end of the day he'll walk away, still rich, probably going to become a Democrat again in his next incarnation.
I support the wall because the career politicians won’t let us have a border. I would rather have border patrol with all the high tech gadgets and be able to do their jobs to th fullest, coupled with mandatory e-verify for every business for every employee with extremely hefty fines for noncompliance and employment of illegals. This will result in an extreme shortage of labor in certain sectors which will cause prices to go up attracting Americans who didn’t want to/ couldn’t compete with the illegals.
Glad for your Community support. I don't live near any major Federal employment centers, so the impact here has been minimal, which is part of the problem. Until folks get on the stick and contact their elected reps demanding they get this situation resolved, there won't be any movement in the near future.
At this point both sides are at fault. In general discussion on this forum, "The Echo Box" if you would, the consensus is that Leader Trump is doing what is right and necessary. Most polls show support for President Trump's position falling.
Unfortunately, this is apparently the hill he has chosen to die on, and he is going to take the Republican Party down with him. At this point, I have to admit I could give an eff less, except for all these 'assault rifles' I have and love to shoot.
Doesn't really matter to him, at the end of the day he'll walk away, still rich, probably going to become a Democrat again in his next incarnation.
A pox on both their houses at this point. I don't support any of them. I singled out Pelosi simply because she refuses to even speak to the opposition. That's not how adults handle a business issue.
I support the wall because the career politicians won’t let us have a border. I would rather have border patrol with all the high tech gadgets and be able to do their jobs to th fullest, coupled with mandatory e-verify for every business for every employee with extremely hefty fines for noncompliance and employment of illegals. This will result in an extreme shortage of labor in certain sectors which will cause prices to go up attracting Americans who didn’t want to/ couldn’t compete with the illegals.
That's a BIG one right there. E-verify isn't foolproof, as I've seen one instance where it didn't detect an illegal immigrant worker. In that case a well trained staff member detected fraudulent ID verification documents and it was proven the subject was an illegal. However, it would go a long way towards reducing illegal immigration. The problem with making it mandatory is neither party wants that, because it impacts profit margins for businesses. :(
We need comprehensive reform that includes physical barriers, more resources for CBP and ICE, more penalties for businesses hiring illegals, and a major overhaul of the worker Visa programs. The stumbling block is the legislature that's been variously controlled by both parties over the past 32 years when they hoodwinked Reagan on border security. We can't move forward without funding appropriations for border security, because they'll just fool us all once again. :mad:
That's a BIG one right there. E-verify isn't foolproof, as I've seen one instance where it didn't detect an illegal immigrant worker. In that case a well trained staff member detected fraudulent ID verification documents and it was proven the subject was an illegal. However, it would go a long way towards reducing illegal immigration. The problem with making it mandatory is neither party wants that, because it impacts profit margins for businesses. :(
We need comprehensive reform that includes physical barriers, more resources for CBP and ICE, more penalties for businesses hiring illegals, and a major overhaul of the worker Visa programs. The stumbling block is the legislature that's been variously controlled by both parties over the past 32 years when they hoodwinked Reagan on border security. We can't move forward without funding appropriations for border security, because they'll just fool us all once again. :mad:
Agreed.
I will gladly pay yo taxes for a minefield. Chile has a minefield. Chile also wasn’t afraid to give out helicopter rides.
Because even if they build a wall some fatass will get elected and have it torn down.
But minefields are a lot harder to de-mine.
Bouncing betties and toe-poppers.
This is not hard
Doc Safari
01-17-19, 12:47
I will gladly pay yo taxes for a minefield. Chile has a minefield. Chile also wasn’t afraid to give out helicopter rides.
Because even if they build a wall some fatass will get elected and have it torn down.
But minefields are a lot harder to de-mine.
Bouncing betties and toe-poppers.
This is not hard
WINNING. But wait there' more:
1. A five-mile no-man's-land between the US border and Mexico proper. Of course Mejico will be the one to give up territory. Sorry but all those cardboard shacks in Juarez will have to be moved.
2. Concertina wire at both ends of the no-man's-land.
3. Towers with SAW and sniper positions every 1/2 mile on the American side.
4. Shoot to kill orders for anyone who survives to make it to the American side.
5. Make LEGAL immigration a little easier for skilled people who legitimately desire to BECOME AMERICAN.
I still say we should skip the foreplay, declare an Anschluss and outbreed the latin girls, literally crucify their heads of state, and kill all military aged men not on board. And we blow up the Cartels.
Like....just a whole bunch of new commonwealths that can pay taxes but can’t vote for president. Just senators and governors. Then we limpet mine the two oceans.
Furthermore we give very generous taxbreaks for families to move South and breed the latinas.
I think we could get Chile on board. Maybe even Uruguay.
Then we take the Falkland Islands. Then we could declare the West a closed hemisphere.
Then we bide our time until China is overstretched with Africa..
I play Hearts of Iron. This can happen.
This can really happen.
Brazil might be a tough nut to crack but I think we can raise a rebel army.
Do it for the Brazilian chicks.
Then we shutter off Canada. Put me in President for 20 years. I will legalize polygamy and totally toss out the NFA.
Once the dust settles we will have farmlands and cornfields and English speaking latin girls to breed with in them.
We might catch flak from China,Russia, the Frogs, and the Limeys but they will stay put.
Manifest Destiny on steroids.
Do it for the burritos and latin girls.
We might need to do another draft and maybe reinstitute Constantinople but this can happen.
I still say we should skip the foreplay, declare an Anschluss and outbreed the latin girls, literally crucify their heads of state, and kill all military aged men not on board. And we blow up the Cartels.
Like....just a whole bunch of new commonwealths that can pay taxes but can’t vote for president. Just senators and governors. Then we limpet mine the two oceans.
Furthermore we give very generous taxbreaks for families to move South and breed the latinas.
I think we could get Chile on board. Maybe even Uruguay.
Then we take the Falkland Islands. Then we could declare the West a closed hemisphere.
Then we bide our time until China is overstretched with Africa..
I play Hearts of Iron. This can happen.
This can really happen.
Brazil might be a tough nut to crack but I think we can raise a rebel army.
Do it for the Brazilian chicks.
Then we shutter off Canada. Put me in President for 20 years. I will legalize polygamy and totally toss out the NFA.
Once the dust settles we will have farmlands and cornfields and English speaking latin girls to breed with in them.
We might catch flak from China,Russia, the Frogs, and the Limeys but they will stay put.
Manifest Destiny on steroids.
Do it for the burritos and latin girls.
We might need to do another draft and maybe reinstitute Constantinople but this can happen.
Knock it off
Doc Safari
01-17-19, 13:41
WINNING.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/us/politics/trump-pelosi-letter-trip.html
President Trump retaliated on Friday against Speaker Nancy Pelosi for threatening to cancel his planned State of the Union address on Jan. 29, writing in a letter that he, in turn, was postponing her planned trip abroad, calling it a “public relations event.”
“I am sorry to inform you that your trip to Brussels, Egypt and Afghanistan has been postponed,” Mr. Trump wrote. “We will reschedule this seven day excursion when the shutdown is over.”
Presumably, the president is refusing to provide military transport that is traditionally provided to the House speaker or congressional delegations. In the letter, tinged with sarcasm, he wrote that she could still take the trip if she chose to fly commercial.
He wrote: “It would be better if you were in Washington, negotiating with me and joining the Strong Border Security movement to end the shutdown.”
Rush Limbaugh is correct. Would McCain or Romney have the guts to do this? My take: Stuff like this is why we like Trump even if he ain't perfect.
Averageman
01-17-19, 13:42
POTUS Trump turns up the Heat ;
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/donald-trump-nancy-pelosi-overseas-trip-postponed
President Trump responded to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) call to delay the State of the Union address with a postponement of his own.
“Due to the shutdown, I am sorry to inform you that your trip to Brussels, Egypt, and Afghanistan has been postponed. We will reschedule this seven-day excursion when the shutdown is over,” Trump wrote to Pelosi.
The President added that Pelosi is welcome to downgrade her travel arrangements. “Obviously, if you would like to make your journey by flying commercial, that would certainly be your prerogative.”
This is bordering on Hilarity.
WINNING.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/us/politics/trump-pelosi-letter-trip.html
Rush Limbaugh is correct. Would McCain or Romney have the guts to do this? My take: Stuff like this is why we like Trump even if he ain't perfect.
Came to post the same!
https://i1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa393/officerfrasher/DxIrbtUXcAA5T07_zpsj8hbjqpa.jpg
Knock it off
Do you have a better solution, sir?
Or are we seriously betting it all on a wall?
This ain’t East Berlin or Israel.
America is a big country. Not enough concrete. Maybe not enough mines.
Someone lost the will to make the Americas great in the 1840s.
Do you have a better idea?
WINNING. But wait there' more:
1. A five-mile no-man's-land between the US border and Mexico proper. Of course Mejico will be the one to give up territory. Sorry but all those cardboard shacks in Juarez will have to be moved.
What if they don't want to give up the land?
2. Concertina wire at both ends of the no-man's-land.
I assume you mean on both sides of no man's land
3. Towers with SAW and sniper positions every 1/2 mile on the American side.
USBP says the border is 1,900 miles. That would be 2,800 people, assuming you have a one person post with the guy being able to choose between the SAW or the Barrett :) For 24/7 coverage that is a minimum of 8,400 folks.
4. Shoot to kill orders for anyone who survives to make it to the American side.
I'd like to think I'm NOT the type of person who would shoot unarmed folks, but I guess you think you would roll different.
5. Make LEGAL immigration a little easier for skilled people who legitimately desire to BECOME AMERICAN.
Sure, outsource all the good paying jobs to immigrants. Due to my wife being pretty well-educated I've been to a couple of Masters Convocations. My experience is Nursing, Education, Business pretty much American, everything else, a much higher percentage of foreign students.
Came to post the same!
https://i1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa393/officerfrasher/DxIrbtUXcAA5T07_zpsj8hbjqpa.jpg
I'm sorry, does anyone else but me think this is childish bullshit? Both Pelosi and President Trump need to be spanked.
I'm sorry, does anyone else but me think this is childish bullshit? Both Pelosi and President Trump need to be spanked.
Childish - no. Picking on her - yes. But I also think it's necessary, for Dems & Repubs alike, until the shutdown is over.
Doc Safari
01-17-19, 14:24
I'd like to think I'm NOT the type of person who would shoot unarmed folks, but I guess you think you would roll different..
Okay, I guess I'd let you win there. Poor people don't deserve to be shot just because they're poor. But coyotes, drug runners, and other scum deserve to take a dirt nap posthaste.
I'm sorry, does anyone else but me think this is childish bullshit? Both Pelosi and President Trump need to be spanked.
I'm sorry, but Pelosi and her congressional delegation have ZERO business using taxpayer dollars and DoD assets to flee the country for a week while the .gov is shut down and many of us are working for no pay. She fled to Hawaii last month. A bunch of them went to party on the beach in Puerto Rico last weekend and Pelosi was supposed to be there too, now she wants to gallivant across the globe? W.T.F. Over?
She just lost any pretense that she cares about the people being impacted by this shutdown. Her trip would GUARANTEE another pay period without pay. You don't get to pretend you care when you're pulling stunts like that.
Pelosi never had any business telling Trump to postpone the SOTU address and that he's not welcome at Congress to deliver it. So she rightly earned this well deserved rebuke by POTUS. Sorry Queen Nancy, your crown is a bit off kilter! :jester:
Averageman
01-17-19, 14:44
Name a Republican who had the nutz to do this before?
Childish, like avoiding DC and taking trips specifically to avoid negotiating?
It's the same rules the Dems have been playing on for years, Nancy just got called out.
MountainRaven
01-17-19, 15:34
So is Trump going to repay the US government for the use of Air Force One to fly to Texas and Louisiana? When he flies to Mar-a-Lago, will he be flying commercial, too?
Outlander Systems
01-17-19, 15:49
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Botox Nancy BTFO
Came to post the same!
https://i1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa393/officerfrasher/DxIrbtUXcAA5T07_zpsj8hbjqpa.jpg
Adrenaline_6
01-17-19, 16:26
So is Trump going to repay the US government for the use of Air Force One to fly to Texas and Louisiana? When he flies to Mar-a-Lago, will he be flying commercial, too?
He has his own jet, so I doubt if he would care in the grand scheme of things...but the SS would. He HAS to travel on AF1 due to security reasons.
So is Trump going to repay the US government for the use of Air Force One to fly to Texas and Louisiana? When he flies to Mar-a-Lago, will he be flying commercial, too?
Will Obama repay his Hawaii trips? How far back to you want to go?
MountainRaven
01-17-19, 16:55
Will Obama repay his Hawaii trips? How far back to you want to go?
Was Obama flying to Hawaii during government shutdowns?
Was Obama flying to Hawaii during government shutdowns?
Does it matter?
MountainRaven
01-17-19, 17:31
Does it matter?
Isn't the government shut down why Pelosi isn't being allowed to fly Government Air abroad?
Isn't the government shut down why Pelosi isn't being allowed to fly Government Air abroad?
Now, now. We can't expect consistency out of people can we?
Pelosi and Trump are acting like children. It is just downright embarrassing to watch. They could care less how many people they are screwing with. It effects a lot more than just government jobs as well. For us it means out NFA stuff is on hold or at least badly delayed.
In real Estate it holds up or even destroys transactions. And there are dozens of other examples in just about every field.
But what are these two doing? Sending nasty grams to each other and playing grade school level games.
Isn't the government shut down why Pelosi isn't being allowed to fly Government Air abroad?
Yep. Obama canceled his Asia summit trip when he shut down the government, so why does Nancy think it’s OK to go galavanting across the globe while the government is shut down?
Oh, and Trump only went on a CONUS business trip while Congress was in recess. He hasn’t gone to Mar-a-Lago since the shutdown and he’s not going. He stayed in the WH while the Dems (who unlike Trump or the rest of us are still getting paid), were off frolicking on tropical islands.
Care to tell us how much more they care about our hardships now? :rolleyes:
Will Obama repay his Hawaii trips? How far back to you want to go?
Vacations are not something you really want to use to compare the worth of parties: Reagan comes to mind.
Now, now. We can't expect consistency out of people can we?
Pelosi and Trump are acting like children. It is just downright embarrassing to watch. They could care less how many people they are screwing with. It effects a lot more than just government jobs as well. For us it means out NFA stuff is on hold or at least badly delayed.
In real Estate it holds up or even destroys transactions. And there are dozens of other examples in just about every field.
But what are these two doing? Sending nasty grams to each other and playing grade school level games.
Quoted for truth.
Vacations are not something you really want to use to compare the worth of parties: Reagan comes to mind.
I didn’t start down that rabbit hole in case you didn’t notice.
Trump and Pelosi need to just F already and get it over with
Moose-Knuckle
01-18-19, 03:16
"My TV told me the orange man is . . .
*shuffles deck pulls card*
. . . an asshole!"
Yup, all the right people are still boi vag hurt. :lol:
#MAGA
Outlander Systems
01-18-19, 07:07
The amount of assmad in this thread is justification enough for a permanent shutdown.
Doc Safari
01-18-19, 08:57
The amount of assmad in this thread is justification enough for a permanent shutdown.
Truth. Not just truth but Ten Commandments Truth.
28 days as of today. This'll hit 30 easily.
Outlander Systems
01-18-19, 09:04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpoAdGWGiN0
28 days as of today. This'll hit 30 easily.
This anime started off fun but is now lame.
It’s just like the WWE now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpoAdGWGiN0
That is exactly what I've been picturing whenever anyone talks about the shutdown with me.
Good movie by the way. Haven't seen it in ages.
Doc Safari
01-18-19, 17:26
Trump plans a major announcement 01/19/2019:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-18/trump-make-major-announcement-border-shutdown
In a late Friday tweet, President Trump has teased what he calls a "major announcement" about the Southern border and the government shutdown tomorrow afternoon at 3pmET.
Trump should declare a national emergency, shift funds out of the Pentagon, build his wall, open the government and charge Democrats with finding excuses not to secure our border because they have a demographic and ideological interest in changing the face of the nation.
For the larger the share of the U.S. population that requires welfare, the greater the need for more social workers, and the more voters there will be to vote to further grow the liberal welfare state.
The more multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual America becomes — the less it looks like Ronald Reagan’s America — the more dependably Democratic it will become.
The Democratic Party is hostile to white men, because the smaller the share of the U.S. population that white men become, the sooner that Democrats inherit the national estate.
The only way to greater “diversity,” the golden calf of the Democratic Party, is to increase the number of women, African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics, and thereby reduce the number of white men.
The decisive issues on which Trump was elected were not the old Republican litany of tax cuts, conservative judges and increased defense spending.
They were securing the borders, extricating America from foolish wars, eliminating trade deficits with NAFTA nations, the EU and China, making allies pay their fair share of the common defense, resurrecting our manufacturing base, and getting along with Russia.
“America First!” is still a winning hand
Trump plans a major announcement 01/19/2019:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-18/trump-make-major-announcement-border-shutdown
Trump should declare a national emergency, shift funds out of the Pentagon, build his wall, open the government and charge Democrats with finding excuses not to secure our border because they have a demographic and ideological interest in changing the face of the nation.
For people who support this what are you going to think when a Democrat President tries the same thing to outlaw Gun ownership or force through an AWB, or anything else we don't like.
A President is not a King. He doesn't get to use EOs or States of Emergency just to do whatever he wants.
For people who support this what are you going to think when a Democrat President tries the same thing to outlaw Gun ownership or force through an AWB, or anything else we don't like.
A President is not a King. He doesn't get to use EOs or States of Emergency just to do whatever he wants.
The cat has been out of the bag on this for a while. Clinton did 364 EO's, GWB 291, Obama 276 and Trump 91 so far. If future American President, Akbar Al-Shabbi (D- MN), tries to outlaw guns, I think most citizens would just laugh. Probably like the Bump Stock rule is going to work out. Myself and many others are just detaching from what happens in D.C. I still support Trump, but my life won't be controlled by all this political drama.
Outlander Systems
01-18-19, 19:19
This.
The cat has been out of the bag on this for a while. Clinton did 364 EO's, GWB 291, Obama 276 and Trump 91 so far. If future American President, Akbar Al-Shabbi (D- MN), tries to outlaw guns, I think most citizens would just laugh. Probably like the Bump Stock rule is going to work out. Myself and many others are just detaching from what happens in D.C. I still support Trump, but my life won't be controlled by all this political drama.
morbidbattlecry
01-18-19, 20:24
For people who support this what are you going to think when a Democrat President tries the same thing to outlaw Gun ownership or force through an AWB, or anything else we don't like.
A President is not a King. He doesn't get to use EOs or States of Emergency just to do whatever he wants.
I often amuse myself thinking about what the right would have done if Obama has done 1% of what Trump has done. The level of hypocrisy is astounding.
echo5whiskey
01-18-19, 21:55
The amount of assmad in this thread is justification enough for a permanent shutdown.
Now there's an idea. Let's go full-vigilante justice system with mandatory death penalty for all federal crimes.
Moose-Knuckle
01-19-19, 06:22
I often amuse myself thinking about what the right would have done if Obama has done 1% of what Trump has done. The level of hypocrisy is astounding.
https://media.giphy.com/media/26gJzCca96ocheVZS/giphy.gif
For people who support this what are you going to think when a Democrat President tries the same thing to outlaw Gun ownership or force through an AWB, or anything else we don't like.
A President is not a King. He doesn't get to use EOs or States of Emergency just to do whatever he wants.
No one standing with Pelosi and Schumer wants a secure border. The lies they tell pretending they do are laughable. They CLAIM they want a secure border, but they're not even willing to offer the asked for $5.7B to fund more officers, tech and immigration courts/judges to process the asylum requests within the proscribed time frames. They WANT an open border where illegal migrants can enter at will. They want overloaded immigration dockets so ICE has to free detainees at the local bus station en masse. They gain nothing by making the process more efficient, because that would mean more detainees sent back to their home countries, because they don't qualify for asylum.
On the flip side of the coin, business interests who profit off illegal immigrants control a lot of Republicans who don't really want the border secured either. If all that labor pool has legal status to work in the U.S., then they have to pay them more and pay the associated payroll taxes and costs.
The federal legislative branch (both R & D controlled) has had 32 years to secure the border, and they've intentionally refused to do it. No one accidentally makes the same mistakes for 32 years straight. What they have resolutely done for 32 years straight, is use the immigration crisis as a political weapon to keep the masses entertained. Now here comes DJT who says "This is stupid, let's do something different!" And look what happens.
Well either the immigration crisis is a security emergency or it isn't. Either it's a humanitarian crisis or it isn't. No one gets to have it both ways. If it's at crisis level, then POTUS has the constitutional power to declare an emergency and address it. No court in the land has the jurisdiction to stop him, not even SCOTUS. The only body that can stop him is the federal legislative branch, by impeachment in the lower house and trial in the upper house. It's Schoolhouse Rock 101. But you aren't going to hear that from the pols in the legislative branch. You're not going to hear it from the federal courts or the press either. They're all too enamored with their own power and glory to do anything so plebian as follow the rules. That's for the little people.
At this point I don't care if DJT stops this madness by declaring a state of emergency or not. So long as he takes away their political football and we can move on to the next battle, so be it. The legislature will piss and moan but in the end, they'll do exactly what they always do, nothing.
The Dems don’t want to do anything about illegal immigration because that would shrink their voter pool.
My iPhone XS Max is better than your android!
The cat has been out of the bag on this for a while. Clinton did 364 EO's, GWB 291, Obama 276 and Trump 91 so far. If future American President, Akbar Al-Shabbi (D- MN), tries to outlaw guns, I think most citizens would just laugh. Probably like the Bump Stock rule is going to work out. Myself and many others are just detaching from what happens in D.C. I still support Trump, but my life won't be controlled by all this political drama.
quit letting facts get in the way :)
when you bring up those facts or things those other dems have said or do the left just calls you a racist or whatever and ignores you and it and doubles down well he does it to !
just like their history they like to change it or distract the moment its challenged and the truth comes out ! some insane times we are living in and hope it turns around
The Dems don’t want to do anything about illegal immigration because that would shrink their voter pool.
and rich republicans their cheap labor pool
Business_Casual
01-19-19, 16:02
and rich republicans their cheap labor pool
That’s a canard, the big corporations want cheap labor to flood in and depress wages. And last time I checked, Bezos and Cook were solid (D) voters and donors.
thopkins22
01-19-19, 16:19
That’s a canard, the big corporations want cheap labor to flood in and depress wages. And last time I checked, Bezos and Cook were solid (D) voters and donors.
The only major donation we know of regarding Bezos funding is to help elect veterans to either party. I’m sure you’re right that he is a democrat, and funds them, but he’s no Soros either.
The only major donation we know of regarding Bezos funding is to help elect veterans to either party. I’m sure you’re right that he is a democrat, and funds them, but he’s no Soros either.
do some digging !
unlike soros he is keeping his hand to himself at this point but he is not a good guy either
of course the way he treats employees is proof enough
thopkins22
01-19-19, 16:44
do some digging !
unlike soros he is keeping his hand to himself at this point but he is not a good guy either
of course the way he treats employees is proof enough
Oh certainly. I don’t mean to defend him or his business practices. And I’m not under the illusion that he’s a friend to the cause.
I do use a lot of amazon services though. Hell, a huge chunk of the Internet is reliant on AWS.
Oh certainly. I don’t mean to defend him or his business practices. And I’m not under the illusion that he’s a friend to the cause.
I do use a lot of amazon services though. Hell, a huge chunk of the Internet is reliant on AWS.
yeah me to its a tough thing cause it does also support small biz owners and a so called all out ban would hurt many good folks to ?
also some companies then use outside companies for product photography or design or marketing and manufacturing and so on so its quite wide spread and deep but he gets his pennies no matter what
many do not realize this and think its all just his branded stuff ? not saying you in general some do :)
I do try to go to stores when I can and support local but here it means way less then it did where I am from ? odd times for sure we live in :)
the thing that steams me is the takes advantage of tax dollars as we all know which is sadly something they need to stop helping such a huge biz !!!!! the side of our gov I despise
i do wish the gov would not help one tiny bit with it and that in turn would allow brick mortar to once again compete better and prices would be higher of course but we pay one way or the other and those who choose not to use it wont be paying as they do now !
any and all companies should get NO help from our gov in any way
MountainRaven
01-19-19, 20:00
No one standing with Pelosi and Schumer wants a secure border. The lies they tell pretending they do are laughable. They CLAIM they want a secure border, but they're not even willing to offer the asked for $5.7B to fund more officers, tech and immigration courts/judges to process the asylum requests within the proscribed time frames.
The Dems don’t want to do anything about illegal immigration because that would shrink their voter pool.
House Democrats are supposed to vote next week to increase border security spending by $1 billion.
Last year, a bipartisan bill was proposed in the Senate that would have given $25 billion in border security spending.
The former will doubtless not be even debated in the Senate and the latter was vetoed by Trump.
So, yeah. Totally the Democrats' fault. DJT, whose businesses have benefitted from the use of immigrant labor, is utterly blameless.
House Democrats are supposed to vote next week to increase border security spending by $1 billion.
Last year, a bipartisan bill was proposed in the Senate that would have given $25 billion in border security spending.
The former will doubtless not be even debated in the Senate and the latter was vetoed by Trump.
So, yeah. Totally the Democrats' fault. DJT, whose businesses have benefitted from the use of immigrant labor, is utterly blameless.
That $25 billion, was it an authorization or an appropriation? If it was an actual appropriation, what if anything was attached to it that might’ve killed the deal?
Averageman
01-20-19, 07:25
After the President laid it out yesterday, who can defend not building the wall with some logical reasoning?
I understand that walls don't work everywhere, but where they do work, they need to be built. There are a wide varieties of technologies that we can use to secure the border, if we don't take advantage of all of them, we're simply fools.
I would like to hear Nancy Pelosi come out with her plan for securing the border, and to be honest, She's got no reason for international junkets when there is real work to be done here in the House to find a workable compromise.
If She will not do so, I see no reason why the President doesn't declare it a National Emergency and use his powers to circumvent Nancy and the House of Representatives to get it done.
To put this in perspective ask yourself "How many lives are lost due to California's annual wildfires?" then compare that to the lives lost due to illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the economic impact of illegal immigrants. The staggering difference between the two. I don't think Nancy has ever complained about the POTUS declaring her wildfires a National Emergency, so why oppose this?
It's time we got some Leadership, Statesmanship and a lot less gamesmanship out of the Swamp from both sides of the isle.
We need to change that damn BS asylum law. I know it'll never happen with a Democrap House but it needs to be tried. THAT law, the way it is written now, is our downfall with illegal immigration. Every single one of those vermin knows that all they have to say is "I want asylum" and some long, drawn-out BS process takes place.
Another thing: as far as ICE dumping these bastards on our streets.....if I'm not mistaken it is a judge's decision that came up with the horseshit two week detention thing. If it isn't part of the law, like actually written into it, Trump should ignore it and detain those lowlifes until their cases are adjudicated (and hold them under the most sparse of conditions).
Averageman
01-20-19, 12:38
We need to change that damn BS asylum law. I know it'll never happen with a Democrap House but it needs to be tried. THAT law, the way it is written now, is our downfall with illegal immigration. Every single one of those vermin knows that all they have to say is "I want asylum" and some long, drawn-out BS process takes place.
Another thing: as far as ICE dumping these bastards on our streets.....if I'm not mistaken it is a judge's decision that came up with the horseshit two week detention thing. If it isn't part of the law, like actually written into it, Trump should ignore it and detain those lowlifes until their cases are adjudicated (and hold them under the most sparse of conditions).
I agree, totally with all of the above. Reagan's agreement with the Dem's on amnesty has turned out to be a magnet for anyone South of the border who wants to come here, they understand we do not have the resolve to stop their crimes.
I'm really glad the Trump has been so successful with his judicial appointments. At this point there are far to many judges legislating from the Bench.
If I were to add anything to the above it would be a "Guest Worker" program and some harsh penalties for employers skirting the system and hiring illegals, those folks need a monetary fine and a minimum mandatory of two years per violation.
I agree, totally with all of the above. Reagan's agreement with the Dem's on amnesty has turned out to be a magnet for anyone South of the border who wants to come here, they understand we do not have the resolve to stop their crimes.
I'm really glad the Trump has been so successful with his judicial appointments. At this point there are far to many judges legislating from the Bench.
If I were to add anything to the above it would be a "Guest Worker" program and some harsh penalties for employers skirting the system and hiring illegals, those folks need a monetary fine and a minimum mandatory of two years per violation.
Any guest worker program should NOT include a pathway to citizenship; work only. The naturalization process (and it's waiting line, $$$, and length of time) should be totally separate from a guest worker program. Wanna come here as a guest worker? Pass a screening, you come ALONE (no welfare-sucking leech family with you), and it is for a predetermined amount of time. Then it must be renewed. Wanna become a citizen? There is a separate process for naturalization and being a guest worker does not circumvent ANY of that process or get you ahead in the line.
I often amuse myself thinking about what the right would have done if Obama has done 1% of what Trump has done. The level of hypocrisy is astounding.
You're joking, right? Remember DACA? That wasn't a legislatively passed item, it was an Executive Order. Also, that "1% of what Trump has done"......like what pray tell? Exactly what has Trump done that is so off the charts? Not things he's said he would do, but actually done. Despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over a wall funded by a "national emergency" it hasn't happened.
You're joking, right? Remember DACA? That wasn't a legislatively passed item, it was an Executive Order. Also, that "1% of what Trump has done"......like what pray tell? Exactly what has Trump done that is so off the charts? Not things he's said he would do, but actually done. Despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over a wall funded by a "national emergency" it hasn't happened.
Bump stock.
Shutdown govt for record # days.
Off the top of my head.
He isn't our savior, and as to whether we would be better off with or without HC, recently I've began to wonder.
In my simple view, the way this President thing is supposed to work is he gives the Congress what the .mil would say is 'commanders intent' and leaves them to go to it, then he either signs or vetoes the result.
If HC had been elected, would the Dems have the House right now? I think it is unlikely. Without support of the House and the Senate, nothing way crazy a President wants is going to get done.
I'm not sure at the end of the day, OTHER than judicial appointments, we would be worse off.
Once again, I'm a simpleton.
Averageman
01-20-19, 16:06
Perhaps we're overlooking the bump employment and the economy got when he deregulated a large part of our economy?
He could have accomplished a lot more had McConnell and Ryan got onboard. Instead they drug their feet and were almost obstructive to his policy.
Getting us out of Syria is another major accomplishment.
MountainRaven
01-20-19, 16:43
That $25 billion, was it an authorization or an appropriation? If it was an actual appropriation, what if anything was attached to it that might’ve killed the deal?
Dunno. But an extension for DACA was included. The same extension that Trump suddenly seems to be a fan of.
Averageman
01-20-19, 16:46
Dunno. But an extension for DACA was included. The same extension that Trump suddenly seems to be a fan of.
I think he was more more putting it out there in order for Pelosi to reject.
Another point in Trump's favour is the way he is stacking his appointments for Judges.
morbidbattlecry
01-20-19, 17:22
You're joking, right? Remember DACA? That wasn't a legislatively passed item, it was an Executive Order. Also, that "1% of what Trump has done"......like what pray tell? Exactly what has Trump done that is so off the charts? Not things he's said he would do, but actually done. Despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over a wall funded by a "national emergency" it hasn't happened.
Glad you asked!
1. Giving his children and close family jobs in the white house.
2. Sky rocketing the national debt
3. Grounding the speaker of the house and revealing where they going
4. Looking and talking about classified information in a public restaurant
5. Shutting down the government over 5 billion dollars
6. Disrespecting John Mccain
7. Fighting with and alienating NATO and it's allies
8. Golfing more than actually working
9. Ignored Emoluments Clause in the Constitution With Trump Hotel
10. Multiple vacations a month(4-5ish)
11. Charging consistently large amounts money for travel and related expenses to the taxpayers
12. Have 4 kids from 3 different women
13.Possible collusion with a foreign government to win or influence the presidential election
14. A cabinet full of unqualified people who donated to the campaign and had loyalty to only the president(WIth the exception of Jim Mattis but we got rid of that free thinker)
15. Handing out paper towels to Puerto Rico hurricane refuges
15 feels like a good place to stop. It's not like you're going to believe me anyway.
just a scout
01-20-19, 17:51
Glad you asked!
1. Giving his children and close family jobs in the white house.
2. Sky rocketing the national debt
3. Grounding the speaker of the house and revealing where they going
4. Looking and talking about classified information in a public restaurant
5. Shutting down the government over 5 billion dollars
6. Disrespecting John Mccain
7. Fighting with and alienating NATO and it's allies
8. Golfing more than actually working
9. Ignored Emoluments Clause in the Constitution With Trump Hotel
10. Multiple vacations a month(4-5ish)
11. Charging consistently large amounts money for travel and related expenses to the taxpayers
12. Have 4 kids from 3 different women
13.Possible collusion with a foreign government to win or influence the presidential election
14. A cabinet full of unqualified people who donated to the campaign and had loyalty to only the president(WIth the exception of Jim Mattis but we got rid of that free thinker)
15. Handing out paper towels to Puerto Rico hurricane refuges
15 feels like a good place to stop. It's not like you're going to believe me anyway.
Cash for Clunkers
Bailout
Obamacare
Fast and Furious
Arab Spring
Muslim resettlement and immigration
Encouraging illegal immigration
Doubling the national debt
Increasing unfounded mandates to over $100 Trillion
Destroying the coal industry
Solyndra
And on and on
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
morbidbattlecry
01-20-19, 20:56
Cash for Clunkers
Bailout
Obamacare
Fast and Furious
Arab Spring
Muslim resettlement and immigration
Encouraging illegal immigration
Doubling the national debt
Increasing unfounded mandates to over $100 Trillion
Destroying the coal industry
Solyndra
And on and on
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Well that's a nice list of things that Obama has done wrong. That isn't what my list is about.
thopkins22
01-20-19, 23:07
Yep. Obama sucked. So Trump can’t possibly suck right?
Coal was essentially dead long before Obama btw...and won’t be revived by Trump. And that is a good thing. Humans have been decarbonizing for centuries. Which is good. Not for the environment(never mind that,) but for sound economic reasons.
Yep. Obama sucked. So Trump can’t possibly suck right?
Coal was essentially dead long before Obama btw...and won’t be revived by Trump. And that is a good thing. Humans have been decarbonizing for centuries. Which is good. Not for the environment(never mind that,) but for sound economic reasons.
Come to Kentucky and spout that nonsense about coal and see how far you get.
My iPhone XS Max is better than your android!
Come to Kentucky and spout that nonsense about coal and see how far you get.
The biggest problem coal has is that it isn't natural gas.
thopkins22
01-20-19, 23:57
Come to Kentucky and spout that nonsense about coal and see how far you get.
My iPhone XS Max is better than your android!
I’m from West Virginia(born in Lexington though.) My grandmother’s family owns and operates coal mines.
Facts are facts, and appeasing people by alluding to the idea that a bygone era might return if we force it to is not something I’m going to entertain. I’m not trying to get elected by lying to people.
I’d love for steamboats to be running the Mississippi again too. Let’s not hold our breath. Natural gas is here and is better in almost every way.
Dunno. But an extension for DACA was included. The same extension that Trump suddenly seems to be a fan of.
Maybe you should've checked before making your statement then.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/democrats-schumer-trump-border-wall-daca/551288/
In negotiations last year, Democrats offered their support for enhanced border security as long as it was explicit that the money would not go toward planning and constructing a new border wall. But as it became clear Trump would never make the same rhetorical distinction, they reluctantly moved off their position. “We’re pretty confident that the Congress is not going to appropriate billions and billions of dollars in year one to build a big concrete wall,” Sharry said. “We’re also pretty confident that whatever the border-security package that gets negotiated, Donald Trump will claim that he got billions and billions of dollars for a big, fat concrete wall.”
Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, had already agreed to $1.6 billion in initial wall funding as part of the agreement he struck with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and a bipartisan group of four other senators. After Trump rejected that deal, Schumer had been talking with fellow Democrats and immigration advocates about what they could accept beyond that in exchange for DACA protections. When he went to the White House on Friday, “[he] knew where Democrats were ultimately willing to land on a deal,” said a senior Senate aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the party’s internal deliberations.
The White House pushed back on Schumer’s description of his meeting with Trump. Officials have said Schumer only agreed to authorize the full amount Trump requested over several years, as opposed to the immediate appropriation the president wanted. If Congress authorizes but doesn’t appropriate funds, Democrats could conceivably withhold them if they won control of one or both chambers of Congress in November. The Democratic aide told me Schumer agreed to a “significant” immediate appropriation above the $1.6 billion the administration initially requested last spring, with the rest authorized over several years.
And despite Schumer’s withdrawal of his offer on Tuesday, it seems likely that wall funding will be part of whatever deal Democrats can strike in the weeks ahead.
To recap, the Democrats only ever agreed to FUND $1.6B, which is exactly what they're still stuck on right now. They never had any intentions of appropriations beyond $1.6B. That's EXACTLY what Tip O'Neill did to Reagan when he tricked him into amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants. Trump isn't falling for that trick and that's what the media will not say right now. They're too busy misleading people about Cohen being told to lie to Congress and Catholic School kids disrespecting a Native American elder. :rolleyes:
Glad you asked!
1. Giving his children and close family jobs in the white house. As opposed to Obama, who gave them to leftist media elites.
2. Sky rocketing the national debt As opposed to Obama, who sent the national debt into interstellar space.
3. Grounding the speaker of the house and revealing where they going Who shouldn't have been leaving the country, period. At least Obama stayed CONUS during his shutdown.
4. Looking and talking about classified information in a public restaurant As opposed to Obama's SoS, who emailed it to everyone, including hostile countries.
5. Shutting down the government over 5 billion dollars Flip the coin and Pelosi/Schumer are holding the government hostage over $5B dollars. It takes two to tango.
6. Disrespecting John Mccain Seriously? McCain was a big boy and could defend himself. That rift had nothing to do with running the country. McCain was bitter that Trump was POTUS and he never was. His daughter is doing a great job of keeping his name alive, in between eating pies and crying.
7. Fighting with and alienating NATO and it's allies LOL, by making them pay their fair share? That's called WINNING.
8. Golfing more than actually working Utter hyperbole that undermines your entire argument.
9. Ignored Emoluments Clause in the Constitution With Trump Hotel This MAY be your only valid point.
10. Multiple vacations a month(4-5ish) Weekends aren't vacations. Try. Harder.
11. Charging consistently large amounts money for travel and related expenses to the taxpayers Gonna have to show your work on this one.
12. Have 4 kids from 3 different women Irrelevant to the governance of the federal government.
13.Possible collusion with a foreign government to win or influence the presidential election Possible isn't a legal definition and you have no evidence to support this wild claim.
14. A cabinet full of unqualified people who donated to the campaign and had loyalty to only the president(WIth the exception of Jim Mattis but we got rid of that free thinker) I'll give you this one, but you did forget Flynn. The same could be said of Obama consolidating all power to Jarrett, which was a frequent concern when he was POTUS. GWB's cabinet selections weren't exactly stellar either.
15. Handing out paper towels to Puerto Rico hurricane refuges Seriously? You're joking right? :rolleyes:
15 feels like a good place to stop. It's not like you're going to believe me anyway.
Oh I believe you think like a leftist, but your list is garbage. ;)
thopkins22
01-22-19, 12:45
So the big defense is Obama was worse?
Or is all of this just a masquerade since we’re playing team sports? “Late hit? What are you blind?!”
The answer is obvious...and perfectly fine. The fact that so few people admit to it is alarming.
I said it before, during and after the election:
Trump is not our savior, he has two distinct and important purposes nothing else matters, anything else he does good is just cheddar on top.
1) STOP Hilary from becoming President... ACCOMPLISHED! And thank GOD.
2) Get as many conservative leaning justices on SCOTUS as possible. He's got 2 so far... THANK GOD AGAIN! Prays Jesus hallelujah he gets 1 or 2 more!
Do the math folks. It's simple arithmatic. If Hilary won, we would have 2 uber progressive justices instead of 2 conservative leaning justices. Possibly a 3rd and 4th... End of discussion.
Sure, he has done some things I do not like, bump stock ban is the biggest one thus far that pisses me off.
Sure he is a cartoon character with a big mouth. He is pissing off all the right people- on both sides. That's an F'ing clue.
We got 2 Conservative SCOTUS justices, the economy swelled- it always retracts and will to do so in the near future, but it was stagnant like a M'fer under Obummer, and that shit hurt unless you were a super rich dickhead crony piece of shit.
Trumps economy is reaching medium income households- the most devastated and F'd with group of individuals over the last 2 centuries.
We may get a wall on the Southern border, which is not going to stop the problem, but will help and is a starting/rallying point to get our asses in gear. If followed up with proper funding and action to keep illegals out, it will basically save this Nation from destruction.
News flash, the entirety of the lists of his wrongdoings by anyone- are outweighed by 2 SCOTUS justices, possibly a third and 4th, and someone actually tackling the biggest issue we have- illegal immigration.
His solution isn't perfect, but he is actually doing something other than just being a F'ing talking head on the matter.
He may succeed at something else that is overdue and very much needed- disrupting the two party system to the point that we get some real change and fresh blood.
Just look around. The leftists are going full retard, the Righties are cannibalising themselves and showing there true collectivist colors so we can weed out the wheat from the chaff. The media is all in and showing their true colors. Statists are outing themselves and that's a good thing.
We actually needed people to stop playing wolves in sheeps clothing (On both sides) and take off the masks so we can vote accordingly. That is happening if you are paying attention and keeping notes.
The Republicans had the chance to make some big changes and didn't, that's a clue, we need fresh blood. So stand up folks, the future is calling and the establishment needs shaking.
Some of you are missing the forest for the trees.
Fact- he is the most actionable Republican President of my lifetime and he doesn't play by the establishment rules that have all but destroyed this great Nation. Take that to the bank and quit fussing over the little BS.
So the big defense is Obama was worse?
Or is all of this just a masquerade since we’re playing team sports? “Late hit? What are you blind?!”
The answer is obvious...and perfectly fine. The fact that so few people admit to it is alarming.
Don't follow the red herring. One person alluded that Trump couldn't do what he absolutely can do, as provided by law. The wild claim was that we'd all be upset when some leftist down the road used the same tactics to take our guns. The problem with that reductio ad absurdum is you can't cherry pick the Constitution. The president is specifically authorized to declare a national emergency. The president is specifically banned from confiscating our guns by the 2nd Amendment.
Then someone else tried the ridiculous train of thought derailment that stated "I often amuse myself thinking about what the right would have done if Obama has done 1% of what Trump has done. The level of hypocrisy is astounding." Except he compiled a list of bovine feces that mostly had zero to do with presidential duties, while pretty much dismissing out of hand a solid list that proved him completely wrong.
So the red herring has been dispensed with and we should refocus on the topic of the thread. We're now in the longest .gov shutdown in history. Other than some of us not getting paid and some long lines at airport security, the country seems to not be imploding. So who has the upper hand on Day 32? Trump or the Dems who refuse to negotiate? We know who the leftist media blames 100%, but is any heat being felt by the Dems yet? What will happen on Day 45? Day 60? Day 90? I don't see any weakening of Trump's resolve and the majority of Republicans seem to support him. Can any pressure be applied to either side that will bring them to the table? :confused:
thopkins22
01-22-19, 13:46
Don't follow the red herring. One person alluded that Trump couldn't do what he absolutely can do, as provided by law. The wild claim was that we'd all be upset when some leftist down the road used the same tactics to take our guns. The problem with that reductio ad absurdum is you can't cherry pick the Constitution. The president is specifically authorized to declare a national emergency. The president is specifically banned from confiscating our guns by the 2nd Amendment.
Then someone else tried the ridiculous train of thought derailment that stated "I often amuse myself thinking about what the right would have done if Obama has done 1% of what Trump has done. The level of hypocrisy is astounding." Except he compiled a list of bovine feces that mostly had zero to do with presidential duties, while pretty much dismissing out of hand a solid list that proved him completely wrong.
So the red herring has been dispensed with and we should refocus on the topic of the thread. We're now in the longest .gov shutdown in history. Other than some of us not getting paid and some long lines at airport security, the country seems to not be imploding. So who has the upper hand on Day 32? Trump or the Dems who refuse to negotiate? We know who the leftist media blames 100%, but is any heat being felt by the Dems yet? What will happen on Day 45? Day 60? Day 90? I don't see any weakening of Trump's resolve and the majority of Republicans seem to support him. Can any pressure be applied to either side that will bring them to the table? :confused:
I don’t think so. Eventually heat will come to both parties via FDA/USPTO that will move both parties with a quickness once things need approved and the patent office run out of money.
But right now, both sides are winning with their base, in the sense that they love that their leaders are “standing up.” As soon as money starts going to other politicians, that tune will change.
The people in the middle are just disgusted at the behavior from both sides, even if they ideologically agree with one side.
I don’t think so. Eventually heat will come to both parties via FDA/USPTO that will move both parties with a quickness once things need approved and the patent office run out of money.
But right now, both sides are winning with their base, in the sense that they love that their leaders are “standing up.” As soon as money starts going to other politicians, that tune will change.
The people in the middle are just disgusted at the behavior from both sides, even if they ideologically agree with one side.
That's where I'm at. Even though I agree that border security funding MUST precede immigration reform, this was entirely avoidable. The way both sides talk about each other pretty much precludes sitting down and carving out an agreeable compromise. They can't blame their bases when they pour gas on the fires every day. :(
Glad you asked!
1. Giving his children and close family jobs in the white house.
2. Sky rocketing the national debt
3. Grounding the speaker of the house and revealing where they going
4. Looking and talking about classified information in a public restaurant
5. Shutting down the government over 5 billion dollars
6. Disrespecting John Mccain
7. Fighting with and alienating NATO and it's allies
8. Golfing more than actually working
9. Ignored Emoluments Clause in the Constitution With Trump Hotel
10. Multiple vacations a month(4-5ish)
11. Charging consistently large amounts money for travel and related expenses to the taxpayers
12. Have 4 kids from 3 different women
13.Possible collusion with a foreign government to win or influence the presidential election
14. A cabinet full of unqualified people who donated to the campaign and had loyalty to only the president(WIth the exception of Jim Mattis but we got rid of that free thinker)
15. Handing out paper towels to Puerto Rico hurricane refuges
15 feels like a good place to stop. It's not like you're going to believe me anyway.
Awesome. :rolleyes: You hit just about every major Democrat talking point. Bravo to you.
Saw this on Facebook today.
“This couldn’t have been written more precisely
LeBron James calls President Trump a "Bum" and thinks that Obama was the best. His fans listen to him because he has a talent for basketball and buying big mansions. The letter writer below, a sports journalist, tells the truth and that truth applies to most celebrities on the left. A GREAT Letter to Lebron James from former Houston news reporter Hal Lundgren. It’s a must read, and definitely should be distributed. Post it, send it. Whatever. People really need to know these things.
August 6, 2018
Mr. Lebron James
The Los Angeles Lakers
2275 E. Mariposa Ave.
El Segundo, CA 90245
Dear Mr. James,
No one in my circles discusses French Modernist artists. That comforts me. Such a conversation would expose me as an illiterate on French Modernism, just as I am an illiterate on how to cook.
When I know nothing of subjects, my mouth stays closed. That's at least one difference in us. You are an economics illiterate. You prove it often. The dishonest "reporters” who cover you want to be your buddy. They won't embarrass you by being honest journalists and treating your words as economics illiteracy.
When you call Trump "a bum," none of them will tell you that statistics rank him as one of our best presidents for black Americans. His tax cuts and freeing us from absurd regulations have resulted in -- after only 18 months -- the lowest unemployment numbers ever for Hispanic and black Americans, and one of the lowest numbers for women.
DURING THOSE 18 MONTHS, TRUMP'S POLICIES CREATED ABOUT FOUR TIMES OF THE MANUFACTURING JOBS CREATED DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S LAST 18 MONTHS. Remember when Obama mistakenly told us "Our lost manufacturing jobs are not coming back.” Maybe manufacturing job growth depends on a president who knows what he's doing.
As a professional journalist, I cringe at some of Trump’s buffoonery, like repeating sentences and wearing us out with "great," “fantastic” and other empty adjectives. He is often coarse. He was not my candidate. But there’s no question his policies have helped many more minority Americans than Obama. It's not even close. Today, he’s working to free many black and Hispanic prisoners who, in his opinion, have been in prison too long for relatively minor offenses. Are you aware of that effort?
You need to look up Gross Domestic Product, adjusted for inflation, and learn what it means to everyday Americans. Learn what one GDP point means to employment, and see how Trump has kept the number climbing.
Your buddy Obama? In addition to being our worst foreign affairs president and worst military commander-in-chief, his economic numbers all deserved an "F." He is our ONLY eight-year president who failed to give us at least one 3% or higher year of adjusted GDP growth. EVERY other president achieved at least one year of 4.28% or higher growth. Aided by Vietnam spending, Johnson had an 8.48 year. The best peacetime year -- 7.83 -- belonged to Reagan. and Obama couldn't even score a 3!!! Look it up.
You say you would speak to Obama but not Trump? How tragically uninformed you are. Obama had BY FAR the worst debt accumulation record of all our presidents. His economic blunders added about $9 trillion to our debt. NO OTHER PRESIDENT EVEN CAME CLOSE. That indebtedness will fall to you and your children.
Poor families suffered most. Obama's awful job numbers forced a record number of people to take food stamps. Black household income under Obama fell steeply as black unemployment rose. Look that up, too.
But the worst part of what Trump inherited is that Obama, like Bush and Clinton before him, thought bribes and sweet talk were the best ways to deal with North Korea. As the North Koreans neared being able to wipe out Los Angeles with a nuclear-tipped missile, Trump became the first president to stand up boldly to the rogue nation. Notice North Korea, because of Trump, has stopped launching missiles over Japan? Notice North Korea has released political prisoners? Notice North Korea has begun to return remains of U.S. Service members? Absent sturdy spines, Clinton, Bush and Obama could not approach those major achievements.
Obama naively bribed the planet’s worst terrorist nation, Iran, with what was supposed to become a $150 billion handout. Did Obama not know many of those U.S. Tax dollars would help fund Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism? Of course he did. He just didn't care.
Remember the $800 billion of your and everyone else's tax dollars in his early stimulus for "shovel-ready jobs." Most of those tax dollars went to political cronies. He handed $500 million to Solyndra, a solar company run by boosters. The company soon went bankrupt. Our half-billion in tax money vanished with it.
Trump is often obnoxious, but people with courage can have that hangup. Obama always talked big, then feebly stood by when Putin infringed on Ukraine and annexed Crimea.
But Obama's most cowardly move came when he warned Assad not to cross "the red line" in Syria. When Obama’s warning was ignored, which Assad knew would happen, Obama did nothing. Does that make him a "bum?"
It makes me sad that you, as someone with a national voice would be so ignorant of economics, and also presidential decisions. I encourage you to do more reading and thinking as you watch the nation's GDP numbers rise and minority employment rise.
* Read about "Right To Try," which frees terminally ill people to sign a lawsuit waiver and take an experimental drug that might not be approved for many years. Democrats fought this sensible plan for years because it would cost them donations.
* Read about a Navy Obama left to Trump that struggled with about half its carrier aircraft unsafe to fly.
* Read about Trump's giving the VA the right to fire any employee who neglects or abuses a patient.
* Read about Trump's courage in challenging, actually demanding that, NATO partners to pay their fair share rather than keep mooching off the U.S.
You might also read the wisdom of two of the world’s brightest people, black intellectuals Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams. They have written many books. Sowell and Williams’ integrity, remarkable insights and
clarity of expression cause their common sense to soar off the page to readers.
Or, you could ignore vital Trump decisions and remain an illiterate on both presidential achievement and economics. If you disdain knowledge and keep calling Trump or any other U.S. president a bum, people will begin to wonder who's the real bum.
Sincerely,
Hal Lundgren”
My iPhone XS Max is better than your android!
Damn! That needs to be put on Youtube. Maybe with a black guy narrating and some hip hop sound track. That way most Lebron fans will listen to it before they know what it is.
Has the House even passed a funding bill and sent it to the Senate? If not, then why blame the President? Until a bill lands on his desk he doesn't get to dictate anything. He might say he won't sign a bill, but if there's no bill that is just hollow threats.
Has the House even passed a funding bill and sent it to the Senate? If not, then why blame the President? Until a bill lands on his desk he doesn't get to dictate anything. He might say he won't sign a bill, but if there's no bill that is just hollow threats.
The House has sent several bills to the Senate, but they’re non-starters without any wall funding. McConnell won’t bring them to the floor for a vote. So legally the ball is still in the legislative branch’s court.
Has the House even passed a funding bill and sent it to the Senate? If not, then why blame the President? Until a bill lands on his desk he doesn't get to dictate anything. He might say he won't sign a bill, but if there's no bill that is just hollow threats.
Bingo! I know this won't be popular here, but this is a no winner for either side at this point, they need to send something to the President that allows the Dems to say we got something and allows the President to save face.
The House has sent several bills to the Senate, but they’re non-starters without any wall funding. McConnell won’t bring them to the floor for a vote. So legally the ball is still in the legislative branch’s court.
That makes sense. I'm sure McConnell isn't letting them through because I bet there are enough Republicans that would vote to send one through without wall funding. Looks like plenty of blame to go around.
I do find the hypocrisy of the members of the House, that have previously approved billions for walls under previous presidents, but are stuck on this one because it's Trump's idea to be maddening.
Doc Safari
01-24-19, 14:25
https://theweek.com/articles/819128/why-trumps-immigration-compromise-shrewd-move
Clearly, Trump wants to deliver the goods, and he's willing to part with some leverage to do so. By making the first move, Trump also created an opening for a response to his proposal, which raised expectations of a revised negotiating position from Democrats, especially with the potential for a key agenda victory on DACA. Trump traded a little leverage for a little more public pressure, in effect.
At first, Democrats failed to recognize that trap. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) insisted she would not negotiate at all while the government is shut down, a position she undercut by also insisting she wouldn't negotiate on border-wall funding at all, shutdown or no shutdown. Pelosi tried holding the line by warning her caucus against "freelancing" on the standoff and sending signals of disunity. Pelosi even went so far as to formally reject Trump's plan to deliver the State of the Union address in a joint session of Congress next week.
But by that time, other members of Democratic leadership had already started "freelancing" and exposing cracks in Pelosi's no-talks armor. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), when asked by Fox's Neil Cavuto whether he would vote for border-wall funding, conceded that "physical barriers are part of the solution." A week earlier, Hoyer had insisted he would oppose such funding. The next day, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) offered to give Trump the $5.7 billion he requested for more border security as long as it wasn't spent on the wall. "If his $5.7 billion is about border security," Clyburn remarked, "then we see ourselves fulfilling that request, only doing it with what I like to call using a smart wall."
For a party that insisted it wouldn't negotiate during a shutdown, those sound an awful lot like negotiations. But in light of Trump's substantial concession on Saturday, Democrats have little choice but to update their position. Pelosi and her lieutenants are also facing a potential uprising among centrists in their caucus to allow for a border-wall funding vote in order to end the shutdown. In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have agreed to hold votes on the current negotiating positions of both sides, with the certainty that both bills will fail. When they do fail, the result will likely be talks to find ways to bridge the gap between the trenches dug over the past month.
If that happens, Pelosi could well find herself on the outside looking in on a shutdown deal. While she stands firm, negotiations are taking place, and there's a good chance she'll soon be standing alone. Trump can rightly take credit for the progress, and unless Pelosi provides a substantive response, her own caucus might freelance a compromise and call her status as leader into serious question. It may well be time for Pelosi to claim victory on DACA and depart the field, before her own party decides to force her to depart it.
My take: Three-dimensional chess after all? Don't mess with the Orange Man.
Bingo! I know this won't be popular here, but this is a no winner for either side at this point, they need to send something to the President that allows the Dems to say we got something and allows the President to save face.
It may not be popular, but it’s completely true. The biggest obstacle right now is not coming up with a compromise that gives both sides something they can agree on. You couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting one of those.
No, the problem is 24 non stop months of Trump being demonized to the point that even being in the same room as him is unacceptable to the leftist base. They’re actively refusing any and all offers to compromise. Not because they don’t want something in exchange for a mere $5.7B. Because they see denying Trump that $5.7B as more politically valuable than anything they could get in exchange.
That makes sense. I'm sure McConnell isn't letting them through because I bet there are enough Republicans that would vote to send one through without wall funding. Looks like plenty of blame to go around.
I do find the hypocrisy of the members of the House, that have previously approved billions for walls under previous presidents, but are stuck on this one because it's Trump's idea to be maddening.
I’ve been saying this since day one. Pass a spending bill the way the Dems want it to read. Let Trump veto it and throw it back in Nancy’s court. Right now she has some political cover because the House has sent bills to the Senate and haven’t gotten anything back to reconcile. Technically right now, the shutdown belongs to McConnell.
Damn! That needs to be put on Youtube. Maybe with a black guy narrating and some hip hop sound track. That way most Lebron fans will listen to it before they know what it is.
No they won’t, because facts don’t mean anything to the loony Left. Read the Thomas Paine quote in my sig.
I’d really like to get paid....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
01-24-19, 16:21
And this is why Paul Ryan's fat butt is now in a recliner in his home State and why Mitch McConnell's fat keister should be back home in one now.
Neither of these two Muppets, took any advantage of Trumps win, neither did they openly support him.
They could have had a wall two weeks after Trump was elected.
Doc Safari
01-24-19, 16:23
And this is why Paul Ryan's fat butt is now in a recliner in his home State and why Mitch McConnell's fat keister should be back home in one now.
Neither of these two Muppets, took any advantage of Trumps win, neither did they openly support him.
They could have had a wall two weeks after Trump was elected.
And I hate to say it but he should have done more to push for it when he had the majority in both houses of Congress. His grandstanding right now may fail bigger than a 3-D printed plastic gun.
And this is why Paul Ryan's fat butt is now in a recliner in his home State
That's another one I have never been able to reason out. Why is Trump always saying Ryan is a great guy?
That's another one I have never been able to reason out. Why is Trump always saying Ryan is a great guy?
At the same time not being in politics, having your own party turn on you. Having the opposing party wanting to hang you, AND having the government form a task force to put you in prison...... he actually has done pretty well.
I can't think of current elected person that would not have caved and or been so distracted they would have gotten even less done.
the thing I always say is choosing a side is like do you want to be hit on the right side of the face or the left and most of us say not at all
both sides are against the little people for the most part and are more for themselves as gov controlling types right or left they are more together then say the right leaders and the right crowd and they look out from that perspective IMHO
I’d really like to get paid....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I want you to be paid too.
I want you to be paid at 1.5x your normal salary for every unpaid hour you worked during the shutdown. I want you to be paid for every hour you were not allowed to work during the shutdown.
Unfortunately, our elected officials literally do not care.
I’d really like to get paid....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Too bad slave. The Emperor cares not for your needs. Back to work and pray he doesn't take notice of your impertinence.
Moose-Knuckle
01-25-19, 15:20
Too bad slave. The Emperor cares not for your needs. Back to work and pray he doesn't take notice of your impertinence.
:no:
House GOP Leaders: Only 13 Democrats Voted With GOP to Pay Federal Workers During Shutdown
“As the shutdown continues, we’ve been committed to trying to make sure that all of our federal workers get paid. We brought another bill to the floor today that would have paid all federal workers. Last week, a similar bill only got six Democrats. Every Republican voted to pay the workers who had either been working or furloughed during the shutdown," House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said during a Capitol Hill press conference.
“We got six Democrats to vote with us last week. Today, we only got 13 Democrats to vote with us, and so you’re starting to see a growing number of Democrats break from their party leaders and recognize we’ve got to solve this problem,” Scalise said, adding that all Republicans need is eight more Democrats to vote with them to pay all federal workers, “and everybody can get paid.”
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-arter/house-gop-leaders-only-13-democrats-voted-republicans-legislation-pay
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.