The Next President is...

[di1630]

You can dismiss, or excuse away any or all of them. But to others, the pattern is quite clear.

 

"

If you look hard enough you can find a pattern to claim just about anything.

 

Don’t fall for the propaganda.

 

I know well-educated successful upper middle class minorities who have it better than 90% of Americans that have been convinced they are victims in a systematically racist country.

 

Because they’ve found a “pattern” and they can justifiably compare 2018 New England to 1968 Mississippi.

 

Some people just want to complain and be victims. Most of us are tired of it.

[matmacwc]

No shit:

 

[TreeA10]

I think Trump's whole statement was "....like people from Norway AND ASIA."  The media conveniently leaves the last two words off his statement because it does not fit the liberal narrative and hampers their ability to stir up shit.

Having been involved in Operation Support Democracy (also known as Operation Support Democrats, The Haitian Invasion, and/or Operation Rum Punch by those of us that ended up in Puerto Rico), the pre-attack briefing given by the Intel folks pretty much painted a shithole picture of a country.  We were only going to shoot TP ammo so we would decrease the odds of setting the slums on fire which could not be put out once burning.  Our only "armored" targets were thin skinned V-150s and the 30mm TP ammo will punch through 4 inches of armor so no big deal but you lose the HEI effectiveness on area targets that have no armor such as people.  I flew into Haiti after the latest earthquake with a 767 full of relief cargo and aid workers.  Looked and smelled like a shithole.  Last but not least, liberals will say we can't send illegals back to their home countries BECAUSE????...their countries are shitholes.  The liberal "scream at the sky" emotional meltdown continues.

For those who haven't read it, author Jared Diamond (also wrote Guns, Germs, and Steel) wrote Collapse.  The book covers failed cultures from the past that are no more other than what we find via artifacts.  He also does a great job describing FAILING cultures and compares Haiti to the Dominican Republic where the former is failing and the latter is doing okay despite being neighbors on a small island.  Both books are good reads.

Edited January 16, 2018 by TreeA10

[17D_guy]

51 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

No shit:

 

Huh, wonder how much that cost the Donald in a "donation" to the Rainbow Push Coalition.

[Inertia17]

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

Huh, wonder how much that cost the Donald in a "donation" to the Rainbow Push Coalition.

Or maybe, just maybe, he isn't a racist. And he played the cards necessary to get certain demographics to vote for him. Just a thought.

[17D_guy]

On 1/16/2018 at 3:32 PM, Inertia17 said:

Or maybe, just maybe, he isn't a racist. And he played the cards necessary to get certain demographics to vote for him. Just a thought.

Nah, he likes paying whores.

[BFM this]

8 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Nah, he likes paying whores.

They're not whores.   Fucking is their Job.

[brickhistory]

Given the millions that he paid for each divorce, I'd say a direct cash transaction was the smarter business decision...

[17D_guy]

17 hours ago, BFM this said:

They're not whores.   Fucking is their Job.

damnit... fair play, Sir.

[tac airlifter]

On 5/10/2017 at 12:41 PM, nsplayr said:

Here's a view from the other side, although to be honest the whole notion of "another side" of things is part of what's hurting our country very badly right now:

Comey absolutely fucked up in his handling of the Clinton email investigation. I basically fully agree with the memo written by the recently confirmed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that can be read here. In an alternate bizarro world, if DAG Rosenstein was serving under a President Hillary Clinton, I would be fully supporting of Comey being fired for the reasons stated. The FBI needs to never be even perceived as putting a thumb on the scale during any election. Although even with Comey's election-season actions, I'm generally an institutionalist and don't like to see tumultuous upheaval in important US institutions. If Clinton and Comey could have found a way to coexist in the same administration, that would have also been fine by me, even preferable. FBI Directors are supposed to serve 10-year terms that are not aligned with Presidential administrations for a reason.

That all being said, everything changed when the March 20th Comey testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee happened. At that point, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Comey's boss at DOJ, had recused himself of any possible inquiries into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia after it was revealed he had undisclosed contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. On March 20th, while under oath, Comey confirmed what many suspected for months, that the FBI had an open and ongoing inquiry into the Trump campaign and possible ties to Russia. This isn't "fake news" propagated by the "liberal media" and Democrats, it's straight from the horse's mouth while under oath.

As soon as that was openly acknowledged, Comey absolutely, 100% needed to remain in place. With Sessions recused and the FBI typically being fairly independent anyways, Comey was completely in charge of investigating the sitting President's campaign and associates, looking for possible ties to, collusion with or other assorted nefarious business with Russians and/or the Russian government. That investigation is still happening today.

Now Comey is summarily fired, ostensibly for reasons not related to the Russia investigation, and that is a really, really shocking turn of events. There is bipartisan outcry over Comey's firing and for good reason.

In the House, Justin Amash, a member of the very conservative House Freedom Caucus, is looking at legislation that would establish an independent commission on Russia, and further called the second paragraph of President Trump's letter firing Comey "bizarre." Republican Senators Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse, John McCain and Richard Burr among others have put out statements variously stating they are "very troubled," calling for a Congressional select committee, and generally decrying Comey's departure. Democratic legislators have obviously been even harsher in their condemnations.

Look, partisanship is a hell of a drug, I take it myself regularly. During the Obama years, and 2011/2012 in particular, I was a vigorous defender of President Obama's policies and leadership qualities on the boards here. I was highly inclined to see the best in him and his actions, and quick to downplay what others saw (rightfully or not) as missteps, errors, or bad intentions. So I get it, trust me.

But where do we draw the line? When do Republicans stand up for The Republic first and party second? I'd like to think that were these the action of a Democratic President, I would be making similar arguments to my political allies on the left.

Here's the bottom line, pretend you're reading this about some tropical South American backwater if that helps: the President just abruptly fired the leading domestic law enforcement official who was leading an ongoing investigation into that President's previous election campaign, looking into possible ties between the campaign and a hostile foreign power.

This is not a good turn of events for the country, no matter who you support politically.

NS, it's interesting for me to go back and read your assessments of current events before we knew what we know now regrading the complete BS of the Russia collusion investigation.  Turns out the "open investigation of Trump ties to Russia" was made up lies from Russia, paid for by the DNC, used as a source for the FISA wire taps, and have thus far produced nothing but embarrassment for the FBI.  

In light of the constant flow of information daily about just how corrupt this Russian collusion narrative really is, have you begun to revise your earlier assessment on the story?

[nsplayr]

11 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

In light of the constant flow of information daily about just how corrupt this Russian collusion narrative really is, have you begun to revise your earlier assessment on the story?

IMHO you’re putting a ton of bias into this assessment of the situation. And I keep up with Fox News somewhat, so I’m aware of the stories they are featuring. Just realize that this is one particular narrative of a process that is largely opaque by design and not necessarily the facts.

So long story short to answer your question: no. 

What I fear at this point is that Mueller will release the results of his investigation and only ~45% of people  will believe him depending on what he says. I would imagine that given one of the possible outcomes, you’re fully prepared to join the non-believers.

10% of that fear is that Mueller will clear the President of any wrongdoing (even though several of his associates have already plead guilty to various crimes), and liberals won’t believe it and will want POTUS strung up from the nearest tree anyways, which will put the country in a bad place. I am not one of those people but I know some.

90% of that fear is that Mueller will bring damning evidence along with charges and the right wing won’t believe him, the GOP Congress won’t back him, and he’ll be fired which will put the country in a very bad place.

I believe in Mueller’s integrity based on his incredibly sterling reputation as a long-serving, non-partisan public servant  and law enforcement official. I plan to believe the results of his investigation no matter the outcome (within reason, it’s not blind faith obviously).

I hope most folks out there can commit to the same so we can, as a nation, once again at least start to have a conversation based on a shared set of facts and values. This is an important test for whether or not that kind of shared worldview is even possible anymore, and unfortunately I’m not optimistic. 

[tac airlifter]

Fair reply.  I’ll ask again when the results come out.  I enjoy your opinions and appreciate being able to follow your logic...it makes it easier for me to see where exactly were disagree.  That’s not the case with most liberals I know, so thanks!

I’m not a Fox News cultist, but the difference between what they are reporting versus CNN on this investigation is striking and based on public congressional testimony.  The much hyped 4 page memo about FISA abuses is something I’d hope we can agree should be released.  I am curious if you are concerned about the DNC collusion with Russia to invent fake dossier claims which are then used as evidence to authorize FISA wiretaps of political opponents?  Because those are unbiased facts in public record.

[gearhog]

best sotu ever.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by torqued

[MooseAg03]

The many shots of the democrat party not acknowledging the good news happening in our country is quite telling. The Congressional Black Caucus not even clapping at the lowest black unemployment on record and many other instances of failing to support our country’s successes. It really makes you wonder who they are serving because to me it looks like they care about illegal immigrants more than they do their supposed constituents.

I dislike the path to citizenship because I think anyone here illegally should never be allowed to vote. I also dislike the $1.5T infrastructure plan, because just like the stimulus it will add to the debt and will lead to wasteful/fraudulent spending. Other than that I thought it was pretty good.

[nsplayr]

2 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

The many shots of the democrat party not acknowledging the good news happening in our country is quite telling.

Did the GOP clap while Obama was touting how millions of people gained health insurance under the ACA? Remember when former Rep. Joe Wilson interrupted the President during a Joint Session address by yelling out, “You lie!”?

I went to the way-back machine for a  story about the response to Obama’s first SOTU: https://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1957301,00.html

The opposition’s lack of enthusiastic support for a President of the other party isn’t news, it’s par for the course.

A true rally round the flag effect only happens during a genuine crisis, like when GWB’s approval rating a shot to > 90% after 9/11 and the Senate passed the PATRIOT ACT 98-1.

Edited January 31, 2018 by nsplayr

[matmacwc]

I'll just say it was a pretty good speech.  Partisan will be partisan, fine, but America is watching and what the Demo's seem to be doubling down on how they acted last election, keep it up, the Republican party is counting on it.

Side note, Ivanka runs as a Democrat in 2024, I think landslide would be an understatement and quite possibly the plan all along knowing how he feels about his family.

Edited January 31, 2018 by matmacwc

[BFM this]

5 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

Side note, Ivanka runs as a Democrat in 2024, I think landslide would be an understatement and quite possibly the plan all along knowing how he feels about his family.

Not tracking 

[matmacwc]

He set up his family in the family business, who isn't to say he's setting up his family for politics.  She has a very active role in day to day business of the white house, some would call that experience.  I think he is setting up her to run for president, she's a bit more liberal than her dad, so putting 2 and 2 together.

[MooseAg03]

Did the GOP clap while Obama was touting how millions of people gained health insurance under the ACA? Remember when former Rep. Joe Wilson interrupted the President during a Joint Session address by yelling out, “You lie!”?
I went to the way-back machine for a  story about the response to Obama’s first SOTU: https://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1957301,00.html
The opposition’s lack of enthusiastic support for a President of the other party isn’t news, it’s par for the course.
A true rally round the flag effect only happens during a genuine crisis, like when GWB’s approval rating a shot to > 90% after 9/11 and the Senate passed the PATRIOT ACT 98-1.

Anyone could see the disaster that Obamacare would become. For those that gained coverage, thousands also lost coverage or are being charged so much they can’t afford it. This includes my mom and many others in my family. It was passed on pure partisan lines, and yes so was the tax cut. But we all have seen the bonuses, increased wages, and billions in investment pouring back into our country because of it. I would expect no applause for a shitty law that destroyed our healthcare system, but to refuse to acknowledge economic growth that is in the news every day?

Joe Wilson was a jackass, yes. I am not a Republican but a Conservative. Most of the GOP disgusts me, but it’s the closest we can get to enacting real conservative policies in our country. There were outbursts last night by the Dems as well, they just weren’t as blatant.

[nsplayr]

2 hours ago, matmacwc said:

He set up his family in the family business, who isn't to say he's setting up his family for politics.  She has a very active role in day to day business of the white house, some would call that experience.  I think he is setting up her to run for president, she's a bit more liberal than her dad, so putting 2 and 2 together.

Hahahahahahahahaha...ok, interesting fantasy but it's never gonna happen. The part about her trying to be a Democrat anyways.

1 minute ago, MooseAg03 said:

 

Anyone could see the disaster that Obamacare would become. For those that gained coverage, thousands also lost coverage or are being charged so much they can’t afford it. This includes my mom and many others in my family. It was passed on pure partisan lines, and yes so was the tax cut. But we all have seen the bonuses, increased wages, and billions in investment pouring back into our country because of it. I would expect no applause for a shitty law that destroyed our healthcare system, but to refuse to acknowledge economic growth that is in the news every day?

 

Dude, you have to realize what you're saying right? I can literally make the exact same argument in reverse.

"How can the GOP not applaud when millions more people got insurance coverage, but now they can cheer when we borrow $1.5 trillion dollars from our kids and grandkids as a giveaway to corporations and billionaires? Anyone can see that those bonuses are one-time and just for show, those companies are going to pocket the vast majority of those tax cuts and now we have less money to provide health care/housing/defense/etc."

The Democrats and Republicans have real differences of opinion on policy. Beyond the rhetoric and bad-faith virtue signaling politicians do on the news, they genuinely have different philosophies on what is a "good" and a "bad" policy for the country. Arguments can be had over what has worked in the past, what makes sense, what has the support of relevant experts, etc. and I love having those kinds of arguments. If you want to debate whether or not different parts of the ACA are working well and why that might be or whether or not the recently passed tax cuts are likely to stimulate the economy or help average workers then great!

But naively saying that you're side is right and my side is wrong, and not understanding why everyone isn't on board with that assessment, just demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the political arena and how persuasion works.

It would be equally wrongheaded of me to say "Dem policies are great, GOP policies suck, can't you see that?!" without providing any evidence to even start to convince you why that may be true.

[MooseAg03]

Obama signed enough spending into law to double our national debt during his tenure. He had a lot of GOP help from Congress in that. Unfortunately his bloating of bureaucracy and regulations stifled economic growth. This tax cut will help jump start the economy, and of the programs you mentioned getting slighted the only one the feds should be involved in should be defense. As we all know they can’t even get that right. If the feds would get their hands out of all the areas they have no business in, they’d spend a lot less of our money.

[HU&W]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Hahahahahahahahaha...ok, interesting fantasy but it's never gonna happen. The part about her trying to be a Democrat anyways.

Why not?  Her dad was until a few years ago.

[matmacwc]

47 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

 If the feds would get their hands out of all the areas they have no business in, they’d spend a lot less of our money.

If anything by default.

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, MooseAg03 said:

Obama signed enough spending into law to double our national debt during his tenure. He had a lot of GOP help from Congress in that. Unfortunately his bloating of bureaucracy and regulations stifled economic growth. This tax cut will help jump start the economy, and of the programs you mentioned getting slighted the only one the feds should be involved in should be defense. As we all know they can’t even get that right. If the feds would get their hands out of all the areas they have no business in, they’d spend a lot less of our money.

Ok, copy. I disagree but we don't need to get into specifics if you're not interested. My big point was that it doesn't make sense to wonder why the political opposition isn't cheering for your guy...because he's not doing thing things we support! Same went for why you didn't cheer when my guy was in the seat.

The mere fact of that political opposition doesn't signal bad faith necessarily, although again, that's a discussion that needs to be at a higher level than talking points.

1 hour ago, HU&W said:

Why not?  Her dad was until a few years ago.

Because the Democratic Party base decides who their nominee is. Because she is the daughter of a Republican President and a White House official in a Republican administration that's polling at about 7% among Democrats. Because if she's supportive of her father and his administration's policies, then she's opposed to a lot of the core values that the Democratic Party stands for. Those are just the top few points I can think of.

Doesn't mean the Democratic Party is immune to an outsider celebrity talking a big game and sweeping away a lot of more conventional politicians in a primary. Someone like Oprah would be much smarter money if you're betting on a dark horse future Dem nominee who's a celebrity.

Edited February 1, 2018 by nsplayr

[SurelySerious]

14 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Because the Democratic Party base decides who their nominee is. 

 

You mean central committee? Because it’s apparently not their electorate from the last round of shenanigans.