PDA

View Full Version : Trump Administration: 2 year SITREP



Mjölnir
01-20-2019, 07:05 PM
So where are we on the Trump Presidency?

No argument that DJT has remained true to himself and his candidacy, the anti-Barack Obama. He has not become "more Presidential", as was hoped and he stated he would do.

Economically: DJT presides over a strong economy with unemployment at its lowest rate for half a century, there is and should be some roll over from the Obama Administration (things don't happen overnight), but he does deserve credit. He did approve a tax cut, which arguably contributed to the national debt rising from $19T to $21.7T, anticipated to grow to $23T by the end of the year. He promised but has not moved on designating China a currency manipulator. He has increased oil and gas production in the US.

Border Security: There is no wall ... yet. Currently the government is shutdown over a standoff for $5.7B in funding for the wall.

Affordable Care Act / Obamacare: Largely remains intact with a federal judge recently declaring the ACA unconstitutional if the penalty is eliminated. That judge has issued a stay on the decision for now. If that decision stands, there is no legislative solution to replace the health care law (repeal AND replace). Polling suggests the ACA is more popular than it was in the past, specifically with people who previously opposed it; enrollment dipped less than 5 percent this year, even though there's no longer a tax penalty (fine) for people who go without insurance.

Infrastructure: No movement on a campaign promise to initiate a $1T infrastructure program.

Increase military spending: Done. Largely increased military spending across DoD.

Judicial reform: Probably his greatest & longest lasting accomplishment (one I think he should / could tout more often). 2 new SCOTUS Justices, 29 Circuit Court Justices. In DJT's third year in office, he is likely to have fewer positions to fill because he has already named judges for many of the vacancies he inherited from BHO. The long term impacts are a more conservative federal judiciary. If he gets another SCOTUS Justice, that will likely move the court from center-right to Conservative ... for a generation.

AF sgt
01-20-2019, 10:51 PM
So where are we on the Trump Presidency?

No argument that DJT has remained true to himself and his candidacy, the anti-Barack Obama. He has not become "more Presidential", as was hoped and he stated he would do.

Economically: DJT presides over a strong economy with unemployment at its lowest rate for half a century, there is and should be some roll over from the Obama Administration (things don't happen overnight), but he does deserve credit. He did approve a tax cut, which arguably contributed to the national debt rising from $19T to $21.7T, anticipated to grow to $23T by the end of the year. He promised but has not moved on designating China a currency manipulator. He has increased oil and gas production in the US.

Border Security: There is no wall ... yet. Currently the government is shutdown over a standoff for $5.7B in funding for the wall.

Affordable Care Act / Obamacare: Largely remains intact with a federal judge recently declaring the ACA unconstitutional if the penalty is eliminated. That judge has issued a stay on the decision for now. If that decision stands, there is no legislative solution to replace the health care law (repeal AND replace). Polling suggests the ACA is more popular than it was in the past, specifically with people who previously opposed it; enrollment dipped less than 5 percent this year, even though there's no longer a tax penalty (fine) for people who go without insurance.

Infrastructure: No movement on a campaign promise to initiate a $1T infrastructure program.

Increase military spending: Done. Largely increased military spending across DoD.

Judicial reform: Probably his greatest & longest lasting accomplishment (one I think he should / could tout more often). 2 new SCOTUS Justices, 29 Circuit Court Justices. In DJT's third year in office, he is likely to have fewer positions to fill because he has already named judges for many of the vacancies he inherited from BHO. The long term impacts are a more conservative federal judiciary. If he gets another SCOTUS Justice, that will likely move the court from center-right to Conservative ... for a generation.

Where I am is as follows:

I just don't care. My life has never been more than slightly different over the last 5 Presidents. In the long run, it's much ado about nothing. All anyone care about is who they can blame, not what the actual outcome is.

Mjölnir
01-20-2019, 11:28 PM
Where I am is as follows:

I just don't care. My life has never been more than slightly different over the last 5 Presidents. In the long run, it's much ado about nothing. All anyone care about is who they can blame, not what the actual outcome is.

There are plenty of people who just want someone to blame. I think there are plenty of people concerned about outcomes, the reasons likely vary from selfish to unselfish ones ... but concern is there.

AF sgt
01-21-2019, 12:32 AM
There are plenty of people who just want someone to blame. I think there are plenty of people concerned about outcomes, the reasons likely vary from selfish to unselfish ones ... but concern is there. Outcomes of what, though? What ever changes? We get 4 years of bluster, 4 years of opposition, and then we move on to another 4 years of the same. It's hard to take it seriously. Hell, now the Dems are the ones bitching about a Republican administration pulling troops out of certain locations. I always thought it was the Republicans who were supposed to bitch about the Dems doing it. It's just all so ridiculous that I can't pretend anything will ever be different, other than the party that gets the blame.

Mjölnir
01-21-2019, 12:58 AM
Outcomes of what, though? What ever changes? We get 4 years of bluster, 4 years of opposition, and then we move on to another 4 years of the same. It's hard to take it seriously. Hell, now the Dems are the ones bitching about a Republican administration pulling troops out of certain locations. I always thought it was the Republicans who were supposed to bitch about the Dems doing it. It's just all so ridiculous that I can't pretend anything will ever be different, other than the party that gets the blame.

I am optimistic that the hyper polarization can change but realistic about what you describe. Too many politicians are concerned about ‘sides’ than effective outcomes. Too many who want to take a stance based on opposition to the other side vice actual principle. What outcomes? Better society, preservation of freedoms, equal opportunities (not necessarily equal outcomes) ... basic stuff.

AF sgt
01-21-2019, 01:03 AM
What outcomes? Better society, preservation of freedoms, equal opportunities (not necessarily equal outcomes) ... basic stuff.

That's not very specific, though. That almost sounds like what a politician would promise in the middle of a campaign. What you stay there is something that everyone in the country would agree on. The disagreement comes on how you reach it. That will always be split.

Mjölnir
01-21-2019, 01:59 AM
That's not very specific, though. That almost sounds like what a politician would promise in the middle of a campaign. What you stay there is something that everyone in the country would agree on. The disagreement comes on how you reach it. That will always be split.

Understanding that government can give nothing to anyone without first taking it from someone else and that some things are not the role of the government:

-get govt spending under control, we are digging a hole we may never be able to get out of.
-reduce the size of government, cut dead weight, fire / retire non-performers.
-figure out a realistic way to phase down our negative impacts on the environment.
-incentivize work vice hand outs, reduce the welfare state.
-unscrew education; not everyone needs college but more and more lack the basic skills / knowledge to even pursue a trade. Fewer poses critical thinking skills but regurgitate what they hear from [fill in the blank].
-get parents back in the habit of raising their kids to be the next generation of leaders vice consumers of what someone else provides them. I hear a lot of complaints about ‘millennials’ or how soft kids are ... well, if it is true .. it’s our fault.
-stop the blame game ... the majority of which I think is based on envy and ignorance. Didn’t end up where you wanted? Welcome to real life, few do. Do you realize what you have? Are you thankful for it? Did someone end up in a better spot because of hard work, luck, timing, their or your choices etc. or a cosmic conspiracy to goon you over?
-relearn the meaning of compromise, if we are going to force everyone to have the same idea ... that is totalitarianism which is not what I have spent the last 27 years defending.

Mjölnir
01-21-2019, 01:59 AM
That's not very specific, though. That almost sounds like what a politician would promise in the middle of a campaign. What you stay there is something that everyone in the country would agree on. The disagreement comes on how you reach it. That will always be split.

Understanding that government can give nothing to anyone without first taking it from someone else and that some things are not the role of the government:

-get govt spending under control, we are digging a hole we may never be able to get out of.
-reduce the size of government, cut dead weight, fire / retire non-performers.
-figure out a realistic way to phase down our negative impacts on the environment.
-incentivize work vice hand outs, reduce the welfare state.
-unscrew education; not everyone needs college but more and more lack the basic skills / knowledge to even pursue a trade. Fewer poses critical thinking skills but regurgitate what they hear from [fill in the blank].
-get parents back in the habit of raising their kids to be the next generation of leaders vice consumers of what someone else provides them. I hear a lot of complaints about ‘millennials’ or how soft kids are ... well, if it is true .. it’s our fault.
-stop the blame game ... the majority of which I think is based on envy and ignorance. Didn’t end up where you wanted? Welcome to real life, few do. Do you realize what you have? Are you thankful for it? Did someone end up in a better spot because of hard work, luck, timing, their or your choices etc. or a cosmic conspiracy to goon you over?
-relearn the meaning of compromise, if we are going to force everyone to have the same idea ... that is totalitarianism which is not what I have spent the last 27 years defending.

AF sgt
01-21-2019, 02:19 AM
Understanding that government can give nothing to anyone without first taking it from someone else and that some things are not the role of the government:

-get govt spending under control, we are digging a hole we may never be able to get out of.
-reduce the size of government, cut dead weight, fire / retire non-performers.
-figure out a realistic way to phase down our negative impacts on the environment.
-incentivize work vice hand outs, reduce the welfare state.
-unscrew education; not everyone needs college but more and more lack the basic skills / knowledge to even pursue a trade. Fewer poses critical thinking skills but regurgitate what they hear from [fill in the blank].
-get parents back in the habit of raising their kids to be the next generation of leaders vice consumers of what someone else provides them. I hear a lot of complaints about ‘millennials’ or how soft kids are ... well, if it is true .. it’s our fault.
-stop the blame game ... the majority of which I think is based on envy and ignorance. Didn’t end up where you wanted? Welcome to real life, few do. Do you realize what you have? Are you thankful for it? Did someone end up in a better spot because of hard work, luck, timing, their or your choices etc. or a cosmic conspiracy to goon you over?
-relearn the meaning of compromise, if we are going to force everyone to have the same idea ... that is totalitarianism which is not what I have spent the last 27 years defending.

This is a largely conservative view. Not saying I don't agree with it, just saying that it never really changes. We've had 3 Presidents in the last 35 years that agreed with you, as well, yet here we are. Even if it changes, it's only for a short period of time, then it changes back. So I can't bring myself, anymore, to get all worked up about stuff that is going to cycle around and around.

Neither am I saying that everyone should agree, and agree with you that we (politicians) should definitely compromise. But still, if they do compromise, what do we end up with? Same stuff we have now.

IMO, the best we can do is take care of our own homes and let the politicians play their silly little games.

AF sgt
01-21-2019, 08:54 PM
Understanding that government can give nothing to anyone without first taking it from someone else and that some things are not the role of the government:

-get govt spending under control, we are digging a hole we may never be able to get out of.
-reduce the size of government, cut dead weight, fire / retire non-performers.
-figure out a realistic way to phase down our negative impacts on the environment.
-incentivize work vice hand outs, reduce the welfare state.
-unscrew education; not everyone needs college but more and more lack the basic skills / knowledge to even pursue a trade. Fewer poses critical thinking skills but regurgitate what they hear from [fill in the blank].
-get parents back in the habit of raising their kids to be the next generation of leaders vice consumers of what someone else provides them. I hear a lot of complaints about ‘millennials’ or how soft kids are ... well, if it is true .. it’s our fault.
-stop the blame game ... the majority of which I think is based on envy and ignorance. Didn’t end up where you wanted? Welcome to real life, few do. Do you realize what you have? Are you thankful for it? Did someone end up in a better spot because of hard work, luck, timing, their or your choices etc. or a cosmic conspiracy to goon you over?
-relearn the meaning of compromise, if we are going to force everyone to have the same idea ... that is totalitarianism which is not what I have spent the last 27 years defending.

See, you did exactly what I'm talking about. You realized that, no matter where our discussion went, that there wasn't going to be a conclusion, that we'd just keep going back and forth, so you just moved past it. That's what I've done with caring about politics. You and I are the same.

garhkal
01-21-2019, 09:32 PM
So where are we on the Trump Presidency?

No argument that DJT has remained true to himself and his candidacy, the anti-Barack Obama. He has not become "more Presidential", as was hoped and he stated he would do.


But what does "being more presidential" mean?? Kissing up to the press? Failing those who voted him in, by 'compromising' with the opposition??


Economically: DJT presides over a strong economy with unemployment at its lowest rate for half a century, there is and should be some roll over from the Obama Administration (things don't happen overnight), but he does deserve credit. He did approve a tax cut, which arguably contributed to the national debt rising from $19T to $21.7T, anticipated to grow to $23T by the end of the year. He promised but has not moved on designating China a currency manipulator. He has increased oil and gas production in the US.


On this alone, i hope he will get re-elected.


Border Security: There is no wall ... yet. Currently the government is shutdown over a standoff for $5.7B in funding for the wall.


And as long as the dems keep opposing him, it shows they have LITTLE to no desire to ever secure our borders.. When THEY mention "but we support border security, it seems to ONLY be in favor of more lawyers, more medics and the like to PROCESS into the US, those they catch. NOT Stopping them coming in..
So i am HOPING to hell, he holds his red-line on this.. And does NOT cave in, granting amnesty, like the dems demand.


Affordable Care Act / Obamacare: Largely remains intact with a federal judge recently declaring the ACA unconstitutional if the penalty is eliminated. That judge has issued a stay on the decision for now. If that decision stands, there is no legislative solution to replace the health care law (repeal AND replace). Polling suggests the ACA is more popular than it was in the past, specifically with people who previously opposed it; enrollment dipped less than 5 percent this year, even though there's no longer a tax penalty (fine) for people who go without insurance.


Its like with most things. Once people get a taste of the entitlement (the ACA's giving subsidies etc to those of lower income), its HARD to get people off it.


Infrastructure: No movement on a campaign promise to initiate a $1T infrastructure program.


Again, because of the dems stalling.

Judicial reform: Probably his greatest & longest lasting accomplishment (one I think he should / could tout more often). 2 new SCOTUS Justices, 29 Circuit Court Justices. In DJT's third year in office, he is likely to have fewer positions to fill because he has already named judges for many of the vacancies he inherited from BHO. The long term impacts are a more conservative federal judiciary. If he gets another SCOTUS Justice, that will likely move the court from center-right to Conservative ... for a generation. [/quote]

Which imo is why the left is PRAYING like crazy, RBG doesn't die soon, so he can't get a 3rd pick to sit on the scotus.


Outcomes of what, though? What ever changes? We get 4 years of bluster, 4 years of opposition, and then we move on to another 4 years of the same. It's hard to take it seriously. Hell, now the Dems are the ones bitching about a Republican administration pulling troops out of certain locations. I always thought it was the Republicans who were supposed to bitch about the Dems doing it. It's just all so ridiculous that I can't pretend anything will ever be different, other than the party that gets the blame.

Which is why so many folk i know, seem to think there's NO REAL difference in actual party. BOTH do the same.



Understanding that government can give nothing to anyone without first taking it from someone else and that some things are not the role of the government:

-get govt spending under control, we are digging a hole we may never be able to get out of.
-reduce the size of government, cut dead weight, fire / retire non-performers.

I would like to start with
A) Getting rid of depts NOT called for in the constitution. Such as the EPA< Dept of education, NSA.
B) all these federal workers "Furloed" because they are seen as "NON ESSENTIAL". WELL if they are non-essential, WHY ARE THEY HIRED in the first place!
C) Pass a law requiring a balanced budget.
D) Pass another law saying if congress shuts down, NO CONGRESSMAN GETS PAID!


-incentivize work vice hand outs, reduce the welfare state.

Oh hell. You just triggered 90% of the left.. "Entitlement reform always seems to be off limits".. BUT ITS SOMETHING WE DAMN WELL NEED!


-unscrew education; not everyone needs college but more and more lack the basic skills / knowledge to even pursue a trade. Fewer poses critical thinking skills but regurgitate what they hear from [fill in the blank].

How's about focusing on TRADE SCHOOLS.. More so than useless college degrees! BUT then with 85% of the colleges, being lock step into the liberal agenda, of course those there, won't have any critical thinking skills.. HENCE why i say get rid of the Dept of indoctrination!


-relearn the meaning of compromise, if we are going to force everyone to have the same idea ... that is totalitarianism which is not what I have spent the last 27 years defending.

IMO the DEMS are the only ones who need to learn that. For far too long they feel a compromise is WE GIVE THEM everything, they give us nothing.

[QUOTE=Mjölnir;371397]

FLAPS
01-22-2019, 12:52 PM
Outcomes of what, though? What ever changes? We get 4 years of bluster, 4 years of opposition, and then we move on to another 4 years of the same. It's hard to take it seriously. Hell, now the Dems are the ones bitching about a Republican administration pulling troops out of certain locations. I always thought it was the Republicans who were supposed to bitch about the Dems doing it. It's just all so ridiculous that I can't pretend anything will ever be different, other than the party that gets the blame.

You're statement is so true. It's frustrating as hell listening to these politicians rail against things they clearly used to support, which now they don't support at all, but will support again if it furthers their own careers. What do these a-holes really, truly believe? I couldn't tell you.

Out of pretty much every politician that opens their mouth, the only ones I've sensed any honesty from are the libertarians and socialists. I really do think they mean what they say, and will so tomorrow and the next day. One one hand it's refreshing, the other hand absolutely terrifying.

When it comes down to it ("at the end of the day" for you 'fadsters'), I try to rate people on their true convictions to upholding our Constitution.

FLAPS
01-22-2019, 01:11 PM
[QUOTE=garhkal;371422]But what does "being more presidential" mean?? [QUOTE]

I love when people act like DJT should 'act more presidential.' If an astronaut on the ISS decides to make goofy faces and fart during a live press interview, are we going to say, "he needs to act more like an astronaut!"? No, he's an astronaut....period. If Mick Jagger decides during a concert to sing "My Heart will go on" in a surprise duet with Celine Dion, are we going to say, "Mick needs to act more like a Rock Star!"? The answer is no, because he's a rock star....period.

If the POTUS does anything, he's still the POTUS. There is no such thing as acting more like one or less than one. That said, this POTUS has communicated more directly to his voter base (via twitter) than any POTUS in US History. Is this MORE 'presidential' or less? Neither. He's the POTUS.

Mjölnir
01-22-2019, 02:21 PM
But what does "being more presidential" mean?? Kissing up to the press? Failing those who voted him in, by 'compromising' with the opposition??

Not having juvenile hissy fits on Twitter would be a good start. Providing consistent direction that doesn't change on a whim (media reactions) maybe right after that (I just concluded a tour at the Pentagon, direction coming from the administration is far less than consistent and amount of money, time, resources etc. getting wasted because POTUS is not consistent would astound you.) And at some point, compromise will have to be done, he lost republican control of the House, Congress is split and that is the reality.


Again, because of the dems stalling.

How did the Democrats stall that? The administration did not ask for it in the FY17, FY18 or FY19 Presidential Budget Requests, which is step one of the Appropriations cycle and originates with the President’s Administration ... not Congress. DJT has made zero movement on that through inaction (no ask), not opposition by the Democrats who were the minority party in both chambers until a couple weeks ago.



I would like to start with
A) Getting rid of depts NOT called for in the constitution. Such as the EPA< Dept of education, NSA.

That would be the entire Executive Branch vice POTUS and VPOTUS. The Constitution names none of the Federal Departments. Article 2 states that POTUS May seek advice from heads of Departments but does not state what they are. Secretaries are again mentioned (but not specifically by Department) in the 25th Amendment to facilitate the order of succession if POTUS dies, is disabled or removed ... the specific list (order) is in the Presidential Succession Act ... not the Constitution. If you only want those things specifically mentioned in the Constitution, you are looking at Congress (Art I), POTUS & VPOTUS (Art II), SCOTUS (Art III) and other courts that Congress established (Art III); the Army and Navy are in Art I, no USAF, no USMC. That would be it, no VA, no DoD, no Homeland Security, no DoA, no DoJ (FBI, US Border Patrol) etc. You may not like all of them, I would argue some are too big ... none are overall useless.


B) all these federal workers "Furloed" because they are seen as "NON ESSENTIAL". WELL if they are non-essential, WHY ARE THEY HIRED in the first place!

I would best compare it to being like if there was a blizzard and the base closes, mission essential is ‘in extremis’ operations not sustained functions / missions. Things like admin, disbursing, finance, non-emergency room medical, MWR, etc all close but the security, fire dept, watch center is still there.


D) Pass another law saying if congress shuts down, NO CONGRESSMAN GETS PAID!

Concur, but right now Congress is not closed / shutdown. The members and their staffs are working.


Oh hell. You just triggered 90% of the left.. "Entitlement reform always seems to be off limits".. BUT ITS SOMETHING WE DAMN WELL NEED!

I do believe there is a need for certain entitlements, I think it has grown beyond the need.


How's about focusing on TRADE SCHOOLS.. More so than useless college degrees! BUT then with 85% of the colleges, being lock step into the liberal agenda, of course those there, won't have any critical thinking skills.. HENCE why i say get rid of the Dept of indoctrination!

Basic education / critical thinking (IMO) does not equate to college prep. If am all for trade schools but be real: construction, carpentry, electronics require math ... maybe not calculus ... but algebra etc., even an infantryman conducting a call for indirect fires is doing trigonometry and calculus. And when I mention critical thinking I am talking about the ability to research, weigh varying ideas and make an informed decision ... that is far from liberal.


IMO the DEMS are the only ones who need to learn that. For far too long they feel a compromise is WE GIVE THEM everything, they give us nothing.

Agree, but you are also describing POTUS for the first 26 days of the current shutdown until he offered a three year extension of DACA protections, which was after he agreed to the funding packages passed by the Republican House and Senate in December, before he got thrashed by his base overnight and flip flopped in less than 24 hours. Again, this isn’t about his commitment to the border ... it is about 2020.

Mjölnir
01-22-2019, 03:10 PM
[QUOTE=garhkal;371422]But what does "being more presidential" mean?? [QUOTE]

I love when people act like DJT should 'act more presidential.' If an astronaut on the ISS decides to make goofy faces and fart during a live press interview, are we going to say, "he needs to act more like an astronaut!"? No, he's an astronaut....period. If Mick Jagger decides during a concert to sing "My Heart will go on" in a surprise duet with Celine Dion, are we going to say, "Mick needs to act more like a Rock Star!"? The answer is no, because he's a rock star....period.

If the POTUS does anything, he's still the POTUS. There is no such thing as acting more like one or less than one. That said, this POTUS has communicated more directly to his voter base (via twitter) than any POTUS in US History. Is this MORE 'presidential' or less? Neither. He's the POTUS.

More Presidential doesn't mean not communicating by Twitter. BHO used it pretty well, DJT uses it very effectively. Unfortunately, DJT has mpt risen to the dignity of the office, something he is a temporary occupant of ... something he actually directly addressed but (IMO) hasn't done. I am not saying compromise who you are ... but POTUS using social medial to call people "stupid", "dummy", "clown", "lightweight" or whining about being all alone etc. isn't what I expect of POTUS; especially when some of the people are of his own party and he needed them for legislation. GWB, BHO both did a pretty good job of keeping their personality and not demeaning the office; something I think DJT does with his behavior. Yes, he is POTUS and only accountable to himself and voters. But, when he was asked about it, he said he would rise to the office and has failed to do so, making excuses for him is no different than liberals that excused issues with BHO or WJC ... but because it is a different party is it ... 'different'?

Mjölnir
01-22-2019, 03:19 PM
See, you did exactly what I'm talking about. You realized that, no matter where our discussion went, that there wasn't going to be a conclusion, that we'd just keep going back and forth, so you just moved past it. That's what I've done with caring about politics. You and I are the same.

I like to debate ... I don't like to argue.

If we are the same, can I get you to make my mortgage payment? :)

AF sgt
01-22-2019, 03:23 PM
I like to debate ... I don't like to argue. Couldn't agree more. Once government starts debating, instead of arguing, I might think about paying attention and caring about what they have to say.


If we are the same, can I get you to make my mortgage payment? :)Other than our mortgage payments, we are the same!

AF sgt
01-22-2019, 03:28 PM
Out of pretty much every politician that opens their mouth, the only ones I've sensed any honesty from are the libertarians and socialists. I really do think they mean what they say, and will so tomorrow and the next day. One one hand it's refreshing, the other hand absolutely terrifying.



This is, as you state, the scary truth. Everyone else just cares about getting elected. Hell, if Bernie Sanders was even slightly interested in compromising his values (which I personally disagree with) he would have had a much better shot at the Dem nomination, but he's so true in his beliefs about socialism that it will never happen. Same thing goes for Rand Paul, for the most part.

Rainmaker
01-22-2019, 04:09 PM
To be fair, He said that he could be presidential. Not that he would....

& Really can you blame him? Because, since the 1st minute of the inauguration, He's been under constant attack from every angle. and not just from the Dems either.

rino Republicans like Paul Ryan & The Alzeheimers patient McCain (who called for a total repeal of Obamacare and Closing open borders, for the last damn decade) But, didn't do shit to fix it, when they had the chance, slow walked the agenda from the get-go.

Then you've got the totally biased far-left, media assholes and their shills grandstanding, lying by commission and omission, and the "do no evil" big -tech global oligarchs, censuring all opposition and creating algorithms.... Promoting the "WHITE BAD.....Everyone else good" Narrative....

All things considered....Have to give him a B- and Thank God, that someone in the GOP finally grew some balls.

Mjölnir
01-22-2019, 04:21 PM
To be fair, He said that he could be presidential. Not that he would.

& Really can you blame him? Because, since the 1st minute of the inauguration, He's been under constant attack from every angle. and not just from the Dems either.

rino Republicans like Paul Ryan & The Alzeheimers patient McCain (who called for a total repeal of Obamacare and Closing open borders, for the last damn decade) But, didn't do shit to fix it, when they had the chance, slow walked the agenda from the get-go.

Then you've got the totally biased far-left media assholes and their shills grandstanding, lying by commission and omission, and big tech censoring opposing view & developing algorthims to promote everything but, "WHITE BAD.....Everyone else good" Narrative....

All things considered....I give him a B- and thank God, that someone in the GOP finally grew some balls.

To be fair, he said:


Trump put it another way during a Thursday morning appearance on NBC's Today Show. "I will be so presidential," he said, "you will be so bored. You'll say, 'Can't he have a little more energy?'"

Can I blame him, yes. I have a high expectation for POTUS, I won't compromise those expectations just because I like some of what he is doing. I don't hate DJT, I don't love him either / didn't vote for him, neither for HRC. I have no issue citing where he has fallen short, and no issue giving him credit where he as earned it. I think blindly defending him invites furtherance of the 'cult of personality' that we had with BHO and his supporters unwilling to note, concede or acknowledge when he fell short ... the only difference is the party affiliation.

As I said, his biggest #win is likely with the number of SCOTUS Justices and Federal Judges he has appointed. That will likely create a gradual shift in the interpretation of laws for 20-30 years. I know a lot of people who held their nose and voted for DJT hoping for SCOTUS appointments from him vice HRC. If he gets a third SCOTUS nomination, the Court will be Conservative for my foreseeable lifetime.

AF sgt
01-22-2019, 04:30 PM
T
As I said, his biggest #win is likely with the number of SCOTUS Justices and Federal Judges he has appointed. That will likely create a gradual shift in the interpretation of laws for 20-30 years. I know a lot of people who held their nose and voted for DJT hoping for SCOTUS appointments from him vice HRC. If he gets a third SCOTUS nomination, the Court will be Conservative for my foreseeable lifetime. Which will check/balance the fact that more of the country is going Blue. Which means more of nothing getting done. Which means the status quo for your, and my, foreseeable lifetime.

retiredAFcivvy
01-22-2019, 04:40 PM
To be fair, He said that he could be presidential. Not that he would....

& Really can you blame him? Because, since the 1st minute of the inauguration, He's been under constant attack from every angle. and not just from the Dems either.

rino Republicans like Paul Ryan & The Alzeheimers patient McCain (who called for a total repeal of Obamacare and Closing open borders, for the last damn decade) But, didn't do shit to fix it, when they had the chance, slow walked the agenda from the get-go.

Then you've got the totally biased far-left, media assholes and their shills grandstanding, lying by commission and omission, and the "do no evil" big -tech global oligarchs, censuring all opposition and creating algorithms.... Promoting the "WHITE BAD.....Everyone else good" Narrative....

All things considered....Have to give him a B- and Thank God, that someone in the GOP finally grew some balls.

Kind of surprised you only gave him a B-; but agree that from day one the Dems have been trying to find grounds for impeachment.

Rainmaker
01-22-2019, 04:47 PM
Next go round, I think he should just dump the GOP & go it alone, as a 3rd Party.....

They will probably run a Prog Mitt Romney or Cat-lady John Kasich type against him anyway.....So, He should get in front of it Now, and start beating them over the head, for 2 years.....

It's full of Neocon dual-citizens and Checked Pant Republicans, who are far, too self-important and to wed to the current system, to be able to recognize, the flashing red exit sign, off this highway to Hell... that Trump represents,

Mjölnir
01-22-2019, 04:47 PM
Kind of surprised you only gave him a B-; but agree that from day one the Dems have been trying to find grounds for impeachment.

I don’t agree with the early & constant calls for impeachment. Currently there is no evidence if the commission of a high crime or misdemeanor. Congress should not try to impeach POTUS just because they don’t like him, they can ... they can impeach him because they don’t like the color of his tie, that is their prerogative. However, it is totally inappropriate.

FLAPS
01-22-2019, 04:48 PM
I don't love him either / didn't vote for him, neither for HRC.


Personally, I never liked DJT and never considered him a true conservative. In fact, I think he's an obnoxious pig...always have. The ONLY reason I voted for him was because we have a two party system, and the only realistic way to provide my support towards gaining/maintaining a conservative SCOTUS was to vote for him.

I know a lot of true conservatives who, out of principle alone, consistently vote for libertarians...and consistently lose. I've always reminded these people that when the socialists finally take over our country, at least they can hold their head up hi and proudly boast that they have never voted for anyone who has had a remote chance of earning more than 5% of the vote.

Mjölnir
01-22-2019, 04:56 PM
Next go round, I think he should just dump the GOP & go it alone, as a 3rd Party.....

They will probably run a Prog Mitt Romney or Cat-lady John Kasich type against him anyway.....So, He should get in front of it Now, and start beating them over the head, for 2 years.....

It's full of Neocon dual-citizens and Checked Pant Republicans, who are far, too self-important and to wed to the current system, to be able to recognize, the flashing red exit sign, off this highway to Hell... that Trump represents,

I don’t think he would win. I think he could effectively prevent a GOP president (like Perot) but you would end up with a Democrat in the White House.

Rainmaker
01-22-2019, 05:00 PM
Which will check/balance the fact that more of the country is going Blue

That's kinda the Founding Father's point of creating the 3 branches of government..

AF sgt
01-22-2019, 05:10 PM
That's kinda the Founding Father's point of creating the 3 branches of government..

Really? Hmmm

Mjölnir
01-22-2019, 05:12 PM
That's kinda the Founding Father's point of creating the 3 branches of government..

And honestly, I think the 3 equal branches of government & checks and balances has been DJTs biggest issue. Unlike being the head of your own private company, POTUS just can’t do everything / anything he wants.

Want a border wall? Need funding from Congress.

Want an immigration ban? Have to do it in accordance with the law or the courts will strike it.

On one hand, having a non-career politician is refreshing, on the other ... the impression is that he actually is a poor negotiator, he doesn’t know how to get things done unless he is holding all the cards which in our system .. you almost never will. The closest he cane was 2017-18 with a Republican House and Senate.

He probably could have done a lot more in the last two years if he wasn’t the proverbial bull in a china shop.

Rainmaker
01-22-2019, 05:32 PM
I don’t think he would win. I think he could effectively prevent a GOP president (like Perot) but you would end up with a Democrat in the White House.

It's no longer the 90s and people that spend too much time in the Baltimore-Washington Captial Region, and read and believe the legacy media, still vastly underestimate his support.

Do you still think Jeb Bush is a lock to win the Republican Primary and that Hillary Clinton has a 98% chance of winning the 2016 election?

Rainmaker
01-22-2019, 05:41 PM
I know a lot of true conservatives who, out of principle alone, consistently vote for libertarians...and consistently lose. I've always reminded these people that when the socialists finally take over our country, at least they can hold their head up hi and proudly boast that they have never voted for anyone who has had a remote chance of earning more than 5% of the vote.

The Libertarian persepctive falls apart for me, because of the open borders.

This is no longer a frontier country, with a man-power shortage, no entitlement mentality & endless miles of virgin forest to be tamed.

The US would quickly be overrun with 3rd world aborigines, devolve into chaos and get turned into a socialist shit-hole or worse.

Rainmaker
01-22-2019, 05:49 PM
Kind of surprised you only gave him a B-; but agree that from day one the Dems have been trying to find grounds for impeachment.

I give him a B-.

Because, He should've declared a national emergency, ordered the Military to build the wall on day 1 and He's offered twice to Cuck on DACA, for the spawn of illegal invaders. Say what you want. but, it's the primary reason he received 304 electoral votes.

He also spent too much time dicking around trying to work with the do-nothing Congress....I could see giving them a chance. But, After the first year, when it became clear they weren't going to try and implement his agenda..... he should've taken a page from Black Jesus Obama and gone straight 'Rule by Executive Fiat' mode.

AF sgt
01-22-2019, 05:50 PM
I give him a B-.

Because, He should've declared a national emergency, ordered the Military to build the wall on day 1 and He's offered twice to Cuck on DACA, for the spawn of illegal invaders. Say what you want. but, it's the primary reason he received 304 electoral votes.

He also spent too much time dicking around trying to work with the do-nothing Congress, After the first year it became clear they weren't going to try and the agenda, he should've taken a page from Black Jesus and gone Rule by Executive Fiat mode.

So you want a dictatorship. Apparently, the "checks and balances" you "educated" me on aren't something you really believe in.

Rainmaker
01-22-2019, 06:00 PM
So you want a dictatorship. Apparently, the "checks and balances" you "educated" me on aren't something you really believe in.

What I want has nothing to do with it....... But, Until they restore the integrity of the Supreme court (with Roberts and others being compromised) fix the problem of dual citizenship and clean the pedo- pervert trash out of our government, we are living a post-constitutional world and so we probably would benefit from a temporary, Far Right- wing government (Not that I'm hoping for that)...

But, Don't worry Sarge...They're pretty close, to restoring the republic, for you...... The next supreme court justice is warming up in the bullpen.

AF sgt
01-22-2019, 06:26 PM
What I want has nothing to do with it....... But, Until they restore the integrity of the Supreme court (with Roberts and others being compromised) fix the problem of dual citizenship and clean the pedo- pervert trash out of our government, we are living a post-constitutional world and so we probably would benefit from a temporary, Far Right- wing government (Not that I'm hoping for that)...

But, Don't worry Sarge...They're pretty close, to restoring the republic, for you...... The next supreme court justice is warming up in the bullpen.

That's the thing. We aren't going to benefit, or fail, due to any of it. It's not going to change. Nothing. For a very long time.

Rainmaker
01-22-2019, 06:45 PM
if Bernie Sanders was even slightly interested in compromising his values (which I personally disagree with) he would have had a much better shot at the Dem nomination,.

Wouldn’t Compromise his values?

Haha.... worst take ever.....

It came out that The DNC and Hillary Clinton rigged the primary against him..... Then He Endorsed and Campaigned for her.

Total Kabuki theater.... He was just put up to give the appearance that she had some opposition.

& Who can forget the Fat slob BLM hogs, taking the mic out of his hand and driving him off the stage, to bash Whitey for 5 minutes straight, at his own ‘campaign rally’ in Seattle. Totally staged.

Don’t believe me? Try taking the stage of a US Senator .....& see what happens, to you....

Rainmaker
01-22-2019, 06:48 PM
That's the thing. We aren't going to benefit, or fail, due to any of it. It's not going to change. Nothing. For a very long time.

Agreed.... It will take a generation to fix it.......Unless there's an attack on the US or economic collapse....then, things can change very quickly...

AF sgt
01-22-2019, 07:02 PM
Agreed.... It will take a generation to fix it.......Unless there's an attack on the US or economic collapse....then, things can change very quickly...

Sadly, that's the only thing that seems to bring everyone together, for a little while.

Mjölnir
01-22-2019, 07:18 PM
It's no longer the 90s and people that spend too much time in the Baltimore-Washington Captial Region, and read and believe the legacy media, still vastly underestimate his support.

Do you still think Jeb Bush is a lock to win the Republican Primary and that Hillary Clinton has a 98% chance of winning the 2016 election?

I didn't think Jeb Bush was a lock, yes ... once it was down to DJT or HRC I thought it would be HRC.

That said, DJTs win was a combination of a better campaign, a poorly run campaign by HRC, the failing of the DNC IRT the Sanders constituency, and it being a year / election that was anti-establishment.

-DJTs campaign was very smart about where they concentrated, didn't waste time in NY, CA etc. as they knew they wouldn't win there ... why waste resources?

-HRCs campaign was disfunctional, failed to campaign in / Michigan, largely ignored Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but assumed she would win there and get those electoral votes.

-Sanders' supporters were pissed about the shenanigans the DNC pulled to game the primaries for HRC, many failed to turn out to support HRC.

-2016 was the most anti-establishment year in memory. DJT was the GOP version of this sentiment, turning the GOP on its ear / ass. In contrast, the DNC (for all intent & purpose) colluded with the HRC campaign to guarantee her the nomination, despite their efforts ... Sanders ... a elderly, socialist white male gave HRC ... the poster child of the establishment ... a run for her money. I oppose nearly every aspect of Sanders' platform, but can't deny the guy tapped into something.

All that together, not overwhelming support for DJT factored into a win. With two exceptions, win a state with 50% +1 vote and you get all the electoral votes, overwhelming popularity in CA ensured HRC the popular vote ... but only translates into 55 electoral votes ... the DJT campaign engineered an electoral landslide but the key factor was about 77,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania all three by less than 1% ... states that could easily swing back to the Democrats in 2020.

In many ways, I see the DJT victory as very similar to the Ocasio-Cortez victory in NY last year. He tapped into a monumental anti-establishment sentiment, rode that with issues that have been simmering / burning at people for some time; Ocasio-Cortez did the same at the Congressional District level. Both were / are politically ignorant; they don't understand the system ... I don't mean politics / back room deals etc., but I mean how things actually get done ... his shortfall here is legislative procedure, hers is basic economics. Where I do think they are different: I think both are in many ways ignorant (lacking knowledge) of government. I think Ocasio-Cortez is unintelligent ... the product of a couple very expensive, what should be prestigious degrees ... but just not that smart and wants to lean on being "morally right vice factually correct" or something like that ... why not be both? I don't think DJT is unintelligent, I do think he is somewhat lazy as far as learning about how he could have gotten things done the last 2 years, or just reading the briefing materials provided to him on a variety of topics ... indicative of someone who doesn't want to learn. Both were elected by angry constituencies who saw a potential champion to 'stick it to' those who have made them angry ... whether it be mean, rich, old white people ... or immigrants, homosexuals, liberals etc. Supporters of both are willing to overlook the issues with their champions & make excuses for them as opposed to keeping their standards high and demanding they step up to the job they were elected to do.

FLAPS
01-22-2019, 07:36 PM
So you want a dictatorship. Apparently, the "checks and balances" you "educated" me on aren't something you really believe in.


Which begs a hypothetical question. If a nationwide poll were to take place today to gauge interest in bringing Obama back into office for a life term, while eliminating Congress and SCOTUS altogether, thus giving him supreme powers, would the vast majority of voters below the age of 30 support this? I'm guessing hands down, these voters would overwhelmingly support this.

Now, I don't see this happening anytime soon, but I have no doubt this country will be socialist within the next decade or two.

Mjölnir
01-22-2019, 07:42 PM
Which begs a hypothetical question. If a nationwide poll were to take place today to gauge interest in bringing Obama back into office for a life term, while eliminating Congress and SCOTUS altogether, thus giving him supreme powers, would the vast majority of voters below the age of 30 support this? I'm guessing hands down, these voters would overwhelmingly support this.

Now, I don't see this happening anytime soon, but I have no doubt this country will be socialist within the next decade or two.

I think you are right. At the same time, when I was young(er?), I was very supportive of Democrats. I have skewed right over the years ... paying your own way sucks. I am now mostly conservative, with a tolerant / libertarian vein here and there. What does worry me is that so many young people now who think Socialism is a good idea ... don't really understand what it is, don't know what Stalin did, can't tell you how 'well' Socialism worked in Venezuela etc. Supporting something because it is 'cool' is ... ignorant.

If the question where changed and instead of BHO, it was DJT ... what do you think the results would be and which demographics would support which answer?

AF sgt
01-22-2019, 08:56 PM
Which begs a hypothetical question. If a nationwide poll were to take place today to gauge interest in bringing Obama back into office for a life term, while eliminating Congress and SCOTUS altogether, thus giving him supreme powers, would the vast majority of voters below the age of 30 support this? I'm guessing hands down, these voters would overwhelmingly support this. No idea. I doubt it, though. Sure, some would. Probably more than we'd like to think, but not enough to make a dent.


Now, I don't see this happening anytime soon, but I have no doubt this country will be socialist within the next decade or two.That's what people have been saying for the last decade or two. Same as those who say we're going to lose our guns, lose social secuity, etc. I'll say it again. On a large scale, with major ticket items, nothing ever changes.

If we made it into a math equation, it would look something like this:

# of people spending their lives stressed out, arguing, losing relationships, and hating others for having different opinions > (Much greater than) > the amount of change that will ever actually come.

FLAPS
01-22-2019, 09:57 PM
No idea. I doubt it, though. Sure, some would. Probably more than we'd like to think, but not enough to make a dent.

That's what people have been saying for the last decade or two. Same as those who say we're going to lose our guns, lose social secuity, etc. I'll say it again. On a large scale, with major ticket items, nothing ever changes.

If we made it into a math equation, it would look something like this:

# of people spending their lives stressed out, arguing, losing relationships, and hating others for having different opinions > (Much greater than) > the amount of change that will ever actually come.


I just see the trend in younger voters moving towards socialism, with not much standing in the way. It doesn't help to have the public school systems and media supporting this push.

FLAPS
01-22-2019, 10:04 PM
If the question where changed and instead of BHO, it was DJT ... what do you think the results would be and which demographics would support which answer?

I suspect a minority of his voters would support a DJT supreme leadership scenario, while his constitutionally conservative base not supporting it. As for BHO, what percentage of his voters believe that the constitution actually impedes their utopia agenda?

garhkal
01-22-2019, 10:07 PM
You're statement is so true. It's frustrating as hell listening to these politicians rail against things they clearly used to support, which now they don't support at all, but will support again if it furthers their own careers. What do these a-holes really, truly believe? I couldn't tell you.

There's times i am not even sure THEY understand what they believe..


Not having juvenile hissy fits on Twitter would be a good start.


With how woefully anti-trump biased the entire media is, imo he HAS to use twitter to get with the populus.. WITHOUT The media being allowed to 'tweek/spin' or otherwise politic what THEY think he's saying.


How did the Democrats stall that? The administration did not ask for it in the FY17, FY18 or FY19 Presidential Budget Requests,


IIRC he DID request the border funding early last year, hence why we had a shutdown last year. Pilosi said "open the govt up, then we can discuss your border wall later. TRUMP FELL for it, but this year he's not.


That would be it, no VA, no DoD, no Homeland Security, no DoA, no DoJ (FBI, US Border Patrol) etc. You may not like all of them, I would argue some are too big ... none are overall useless.


Actually the military IS called for in the constitution under common defense. But i agree a number of other depts would go bye bye..


Concur, but right now Congress is not closed / shutdown. The members and their staffs are working.


Sfunny, i've seen a # of reports about dems being on Holiday down in Purto rico, or other spots.. So not all are working.
AND if its ok for them to tell fed workers "YOU must work, but without pay", WHY SHOULDN'T the same damn thing apply to these congress critters?


I do believe there is a need for certain entitlements, I think it has grown beyond the need.


Like what? What is exactly needed? And how long should someone stay on them??


Agree, but you are also describing POTUS for the first 26 days of the current shutdown until he offered a three year extension of DACA protections, which was after he agreed to the funding packages passed by the Republican House and Senate in December, before he got thrashed by his base overnight and flip flopped in less than 24 hours. Again, this isn’t about his commitment to the border ... it is about 2020.


Being a large part of his base voted for him in 20016, BECAUSE OF WANTING that wall, why shouldn't he be committed to fulfilling it?


To be fair, He said that he could be presidential. Not that he would....

& Really can you blame him? Because, since the 1st minute of the inauguration, He's been under constant attack from every angle. and not just from the Dems either.

Hell, to me the left's been under attack since he won the GOP nomination. Not just since he got inaugurated.



As I said, his biggest #win is likely with the number of SCOTUS Justices and Federal Judges he has appointed. That will likely create a gradual shift in the interpretation of laws for 20-30 years. I know a lot of people who held their nose and voted for DJT hoping for SCOTUS appointments from him vice HRC. If he gets a third SCOTUS nomination, the Court will be Conservative for my foreseeable lifetime.

That's assuming the Dems don't do what i've heard some are trying to push through, in which they increase (say to 15) the # of judges ON the scotus, that way THEY CAN push through 7 more highly liberal judges, to totally and utterly swing it to the left for the next 40+ years..


I don’t agree with the early & constant calls for impeachment. Currently there is no evidence if the commission of a high crime or misdemeanor. Congress should not try to impeach POTUS just because they don’t like him, they can ... they can impeach him because they don’t like the color of his tie, that is their prerogative. However, it is totally inappropriate.

Tell that to those who HAVE called for his impeachment. HELL I remember hearing some calling for it BEFORE HE even got sworn into office..


I give him a B-.

Because, He should've declared a national emergency, ordered the Military to build the wall on day 1 and He's offered twice to Cuck on DACA, for the spawn of illegal invaders. Say what you want. but, it's the primary reason he received 304 electoral votes.

And as i mentioned on another site. SINCE PART of the military's description IS SECURITY Of the homeland. WHY SHOULDN'T Trump, as Commander in Chief, Instruct say, the ACE to build that wall, or beter yet a 50M deep 50M wide ditch, THEN THE WALL..


Sadly, that's the only thing that seems to bring everyone together, for a little while.

These days, i am not even sure an outside attack against us, will unite the country.
ITS JUST TOO bloody polarized.


Which begs a hypothetical question. If a nationwide poll were to take place today to gauge interest in bringing Obama back into office for a life term, while eliminating Congress and SCOTUS altogether, thus giving him supreme powers, would the vast majority of voters below the age of 30 support this? I'm guessing hands down, these voters would overwhelmingly support this.

Now, I don't see this happening anytime soon, but I have no doubt this country will be socialist within the next decade or two.

With the @ of idiot libtard college grads agreeing we need to eliminate the EC, or who called to ban republicans from voting, (Yes i saw 2 grads do just that), and the like, i agree, IF they were given a public referendum to do away with our current govt, and replace it with an "effectively" dictatoral like president, i can easily see them voting YES.. Just as long as that dictator was liberal/socialist..


I think you are right. At the same time, when I was young(er?), I was very supportive of Democrats. I have skewed right over the years ... paying your own way sucks. I am now mostly conservative, with a tolerant / libertarian vein here and there. What does worry me is that so many young people now who think Socialism is a good idea ... don't really understand what it is, don't know what Stalin did, can't tell you how 'well' Socialism worked in Venezuela etc. Supporting something because it is 'cool' is ... ignorant.

ALl thanks to the liberal indoctrination they've been receiving in schools since pre-k..

Mjölnir
01-22-2019, 10:58 PM
With how woefully anti-trump biased the entire media is, imo he HAS to use twitter to get with the populus.. WITHOUT The media being allowed to 'tweek/spin' or otherwise politic what THEY think he's saying.

I have no issue with POTUS using Twitter, acting like a juvenile on Twitter is my issue.


IIRC he DID request the border funding early last year, hence why we had a shutdown last year. Pilosi said "open the govt up, then we can discuss your border wall later. TRUMP FELL for it, but this year he's not.

That line was about a DJT campaign promise for a $1T infrastructure package (highways, bridges etc.) There has been no request from the Administration for 3 appropriations cycles. You are talking about a border wall, not what that line was about.


Actually the military IS called for in the constitution under common defense. But i agree a number of other depts would go bye bye..

The military yes, specifically the Army and Navy, not the USAF, not the USMC ... not the DoD ... the DoD, previously the Department of War, is a creation of Congress ... not the Constitution.

As far as the other Departments, on the surface I would go ... yeah ... who needs that? Then I wonder, who inspects mass supplies of food to ensure it meets basic health standards ... the FDA. Who checks to make sure farmers aren't using banned chemicals in their fields ... Department of Agriculture, I know you don't like the Department of Education, they fund federal education grants for college students, as well as dispersing funding for special education students at the state level (middle & high schools), disability and rehabilitation programs. Who provides health services for veterans, not the DoD ... Department of Veteran's Affairs. Who works to prevent corporations from price-gouging or colluding to drive up prices of goods ... Department of Commerce. Who ensures that the medical supply / pharmaceutical chain is secure, that doctors are trained to and maintain minimum standards ... Department of Health and Human Services. Who ensures that an employer cannot make you work more than 40 hours per week without paying overtime ... Department of Labor. So yes, on its surface I would say something like the Department of Agriculture sounds like fluff, but then when at the grocery store ... that confidence I have that what I am buying is not going to poison me or my family ... the trust in the food supply ... that is them. My ability to trust the medicine me or my family takes has been tested to meet particular standards is HHS. Things that touch you that you may not realize ... none of which is called for in the Constitution but probably needed on some level in a modern / huge society like ours are what we are talking about. Consolidating some things may be an option ... at the same time maybe different Departments that specialize is better so that they can focus narrow and deep vice wide and shallow on particular topics.


Sfunny, i've seen a # of reports about dems being on Holiday down in Purto rico, or other spots.. So not all are working.
AND if its ok for them to tell fed workers "YOU must work, but without pay", WHY SHOULDN'T the same damn thing apply to these congress critters?

Congress works on days the chamber is called into session; but yes, they get days off. There were Democratic members in Puerto Rico over a weekend, and Republicans in Hawaii. I worked for a Senator ... even on 'off / non-session days' they almost always were 'working', in theory even the trip to Puerto Rico or Hawaii may have had some 'work function' ... don't know. The funding bill for the Legislative Branch has been passed and signed by POTUS, Congress and their staffs are funded. I do agree it is not right to force federal workers to work without scheduled pay ... which would be solved if all the funding bills that were passed were signed, especially since POTUS stated he would sign them ... before he flipped on it. Again, is the shutdown about his dedication to border security ... or about the 2020 election ... for both sides?


Like what? What is exactly needed? And how long should someone stay on them??

I think there is a need for things like unemployment, food stamps, SNAP, WIC, Social Security etc. How long people stay on them is variable. I don't think there is a need for federally funded cell phones, paying farmers to NOT farm their land etc.


Being a large part of his base voted for him in 20016, BECAUSE OF WANTING that wall, why shouldn't he be committed to fulfilling it?

So you are okay with him not compromising on that in any way, as you described the Democrats earlier? Would you be okay with a fence vice a wall? $2.5B vice $5.7B? Or is it all or nothing? Would you be as supportive of the wall if you had been working for the last month but not been paid (anything, not your military pension as well) over the wall ... that he was willing to do without until POTUS was skewered on the news and social media about it? I am not arguing against the wall per se ... but shutting down 20% of the government over it for a month and going ... is not productive and I think is hurting POTUS with the swing voters he will need in 2020.


That's assuming the Dems don't do what i've heard some are trying to push through, in which they increase (say to 15) the # of judges ON the scotus, that way THEY CAN push through 7 more highly liberal judges, to totally and utterly swing it to the left for the next 40+ years..

I don't agree with it, but it would be legal. The size of SCOTUS is left to the Congress via Art I of the Constitution, granted the law would have to pass the House and the Senate, and be signed into law by the President ... not likely ... right now.


And as i mentioned on another site. SINCE PART of the military's description IS SECURITY Of the homeland. WHY SHOULDN'T Trump, as Commander in Chief, Instruct say, the ACE to build that wall, or beter yet a 50M deep 50M wide ditch, THEN THE WALL..

Actually no, the military is not charged with domestic or as you are describing ... border security. The Posse Comitatus Act specifically forbids it for the Army and the Air Force (USN and USMC are not included but generally inferred as subject to the Act by SCOTUS). POTUS could get around this via declaring a national emergency, it is within his Art II authorities, he has stated it is within his authority. He could nationalize the Guard, they are not subject to Posse Comitatus. I think this would almost certainly create a serious crisis with all 3 branches of government, two of which have been very critical of POTUS's previous attempts at ill-planned immigration policy.

Title 10 also is very specific the military can't really do what you are saying:


10 U.S.C. § 275.

Restriction on direct participation by military personnel
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

AF sgt
01-22-2019, 11:15 PM
I just see the trend in younger voters moving towards socialism, with not much standing in the way. It doesn't help to have the public school systems and media supporting this push.

I still feel that it's regional. I know that the teachers and students in the rural area I live in aren't moving that way. I think the voters in different areas are a product of those regions. Young conservatives are not nearly as likely to be on social media, whether it be Twitter, Reddit, or Facebook, arguing this kind of stuff. They are more than likely coming home from school and heading to their jobs, working on the farm, going to high school football practice, going hunting, etc, then coming home and sitting on their forums pushing socialism.

AF sgt
01-22-2019, 11:17 PM
I have no issue with POTUS using Twitter, acting like a juvenile on Twitter is my issue.



That line was about a DJT campaign promise for a $1T infrastructure package (highways, bridges etc.) There has been no request from the Administration for 3 appropriations cycles. You are talking about a border wall, not what that line was about.



The military yes, specifically the Army and Navy, not the USAF, not the USMC ... not the DoD ... the DoD, previously the Department of War, is a creation of Congress ... not the Constitution.

As far as the other Departments, on the surface I would go ... yeah ... who needs that? Then I wonder, who inspects mass supplies of food to ensure it meets basic health standards ... the FDA. Who checks to make sure farmers aren't using banned chemicals in their fields ... Department of Agriculture, I know you don't like the Department of Education, they fund federal education grants for college students, as well as dispersing funding for special education students at the state level (middle & high schools), disability and rehabilitation programs. Who provides health services for veterans, not the DoD ... Department of Veteran's Affairs. Who works to prevent corporations from price-gouging or colluding to drive up prices of goods ... Department of Commerce. Who ensures that an employer cannot make you work more than 40 hours per week without paying overtime ... Department of Labor. So yes, on its surface I would say something like the Department of Agriculture sounds like fluff, but then when at the grocery store ... that confidence I have that what I am buying is not going to poison me ... the trust in the food supply ... that is them and stuff like that is all of the Departments, things that touch you that you may not realize ... none of which is called for in the Constitution but probably needed on some level in a modern / huge society like ours.



Congress works on days the chamber is called into session; but yes, they get days off. There were Democratic members in Puerto Rico over a weekend, and Republicans in Hawaii. I worked for a Senator ... even on 'off / non-session days' they almost always were 'working', in theory even the trip to Puerto Rico or Hawaii may have had some 'work function' ... don't know. The funding bill for the Legislative Branch has been passed and signed by POTUS, Congress and their staffs are funded. I do agree it is not right to force federal workers to work without scheduled pay ... which would be solved if all the funding bills that were passed were signed, especially since POTUS stated he would sign them ... before he flipped on it. Again, is the shutdown about his dedication to border security ... or about the 2020 election ... for both sides?



I think there is a need for things like unemployment, food stamps, SNAP, WIC, Social Security etc. How long people stay on them is variable. I don't think there is a need for federally funded cell phones, paying farmers to NOT farm their land etc.



So you are okay with him not compromising on that in any way, as you described the Democrats earlier? Would you be okay with a fence vice a wall. $2.5B vice $5.7B? Or is it all or nothing?



I don't agree with it, but it would be legal. The size of SCOTUS is left to the Congress via Art I of the Constitution, granted the law would have to pass the House and the Senate, and be signed into law by the President ... not likely ... right now.



Actually no, the military is not charged with domestic or as you are describing ... border security. The Posse Comitatus Act specifically forbids it for the Army and the Air Force (USN and USMC are not included but generally inferred as subject to the Act by SCOTUS). POTUS could get around this via declaring a national emergency, it is within his Art II authorities, he has stated it is within his authority. He could nationalize the Guard, they are not subject to Posse Comitatus. I think this would almost certainly create a serious crisis with all 3 branches of government, two of which have been very critical of POTUS's previous attempts at ill-planned immigration policy.

Title 10 also is very specific the military can't really do what you are saying:

If the military is ever directed to do the things mentioned by here, and actually begin to act, THAT is when I'll start worrying. Until then, it's all bluster.

Mjölnir
01-22-2019, 11:24 PM
If the military is ever directed to do the things mentioned by here, and actually begin to act, THAT is when I'll start worrying. Until then, it's all bluster.

It is, and I think that is why POTUS has backed off that for now. He has the authority to declare the emergency, but I think that opens up courses of actions for opponents that he really won't want to deal with.

AF sgt
01-22-2019, 11:28 PM
Like what? What is exactly needed? And how long should someone stay on them??

Welfare is needed. Unemployment is needed. But the question is, as you ask, how long someone should stay on them. The other problem is that there is no way to get it 100% right. You're going to end up with people taking advantage of it in order to help those who are using it for it's intended purpose.




Being a large part of his base voted for him in 20016, BECAUSE OF WANTING that wall, why shouldn't he be committed to fulfilling it? Because nothing good has ever come from a country with a wall.



That's assuming the Dems don't do what i've heard some are trying to push through, in which they increase (say to 15) the # of judges ON the scotus, that way THEY CAN push through 7 more highly liberal judges, to totally and utterly swing it to the left for the next 40+ years.. The fact that judges are political is the entire problem. There's really no way to keep it from being that way because you can't expect people to not make decisions based on their biases. That's why I think the SCOTUS should be made up of 8 judges, always with 4 liberal and 4 conservative, and still requiring a majority vote. Our laws shouldn't be based, or enforced, simply on the basis of which party has the most judges appointed (this is assuming a 2 party system).




Tell that to those who HAVE called for his impeachment. HELL I remember hearing some calling for it BEFORE HE even got sworn into office.. You mean like those calling for Obama to be removed from office because they claimed he wasn't a natural born citizen?




And as i mentioned on another site. SINCE PART of the military's description IS SECURITY Of the homeland. WHY SHOULDN'T Trump, as Commander in Chief, Instruct say, the ACE to build that wall, or beter yet a 50M deep 50M wide ditch, THEN THE WALL.. Do you honestly think this would stop, or even ebb, illegal immigration

Rainmaker
01-23-2019, 12:19 AM
Because nothing good has ever come from a country with a wall.

Continue....Gates of Alexander, Hadrain's wall, Great wall of China, Pretty much every medieval town in Europe and beyond, since the dawn of civilization....Are you saying nothing Good ever came out of any of those places?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_wall





You mean like those calling for Obama to be removed from office because they claimed he wasn't a natural born citizen?

Apples to Oranges....The government didn't abuse it's power, initiate CI investigations on false pretenses, convene a years long, special counsel investigation, spend tens of Millions of taxpayer dollars...etc. etc....The MSM didn't spend 24-7-365 days a year harping on it. So, Not even close to the same scale.....In-fact it was immediately dismissed and constantly termed 'racist' ....which means it was probably true.....

Rainmaker
01-23-2019, 12:36 AM
In many ways, I see the DJT victory as very similar to the Ocasio-Cortez victory in NY last year. .

Except for she won a local election in a district that's 75% non-white and been voting Democratic for the last 25 years, over a guy who didn't even actively campaign.

AF sgt
01-23-2019, 12:45 AM
Continue....Gates of Alexander, Hadrain's wall, Great wall of China, Pretty much every medieval town in Europe and beyond, since the dawn of civilization....Are you saying nothing Good ever came out of any of those places? What I'm saying is that all putting up walls does is make people want to figure out ways through/around it. Door locks, car alarms, security systems; the criminals always find a way around them.

What is the benefit to this wall? You think it's going to do any good? What do you think it will stop?









Apples to Oranges....The government didn't abuse it's power, initiate CI investigations on false pretenses, convene a years long, special counsel investigation, spend tens of Millions of taxpayer dollars...etc. etc....The MSM didn't spend 24-7-365 days a year harping on it. So, Not even close to the same scale.....In-fact it was immediately dismissed and constantly termed 'racist' ....which means it was probably true.....[/QUOTE]

Rainmaker
01-23-2019, 12:50 AM
What I'm saying is that all putting up walls does is make people want to figure out ways through/around it. Door locks, car alarms, security systems; the criminals always find a way around them.

Ok Sarge, go ahead drive down to the border in Texas and leave your car unlocked; with the keys in the ignition. Be sure to leave your wallet, credit cards and cash on the dashboard, along with your ID in it, because given enough time criminals could figure out how to get to it anyway.

Mjölnir
01-23-2019, 01:19 AM
What I'm saying is that all putting up walls does is make people want to figure out ways through/around it. Door locks, car alarms, security systems; the criminals always find a way around them.

What is the benefit to this wall? You think it's going to do any good? What do you think it will stop

Nothing is / will be 100% effective. I think there are more effective methods than a border wall, but it has its effectiveness. We need to look at immigration policy and legislation.

FLAPS
01-23-2019, 03:02 AM
Nothing is / will be 100% effective. I think there are more effective methods than a border wall, but it has its effectiveness. We need to look at immigration policy and legislation.


Well, I see immigration policy going nowhere, especially with the growing number of sanctuary cities/states. At least a wall can be built at the federal level. Although, perhaps we can start prosecuting governors and mayors who violate federal immigration laws?

garhkal
01-23-2019, 04:39 AM
I think there is a need for things like unemployment, food stamps, SNAP, WIC, Social Security etc. How long people stay on them is variable. I don't think there is a need for federally funded cell phones, paying farmers to NOT farm their land etc.


Social security is Not an entitlement program, its something we work and pay into.
As for the rest. From all i've read on poverty etc, We didn't have ANYWHERE NEAR the number of folks at or below the so called poverty line, BEFORE WE adopted all those social 'safety nets'. So it sounds to ME, like they are actually doing the opposite of what they were created for, (to bring folks out of poverty), by making MORE..


So you are okay with him not compromising on that in any way, as you described the Democrats earlier? Would you be okay with a fence vice a wall


Did or did not the dems PROMISE Reagan a wall, if he'd grant amnesty back in the 80s"? YES THEY DID.
Did they ever get back to reagan, or bush or anyone else afterwards to get it done?
NO.
"Compromising with dems" so far, seems to get THEM WHAT THEY WANT< but ever ever seems to materialize what WE NEED..
And since pelosi flat out after trump said "If i reopened the government tomorrow , would YOU give me anything for the wall" and she replied "NO. NOT EVEN ONE DOLLAR".
Exactly how can you say TRUMP is the one not compromising??


Actually no, the military is not charged with domestic or as you are describing ... border security. The Posse Comitatus Act specifically forbids it for the Army and the Air Force

Securing the border though, is in NO WAY violating posse comitatus. THAT IS FOR enforcing DOMESTIC laws, such as breaking up riots, and the like. I HATE IT when people falsely use that "but the military can't secure the border, all because of PC" balloney.

I mean, HOW IS securing our border, them "Searching/seizing or arresting"? If they just stop folks coming across, how are they breaking that act?


Welfare is needed. Unemployment is needed. But the question is, as you ask, how long someone should stay on them. The other problem is that there is no way to get it 100% right. You're going to end up with people taking advantage of it in order to help those who are using it for it's intended purpose.

So what's your solution? Leave it as is, because 'we don't wanna hurt the ones who may need it to punish those who abuse it'??


Because nothing good has ever come from a country with a wall.

Tell that to the vatican, or to Israel..
And if nothing good ever comes from walls, WHY THEN DO we see soooo many 'gated and walled in' housing communities?


The fact that judges are political is the entire problem. There's really no way to keep it from being that way because you can't expect people to not make decisions based on their biases.

Then if it's as you say, always going to be political, fine. LETS MAKE IT political. They have to run for office just like a bloody politician. AND NO MORE life time appointments.


Do you think this would stop, or even ebb, illegal immigration

Hell yes. Just look at the parts of AZ, CA and Texas which already HAVE those walls up.. Severe reductions IN the # of 'border jumpers'... So to me that PROVES they work.



Apples to Oranges....The government didn't abuse it's power, initiate CI investigations on false pretenses, convene a years long, special counsel investigation, spend tens of Millions of taxpayer dollars...etc. etc....The MSM didn't spend 24-7-365 days a year harping on it. So, Not even close to the same scale.....In-fact it was immediately dismissed and constantly termed 'racist' ....which means it was probably true.....

Add to that. If there wasn't any truth to it, why was his documents all 'sealed'? And i also find it highly coincidential, that the woman who supposedly wrote his birth certificate, Just HAPPENED to die in a plane accident, right after we found out about all of that.


What I'm saying is that all putting up walls does is make people want to figure out ways through/around it. Door locks, car alarms, security systems; the criminals always find a way around them.

So because criminals are gonna break the law, circumvent our security programs, we shouldn't even try to have them? That's your answer. Sorry by that logic, we might as well not even bother having cops, laws and the like them. Just let the crooks do what they want, because 'hey, crooks ar gonna get around what hinderances we put in place anyway'..

AF sgt
01-23-2019, 04:53 AM
Ok Sarge, go ahead drive down to the border in Texas and leave your car unlocked; with the keys in the ignition. Be sure to leave your wallet, credit cards and cash on the dashboard, along with your ID in it, because given enough time criminals could figure out how to get to it anyway.Yeah, I wouldn't do that in New York, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, or any other city, either.

By the way, I love the way you patronizingly call me Sarge.

AF sgt
01-23-2019, 04:56 AM
Nothing is / will be 100% effective. I think there are more effective methods than a border wall, but it has its effectiveness. We need to look at immigration policy and legislation.

We've got to get Mexico to pay for it, though. That's what's confusing about the shutdown. Why is there a shutdown for money for the wall, if the U.S. isn't paying for it in the first place?

AF sgt
01-23-2019, 05:08 AM
So what's your solution? Leave it as is, because 'we don't wanna hurt the ones who may need it to punish those who abuse it'?? Not at all. Definitely need limits on it. Some sort of time period. Don't know exactly.




Tell that to the vatican, or to Israel..
And if nothing good ever comes from walls, WHY THEN DO we see soooo many 'gated and walled in' housing communities?

Yeah, cuz Israel never has any issues with the border.

We see the gated communities because certain people like to think that if they live in a gated community with HOAs that they are somehow a little higher up the food chain than they actually are, as well as a false sense of security.




Then if it's as you say, always going to be political, fine. LETS MAKE IT political. They have to run for office just like a bloody politician. AND NO MORE life time appointments. That's as good as anything, I guess. It'll still come down to politics, though. As long as you can have two people who can see identical things so differently, it can't be fixed.




Hell yes. Just look at the parts of AZ, CA and Texas which already HAVE those walls up.. Severe reductions IN the # of 'border jumpers'... So to me that PROVES they work. Lower at the points with "walls", higher at the points without it. People take the easiest path. Overall number hasn't changed much.


Add to that. If there wasn't any truth to it, why was his documents all 'sealed'? And i also find it highly coincidential, that the woman who supposedly wrote his birth certificate, Just HAPPENED to die in a plane accident, right after we found out about all of that. Don't believe everything you see on the internet, listen to on the radio, and hear in church.




So because criminals are gonna break the law, circumvent our security programs, we shouldn't even try to have them? That's your answer. Sorry by that logic, we might as well not even bother having cops, laws and the like them. Just let the crooks do what they want, because 'hey, crooks ar gonna get around what hinderances we put in place anyway'.. Isn't that one of the arguments against gun laws/bans? That if they are banned, only the criminals will have them?

Mjölnir
01-23-2019, 08:37 AM
Social security is Not an entitlement program, its something we work and pay into.
As for the rest. From all i've read on poverty etc, We didn't have ANYWHERE NEAR the number of folks at or below the so called poverty line, BEFORE WE adopted all those social 'safety nets'. So it sounds to ME, like they are actually doing the opposite of what they were created for, (to bring folks out of poverty), by making MORE..

An "entitlement," as a type of federal spending, is a government program in which recipients automatically receive benefits that they're eligible for based on the applicable legislation. Social Security is an entitlement because everyone who meets the eligibility criteria (40 "quarters" of eligible earnings) is entitled to a benefit. No one is dependent on Congress to appropriate spending every year in order to receive their Social Security checks. It is 'mandatory' vice 'discretionary' spending. You are probably confusing an entitlement with public assistance / needs based benefits.



Did or did not the dems PROMISE Reagan a wall, if he'd grant amnesty back in the 80s"? YES THEY DID.
Did they ever get back to reagan, or bush or anyone else afterwards to get it done?
NO.
"Compromising with dems" so far, seems to get THEM WHAT THEY WANT< but ever ever seems to materialize what WE NEED..
And since pelosi flat out after trump said "If i reopened the government tomorrow , would YOU give me anything for the wall" and she replied "NO. NOT EVEN ONE DOLLAR".
Exactly how can you say TRUMP is the one not compromising??

None of this answered my questions(s). To answer yours: How is Trump not compromising? He wasn’t until Saturday when he offered 3 years of DACA protections; yesterday the Supreme Court refused to hear a case on DACA which effectively took that from Trump as a bargaining chip.


Securing the border though, is in NO WAY violating posse comitatus. THAT IS FOR enforcing DOMESTIC laws, such as breaking up riots, and the like. I HATE IT when people falsely use that "but the military can't secure the border, all because of PC" balloney.

I mean, HOW IS securing our border, them "Searching/seizing or arresting"? If they just stop folks coming across, how are they breaking that act?.

How is stopping folks violating Posse Comitatus? Once an illegal immigrant has one foot on US soil, that is a law enforcement activity (with a couple exceptions) and you have to follow all the legal procedures to remove them as an illegal immigrant which the US military is barred from doing. Essentially you would need to seize and / or arrest them before they crossed the border ... unless you are proposing US troops are 10 feet into Mexico on line waiting for people to get close ... I don’t think Mexico is going to allow us to do that.


So what's your solution? Leave it as is, because 'we don't wanna hurt the ones who may need it to punish those who abuse it'??

I think we need to trim the number of people on it. Evaluate the programs, come up with a two or three year ‘weening’ plan and go.


Then if it's as you say, always going to be political, fine. LETS MAKE IT political. They have to run for office just like a bloody politician. AND NO MORE life time appointments.

The Constitution stipulates, specifically (Art III) that SCOTUS appointments are appointments by the President and are for life, earlier you wanted strict interpretation of the Constitution, you do not on this?

Mjölnir
01-23-2019, 02:13 PM
Except for she won a local election in a district that's 75% non-white and been voting Democratic for the last 25 years, over a guy who didn't even actively campaign.

That guy (Joe Crowley) had been challenged in primaries before (for sure in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016) ... by minority candidates in both the 7th and 14th districts (7th was redistricted into the 14th in 2012). What made 2018 so different that he lost? I think the anger and anti-establishment sentiment had a lot to do with it? Acknowledging the difference (as I originally stated) between a national and a congressional district race, I think the sentiments / themes that got AOC and DJT elected are similar within their respective bases.

garhkal
01-23-2019, 10:16 PM
Not at all. Definitely need limits on it. Some sort of time period. Don't know exactly.


So what sort of limits?? Every liberal i talk to, never seems to answer that part..



Yeah, cuz Israel never has any issues with the border.

We see the gated communities because certain people like to think that if they live in a gated community with HOAs that they are somehow a little higher up the food chain than they actually are, as well as a false sense of security.

Just because determined folk may get past the barrier, or hack through your security passwords, does NOT MEAN you shouldn't have them..



Isn't that one of the arguments against gun laws/bans? That if they are banned, only the criminals will have them?

It is. Just like someone similar to you said "why build a wall, crooks are just going to get through it anyway> And i responded, so by that logic since crooks will still break into your house, why bother with a pricy security system to protect it??"


How is stopping folks violating Posse Comitatus? Once an illegal immigrant has one foot on US soil, that is a law enforcement activity (with a couple exceptions) and you have to follow all the legal procedures to remove them as an illegal immigrant which the US military is barred from doing. Essentially you would need to seize and / or arrest them before they crossed the border .

Well, to ME if they see hundreds of troops along the border, either they will try to go elsewhere, OR go back. So to ME that is stopping them.



I think we need to trim the number of people on it. Evaluate the programs, come up with a two or three year ‘weening’ plan and go.

I've heard others come up with 'a weening plan', but like always, the left whines "YOu will starve old women, and hungry mothers with kids", to bash that idea down.


The Constitution stipulates, specifically (Art III) that SCOTUS appointments are appointments by the President and are for life, earlier you wanted strict interpretation of the Constitution, you do not on this?

I was tryng to be fascious.. I know the constitution is strict on how/who appoints them. BUT too many folks feel like AF SGT did, in that they are too political, so why not vote. So i was mimicing their argument..

AF sgt
01-23-2019, 10:45 PM
So what sort of limits?? Every liberal i talk to, never seems to answer that part.. First, I've never once voted Democrat. I'm a registered Republican and always have been, though these days one isn't really allowed to be a moderate conservative without being labeled liberal. Second, as far as a time limit, I think it depends what it's for. I'd Max it out at 1 year, given the worst circumstances. Shorter time limits with different circumstances. There are too many scenarios to go into here. If the person is in an area with very low employment rates then I'd give them longer than someone with a lot of options.




Just because determined folk may get past the barrier, or hack through your security passwords, does NOT MEAN you shouldn't have them.. We've already got a security system around our border. I'd compare it to having security passwords. What is being called for is for the country to be ran like a SCIF.




It is. Just like someone similar to you said "why build a wall, crooks are just going to get through it anyway> And i responded, so by that logic since crooks will still break into your house, why bother with a pricy security system to protect it??" Again, our country is protected. The argument out there is how far we go with that protection. How pricey a security system do we go for? It's not like we don't currently have "locks on the doors" of the country.

Bos Mutus
01-23-2019, 10:58 PM
Trump missed a huge opportunity when Canada's PM Trudeau tried to show up Trump and stated all refugees were welcome in Canada.

Trump should have immediately offered to bus everyone from our Southern Border to Canada free of charge...we'd even provide the buses.

As I recall, the Canadian govt. "clarified" those remarks the next day basically saying, 'well, no, we can't do that.' So, he missed the window of opportunity.

Mjölnir
01-23-2019, 11:02 PM
Trump missed a huge opportunity when Canada's PM Trudeau tried to show up Trump and stated all refugees were welcome in Canada.

Trump should have immediately offered to bus everyone from our Southern Border to Canada free of charge...we'd even provide the buses.

As I recall, the Canadian govt. "clarified" those remarks the next day basically saying, 'well, no, we can't do that.' So, he missed the window of opportunity.

That would have been gold ...

Bos Mutus
01-23-2019, 11:15 PM
If DJT had a gracious bone in his body, he even could have played it off very graciously:

"I would like to thank PM Trudeau for his generous offer, he is a great humanitarian. In the spirit of cooperation and gratitude, we will pay for the transportation of all the refugees from their current location and bring them to Canada. From the bottom of my heart, Thank You, Justin."

Although, had he even thought of it, I'm sure Trump's reply would have been more snippy and biting...I don't think he could even pretend to be gracious.

Bos Mutus
01-23-2019, 11:31 PM
Because nothing good has ever come from a country with a wall.

Do you honestly think this would stop, or even ebb, illegal immigration

I'm not opposed to a wall as a concept. So what if it is not effective? We've wasted more money and damaged more resources in the shutdown than the 5.7B already, probably. The best thing that could happen for the Democrats is to give Trump his wall and have it be ineffective.

If they really believed it won't do any good, they would have already given it to him...an ineffective wall is their best outcome.

Having no wall could actually work to Trump's favor by telling voters he needs GOP congressmen along with his reelection to get this done. Trump can end this tomorrow and come out better for it if he took that approach. He's worried that come 2020, all he'll be hearing is "Where's the wall?" He would need to articulate that it is the Dems fault...pretty easy to do with his base anyway, so I don't think he'd lose any support by just saying, "Well, you guys elected Dems, this is what happens."


I have one remaining hesitation on the wall...and without sounding like a PETA activitist, I do wonder if there is an impact on migratory wildlife. I recall a story where a railroad was built and it wiped out tenderfooted migratory antelope that refused to walk across the tracks and perished when they ran out of food or did not migrate to seasonal weather changes or something...don't recall the details, but basically by not being able to cross the tracks, they all died off. I've heard there are some similar issues with the wall, but don't know for sure...can't get good factual information on it.

AF sgt
01-24-2019, 12:00 AM
I'm not opposed to a wall as a concept. So what if it is not effective? We've wasted more money and damaged more resources in the shutdown than the 5.7B already, probably. The best thing that could happen for the Democrats is to give Trump his wall and have it be ineffective.

If they really believed it won't do any good, they would have already given it to him...an ineffective wall is their best outcome.

Having no wall could actually work to Trump's favor by telling voters he needs GOP congressmen along with his reelection to get this done. Trump can end this tomorrow and come out better for it if he took that approach. He's worried that come 2020, all he'll be hearing is "Where's the wall?" He would need to articulate that it is the Dems fault...pretty easy to do with his base anyway, so I don't think he'd lose any support by just saying, "Well, you guys elected Dems, this is what happens."


I have one remaining hesitation on the wall...and without sounding like a PETA activitist, I do wonder if there is an impact on migratory wildlife. I recall a story where a railroad was built and it wiped out tenderfooted migratory antelope that refused to walk across the tracks and perished when they ran out of food or did not migrate to seasonal weather changes or something...don't recall the details, but basically by not being able to cross the tracks, they all died off. I've heard there are some similar issues with the wall, but don't know for sure...can't get good factual information on it.

I'm still trying to figure out why he needs funding approval, anyway. I thought for sure Mexico was funding it, so it shouldn't affect anything with our government, shutdown or otherwise.

As far as migratory, I'm not sure. Other than birds, do we have a lot of animals crossing back and forth?

Bos Mutus
01-24-2019, 05:24 AM
I'm still trying to figure out why he needs funding approval, anyway. I thought for sure Mexico was funding it, so it shouldn't affect anything with our government, shutdown or otherwise.

As far as migratory, I'm not sure. Other than birds, do we have a lot of animals crossing back and forth?


Just ts a quick google, I haven’t really read up on it much

https://earth.stanford.edu/news/how-would-border-wall-affect-wildlife#gs.WfgCOZYU

garhkal
01-24-2019, 06:11 AM
First, I've never once voted Democrat. I'm a registered Republican and always have been, though these days one isn't really allowed to be a moderate conservative without being labeled liberal. Second, as far as a time limit, I think it depends what it's for. I'd Max it out at 1 year, given the worst circumstances. Shorter time limits with different circumstances. There are too many scenarios to go into here. If the person is in an area with very low employment rates then I'd give them longer than someone with a lot of options.

First, i was talking more in general, on liberals. Not thinking you were one..
But i like the idea of capping at 1 yr.



We've already got a security system around our border. I'd compare it to having security passwords. What is being called for is for the country to be ran like a SCIF.

With how many thousands get caught each year, it certainly doesn't seem 'secure' to me. Add to that the tons upon tons of drugs flooding across it, also leaves me to see it as not secure.



Again, our country is protected. The argument out there is how far we go with that protection. How pricey a security system do we go for? It's not like we don't currently have "locks on the doors" of the country.

See above..

AF sgt
01-24-2019, 04:37 PM
Just ts a quick google, I haven’t really read up on it much

https://earth.stanford.edu/news/how-would-border-wall-affect-wildlife#gs.WfgCOZYU

Quite a few "could's" and "might's". Even with change in migration patterns, they can't even really say for sure if it would affect population in the long run.

AF sgt
01-24-2019, 04:40 PM
First, i was talking more in general, on liberals. Not thinking you were one..
But i like the idea of capping at 1 yr.



With how many thousands get caught each year, it certainly doesn't seem 'secure' to me. Add to that the tons upon tons of drugs flooding across it, also leaves me to see it as not secure.



See above..

I'd much rather see the money (that Mexico is supposed to pay, making this entire shutdown moot) used for more agents.

retiredAFcivvy
01-24-2019, 04:47 PM
I'm not opposed to a wall as a concept. So what if it is not effective? ..an ineffective wall is their best outcome.

Having no wall could actually work to Trump's favor by telling voters he needs GOP congressmen along with his reelection to get this done. Trump can end this tomorrow and come out better for it if he took that approach. He's worried that come 2020, all he'll be hearing is "Where's the wall?" He would need to articulate that it is the Dems fault...pretty easy to do with his base anyway, so I don't think he'd lose any support by just saying, "Well, you guys elected Dems, this is what happens."

That is exactly what I think. I think they are afraid the wall will work.

AF sgt
01-24-2019, 04:56 PM
That is exactly what I think. I think they are afraid the wall will work.

I think it is so far past actually being about the wall anymore.

Also, trying to figure out why nobody will explain why we're in a shutdown over funding for a wall that Mexico is supposed to be paying for anyway. Did everyone just conveniently forget about that?

Bos Mutus
01-24-2019, 05:28 PM
Quite a few "could's" and "might's". Even with change in migration patterns, they can't even really say for sure if it would affect population in the long run.

Yeah, I don't know for sure if it will have any impact and am not an expert in any sense of the word....but, I do like wildlife and would be sad if this wall eliminated some.

I'd think a wall hundreds of miles long is bound to have an impact.

AF sgt
01-24-2019, 05:40 PM
Yeah, I don't know for sure if it will have any impact and am not an expert in any sense of the word....but, I do like wildlife and would be sad if this wall eliminated some.

I'd think a wall hundreds of miles long is bound to have an impact.

Kind of like the arguments for/against windmills and off shore tidal power generators. Both options greatly reduce greenhouses gases and are extremely efficient, but they also change migration patterns. Unfortunately, there's no black and white choice.

Mjölnir
02-17-2019, 06:47 PM
And to be fair, the Democrats in 2019 aren't batting .500, 2019 so far:

- Little negotiation on the big issue that led to the shutdown, we now have a National Emergency to secure funding

- Governor of Virginia exposed as being in blackface or KKK hood - still in office - no protests

- Lt Governor of Virginia exposed as being a serial sexual assaulter and/or rapist - still in office - no protests - meh (#don'tbelieveallvictimsanymore)

- Attorney General of Virginia admits to wearing blackface - still in office - no protests

- Senator Elizabeth Warren proved to be a liar for claiming she never used her imaginary Native American heritage to get ahead when documents were found showing she claimed that as her heritage. Still in office - no protests - declared candidacy for President

- Green New Deal - no more air travel, kill all cows, free money for those 'not willing to work'

- Radical Democrats scuttled the deal for Amazon to have a new HQ in New York - costing thousands of jobs and billions in tax revenue

- Jussie Smollet (looks like) assaulted by violent, MAGA hat wearing homophobes. Evidence doesnt' support initial claim, investigation shows he likely knew 'attackers', looks like a false event - meh.

- Congresswoman voices antisemitism, rebuked by party leadership

- Congresswoman shouts "impeach the MutherF@cker" and notes on the map on her wall relabeling Isreal as Palestine

- Congressman Adam Schiff caught having secret meeting with Fusion GPS founder (provided dossier that initiated surveillance orders on members of the Trump campaign

- Senator Corey Booker declares his candidacy for President after admitting to be a sexual assaulter.

- Senate bipartisan committee finds no evidence of Russian collusion

- Disgraced former FBI exec Andrew McCabe admits the Russian conspiracy was fake and that this 'insurance policy' was backed by crooked participants

AF sgt
02-17-2019, 07:22 PM
And to be fair, the Democrats in 2019 aren't batting .500, 2019 so far:

- Little negotiation on the big issue that led to the shutdown, we now have a National Emergency to secure funding This has yet to play out.


- Governor of Virginia exposed as being in blackface or KKK hood - still in office - no protests Couldn't care less. Hell, we had "slave auctions" during homecoming week, where underclassmen would bid on Senior's to be their slaves for the week. And this was in the early 90s. Nobody thought twice. His blackface in the 80s is so far beyond me caring.


- Lt Governor of Virginia exposed as being a serial sexual assaulter and/or rapist - still in office - no protests - meh (#don'tbelieveallvictimsanymore) Very true. I'm ok with it, though. I'm also ok with any Republicans being exposed and staying in office, until there is absolute proof. We need to get past the word of a potential victim (or a potential pissed off ex) being able to ruin a career so easily.


- Attorney General of Virginia admits to wearing blackface - still in office - no protests See above


- Senator Elizabeth Warren proved to be a liar for claiming she never used her imaginary Native American heritage to get ahead when documents were found showing she claimed that as her heritage. Still in office - no protests - declared candidacy for President This works in Republican's favor

Haven't really heard of the other stuff. I've given up on the sexual assault/sexual abuse stuff. It's to the point now where it's hard to believe the accuser in most cases.

You're talking more about the hypocrisy than the acts themselves, which I get.

Mjölnir
02-18-2019, 05:21 AM
This has yet to play out.

Couldn't care less. Hell, we had "slave auctions" during homecoming week, where underclassmen would bid on Senior's to be their slaves for the week. And this was in the early 90s. Nobody thought twice. His blackface in the 80s is so far beyond me caring.

Very true. I'm ok with it, though. I'm also ok with any Republicans being exposed and staying in office, until there is absolute proof. We need to get past the word of a potential victim (or a potential pissed off ex) being able to ruin a career so easily.

See above

This works in Republican's favor

Haven't really heard of the other stuff. I've given up on the sexual assault/sexual abuse stuff. It's to the point now where it's hard to believe the accuser in most cases.

You're talking more about the hypocrisy than the acts themselves, which I get.

All true ... I don't like how the hypocrisy / double standard is ... sadly unsurprising. The Democrats painted themselves (unknowingly?) into a bad position last year with the Justice Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. The suspension of due process, disregard for the concept of innocence until proven guilty, the "I believe survivors" without looking at even the plausibility of the accusation etc. I am willing to say I 'think' someone is guilty (preponderance of the evidence) without absolute proof (like NJP), but to ignore that something looks implausible / fabricated and continue with the 'narrative' ... is sad.

Not saying the Republicans are not as equally hypocritical, the 'whataboutism' knows no party line.