The Success of President Donald Trump

salttee · Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:21 am

Dutchy wrote:
I have always said that I find it most likely (and now proven) that a Russian missile shot down MH17, now the question is did the Russians themselves shot it down or not (most probably they did or they are responsible when supplying such a weapon). And with this, I would like to see the rule of law applied and that takes time. I am waiting for the rule of law to take its course and yes it has some political dimensions and that takes time.

What is your applied politics here? So your action is to speak your truth here. Yippy and what has that solved? What has that accomplished in the real world or in the mind of anyone? Is that your applied politics that you speak of? If that is it, I will continue to sip my coffee and don't care what your opinions about yourself and others are.

The 2003 Iraq war I used as an example as you seem to prefer action instead of rule of law, doesn't matter if you supported it or not. Some actions will do more harm than good, you do agree with that, don't you?

I do not have a solution for the ME, cutting Israel loose isn't an option, not in theory, not in practice. Not have you or anyone else. So you give the hawks a pass on the drone strikes, well I don't and that seems to be the only real difference here. So welcome to my coffee bar, I will order you an espresso.

So you don't care about interaction with someone whom doesn't share your exact opinion or even as they express it a bit different than you. as you classify them as being in lala land.

Dutchy, you don't have a clue. Until you somehow grasp the concept of realpolitik, having political discussion with you is a waste of time. Waiting "for the rule of law to take its course" in an event where the law is guided by the current politics can turn out to be a long long wait. But it looks like in the absence of some government minister telling you what to think, you're going to continue to be the man who tells the world that nobody can really say that the Russians did what informed people know they did do.

Apparently you'll also spend the rest of your days reminding the world what a bloodthirsty incompetent man Barrack Obama was.
But please don't write any more of that stuff on my account.

Dutchy · Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:02 am

Luckily not all in real politics and diplomacy are of the school of real politiks as you seem to believe (and now I will generalize) and many of your fellow Americans do. So I will not become a cynic if you don't like that, bad luck to you.

Saltee, it is indeed a waste of time to try to have a discussion with you. So not going to waste any more time. Apparently, you can't take any criticism on Barrack Obama's policies and so we are full circle.

seb146 · Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:04 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
seb146 wrote:
The minority president didn't want to lift the Jones Act to assist the American territory of Puerto Rico because "a lot of shipping companies didn't want it lifted..."

Such compassion...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics/ ... index.html

This nonsense gets tiring. Unless there is a legitimate need to grant waivers, why do so?

Is there a demonstrated need for non-USA ships to carry additional material to Puerto Rico?

There is little food, medicine, potable water, building supplies, communications.... There are reports that he has not even mobilized the military to assist. Just complaining about the debt of Puerto Rico. Some of which he created when he defaulted on a bond. But, I suppose that is just good business?

Dutchy · Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:30 pm

seb146 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
seb146 wrote:
The minority president didn't want to lift the Jones Act to assist the American territory of Puerto Rico because "a lot of shipping companies didn't want it lifted..."

Such compassion...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics/ ... index.html

This nonsense gets tiring. Unless there is a legitimate need to grant waivers, why do so?

Is there a demonstrated need for non-USA ships to carry additional material to Puerto Rico?

There is little food, medicine, potable water, building supplies, communications.... There are reports that he has not even mobilized the military to assist. Just complaining about the debt of Puerto Rico. Some of which he created when he defaulted on a bond. But, I suppose that is just good business?

Is there a need to protectionism for American ships at all? Nevertheless in emergencies?

salttee · Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:42 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Luckily not all in real politics and diplomacy are of the school of real politiks as you seem to believe

You have just highlighted your blind spot.

100% of politics is influenced by "realpolitik". The simplest definition of realpolitik: "a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations." Even local school board meetings are steered by practical realities, where off the table alliances and agreements would leave an uninformed observer confounded if they tried to understand some of the decisions made. Some things may transpire in complete impartiality, but you shouldn't let that confuse you.

Dutchy wrote:
Is there a need to protectionism for American ships at all? Nevertheless in emergencies?

More of the same. But don't get the idea that this is just an American phenomena, it's not.

BobPatterson · Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:09 pm

seb146 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
seb146 wrote:
The minority president didn't want to lift the Jones Act to assist the American territory of Puerto Rico because "a lot of shipping companies didn't want it lifted..."

Such compassion...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics/ ... index.html

This nonsense gets tiring. Unless there is a legitimate need to grant waivers, why do so?

Is there a demonstrated need for non-USA ships to carry additional material to Puerto Rico?

There is little food, medicine, potable water, building supplies, communications.... There are reports that he has not even mobilized the military to assist. Just complaining about the debt of Puerto Rico. Some of which he created when he defaulted on a bond. But, I suppose that is just good business?

Plenty of supplies have arrived in Puerto Rico. There are many reasons they are having difficulty in getting containers and truckloads delivered or distributed.

"Getting relief supplies to Puerto Rico ports is only half the problem" https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... 133d6f7740

Thousands of military personnel have been on the island since shortly after the storm passed through.

Unfounded statements shed no light on what is happening there.

BobPatterson · Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:26 pm

Dutchy wrote:
seb146 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
This nonsense gets tiring. Unless there is a legitimate need to grant waivers, why do so?

Is there a demonstrated need for non-USA ships to carry additional material to Puerto Rico?

There is little food, medicine, potable water, building supplies, communications.... There are reports that he has not even mobilized the military to assist. Just complaining about the debt of Puerto Rico. Some of which he created when he defaulted on a bond. But, I suppose that is just good business?

Is there a need to protectionism for American ships at all? Nevertheless in emergencies?

The Jones Act has been suspended for 10 days and can be further extended if a need is shown for doing so.

Limiting transportation between U.S. ports to American vessels is no different than limiting passenger air travel within countries to domestic airlines.

That said, the effect of the Jones Act is overly disproportionate (cost wise) in the cases of Alaska, Hawaii, American Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. It also creates anomalies such as making it less expensive to ship oil out of the country in some cases and importing it other cases rather than just shipping from the Gulf Coast to New England on American tankers.

We also have the problem when shipping relief supplies to places like Africa, imposing significant costs on humanitarian shipments.

On the other hand, there is also a case to be made for humane treatment of mariners by insisting on decent wages for crews and safe ships.

seb146 · Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:38 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
seb146 wrote:

There is little food, medicine, potable water, building supplies, communications.... There are reports that he has not even mobilized the military to assist. Just complaining about the debt of Puerto Rico. Some of which he created when he defaulted on a bond. But, I suppose that is just good business?

Is there a need to protectionism for American ships at all? Nevertheless in emergencies?

The Jones Act has been suspended for 10 days and can be further extended if a need is shown for doing so.

Limiting transportation between U.S. ports to American vessels is no different than limiting passenger air travel within countries to domestic airlines.

That said, the effect of the Jones Act is overly disproportionate (cost wise) in the cases of Alaska, Hawaii, American Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. It also creates anomalies such as making it less expensive to ship oil out of the country in some cases and importing it other cases rather than just shipping from the Gulf Coast to New England on American tankers.

We also have the problem when shipping relief supplies to places like Africa, imposing significant costs on humanitarian shipments.

On the other hand, there is also a case to be made for humane treatment of mariners by insisting on decent wages for crews and safe ships.

Again: helping Americans is not high on the list of priorities for this "winning" president. He could have (and should have) lifted the Jones Act BEFORE all the hurricanes hit. But, he waited. And waited. And waited. And tweeted how much better for industry it is to have it in place during this near humanitarian crisis. Way to be America First!

seb146 · Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:40 pm

More "winning" from the minority president:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/35312 ... althy-most

Preliminary studies show the "tax" plan would INCREASE the deficit by $2.4 TRILLION in the first ten years. Even more, after that. I thought you righties were so strict on lowering the debt and deficit? That was all we heard for eight years: how great you are about budgets. So?

BobPatterson · Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:58 pm

seb146 wrote:
Again: helping Americans is not high on the list of priorities for this "winning" president. He could have (and should have) lifted the Jones Act BEFORE all the hurricanes hit. But, he waited. And waited. And waited. And tweeted how much better for industry it is to have it in place during this near humanitarian crisis. Way to be America First!

And again. You have shown no need for any action to have been taken.

BobPatterson · Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:05 pm

seb146 wrote:
More "winning" from the minority president:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/35312 ... althy-most

Preliminary studies show the "tax" plan would INCREASE the deficit by $2.4 TRILLION in the first ten years. Even more, after that. I thought you righties were so strict on lowering the debt and deficit? That was all we heard for eight years: how great you are about budgets. So?

According to that article:

"Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), who is helping to draft the tax bill as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, slammed the TPC's report."

“This so-called study is misleading, unfounded, and biased. TPC makes a variety of overreaching and unrealistic assumptions about policy decisions Members of Congress still have to make as we draft pro-growth tax legislation," he said."

"TPC’s analysis did not use “dynamic” scoring that takes into account the economic effects of the proposed tax changes. Republicans say that scoring takes into account the broader impacts of tax cuts on the economy."

Do they account for the proposed 6% growth in the economy?

Are you possibly posting stuff that you don't understand?

I'm interested in hearing what you actually know.

seb146 · Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:46 am

BobPatterson wrote:
seb146 wrote:
More "winning" from the minority president:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/35312 ... althy-most

Preliminary studies show the "tax" plan would INCREASE the deficit by $2.4 TRILLION in the first ten years. Even more, after that. I thought you righties were so strict on lowering the debt and deficit? That was all we heard for eight years: how great you are about budgets. So?

According to that article:

"Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), who is helping to draft the tax bill as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, slammed the TPC's report."

“This so-called study is misleading, unfounded, and biased. TPC makes a variety of overreaching and unrealistic assumptions about policy decisions Members of Congress still have to make as we draft pro-growth tax legislation," he said."

"TPC’s analysis did not use “dynamic” scoring that takes into account the economic effects of the proposed tax changes. Republicans say that scoring takes into account the broader impacts of tax cuts on the economy."

Do they account for the proposed 6% growth in the economy?

Are you possibly posting stuff that you don't understand?

I'm interested in hearing what you actually know.

I have found that The Hill is actually pretty accurate for financials. They were pretty accurate for the three "repeal and don't replace" bills that failed. And have they accounted for WHEN the economy crashes because the millions of people refuse to work for pennies or WHEN the economy crashes because the rich need to be richer so they take away even more from us who have to work?

seb146 · Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:48 am

BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
seb146 wrote:

There is little food, medicine, potable water, building supplies, communications.... There are reports that he has not even mobilized the military to assist. Just complaining about the debt of Puerto Rico. Some of which he created when he defaulted on a bond. But, I suppose that is just good business?

Is there a need to protectionism for American ships at all? Nevertheless in emergencies?

The Jones Act has been suspended for 10 days and can be further extended if a need is shown for doing so.

Why is it so easy to wipe DPRK off the map but nothing can be done for Puerto Rico because it is "in the middle of a big ocean, big water"?

BobPatterson · Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:55 am

seb146 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Is there a need to protectionism for American ships at all? Nevertheless in emergencies?

The Jones Act has been suspended for 10 days and can be further extended if a need is shown for doing so.

Why is it so easy to wipe DPRK off the map but nothing can be done for Puerto Rico because it is "in the middle of a big ocean, big water"?

Why are introducing nonsense about North Korea into a discussion about Puerto Rico?

No one (so far as I know) has said that "nothing can be done for Puerto Rico" except you.

WIederling · Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:22 am

salttee wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Luckily not all in real politics and diplomacy are of the school of real politiks as you seem to believe

You have just highlighted your blind spot.

100% of politics is influenced by "realpolitik". The simplest definition of realpolitik: "a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations." Even local school board meetings are steered by practical realities, where off the table alliances and agreements would leave an uninformed observer confounded if they tried to understand some of the decisions made. Some things may transpire in complete impartiality, but you shouldn't let that confuse you.

Dutchy wrote:
Is there a need to protectionism for American ships at all? Nevertheless in emergencies?
More of the same. But don't get the idea that this is just an American phenomena, it's not.

that is todays US version of "Realpolitik" :: Throwing all your morals overboard and work towards your base desires.

"leave ideology out of it"

The original German meaning of "Realpolitik" was "go for things sensible and possible in scope of your moral framework.
( accepting the Oder-Neiße Linie as an existing real border was very much Realpolitik in scope of working towards
Wiedervereiningung. ( While the ideologically hamstrung conservatives couldn't move past this first obstacle.)

( and a case of misuse just like "Softpower". Where the intial concept of Softpower is more about fairness and reliability
than anything else
US understanding of Softpower seems to go towards f+ing your "partner" in a less obvious but nonetheless crass way.

i.e. quite the opposite in both cases.

seb146 · Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:57 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
seb146 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
The Jones Act has been suspended for 10 days and can be further extended if a need is shown for doing so.

Why is it so easy to wipe DPRK off the map but nothing can be done for Puerto Rico because it is "in the middle of a big ocean, big water"?

Why are introducing nonsense about North Korea into a discussion about Puerto Rico?

No one (so far as I know) has said that "nothing can be done for Puerto Rico" except you.

Actually, the minority president said it. At his press conference. On live TV. There are plenty of places to view his insistence of not doing anything. And his stand on DPRK and Puerto Rico do need to be compared. That he has no problem wiping an entire nation off the map in less than 10 minutes but we need to wait and see while Americans are dying is very telling of his priorities.

BobPatterson · Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:20 pm

seb146 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Why is it so easy to wipe DPRK off the map but nothing can be done for Puerto Rico because it is "in the middle of a big ocean, big water"?

Why are introducing nonsense about North Korea into a discussion about Puerto Rico?

No one (so far as I know) has said that "nothing can be done for Puerto Rico" except you.

Actually, the minority president said it. At his press conference. On live TV. There are plenty of places to view his insistence of not doing anything.

Please provide a link to a source.

Dutchy · Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:09 pm

salttee wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Luckily not all in real politics and diplomacy are of the school of real politiks as you seem to believe

You have just highlighted your blind spot.

100% of politics is influenced by "realpolitik". The simplest definition of realpolitik: "a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations." Even local school board meetings are steered by practical realities, where off the table alliances and agreements would leave an uninformed observer confounded if they tried to understand some of the decisions made. Some things may transpire in complete impartiality, but you shouldn't let that confuse you.

Dutchy wrote:
Is there a need to protectionism for American ships at all? Nevertheless in emergencies?
More of the same. But don't get the idea that this is just an American phenomena, it's not.

Now you talk about influence, not 100% real politik. Kuddos to you to leave your absolute stand, welcome to the real world, hope you like it. And now let morals in and take a stand in this. You, personally, don't have any political power, you don't hold office, you don't hold a political post, so you have the luxury of not being responsible and getting something accomplished in office. I think I read you right you aren't happy with the drone attacks which are done in your name, killing https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/s ... -than-bush
You want to "give" this one to to the hawks because of real politiks, I don't believe in this in the way it is done, counterproductive, causing huge civilian death, against international law. You all wave this away because of real politiks, fine, your believe, but accept that some people believe in real solutions, protecting civilians and believe in the rule of law. And don't go nuts if someone confronts you with these things. President Obama did some good things for Americans and in the world, his administration made some bad decisions, that is ok, you do believe Obama is just human, right?

And no, protectionism isn't 100% American, far from it, but many Americans shout about "free market" than it is quite strange to see these things, I see no real reason to do this. Bob gave one: "On the other hand, there is also a case to be made for humane treatment of mariners by insisting on decent wages for crews and safe ships." On the surface, it might look nice, but that is a hard one to make a case for, why wouldn't and aren't shipping companies just increase the profits, not increasing working condition for its workers? If you want to increase working condition for workers, you should not do it in this way, rules and laws are more precise and could actually do what you aim for doing. Basic logic. So what is the real benefit here for this act? Call me a skeptic, but I would say, business interests are at the heart of this not workers of Portericans.

seb146 · Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:44 am

BobPatterson wrote:
seb146 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Why are introducing nonsense about North Korea into a discussion about Puerto Rico?

No one (so far as I know) has said that "nothing can be done for Puerto Rico" except you.

Actually, the minority president said it. At his press conference. On live TV. There are plenty of places to view his insistence of not doing anything.

Please provide a link to a source.

Are... Are you?? Seriously??? This has been a bit for comedy writers for days!! Any political comedy writer did not pass up this easy to do bit. And they didn't even need writers! This comedy gold writes itself. If so many Americans were not in need right now, it would be funny. But he actually said this. If you missed it, and pay attention to both sides, as you claim, you would know he said this.

geez... I can't even....

BobPatterson · Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:49 am

seb146 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Actually, the minority president said it. At his press conference. On live TV. There are plenty of places to view his insistence of not doing anything.

Please provide a link to a source.

Are... Are you?? Seriously??? This has been a bit for comedy writers for days!! Any political comedy writer did not pass up this easy to do bit. And they didn't even need writers! This comedy gold writes itself. If so many Americans were not in need right now, it would be funny. But he actually said this. If you missed it, and pay attention to both sides, as you claim, you would know he said this.

geez... I can't even....

Why are you mentioning comedy writers to cover your inability to find a source for a very precise statement/claim that you made.

Have you no respect for the truth?

I suggest that you put up a source or retract your claim.

seb146 · Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:39 am

BobPatterson wrote:
seb146 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Please provide a link to a source.

Are... Are you?? Seriously??? This has been a bit for comedy writers for days!! Any political comedy writer did not pass up this easy to do bit. And they didn't even need writers! This comedy gold writes itself. If so many Americans were not in need right now, it would be funny. But he actually said this. If you missed it, and pay attention to both sides, as you claim, you would know he said this.

geez... I can't even....

Why are you mentioning comedy writers to cover your inability to find a source for a very precise statement/claim that you made.

Have you no respect for the truth?

I suggest that you put up a source or retract your claim.

FFS, Bob...

Political commentators and comedy writers simply took the press conference verbatim and ran with it. Just because you missed it does not make me a pariah. It makes your president a laughingstock.

Since you have been under a rock for the past two weeks, here is what you do:

Step 1: Go to google.com
Step 2: Type in "Trump Big Ocean Quote"
Step 3: Click on any link

Any of those links will take you to what the rest of the country (outside right wing world) has been laughing and crying about. Provided your preferred source is pretty much anything other than Newsmax or Breitbart or Fox....

petertenthije · Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:50 am

[quote="BobPatterson”]I saw the "big ocean" talk. Several times.

I also see you talking big but unable to deliver the goods, just like Mr. Trump. Two liars who will not provide evidence because they can't.[/quote]There is a difference between lying, and not providing sources.

You can talk nothing but the truth, without providing sources. Of course in the highly polarized world of US politics, nothing is taken at face value anymore... unless the story fits ones narrative I suppose.

Anyway, LMGTFY:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... -big-water
https://www.businessinsider.nl/trump-pu ... =true&r=US
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 75011.html
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... is-a-thing

But the, you had already seen the quote as younalready mentioned... so what are you trying to accomplish?

American politics 101: democrat says an orange is orange: republican demands proof.

WIederling · Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:31 pm

petertenthije wrote:
American politics 101: democrat says an orange is orange: republican demands proof.

After having been handed some proof they do the TWIX and RAIDER thing
and redefine "orange" and go back to demanding proof.
rinse repeat :-)

Dutchy · Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:21 pm

And here we go again:

I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket...

...Save your energy Rex, we'll do what has to be done!

Man...https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 7543735296

So is this the MADMEN theory or is this president indeed set on whipping out DPRK and endangering the future of the world. At the very least he just castrated Rex Tillerson, what can he do in Bejing when his political overlord has said this?

maortega15 · Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:56 pm

He won't even be diplomatic!!

And this is how you expect the leader of the free world to act?!

Dutchy · Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:18 pm

maortega15 wrote:
He won't even be diplomatic!!

And this is how you expect the leader of the free world to act?!

I don't expect any democratic leader to act.

Justanotherguy · Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:54 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
What's illegal about it, it was illegal before Obama allowed it, now Trump is reverting back to how it was before.

It is a violation of basic human rights and was just as illegal before Obama.

best regards
Thomas

You can be barred from joining the military for undergoing prolonged medical treatment, like long term hormone therapy. Why give them special treatment? If people in similar situations can't join for medical reasons why should it be any different for trans people? It's not a basic right to join the military it's a privilege. You conform to fit them not the other way around. The military also shouldn't be paying for their treatments/operations. The military isn't a social experiment even if some people like to treat it that way.

seb146 · Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:40 am

Two more instances of "winning" by the minority president

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ma ... mg00000003

Investigations of the Trump kids dropped after campaign contributions

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/0 ... use-243389

White House emails sent to a third Kushner private email account.

seb146 · Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:43 am

Justanotherguy wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
What's illegal about it, it was illegal before Obama allowed it, now Trump is reverting back to how it was before.

It is a violation of basic human rights and was just as illegal before Obama.

best regards
Thomas

You can be barred from joining the military for undergoing prolonged medical treatment, like long term hormone therapy. Why give them special treatment?

That is why righties decided to stop treating veterans who lost limbs, sight, and hearing. This is why the VA is failing. So many need prolonged care for the wars that "we could not have predicted would last so long" according to those under GWB.

BobPatterson · Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:57 am

seb146 wrote:
Justanotherguy wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

It is a violation of basic human rights and was just as illegal before Obama.

best regards
Thomas

You can be barred from joining the military for undergoing prolonged medical treatment, like long term hormone therapy. Why give them special treatment?

That is why righties decided to stop treating veterans who lost limbs, sight, and hearing.

May we presume that you will post evidence to support this statement? Links or citations?

nwadeicer · Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:06 am

BobPatterson wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Justanotherguy wrote:

You can be barred from joining the military for undergoing prolonged medical treatment, like long term hormone therapy. Why give them special treatment?

That is why righties decided to stop treating veterans who lost limbs, sight, and hearing.

May we presume that you will post evidence to support this statement? Links or citations?

Seriously father time. Let go of the "Links and Citations" bit. It, like you, are tiring and old. FFS {For Phucks Sake) for the elderly crowd here...

BobPatterson · Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:52 pm

nwadeicer wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
seb146 wrote:

That is why righties decided to stop treating veterans who lost limbs, sight, and hearing.

May we presume that you will post evidence to support this statement? Links or citations?

Seriously father time. Let go of the "Links and Citations" bit. It, like you, are tiring and old. FFS {For Phucks Sake) for the elderly crowd here...

Why would you not want to see evidence to support serious allegations?

seb146 · Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:01 am

BobPatterson wrote:
nwadeicer wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
May we presume that you will post evidence to support this statement? Links or citations?

Seriously father time. Let go of the "Links and Citations" bit. It, like you, are tiring and old. FFS {For Phucks Sake) for the elderly crowd here...

Why would you not want to see evidence to support serious allegations?

Don't you remember when the Iraq war started? About five years after that, the right was screaming about how the VA is underfunded because Obama. You all don't cry about that now that you all are in power. There is a serious opioid epidemic in this country that is taking the lives of veterans who have lost limbs, sight, hearing, and have serious PSTD. You righties refuse to talk about that, too.

But, you want links and citations for things that happen right in front of you. Maybe if you turn off Fox and AM radio and google things, you might learn.

I dare you.

nwadeicer · Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:05 am

BobPatterson wrote:
nwadeicer wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
May we presume that you will post evidence to support this statement? Links or citations?

Seriously father time. Let go of the "Links and Citations" bit. It, like you, are tiring and old. FFS {For Phucks Sake) for the elderly crowd here...

Why would you not want to see evidence to support serious allegations?

If I want to see evidence of something I simply "Google" that. Seriously father time, how hard is that, doing some research on your own dime. Not expecting others to do the work for you. You are seriously ancient, you have nothing going on in your daily life except wasting my oxygen. If someone says something out of the ordinary i'm going to google that information to fact check it. I won't say "link please" That just screams I am old and lazy. Again, you've got nothing better to do all day.

seb146 · Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:15 am

BobPatterson wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Don't you remember when the Iraq war started? About five years after that, the right was screaming about how the VA is underfunded because Obama. You all don't cry about that now that you all are in power. There is a serious opioid epidemic in this country that is taking the lives of veterans who have lost limbs, sight, hearing, and have serious PSTD. You righties refuse to talk about that, too.

But, you want links and citations for things that happen right in front of you. Maybe if you turn off Fox and AM radio and google things, you might learn.

I dare you.

Oh, fie on your evasiveness.

You made the serious charge: "That is why righties decided to stop treating veterans who lost limbs, sight, and hearing."

No one has decided to stop treating the war injuries of veterans.

To claim it is so, without evidence, is nothing less than delusion, or a dastardly lie.

As the kids say: GIYF Google Is Your Friend. Until you learn to use this valuable tool we call the internet, stop posting. Please.

BobPatterson · Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:33 am

nwadeicer wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
nwadeicer wrote:

Seriously father time. Let go of the "Links and Citations" bit. It, like you, are tiring and old. FFS {For Phucks Sake) for the elderly crowd here...

Why would you not want to see evidence to support serious allegations?

If I want to see evidence of something I simply "Google" that. Seriously father time, how hard is that, doing some research on your own dime. Not expecting others to do the work for you. You are seriously ancient, you have nothing going on in your daily life except wasting my oxygen. If someone says something out of the ordinary i'm going to google that information to fact check it. I won't say "link please" That just screams I am old and lazy. Again, you've got nothing better to do all day.

Wasting your oxygen.....cute.

I suggest that you do as I have done and Google "stop treating veterans" and also try adding the ailments, one by one, and then prefix Righties, Republicans, Conservatives.

Find any useful information?

Of course not, because the assertion is a lie.

Now, my claim that it is a lie is open to refutation. Have at it youngster.

einsteinboricua · Fri Oct 06, 2017 3:38 pm

SO much winning lately. Gaining streak in jobs was broken last month with a net loss of 33k jobs (which came way below expectations of a gain in 80k).

Two things come to mind:
1. For all the calls of "fake news" and "fake numbers", I wonder if these numbers are deliberate in order to sell a tax reform package of any kind? I guess we'll see next month. But more job losses means maybe the Trump dream isn't all its cracked up to be.
2. Yes, hurricanes contributed and may have had a worse effect so this may be a blip and the numbers may be revised. However, it still doesn't hide the fact that what was expected was tepid growth and instead it turned into a loss (a small one, but a loss).

I wonder how will Congress spin this? Pretty certain they'll start advocating for tax reform (ie. tax cuts).

jubguy3 · Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:11 am

Donald and Melania just compared living in the White House to living in a "Venezuelan prison". True patriots.

At this point... I would love to forcibly remove the Trump administration and place the winner of the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, into office. Trump's administration has been a stain on America. Its time for Hillary Clinton to assume her role as the rightful winner of the position of Commander in Chief. Trump is a disgraceful piece of shit. Its time like these that I love my FF miles... I've spent about half of the last 8 months inside the US. Watching our public institutions that I have spent my life defending crumble before us has been heart-wrenching. Trump should be 6 feet under. As commander-in-chief it is his responsibility to serve our country. I'm sure there are 65 million people who would love to put him in a Venezuelan prison...

Francoflier · Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:35 am

einsteinboricua wrote:
SO much winning lately. Gaining streak in jobs was broken last month with a net loss of 33k jobs (which came way below expectations of a gain in 80k).

Remember: Any gain in jobs gain, economic growth or stock markets rise is directly attributable to Trump, any decrease of the same is someone else's fault...

And now, Trump has decided to destroy yet another Obama-era social advance:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41528526

Anything that can undo stuff Obama did while at the same time attacking women's social and medical benefits and pandering to the religious freaks who support him and want to turn the government into the clergy is a win-win for Trump...
:sigh:

Dutchy · Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:39 am

Bob Corker Says Trump’s Recklessness Threatens ‘World War III’

WASHINGTON — Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, charged in an interview on Sunday that President Trump was treating his office like “a reality show,” with reckless threats toward other countries that could set the nation “on the path to World War III.”

In an extraordinary rebuke of a president of his own party, Mr. Corker said he was alarmed about a president who acts “like he’s doing ‘The Apprentice’ or something.”

“He concerns me,” Mr. Corker added. “He would have to concern anyone who cares about our nation.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/08/us/p ... orker.html

maortega15 · Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:56 pm

Has a problem with NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem, but doesn't have a problem with mocking and throwing a war hero in John McCain under the bus.

Hypocrisy at it's finest folks.

And who could've thought that his tweets alone can do permanent damage to the world and possibly cause WWIII.

Trumpets, would you want your kids to look up to this jackass in office and your kids mock future war heroes and insult minority groups?!

Dutchy · Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:44 pm

Just simply hilarical. https://twitter.com/RyanJL/status/91703 ... 94/video/1

And of course, he didn't, first used 1890(!).

einsteinboricua · Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:06 am

I'm not sure if I support Corker's attacks on Trump. After all, I'm pretty certain he voted for him in TN (not that Trump needed his vote to win TN) AND he seems to have no problem voting to advance Trump's agenda. He's part of the problem...he should probably (at the very least) admit that he was wrong to ever support him as the nominee.

Francoflier · Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:23 am

einsteinboricua wrote:
I'm not sure if I support Corker's attacks on Trump.

I agree with Corker's views and concerns, but coming from a man who has enabled Trump since the start, I find it a bit hypocritical.

It exposes the general duplicity of GOP politicians. They are more than happy to support and help an unstable and potentially dangerous man as long as they politically gain from it, only to speak against him when they don't need his support anymore...
Trump hasn't changed, and never will. The kind of President he was going to be was quite evident from the start. Maybe the GOP thought that having a brain-deficient moron in the WH would allow them free reign to push their agendas and act as puppet masters, but they grossly miscalculated Trump's instability, unpredictability, whimsical nature and ability to generate chaos.

At this point, they're as much to blame as Trump for the general clusterf*#k.

einsteinboricua · Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:45 pm

Francoflier wrote:
einsteinboricua wrote:
I'm not sure if I support Corker's attacks on Trump.

I agree with Corker's views and concerns, but coming from a man who has enabled Trump since the start, I find it a bit hypocritical.

It exposes the general duplicity of GOP politicians. They are more than happy to support and help an unstable and potentially dangerous man as long as they politically gain from it, only to speak against him when they don't need his support anymore...

Exactly my view all along. They didn't really want him except as a rubber stamp for their agenda. Now that he's on the loose, they're speaking out.

But like you said: hypocrisy at its finest. Because in the end...her emails!

tommy1808 · Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:39 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rex ... mg00000009

why am i so darn certain that he would pull out if Tillerson says "Fine, lets do this" and/or he will somehow avoid making a meaningful IQ Test?

best regards
Thomas

einsteinboricua · Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:00 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rex-tillerson-donald-trump-moron_us_59dcb3b3e4b00377980b9732?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

why am i so darn certain that he would pull out if Tillerson says "Fine, lets do this" and/or he will somehow avoid making a meaningful IQ Test?

best regards
Thomas

He'll point to his Tweet back from 2013 boasting about his great IQ

OA412 · Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:39 pm

Francoflier wrote:
einsteinboricua wrote:
I'm not sure if I support Corker's attacks on Trump.

I agree with Corker's views and concerns, but coming from a man who has enabled Trump since the start, I find it a bit hypocritical.

It exposes the general duplicity of GOP politicians. They are more than happy to support and help an unstable and potentially dangerous man as long as they politically gain from it, only to speak against him when they don't need his support anymore...
Trump hasn't changed, and never will. The kind of President he was going to be was quite evident from the start. Maybe the GOP thought that having a brain-deficient moron in the WH would allow them free reign to push their agendas and act as puppet masters, but they grossly miscalculated Trump's instability, unpredictability, whimsical nature and ability to generate chaos.

At this point, they're as much to blame as Trump for the general clusterf*#k.

100% agree. It was obvious to the VAST majority of us what Trump was going to be like as President from the very beginning. FFS, the man kicked his campaign off by calling Mexicans murderers and rapists. The talk about him becoming "more presidential" or "pivoting" or to appeal to a broader segment of the American population or "giving him a chance" was always willful ignorance and/or wishful thinking. The man has been in the public eye for decades. It's been obvious for a very long time he only cares about himself and that he was never going to change. The GOP is 100% responsible for this. As you correctly note, they didn't care how unsavory Trump is because they believed they could use him as a puppet to ram their agenda down our throats. Now that he's loose, they're suddenly unhappy with him as though it wasn't obvious to anyone with half a brain that Trump is an unhinged lunatic.

tommy1808 wrote:
why am i so darn certain that he would pull out if Tillerson says "Fine, lets do this" and/or he will somehow avoid making a meaningful IQ Test?

Because it's a 100% certainty that's what he will do. Classic Trump. Boast and brag, but the moment he's called out, he retreats with his tail between his legs. Let's be honest, he bragged about his size ( :sour:

) during the GOP debate, but had Rubio actually challenged him to pull his pants down and compare, Trump would've run away from that stage faster than he's ever run in his life.

readytotaxi · Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:31 pm

From a UK POV is it possible for this person the cheapen the office of President any further. A disgrace to a fine office.

Dutchy · Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:42 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rex-tillerson-donald-trump-moron_us_59dcb3b3e4b00377980b9732?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

why am i so darn certain that he would pull out if Tillerson says "Fine, lets do this" and/or he will somehow avoid making a meaningful IQ Test?

best regards
Thomas

He'll point to his Tweet back from 2013 boasting about his great IQ

Why am I surprised he said this?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net