POTUS 45.08: Suckers

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Umm..........tax cuts? Hasn't stopped them yet.

Yeah, I know...

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

They are drafting an exec order to leave NAFTA.

Well this should end well...

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

They are drafting an exec order to leave NAFTA.

Can a president do that? You need Congressional approval to make a treaty; do you also need them to break one?

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

How did you possibly get that from what he posted?

Asking for a reason is not accusing of lying. That is some serious twisted logic.

BTW not everyone that argues with you is a lefty...just an FYI.

Well lets see, alfablue posted:

BTW, if Brent would be honest about why he thinks Hillary would be a bad President, that would go a long way.

Most of it could be because her views and agenda is totally different than his. Say that, and people would accept it.

Saying "bengaziii" or "emailz" or "clinton foundation" is a red herring, and is significantly less than what don showed and is currently doing with his board of directors. The idea that you can bring up that for Secretary Clinton, but not for don is total crap.

THAT is the issue here.

To me the comment "if Brent would be honest" would seem to indicate you think he is not being honest. Not being honest = lying.

But that's just the way i read it.

 

[bronconick]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Can a president do that? You need Congressional approval to make a treaty; do you also need them to break one?

There is an out

"A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties." — NAFTA withdrawal clause

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Honestly, she is used just to deflect from the real issues people care about. It may not be fair that she is being knocked down for her father's misbehaviors and tweets. But she has no influence on policy even if she believes in the working women and other issues people care about. She can be for women but it has no influence in the WH policy making. She is like a prop just like anything else in the Trump administration. Does it make up for the lack of women in his cabinet and administration in a male dominate WH ?

Trump is donating his checks but he makes far more from his conflicts of interests and brandings. It is more for show and to create an illusion that he is honest and transparent.

She is a smokescreen nothing more. Notice, she doesnt speak out AGAINST her father, even the stuff where as a woman and a supposed "liberal mind" she should be going nuts. She talks about how he fights hard for women (must be all the ***** grabbing) and backs every bs claim he makes. She hasnt had an original thought put forth since she was thrust into the limelight when he decided to run.

But the media and the Dems looking for a light at then end of the tunnel (and some GOPers looking for a silver lining) wont stop fellating her and her mute *** husband because they just have to believe they arent as evil and stupid as Sir Don the Baboon. They arent, they are ruthless, heartless businessmen just like him and in the case of Kushner, a pretty mediocre one at that.

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Here's the thing, and I've repeated this story on here several times before. I was a staunch Republican growing up, and though I've never voted straight ticket in my life, I voted primarily Republican until 2008. Caribou Barbie pushed me into the Obama camp, and the GOP has only gone more off the rails since then so I've never had a reason to go back.

Have I gotten more liberal as I've aged? Probably. But if the Republican party that created the EPA, raised taxes when necessary, allowed sensible gun laws, and generally acted more like a center right party than a nut job right party existed, is probably still be one.

Instead we have one that is anti science, anti education, pro war, plutocratic, racist, sexist, homophobic, and islamophobic. Not all Republicans are all those things, but the party platform itself sure is. Put another way, if my choice is aligning Trump and Steve King or Warren and Sanders, there's no doubt I'll take the intellectual socialists over the derp.

As much as I may have moved left over the years, I still feel like the GOP left me by its far greater shift to the right.

While I don't think I was ever a staunch republican, I would say what you are describing is similar to my personal experience. In recent years, I have voted for more Democrats although I still often have split my ticket.

I'd be interested to see how many on here truly evaluate each candidate on their own merits vs simply voting the party...

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Well lets see, alfablue posted:



To me the comment "if Brent would be honest" would seem to indicate you think he is not being honest. Not being honest = lying.

But that's just the way i read it.

Never took reading comp in college huh? That is alright here let me help you...

When he is saying "be honest" he is saying give the reason. Brent never once answered the questions just gave vague responses so it is a way to ask in a more direct way. (much like when Brent and all the Tech fans denied Mel would ever take the Michigan job and when pressed never gave reasons) Think of it like this "honestly, why would anyone blow their wad over Gary Johnson?". I am not saying people who did that are liars, I am saying that I dont get it and I need them to tell me so I am going to put a little oompf behind it. Pretty common phrasing too.

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

While I don't think I was ever a staunch republican, I would say what you are describing is similar to my personal experience. In recent years, I have voted for more Democrats although I still often have split my ticket.

I'd be interested to see how many on here truly evaluate each candidate on their own merits vs simply voting the party...

I dont have a party and have voted for candidates from Dem, GOP, Green and Independent. Whoever is closest to my beliefs gets my vote.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

While I don't think I was ever a staunch republican, I would say what you are describing is similar to my personal experience. In recent years, I have voted for more Democrats although I still often have split my ticket.

I'd be interested to see how many on here truly evaluate each candidate on their own merits vs simply voting the party...

I do every voting cycle. But, remember, the Republican in my district is Eric Paulson. AND the Republicans in the State Senate and House of Minnesota are spending time right now on Abortion. Last time they had power they spent it on Gay Marriage and Voter ID.

All 3 of those issues are non-starters for me. The Republicans have no middle ground and are extreme on all 3 of them. So, I end up voting Democratic and wait patiently for a Republican with some sense like Arne Carlson had many years ago.

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

I do every voting cycle. But, remember, the Republican in my district is Eric Paulson. AND the Republicans in the State Senate and House of Minnesota are spending time right now on Abortion. Last time they had power they spent it on Gay Marriage and Voter ID.

All 3 of those issues are non-starters for me. The Republicans have no middle ground and are extreme on all 3 of them. So, I end up voting Democratic and wait patiently for a Republican with some sense like Arne Carlson had many years ago.

Paulsen makes Tim Pawlenty look like JFK he is so boring and spineless.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

I will, for the foreseeable future, not vote for a Republican. Ever. No exceptions. If you put an (R) an next to your name you are endorsing all of the idiocy and derp that comes out of the Republican Party and I want no part of that.

For example: Lisa Murkowski. She may be somewhat moderate and certainly may be against plenty of the derp but she does nothing publicly to fight it and she votes party line the vast majority of the time.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Another Lie from Fearless Leader.

http://www.startribune.com/mnuchin-trump-has-no-intention-of-releasing-tax-returns/420512263/

He said over and over and over again during the campaign he would release his tax returns as soon as his fake audit was done. Melissa McCarthy last time I saw he was asked about it even said he would "get back" to the press core.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. treasury secretary says President Donald Trump "has no intention" of releasing his taxes returns to the public.

Steve Mnuchin (mih-NOO'-shin) made the comment while briefing reporters on the president's new proposed tax plan Wednesday.

Trump has repeatedly refused to make his past returns public, breaking decades of tradition. He says it's because his taxes are being audited by the IRS.

While it's impossible to know for sure without access to his returns, Trump's proposed tax plan could save the president and his family significantly.

Mnuchin declined to comment on that potential conflict of interest.

So the man who gets to set tax policy (Trump) won't even show us his returns. Man, I really can't stand this country right now.


I seem to remember Hillary being a liar being a really big deal around here. That's just ****ing hilarious right now.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Brent got called to the carpet (deservedly so) coz he was pretending to be in the "middle" and everyone could easily see through it.

That and he used the middle as if it were some sort of sacred and protected land. We should pursue the right thing regardless of whether it's left or right.

Being in the middle doesn't mean you're right automatically. It's not morally superior position on its own.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

"Aaaaaand just how far does that extend?" -Pres. Trump.

Ew

3 inches?

Oh my god

 

[BCeagle]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

I will, for the foreseeable future, not vote for a Republican. Ever. No exceptions. If you put an (R) an next to your name you are endorsing all of the idiocy and derp that comes out of the Republican Party and I want no part of that.

For example: Lisa Murkowski. She may be somewhat moderate and certainly may be against plenty of the derp but she does nothing publicly to fight it and she votes party line the vast majority of the time.

I can support a guy like Kasich but most GOP like you said vote party line and do not think of good legislation even if it is a compromise. ACA is good for a lot people without coverage, so just fix it to make it better. Move on and deal with the next issue. All they do is put on this dog and pony show that waste time and people's patience.

I suppose they will try and try again to repeal ACA and use some euphemism to make their bill sound better. All they're trying to do is repeal to give a big tax break for certain people.

 

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Well lets see, alfablue posted:



To me the comment "if Brent would be honest" would seem to indicate you think he is not being honest. Not being honest = lying.

But that's just the way i read it.

Or it's a "look into your soul and find the real reason" as in thinking on your own vs. parroting what the news you tribe is telling you is factual.

Again, if the emails, bengazi, etc accusations were themselves accurate and truthful, it should be an easy prosecution in any US federal court. Done.

But I do appreciate that you do not allow for any gray areas in messages- its the full meaning or nothing. Everything is literal. Good to know.

 

[unofan]

There is an out

Can trump do that without Congressional approval, though? That's the question.

 

[bronconick]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Can trump do that without Congressional approval, though? That's the question.

This guy thinks so

Trade experts say it would be pretty easy for Trump to unilaterally wiggle out of NAFTA, even without approval from Congress. Article 2205 gives each country an exit clause, with six-months' notice.

He can't pass anything new without Congressional approval, though. Sounds like our own Brexit.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Here is your exact quote to which I responded.

LOL, nice.

I really don't know what he is, but putting anything on e-mail, Bengazi, or the Foundation without doing the same to don isn't exactly being equal and honest.

Say that you are tired of the policy of patience with Korea- great, that's fair. Or that you don't like the ACA because healthcare should not be free. Fine.

But going with things we know are partially made up, and after so many years zero prosecutions have ever been filed over, and most of the news is pretty questionable- that puts a lot into doubt.

And if that's so offensive that you can't deal with the criticism that comes along with saying that, tough.

In that quote you basically argued that because there have been no prosecutions of HRC relating to the emails, Foundation, etc..., there is no basis for Brent to be critical of her because of those things.

Ok- but then WHY do those "reasons" demonstrate that she would be a bad President? Especially when those exact flaws are seen in don. But more.

The accusations that are being made are clearly against the law, in a major way. If they are true. If.

This isn't like Bush and Cheney having to face the world court and be war criminals. These are laws on the books in the US that she has allegedly violated. There's no real argument that she should or shouldn't be prosecuted because of jurisdiction- it's treason or not.

So if you are going to accusing her of breaking a pretty critical law, one that generals are going to court over doing the same thing, you should have something behind it.

Or the accusation is BS.

This isn't being critical of Hillary Clinton, this is accusing her of treason. There is a difference.

My point was that I think it's fair for Brent and others to be critical of HRC and her handling of the Foundation, her emails, etc..., even if she wasn't prosecuted, just like I think it's fair for people to be critical of Dick Cheney even though he wasn't prosecuted. For instance, I don't think HRC handled her emails correctly. I'm not in favor of official government emails being handled as she handled them, especially given the risk that something pretty sensitive might be leaked. But that doesn't mean I think she violated a law for which she should go to prison or even be prosecuted.

And candidly, anyone trying to find out why someone else thinks HRC would have been a bad president, at this point in time, is acting pretty silly. Who cares? She isn't President. Whether people think she would or would not have made a good president is pretty irrelevant right now, don't you agree?