joemad wrote:

just curious, did you really work this hard to understand Trump’s positions?

What are they? Other than increasing import duty on Mexican and Chinese goods? having the Mexican’s pay for a wall and putting HRC in jail?

Do you honestly believe that these are practical and will better the country?

Because we all know none of these will happen….

Of course I did. But I think you’re under the false impression that just because I voted Conservative that I’m 100% on board with anything a conservative President would do. I don’t walk in lock-step with anybody. But as far as your question is concerned (e.g., what are they?), I can answer that again if you didn’t catch it the first time.

I’m against NAFTA
I want to limit U.S. hegemony by not being the world’s police anymore
I’m for term limits on Congress
I want ethics reform to limit lobbyism
I want to eliminate health care monopolies like we have now
I’d like to destroy Islamic terrorists once and for all
I want decisions like legalized marijuana and abortion to revert back to the States
I’m against common core
I’m strongly in favor of immigration reform
I’d like to see him audit the Fed

And I saw through his rhetoric about hiring a special prosecutor to prosecute Clinton after the election. I said to my wife at the time, “Nobody’s that much of a dick. You don’t beat somebody in something as important as a Presidential Election and THEN make it your mission to further fuck them up by going after them personally.” Though, that might happen through the natural course of investigation. He just won’t appoint anyone with that particular directive in mind.

And again, I only had one other alternative. I could have voted for Johnson or Stein, or wrote in Bernie or Rand Paul, or even myself. But my vote was either going to put Hillary in office, or keep her out. So I used it to keep her out. Do I think he’ll deliver on all of his promises? I don’t have any idea. I do know that NO politicians deliver on all of their promises, so there’s that. But I do think he’ll be held accountable by his constituents if he fails to address them.

bnw wrote:

Oh and I’m not X.

Nobody’s perfect.

wv wrote:

“Obama did a good job. We will all miss him…”

Said another rich person who’s disconnected from the middle class.

wv wrote:

I think the Clintonistas love to OVER-emphasize that one ugly faction.
I think the Trumpites love to UNDER-estimate that one ugly faction.

I think that’s fair. And I also think that’s what will sustain the divide. Trump supporters will continue to be labeled all the “ists” the left can muster. Democrats will continue to be labeled entitled pussies by the right.

We only have one life. We should all strive to do less of that.
In that regard, I’m more like you all than you might suspect.

I’m curious to see him play too, but I don’t think we’re going to see any appreciable difference.
At least not right away. So with that, I’m fine with Keemum playing. He doesn’t bother me.
The crowd in stands at home, on the other hand …. they’re done.

Billy_T wrote:

X,

I see fake news being spoon fed to Trump followers, and they’re eating it up.

Why post something like that, when you have no idea who created it, no idea if anyone responded to it, and no idea if it’s even real?

Look up a coupla posts and see an actual craigslist ad.
With organization name.
with contact info.
with phone #.

Billy_T wrote:

IMO, Dude, you need to raise your skepticism meter up to eleven whenever you see this kind of thing, and check sources. It makes no sense to try to counter the MSM’s “bias” with whacked out, fringe, tin-foil hat folks on the far right.

lol. It was a real Craigslist ad, and people screencapped it.

It’s not outside the realm of possibility that someone with tons of disposable income (Soros, maybe?) would orchestrate an inorganic protest in order to keep the movement going. It’s not a big deal, and it’s probably isolated, but it’s worth noting. I don’t see the benefit of sticking to the “these are nothing but organic and peaceful protests” narrative if there are instances where it isn’t. I mean, you don’t want your news spoon-fed to you, do you?

Zooey wrote:

Tell them to fucking set down their reading material, and go play with their kids, or take a hike along a river with a friend, or lend a hand in some charity. Get back to living life, and make some positive connections with other humans.

Stop all this mopey bullshit and make a stranger smile somewhere.

Seriously.

nittany ram wrote:

That is the best “Hitler on…” mock up that I’ve ever seen.

Hey thanks Nitt.

Gurley’s stats last year were helped by a few long runs due to being able to break through a crease here or there. He’s not been able to do that this year, and there have been opportunities to do it. That said, it’s not all on him either. The line has been getting pushed back a bit more than last year, it seems. That, and I think the run game scheme was different last year as well. So, 3 problems? Your guess is as good as mine. I just dunno.

Billy_T wrote:

X,

Would you take a moment and address this?

Trump is breaking with more than a century of precedent by refusing to place his large business holdings in a blind trust. His children, who are a part of his transition team, will be taking over all of that, directly. Trump obviously knows what he owns, the stocks, the companies, the land, the deals in place and pending. If it was questionable or worse for the Clintons to run a charity while HRC was at State, why is it not an even greater issue when Trump is in the White House and his kids continue to run his business empire?

Okay.

A. He’s not the President yet, so he’s not doing anything wrong — yet.
B. Did you expect him to totally divest and put his holdings in the hands of 5 other people within 4 days?
C. Trump’s fortunes are largely built on his brand. How do you put a “brand” in a blind trust? Anything Trump does as president will affect the value of that brand anyway. His kids are also a huge part of his businesses too, so how does he then eliminate the conflict of interest between the business and his job as POTUS? Divest his kids? If one of them creates a new business in the next couple of years, is there a conflict of interest for Trump if he signs a bill into law that ends up benefiting *that* business? Do they also need to put *their* holdings in a blind trust?

Billy_T wrote:

Is it only “crony capitalism” when anyone but a Republican does it? Is it only a conflict of interest and “pay to play” when anyone else but a Republican does it?

Are you suggesting I’m being hypocritical somehow?
Or is that one of those questions you just threw out there into the ambient air?

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by -- X --.

zn wrote:

Well that’s enough but in short, I just see the entire thing differently. My neighbors are all pro-Trump and they’re trying to get reactions from me, but I am being my usual diffident self and steer the conversation to how to dispose of our shit-tons of autumn leaves. I did bet one neighbor 5 dollars that within 4 years the economy is NOT going to get any better.

I know you do, and I respect that. And I know there are a lot of other reasons why people voted for Trump – including having a deep-seeded need to bring the Country back to old school Christian values. Which, by extension, includes some people who would prefer the majority of the Country be a little more pale. But there are a lot of people who specifically cited the economy, and the shit job the previous administration had done with trade, that encouraged them to vote for someone they felt had superior business acumen. Without going into his bankruptcies, or his alleged tax evasion, people really do see him as someone who can use his negotiation skills and already formed relationships with foreign countries to tip the scales back in favor of the U.S. Personally, I think it takes a little more than that, so I’m maintaining hope that he can draft from the pool of some pretty brilliant economists to help, and to challenge him. No “yes men”. He needs people who can tell him no.

Billy_T wrote:

But we already know how the GOP does things. We already know their desires to slash taxes for the rich and deregulate the financial sector even more. Trump agrees. We already know that his tax plan would add tens of millions to his own bottom line each year, and potentially hundreds of millions for his kids, when he gets rid of the estate tax.

We know all of that already.

If Trump really were the answer for the working class, why on earth would he promise to end an estate tax — a favorite plan of the GOP too — that doesn’t apply to anyone in the bottom 99.8% of the country? Why would he call for slashing taxes on millionaires and billionaires like himself? That’s not going to help one single solitary working class bloke, and the lost revenue will force the rest of us to pick up the slack.

When the plutocrats skate on their taxes, that means the rest of us pay more — and/or have our benefits slashed.

I know how it was done.
I’m waiting to see how it’s done now.

Maybe it’ll be different, maybe it won’t, but I’m willing to see it play out first. Maybe you aren’t, and that’s fine, but I’m not going to judge the works before the work has even started. Hopefully through smarter regulation, incentives for small business owners, an end to bailouts, a little tort reform, and simplifying the tax code, we can spark a little something. And please, I know you’re going to be cynical of everything I just said there, but understand that I’m not up for debating it right now. Maybe let me just ride on the wave of promises if only just for a little while. Some of us are hopeful. But also, understand, nobody will be more critical of this new Administration than me if they fail to deliver on their promises. Wait until I’m an ally, in other words.

wv wrote:

— X — wrote:

wv wrote:

Somebody ought to do one with Hitler having a view on the Fire Fisher v Keep Fisher
controversy.

As you wish.

http://captiongenerator.com/208282/Hitler-on-Jeff-Fisher

————

LoL. Orange Fanta??

w
v

Don’t act like you wouldn’t kill for one.