And hey, Billy, do you have an issue with everything I listed? Is there nothing positive you can find in Trump’s stated goals? I can’t even imagine someone being against everything he plans to do. Unless of course you’re just one hunnid percent anti-conservative and/or one hunnid percent anti-Trump.

Billy_T wrote:

We have all the deterrent we need times a thousand. And we actually have more active ships now than we did under Dubya.

I don’t think that’s accurate, but I’ll follow a link you give me with empirical data. It’s been my understanding that it was the lowest since 1916, and that came from Obama’s own appointed Secretary of the Navy. There have been numerous reports that the military has been degraded, but if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. My bigger worry *was* the impact that future sequestration cuts would have had on not just ship numbers, but the military as a whole, if Killary Robbem was elected.

Billy_T wrote:

Looking at just a coupla of those:

Why on earth do you think we need to “rebuild the military”? Trump and the GOP lied recklessly when they said Obama gutted it. Never happened, and the Republican controlled Congress controls spending anyway. We currently spend more than one trillion on “defense,” and Obama initiated a nuclear update for another trillion. He was aggressive in his use of American military power, continued the Bush wars, extended and expanded the so-called GWOT. We have more military bases overseas now than we did under Bush.

It was immoral and irresponsible of Trump and the GOP to claim the military had been gutted, and his promise to radically increase spending on it is nothing more than corporate welfare. It’s beyond shameful.

I’m not talking about the claims of Trump, Jeb, Cruz, et al., I’m talking about the real need to build the military up to larger scale. It has diminished, particularly the Navy. Spending is down; the force is smaller than when Obama took office and its equipment is aging. Some of that is due to sequestration. Why do I think we need to? Because we need to establish the credibility of deterrent threats by instilling a sincere belief in adversaries that the promise of counteraction will be carried out if they fail to comply with the threat. Up until now, adversaries have doubted the willingness of the US to carry out a threat due to our widely known political correctness and reticence to wholly commit.

Billy_T wrote:

And why should we reward corporations who ship jobs overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor? Why reward them with taxpayer dollars for being anti-American-worker? Beyond that, when we’ve done those “tax holidays” in the past, they’ve been abysmal failures, especially the last one in 2004:

What’s the alternative? To shame them from afar? Wouldn’t it make more sense to try and lure them back? And how do you know what the specifics of his plan are before its been released? But I’m sure Corporate leaders would love a 30-percentage point reduction in the repatriation tax in accordance with his initial policy release. Combined with a business tax rate of 15%, down 20 percentage points, why wouldn’t it draw them back or allow them to either (a) increase wages or (b) create more jobs? And again, what’s the alternative? Let them leave and shame them from afar? Or be pragmatic and try something new?

Billy_T wrote:

Voting for Trump was insane, in my view. Americans had lousy choices from both halves of the duopoly. But choosing Trump between the two parties was pure madness.

You’re certainly entitled to your view, I don’t begrudge that. I happen to think he’ll work hard to address the issues his voters wanted addressed, and he’ll get shit done. Now whether or not you agree with those issues is another story. But there is no right or wrong in that regard. It’s all individual preferences based on what they want their Murica to look like.

Billy_T wrote:

— X — wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

So you agree with the sheriff who says it’s wrong to protest the verdict?

I want you to read that WHOLE post again and determine where i made such a statement.
When you can do that, we’ll continue.

I know you didn’t say that. I’m asking ya if you do agree with him, though. It’s a separate question from your post, etc.

Sounded more like, “Do you still beat your wife?”

No, I don’t agree with him. It’s our inalienable right to protest whatever we want.
That said, it’s a stupid protest. Democracy is what those people want, unless it goes against their wishes.

Billy_T wrote:

So you agree with the sheriff who says it’s wrong to protest the verdict?

I want you to read that WHOLE post again and determine where i made such a statement.
When you can do that, we’ll continue.

Billy_T wrote:

“Will of the people.” That seems to only count when Republicans win, and get to name Supreme Court justices, etc. etc. It’s apparently not “the will of the people” when Democrats win.

Same holds true for Democrats. That was actually spotlighted during the protests when reporters tried to interview some of those people. The ones who couldn’t articulate anything without using 49 expletives (while holding a ‘Love Trumps Hate’ sign, no less – lol), gave way to the ones who could, and that was even worse. One guy [educated?] railed on like a madman that the popular vote being in favor of Clinton should be grounds for her to kick the doors in at the Supreme Court and slap a lawsuit down on the table entitled Clinton v US. Ah, the good ole’ days. I remember when Obama won and all of those protesters marched on Pennsylvania Avenue. Oh, wait. Yeah, that didn’t happen. Because, Democracy.

wv wrote:

Well, there’s a lot of drama out there in the country right now. Lots of raw emotions. We knew there would be no matter who won. Lots of passions in this divided country.

w
v

True, but there is no reason and no excuse for exposing children, let alone elementary school children, to your raw emotions. It’s seriously not that hard to do. If I had used my children as a sounding board for every perceived injustice I had ever experienced – or worse, imagined would come to pass – then they would be serial killers right now. Just stfu and let them be children.

wv wrote:

He does not have a child who goes to public school in New York. He has not struggled to calm the raw nerves of an eight-year-old boy who is scared all his Mexican friends will be rounded up and deported from the US.

wv wrote:

If you lived through the endless night linking the fears of Tuesday evening of November 8 to the terror of the following Wednesday morning wondering how to explain Donald Trump’s victory to your children

This stuff makes my eyes roll back in my head. Leave your fucking children alone, idiots. Seriously – just stop being drama queens. “Children” have no business being involved in your irrational fears. What elementary school kid is sitting around determining that a new immigration policy is going to spell the deportation of his friends? They don’t pick up on that stuff by themselves. They’re exposed to it deliberately because of your irresponsibility and your ignorance. “Don’t worry, Timmy, daddy will protect you from the big orange man who wants all your friends to die in Mexico.” Asshats. And Sorkin’s letter to his daughters? It would have been literally the funniest thing I have ever read in my life if it wasn’t so offensive that he had to drag his daughters into his personal hell. The fuck is wrong with people anymore?

I thought it was kind of telling when Fisher said the Jets’ defense is complex when answering a question about why Keenum is the starter for this game. To me, (and I may be reaching) it sounds like Goff hasn’t yet absorbed the ability to read or recognize defensive alignments or coverages. He does run the scout team against our defense, so maybe they’ve been throwing stuff at him in practice and he’s not been able to identify where to get the ball out to, or when to call protections or audibles. That doesn’t mean he’s worse than Keenum. It means they don’t want to see him get killed.

</theory>

Mackeyser wrote:

What the Dems failed to do is focus on the economy and the real issues.

Bingo.

Instead they launched yet another smear campaign in an attempt to try and sway people’s emotions about the other candidate (both Bernie and Trump). They’re all about emotions. And feelings — not reason — is what liberalism is largely about. Reason asks: “Does it do good?” Liberalism asks, “Does it feel good?”

Billy_T wrote:

X,

First of all, I’m not a Dem. I mentioned that before, remember? I despise both parties, and I voted for Stein.

Second: if you just dismiss an NYT article, which collected those studies, linked to them, and you refuse to look at the studies, then there’s not much point in debating this. You’ve chosen upfront not to believe something that has mountains and mountains of evidence to show it’s true. Yes, strong majorities of Trump supporters have truly odious views on race, gender, sexuality and a host of other topics, and far too many ascribe to nutjob conspiracy theories peddled by folks like Alex Jones. It really doesn’t matter to me if you refuse to accept that. It’s true whether or not you do.

Third: Not saying you’re doing this, necessarily, but whenever I hear someone on the right say “I’m out in the real world,” it’s almost always code for “Stupid liberals!! Come down from the clouds and get a real job! Be like us conservatives! Real, hard-working, independent Mericans, who don’t get help from noboddy nohow, just like Dan’l Freakin Boone!!” If that’s not your intent, please forgive the rant.

Regardless, I wouldn’t take it as gospel that the people you encounter don’t harbor despicable views just because they don’t talk about it. Most people don’t let others know if they hold abhorrent worldviews.

Anyway, I think this is another one of those “agree to disagree” moments.

Hope all is well, Dude.

I know you’re not a Dem. When I point to the polar opposites in response to something you say, I’m referring to dems because that was the only other real option. Stein and Johnson never had a prayer, as you well know. So I’m not addressing or inferring your viewpoints. We can now proceed with that understanding, yeah?

Second: I just won’t read the NYT. I find them to be disingenuous at the least. Corrupt and liars at worst.

Third: That’s not what I meant. I have nothing but respect for anyone who’s passionate about their beliefs and will defend them vigorously. That obviously includes you. When I said “I’m out in the real world”, I meant, I’m out there collecting my own real-time data and not relying concentrated or possibly skewed polling. So, also, understand – going forward – that I don’t view you as someone who’s my enemy or someone who’s delusional or lesser than me. And sure, people I encounter may wear a mask and are only saying what I wanna hear (because I am quite the ominous presence lol). But that doesn’t negate my point that there are people from all walks of life, who are affiliated with both parties, who are horrible and harbor horrible thoughts. I just reject the notion that 25 million hard working Muricans can be put in a basket so neat and tidy-like. And if you think Hillary said the wrong thing there, then why are you trying to qualify it now?

All is always well, m’man.
I’m livin’ the dream.

Billy_T wrote:

Some other links:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-race-idUSKCN0ZE2SW

These charts show exactly how racist and radical the alt-right has gotten this year

The disturbing data on Republicans and racism: Trump backers are the most bigoted within the GOP Racists are more likely to be Republicans — and the most extreme among them are Donald Trump supporters

Thanks, Billy, but I don’t wanna do a whole bunch of homework right now. I’m out there in the real world and I speak to a lot of people on a daily basis. In North and South Carolina. I speak to liberals and conservatives, independents and libertarians, and even some people who couldn’t give a shit about politics at all. I’m not getting a lot of racial overtones out of people I speak to. And usually racists don’t care about offending anyone. They’re kind of proud of it. I’m gonna say that a great many of Trump’s supporters are just tired of being duped. I will say that many people I speak do are in agreement with his immigration policies, though. They want undocumented immigrants to leave, but they’re not opposed to them coming back legally so that they can be vetted (unrealistic) and contribute to the economy (in the form of being tax payers). Would that make them racist? Because that’s the DNC’s very stance on people who take that position.

Billy_T wrote:

As for Hillary’s comment. Judging from surveys taken of GOP viewpoints on a range of subjects, including whether or not slavery should have been abolished, I think her comment was spot on as far as percentages go.

25 million people think that way?

Billy_T wrote:

X,

She at least gave one.

Trump threw hissy fits BEFORE the election was even decided, telling us he was going to take his football and go home if he didn’t win. The whiny little baby said he wouldn’t accept any result unless he won.

(The guy has the emotional age of a pre-schooler.)

So, if things had turned out a bit differently, would he have had enough class to make that speech? I kinda doubt it.

Perhaps, but I also understood what he was talking about when he said those things about the peaceful transfer of power. It was demanded of him to accept any outcome, regardless of how it came to be. Who does that? He was under no obligation to blindly accept the results if it came to pass that there was some shenanigans going on.

I do agree about his emotional development. That, and his lack of tact are the things I don’t like about him. But he started to show some restraint and maturity as the campaign went on. It wasn’t perfect, but it was improving. Gotta remember he’s not a politician. But even that (being a politician) doesn’t mean you’re somehow infused with class and tact. Remember Rubio making fun of Donald’s hands, and implying it had a correlation to his dick? Or how Hillary pandered to her elitist celebrity friends by calling half of Donald’s base (some 25+ million people) deplorables and irredeemable?