Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Presidency

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trump Presidency

    The campaigns are over. The people have voted, the states have finally all been called and Trump is the President Elect.

    The numbers are in: Trump wins Michigan by 10,704
    Kathleen Gray , Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau 1:45 p.m. EST November 25, 2016

    In the closest race for president in Michigan's history, Republican Donald Trump is hanging on to a 10,704-vote win over Democrat Hillary Clinton.

    The Michigan Secretary of State posted results Wednesday that were submitted by the state's 83 county clerks on Tuesday after the votes were reviewed and certified by each county.

    Before that compiled count, Trump held a 13,107-vote lead over Clinton. But after each county certified its results, the lead shrunk to 10,704, with the biggest chunk coming from Wayne County, which showed that Clinton had gotten 565 more votes than originally tallied by the county.

    The state's Board of Canvassers will officially certify the results on Nov. 28. The electoral college in all the states, including Michigan's 16 electors, will cast their votes on Dec. 19.

    ...

  • #2
    Clinton's popular vote lead passes the 2 million mark
    David M Jackson , USA TODAY 7:21 p.m. EST November 23, 2016

    Hillary Clinton's margin in the popular vote against President-elect Donald Trump has surpassed 2 million, furthering the record for a candidate who lost in the Electoral College.

    Thanks to votes still being counted in California and other western areas, Clinton's vote advantage hit the 2 million mark on Wednesday morning, according to Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.

    As of mid-day Wednesday, Wasserman's spread sheet had Clinton at 64,225,863 votes to Trump's 62,210,612.

    Much of that lead was generated by California, where Clinton had 3.7 million more votes than Trump in the last totals reported Tuesday evening.

    The Democratic vote was not distributed well enough across the country, however; Trump carried most of the states and prevailed in the Electoral College.

    ...

    Comment


    • #3
      Wisconsin agrees to statewide recount in presidential race | Reuters
      By Susan Heavey | WASHINGTON


      Wisconsin's election board agreed on Friday to conduct a statewide recount of votes cast in the presidential race, as requested by a Green Party candidate seeking similar reviews in two other states where Donald Trump scored narrow wins.

      The recount process, including an examination by hand of the nearly 3 million ballots tabulated in Wisconsin, is expected to begin late next week after Green Party candidate Jill Stein's campaign has paid the required fee, the Elections Commission said.

      The state faces a Dec. 13 federal deadline to complete the recount, which may require canvassers in Wisconsin's 72 counties to work evenings and weekends to finish the job in time, according to the commission.

      The recount fee has yet to be determined, the agency said in a statement on its website. Stein said in a Facebook message on Friday that the sum was expected to run to about $1.1 million.

      She said she has raised at least $5 million from donors since launching her drive on Wednesday for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania - three battleground states where Republican Trump edged out Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by relatively thin margins.

      Stein has said her goal is to raise $7 million to cover all fees and legal costs.

      Her effort may have given a ray of hope to dispirited Clinton supporters, but the chance of overturning the overall result of the Nov. 8 election is considered very slim, even if all three states go along with the recount.

      ...

      Although Trump won narrowly in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the margins make it highly unlikely any recounts would end up giving Clinton a win in all three states, which would be needed for the overall election result to change. Trump beat Clinton in Pennsylvania by 70,010 votes, in Michigan by 10,704 votes and in Wisconsin by 27,257 votes.

      The presidential race is decided by the Electoral College, based on a tally of wins from the state-by-state contests, rather than by the popular national vote. The Electoral College results are expected to be finalized on Dec. 19.

      Trump surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to win, although Clinton will have won the national popular vote by more than 2 million ballots once final tallies are in.

      Comment


      • #4
        Status of Trump Nominees Updated 1/24/17

        Senate Approved
        Defense Secretary - Retired Gen. James Mattis
        Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly
        CIA Director - Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo
        UN Ambassador - South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley


        Senate Committee Approved
        Housing and Urban Development - Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson
        Transportation Secretary - Former Labor secretary under former President George W. Bush and wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Elaine Chao with no objections
        Secretary of Commerce - Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee voiced no objections to the nomination of corporate turnaround expert billionaire investor Wilbur Ross
        Secretary of State - former Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Rex Tillerson, Approved by Senate Foreign Relations Committee 11-10 along party lines

        Senate hearings complete
        Rick Perry (Energy): No committee vote set
        Wilbur Ross (Commerce): Committee vote Tuesday
        Ryan Zinke (Interior): No committee vote set
        Betsy DeVos (Education): Committee vote Jan. 31
        Jeff Sessions (Attorney General): Committee vote delayed; possibly Jan. 31
        Steve Mnuchin (Treasury): No committee vote set
        Scott Pruitt (Environmental Protection Agency): No committee vote set

        Nominated
        Linda McMahon (Small Business Administration): Hearings Tuesday
        Mick Mulvaney (Budget Director): Hearings Tuesday
        Tom Price (Health and Human Services): Second hearing Tuesday
        Andy Puzder (Labor): Hearing Feb. 2
        Dan Coats (Director of National Intelligence): No hearing set
        Robert Lighthizer (U.S. Trade Representative): No hearing set; Finance committee has to get through Price
        Sonny Perdue (Agriculture): No hearing set
        David Shulkin (Veterans Affairs): No hearing set
        Last edited by BGIF; 01-25-2017, 01:59 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Vbook request: What year of the Trump presidency will there be a sexual assault scandal involving White House interns or staff.

          Put the over/under for his first term at 2.5

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post
            Vbook request: What year of the Trump presidency will there be a sexual assault scandal involving White House interns or staff.

            Put the over/under for his first term at 2.5
            Bill will give him some nice Cuban cigars on Inauguration Day!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post
              Vbook request: What year of the Trump presidency will there be a sexual assault scandal involving White House interns or staff.

              Put the over/under for his first term at 2.5
              Bill Clinton vol. 2?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tko View Post
                Bill will give him some nice Cuban cigars on Inauguration Day!!!
                Meh. Now that they aren't legal it just doesn't seem as erotic.
                Last edited by GATTACA!; 11-26-2016, 09:51 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Wanted to make some vbucks eh BGIF?

                  Funnier than you in 2012.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Trump's team of gazillionaires - POLITICO
                    God, Country, Notre Dame

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ultimate Penn St. Hater View Post
                      As if success is something to be ashamed of. I'd rather the country be managed by gazillionaires than auto mechanics, but that's just me.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Anyone see the two responses by Obama and Trump regarding Castro's death? Obama was a fucking wet noodle. Trudeau was even worse. Trump was the only one to mention what a scummy piece of shit Castro was, with is firing squads and human rights violations. The left still wonders why Trump won
                        “The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war.”
                        ― Hyman G. Rickover

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by wizards8507 View Post
                          As if success is something to be ashamed of. I'd rather the country be managed by gazillionaires than auto mechanics, but that's just me.
                          Is he really "draining the swamp?"
                          God, Country, Notre Dame

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by NDLightning35 View Post
                            Anyone see the two responses by Obama and Trump regarding Castro's death? Obama was a fucking wet noodle. Trudeau was even worse. Trump was the only one to mention what a scummy piece of shit Castro was, with is firing squads and human rights violations. The left still wonders why Trump won
                            Yeah, people white washing Fidel Castro (and guys like Che Guevara over the years, too) really bothers me. Anyone who has known a Cuban immigrant knows that his reign of terror on that island is nothing to applaud on any level. For some reason, the far left is obsessed with turning these horrible human beings into sympathetic causes while taking people like Thomas Jefferson and saying "he wasn't great, he was evil because he owned slaves." Blows my goddamn mind.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Ultimate Penn St. Hater View Post
                              Is he really "draining the swamp?"
                              Is he supposed to pick poors?
                              Based Mullet Kid owns

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                Yeah, people white washing Fidel Castro (and guys like Che Guevara over the years, too) really bothers me. Anyone who has known a Cuban immigrant knows that his reign of terror on that island is nothing to applaud on any level. For some reason, the far left is obsessed with turning these horrible human beings into sympathetic causes while taking people like Thomas Jefferson and saying "he wasn't great, he was evil because he owned slaves." Blows my goddamn mind.
                                You have to break a few eggs or something

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Trump’s education secretary pick supported anti-gay causes - POLITICO
                                  God, Country, Notre Dame

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                    Yeah, people white washing Fidel Castro (and guys like Che Guevara over the years, too) really bothers me. Anyone who has known a Cuban immigrant knows that his reign of terror on that island is nothing to applaud on any level. For some reason, the far left is obsessed with turning these horrible human beings into sympathetic causes while taking people like Thomas Jefferson and saying "he wasn't great, he was evil because he owned slaves." Blows my goddamn mind.
                                    What would Cuba look like today if Batista had not been removed from power? Now, if the US had chosen engagement with Castro over almost immediate regime change and antagonism (invasion, multiple assasination attempts and decades of sanctions) immediately after the revolution maybe that allows for a less oppressive government to develop.
                                    Last edited by Bluto; 11-26-2016, 08:24 PM.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by Bluto View Post
                                      What would Cuba look like today if Batista had not been removed from power? Now, if the US had chosen engagement with Castro over almost immediate regime change and antagonism (invasion, multiple assasination attempts and decades of sanctions) immediately after the revolution maybe that allows for a less oppressive government to develop.
                                      I really don't know how his actions can be excused with "well, if other people hadn't..."

                                      The United States was antagonistic with him for a reason. He is solely responsible for being a brutal dictator... no one forced him to behave the way he did after rising to power. No one forced him to be Marxist enriching himself/his family to the detriment of his citizens. No one forced him to let Russia put missile sites on his island. No one forced him to silence dissidents, stomp on human rights, and cause (directly or indirectly) the needless death of his "comrades."

                                      He made those decisions of his own volition and they're indefensible.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Your witch hunt is silly.
                                        Based Mullet Kid owns

                                        Comment


                                        • #21
                                          From that very article:
                                          However, a top official from Equality Michigan, a gay rights group from DeVos' home state, believes her personal views aren’t accurately reflected by her family’s past donations and expresses hope she will protect LGBT kids — while also noting plans to watch her actions.
                                          So basically... she's three degrees of separation from doing a single damn thing that is "anti-gay" despite the headline. So typical. This is crap is why Trump won. People who aren't "homophobes" are really fucking tired of being called homophobes.

                                          I've donated money to the Catholic church. The Catholic church has regularly been painted as anti-gay for its teachings. Does that make me "anti-gay"?

                                          Comment


                                          • #22
                                            Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                            From that very article:

                                            So basically... she's three degrees of separation from doing a single damn thing that is "anti-gay" despite the headline. So typical. This is crap is why Trump won. People who aren't "homophobes" are really fucking tired of being called homophobes.

                                            I've donated money to the Catholic church. The Catholic church has regularly been painted as anti-gay for its teachings. Does that make me "anti-gay"?
                                            I mean I didn't see where it called her a homophobe?

                                            When someone is nominated with almost no experience (she's basically a lobbyist for charter schools) you kind of have to read the tea leaves a little bit to get a sense of what they're going to do since no sane person is going to say more than they need to before/during confirmation. This:

                                            DeVos and her husband have given hundreds of thousands to Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group whose founder called the battle against LGBT rights a "second civil war," according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The group has also pushed so-called “conversion therapy” — discredited practices aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation — according to the Human Rights Campaign.

                                            DeVos’ ties to a group that pushes “conversion therapy” is “most alarming,” and DeVos needs to clarify her stance on the practice, Griffin said.

                                            “If Betsy DeVos is to serve as our nation's Secretary of Education, she must clarify whether she shares her family's support for this abusive practice, or if she'll pledge to work to ban it,” he said.
                                            is a pretty reasonable thing for gay rights advocates to be nervous about, I think.

                                            Comment


                                            • #23
                                              For what it's worth, I don't think she has to pledge to work to ban conversion therapy, because I don't see how that's within the scope of the job. I do think gay rights groups should absolutely try to get her on the record on stances that concern them (equal treatment for LGBT teachers and students, anti harassment programs, etc...)

                                              Comment


                                              • #24
                                                Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                I mean I didn't see where it called her a homophobe?
                                                Not in those words, but it says "supported anti-gay causes" which is implicitly the exact same thing.

                                                As you read, the article doesn't back up that headline.

                                                is a pretty reasonable thing for gay rights advocates to be nervous about, I think.
                                                Meh, maybe. Not any more than it is for conservatives to act ridiculous about Planned Parenthood funding. Just because the Government funds Planned Parenthood doesn't mean they "subsidize the murder of babies"... but that's the rhetoric you routinely see from conservatives. This is the exact same shit. She is not on record anywhere as personally supporting a single "anti-gay cause"... there is no evidence that she's trying to enact any sort of bigoted legislation... but because of a tangential donation link, Politico is going to run that headline which is all most people will actually read.

                                                Comment


                                                • #25
                                                  Originally posted by greyhammer90 View Post
                                                  Wanted to make some vbucks eh BGIF?
                                                  My sole motivation was moving on from a contentious campaign to the acknowledgement that all the states had counted their votes and that the primary opponent in the election, Hillary Clinton, had conceded the election. As she noted in the presidential debates, for 240 years the candidates have accepted the results. It's time to move on.

                                                  As far as any pecuniary compensation attached to the opening of a timely topic, I will defer to the rules of the board.

                                                  Comment


                                                  • #26
                                                    Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                    I really don't know how his actions can be excused with "well, if other people hadn't..."

                                                    The United States was antagonistic with him for a reason. He is solely responsible for being a brutal dictator... no one forced him to behave the way he did after rising to power. No one forced him to be Marxist enriching himself/his family to the detriment of his citizens. No one forced him to let Russia put missile sites on his island. No one forced him to silence dissidents, stomp on human rights, and cause (directly or indirectly) the needless death of his "comrades."

                                                    He made those decisions of his own volition and they're indefensible.
                                                    Actually the primary reason the US was antagonistic towards him was he disagreed with the US economic hegemony as it existed in the late 50's early 1960's. It had nothing to do with treating people kindly or poorly. The US has a pretty bad track record of backing brutal regimes in the Americas that even went so far as killing Catholic clergy. To be frank Castro looks like a choirboy compared to many of the juntas and scumbags the US went all in with during that same time period. So if we were willing to engage with regimes with total shit bags who were offing nuns and priests then why not with Castro? The most current example of this disgusting double standard is our long standing alignment with what is one of the most oppressive and brutal governments in modern times, Saudi Arabia.
                                                    Last edited by Bluto; 11-27-2016, 01:42 AM.

                                                    Comment


                                                    • #27
                                                      Originally posted by Bluto View Post
                                                      Actually the primary reason the US was antagonistic towards him was he disagreed with the US economic hegemony as it existed in the late 50's early 1960's. It had nothing to do with treating people kindly or poorly. The US has a pretty bad track record of backing brutal regimes that even go so far as killing Catholic clergy. The most current example of this is our long standing alignment with what is one of the most oppressive and brutal governments in modern times (Saudi Arabia).
                                                      I understand basic history. And "disagreed with US economic hegemony" is a hilarious way of rephrasing "openly and vehemently opposed the United States while allying himself with our direct enemies and threatening the safety of the country."

                                                      You say we could've "chosen engagement with Castro" that it could've maybe "a less oppressive government." I'm sorry but I won't get on board with blaming his choices as dictator on the country that said "hmm, we're not going to support this guy and are going to try to remove him immediately." That's like blaming Stalin's brutality on those pesky citizens and foreign influences that "forced" him to be so paranoid... maybe if they hadn't been against him, he wouldn't have had to be such an oppressive dictator...

                                                      I refuse to be an apologist for a mass murder whose crimes against humanity can literally fill a novel. Fuck that. And it's shameful how many people like Trudeau, etc. are white washing his history and pretending he was anything other than an unrepentant monster who is hopefully burning in hell at the moment.

                                                      Comment


                                                      • #28
                                                        Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                        I understand basic history. And "disagreed with US economic hegemony" is a hilarious way of rephrasing "openly and vehemently opposed the United States while allying himself with our direct enemies and threatening the safety of the country."

                                                        You say we could've "chosen engagement with Castro" that it could've maybe "a less oppressive government." I'm sorry but I won't get on board with blaming his choices as dictator on the country that said "hmm, we're not going to support this guy and are going to try to remove him immediately." That's like blaming Stalin's brutality on those pesky citizens and foreign influences that "forced" him to be so paranoid... maybe if they hadn't been against him, he wouldn't have had to be such an oppressive dictator...

                                                        I refuse to be an apologist for a mass murder whose crimes against humanity coan literally fill a novel. Fuck that. And it's shameful how many people like Trudeau, etc. are white washing his history and pretending he was anything other than an unrepentant monster who is hopefully burning in hell at the moment.
                                                        Castro didn't immediately align himself with anybody and to say he aligned Cuba with anyone immediately following the overthrow of Batista is rediculous. Look if you don't believe the US put economic interests above and beyond anything else as far as its foreign policy in the Americas is concerned (including killing Catholic clergy and raping nuns) that's fine. My underlying point is the US went all in with all kinds of scumbag dictators in the Americas and it is a fact that the only reason Castro (arguably the most benign of the bunch) is some big bad bogey man is he gave the US the finger when it came to economic issues. If you want to be a social justice warrior against oppressive governments in the Americas I will applaud that, however the sad truth is Castro and his cronies were choir boys compared to many of the US backed regimes.
                                                        Last edited by Bluto; 11-27-2016, 02:06 AM.

                                                        Comment


                                                        • #29
                                                          Originally posted by Bluto View Post
                                                          Castro didn't immediately align himself with anybody and to say he aligned Cuba with anyone immediately following the overthrow of Batista is rediculous.
                                                          He took over in the beginning of 1959. By that summer, he had installed a Marxist government effectively aligning himself with the Soviet Union. By 1960, he was fully aligned with our most staunch enemy and pushing anti-US rhetoric. So what is your definition of immediately?

                                                          Comment


                                                          • #30
                                                            Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                            He took over in the beginning of 1959. By that summer, he had installed a Marxist government effectively aligning himself with the Soviet Union. By 1960, he was fully aligned with our most staunch enemy and pushing anti-US rhetoric. So what is your definition of immediately?

                                                            Nope. Revolution effectively ended in early 59. He traveled to the US in late 59 and stated that he wanted to work with the US. The seizure of holdings of US corporate interests prompts US government to go all in on defining Cuban government as some big bad boogeyman. 1960 US places embargo and green lights Bay of Pigs. Bay of Pigs occurs in 61. This kind of stuff is par for the course with US Foreign policy and its not anti US it's anti kleptocracy. So yeah, immediately would be a year or two into the change from Batista to Castro.
                                                            Last edited by Bluto; 11-27-2016, 03:31 PM.

                                                            Comment


                                                            • #31
                                                              Originally posted by Bluto View Post
                                                              Nope. Revolution effectively ended in late 59. He traveled to the US in late 59 and stated that he wanted to work with the US.
                                                              Nope. Actually had to go to Wikipedia, because your sheer confidence in your "facts" had me second guessing.

                                                              On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba.[127] In April he visited the U.S. on a charm offensive where he met Vice President Richard Nixon, whom he instantly disliked. Although refusing to categorize his regime as socialist and repeatedly denying being a communist, Castro appointed Marxists to senior government and military positions. Most notably, Che Guevara became Governor of the Central Bank and then Minister of Industries. Appalled, Air Force commander Pedro Luis Díaz Lanz defected to the U.S.[134] Although President Urrutia denounced the defection, he expressed concern with the rising influence of Marxism. Angered, Castro in turn announced his resignation as Prime Minister, blaming Urrutia for complicating government with his "fevered anti-Communism". Over 500,000 Castro-supporters surrounded the Presidential Palace demanding Urrutia's resignation, which he submitted. On July 23, Castro resumed his Premiership and appointed Marxist Osvaldo Dorticós as President.
                                                              So he becomes PM in April 1959, visits the US in April, then visits a bunch of other countries and immediately pivots by 1960 to the USSR. In less than a year he aligns with our biggest enemy. But you say "Castro didn't immediately align himself with anybody"... ??? It's all right there, documented in history.

                                                              Rest of your timeline from 1960 onward is correct.

                                                              If you want to sympathize with a mass murdering brutal dictator who oppressed a nation of people for his own enrichment and power that's your call. You and Trudeau can be the co-Presidents of the "Oppression and Murder is OK as Long as the Dictator is a Lefty" fan club.

                                                              Comment


                                                              • #32
                                                                Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                                If you want to sympathize with a mass murdering brutal dictator who oppressed a nation of people for his own enrichment and power that's your call. You and Trudeau can be the co-Presidents of the "Oppression and Murder is OK as Long as the Dictator is a Lefty" fan club.
                                                                Do you think Batista was a good guy?

                                                                The Fidel question is an interesting one because it mirrors plenty of other Cold War conflicts. The US supported a repressive dictator, a civil war ensued and a dictator who wasn't under an American thumb rose and we claimed we're simply fighting the good fight for democracy and capitalism...

                                                                Fidel Castro & Friends beat a murdering dictator backed by the US. It has been estimated that Batista killed ~20,000 Cubans in the 1950s. It simply wasn't a peachy time on the island under American influence, that can be said for most of Latin America.

                                                                Economically plenty of Cubans were unhappy with the situation that they saw as American mercantilism:

                                                                Secondly, in a manner certain to antagonize the Cuban people, we used the influence of our Government to advance the interests of and increase the profits of the private American companies, which dominated the island's economy. At the beginning of 1959 U.S. companies owned about 40 percent of the Cuban sugar lands - almost all the cattle ranches - 90 percent of the mines and mineral concessions - 80 percent of the utilities - and practically all the oil industry - and supplied two-thirds of Cuba's imports.

                                                                Of course, our private investment did much to help Cuba. But our action too often gave the impression that this country was more interested in taking money from the Cuban people than in helping them build a strong and diversified economy of their own. [Sauce.]
                                                                As for allying with the USSR, what do you expect? Cuba is an island like 100 miles from the greatest power in history, which it had antagonized by nationalizing its corporations' holdings. Allying itself with the USSR was a way to prevent an American invasion. Obviously it's understandable that Americans would shake their head and being buddies with the Soviets, but then again most Americans don't know the history of American influence in the Caribbean/Latin America. I think there is an argument to be made that Cuba found itself between a rock and a hard place as a key piece in the Cold War feud.

                                                                Ultimately Fidel Castro gets an asterisk from many on the Left because during his time in power there was a real commitment to health care and education for his people and both Cuban systems outclass their Caribbean counterparts. How many dictators has the US supported who didn't give a flying fuck about any of that? That's why he gets an asterisk. That doesn't mean, at all, that the Left has excused his political repression and all of the murders, which are of course deplorable.
                                                                Last edited by Buster Bluth; 11-27-2016, 02:31 PM.

                                                                Comment


                                                                • #33
                                                                  Originally posted by NDLightning35 View Post
                                                                  Anyone see the two responses by Obama and Trump regarding Castro's death? Obama was a fucking wet noodle. Trudeau was even worse. Trump was the only one to mention what a scummy piece of shit Castro was, with is firing squads and human rights violations. The left still wonders why Trump won
                                                                  Obama is the worst Pres in my lifetime

                                                                  Plus he spent $10 tril with nothing to show for it. Now Trump has to figure out a way to pay back that money

                                                                  Comment


                                                                  • #34
                                                                    Originally posted by Rizzophil View Post
                                                                    Obama is the worst Pres in my lifetime

                                                                    Plus he spent $10 tril with nothing to show for it. Now Trump has to figure out a way to pay back that money
                                                                    Obama isn't even the worst President this century.

                                                                    Obama didn't spend trillions, Obama, Congress and the system (ie obligations that predate Obama) spent trillions.

                                                                    But here's the fun part: under Obama the US deficit has been reduced by more nominal dollars than any President in history. Literally a trillion dollars have been wiped off the deficit. That's because government don't "pay back that money" in a conventional sense, but grow out of their debt, which it has been doing despite what Conservative media outlets are telling you.

                                                                    If you are expecting Trump and the GOP Congress to suddenly attempt to reduce the deficit, you're going to be disappointed. Republicans don't care about the debt, because they know what every economist knows: US Treasury bonds are the safest investment in the world, the cost of borrowing is at historically low rates that incentivize the US, the US has borrowing power the average American can't even grasp, and the debt situation isn't nearly as bad as fools make it out to be.

                                                                    Comment


                                                                    • #35
                                                                      Yeah there's no empirical case whatsoever for Obama as the worst president in any time frame. I mean everyone's entitled to their own subjective opinion but whether you look at economic indicators, approval ratings, or just about any other piece of data available the case just can't be made.

                                                                      Comment


                                                                      • #36
                                                                        Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                                                        Do you think Batista was a good guy?
                                                                        Of course not. And what Batista did has literally nothing to do with how Castro should be evaluated on his merits.

                                                                        Ultimately Fidel Castro gets an asterisk from many on the Left because during his time in power there was a real commitment to health care and education for his people and both Cuban systems outclass their Caribbean counterparts. How many dictators has the US supported who didn't give a flying fuck about any of that? That's why he gets an asterisk. That doesn't mean, at all, that the Left has excused his political repression and all of the murders, which are of course deplorable.
                                                                        And that's crap, because when you read what Trudeau said and what Kaepernick said and what any other their "woke" Far Left Marxist ilk they don't condemn any of the atrocities. If they aren't excusing them, then I don't know what the heck you call those statements about "larger than life" Castro. Any world leader that acts that way is either naive, evil, or a coward.

                                                                        It absolutely boils my blood to see Trudeau lecture the world on ethics and "standing up to hate" and progressive ideals while lauding Fidel fucking Castro. It is hypocrisy at its finest to see the Left lose their minds over Trump's cabinet nominee being "anti-gay" and then say "that Castro sure was a swell guy!" when he imprisoned and murdered homosexuals for their sexual preference and stomped on human rights.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                        • #37
                                                                          Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                          Yeah there's no empirical case whatsoever for Obama as the worst president in any time frame. I mean everyone's entitled to their own subjective opinion but whether you look at economic indicators, approval ratings, or just about any other piece of data available the case just can't be made.
                                                                          Syria / Middle East is on fire

                                                                          The amount of cover ups in the Obama regime is insane. Fast and furious. Benghazi. IRS. Department of justice.

                                                                          Race baiting is at an all time high.

                                                                          50 mil Americans aren't working

                                                                          Economy is at a standstill. Housing market is artificially propped up bc the interest rates are artificially low. When rates go up buying power will go down and housing prices will go down too

                                                                          The use of executive order is through the roof. How can a president use executive order for immigration. It's a mockery

                                                                          Not one person voted for his budget bills

                                                                          10 tril and nothing to show for it

                                                                          He totally disrespected Israel who is our only ally in Middle East


                                                                          Should I keep going? Just bc the A Press is his lap dog doesn't mean he did anything. He passed Dodd Frank and Obama Care. Both of which are dumpster fires

                                                                          Comment


                                                                          • #38
                                                                            Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                                            Of course not. And what Batista did has literally nothing to do with how Castro should be evaluated on his merits.



                                                                            And that's crap, because when you read what Trudeau said and what Kaepernick said and what any other their "woke" Far Left Marxist ilk they don't condemn any of the atrocities. If they aren't excusing them, then I don't know what the heck you call those statements about "larger than life" Castro. Any world leader that acts that way is either naive, evil, or a coward.

                                                                            It absolutely boils my blood to see Trudeau lecture the world on ethics and "standing up to hate" and progressive ideals while lauding Fidel fucking Castro. It is hypocrisy at its finest to see the Left lose their minds over Trump's cabinet nominee being "anti-gay" and then say "that Castro sure was a swell guy!" when he imprisoned and murdered homosexuals for their sexual preference and stomped on human rights.
                                                                            I never once stated any support for Castro. I do however, understand why Castro and to a much greater extent Che are revered throughout much of the region. Now, if Castro being defended by people on the left makes your blood boil I would imagine Reagan's foreign policy in the Americas and the constatnt proclamations of what a great guy he was must really churn your stomach.
                                                                            Last edited by Bluto; 11-27-2016, 03:54 PM.

                                                                            Comment


                                                                            • #39
                                                                              Originally posted by Bluto View Post
                                                                              I never once stated any support for Castro. I do however, understand why Castro and to a much greater extent Che are revered throughout much of the region. Now, if Castro being defended by people on the left makes your blood boil I would imagine Reagan's foreign policy in the Americas and the constatnt proclamations of what a great guy he was must really churn your stomach.
                                                                              Trump won.

                                                                              Reagan was great.

                                                                              Suck a pecker.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                              • #40
                                                                                Originally posted by Rizzophil View Post
                                                                                Syria / Middle East is on fire

                                                                                The amount of cover ups in the Obama regime is insane. Fast and furious. Benghazi. IRS. Department of justice.

                                                                                Race baiting is at an all time high.

                                                                                50 mil Americans aren't working

                                                                                Economy is at a standstill. Housing market is artificially propped up bc the interest rates are artificially low. When rates go up buying power will go down and housing prices will go down too

                                                                                The use of executive order is through the roof. How can a president use executive order for immigration. It's a mockery

                                                                                Not one person voted for his budget bills

                                                                                10 tril and nothing to show for it

                                                                                He totally disrespected Israel who is our only ally in Middle East


                                                                                Should I keep going? Just bc the A Press is his lap dog doesn't mean he did anything. He passed Dodd Frank and Obama Care. Both of which are dumpster fires

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                • #41
                                                                                  Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                                  Yeah there's no empirical case whatsoever for Obama as the worst president in any time frame. I mean everyone's entitled to their own subjective opinion but whether you look at economic indicators, approval ratings, or just about any other piece of data available the case just can't be made.
                                                                                  Oh Yeah???

                                                                                  He's unequivocally the worst President the US has had, since Jan. 20, 2009!

                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                  • #42
                                                                                    Originally posted by kmoose View Post
                                                                                    Oh Yeah???

                                                                                    He's unequivocally the worst President the US has had, since Jan. 20, 2009!

                                                                                    I concede the point.

                                                                                    To paraphrase Zach Galifiankis, for a younger generation of Americans, Trump will be the first white president they've ever had. And that's something.

                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                    • #43
                                                                                      Originally posted by Rizzophil View Post
                                                                                      Syria / Middle East is on fire

                                                                                      The amount of cover ups in the Obama regime is insane. Fast and furious. Benghazi. IRS. Department of justice.

                                                                                      Race baiting is at an all time high.

                                                                                      50 mil Americans aren't working

                                                                                      Economy is at a standstill. Housing market is artificially propped up bc the interest rates are artificially low. When rates go up buying power will go down and housing prices will go down too

                                                                                      The use of executive order is through the roof. How can a president use executive order for immigration. It's a mockery

                                                                                      Not one person voted for his budget bills

                                                                                      10 tril and nothing to show for it

                                                                                      He totally disrespected Israel who is our only ally in Middle East


                                                                                      Should I keep going? Just bc the A Press is his lap dog doesn't mean he did anything. He passed Dodd Frank and Obama Care. Both of which are dumpster fires
                                                                                      You just made Syria's point. Very little data...just feels

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                      • #44
                                                                                        Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                                                        Of course not. And what Batista did has literally nothing to do with how Castro should be evaluated on his merits.
                                                                                        Strongly disagree here. I think Cuba's failures and successes need to be judged against Batista, a hypothetical future remaining in America's orbit, and the greater Latin American situation.

                                                                                        Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                                                        And that's crap, because when you read what Trudeau said and what Kaepernick said
                                                                                        Dude you're way too smart to give Kaepernick any of your attention or think for a moment that he is important. He's a dumb jock.

                                                                                        Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                                                        and what any other their "woke" Far Left Marxist ilk they don't condemn any of the atrocities. If they aren't excusing them, then I don't know what the heck you call those statements about "larger than life" Castro. Any world leader that acts that way is either naive, evil, or a coward.

                                                                                        It absolutely boils my blood to see Trudeau lecture the world on ethics and "standing up to hate" and progressive ideals while lauding Fidel fucking Castro. It is hypocrisy at its finest to see the Left lose their minds over Trump's cabinet nominee being "anti-gay" and then say "that Castro sure was a swell guy!" when he imprisoned and murdered homosexuals for their sexual preference and stomped on human rights.
                                                                                        Well there's a key difference on that gay point: it's 2016, and the United States is a western nation. There is a higher bar in the West than there is elsewhere.

                                                                                        Canada's position has been pretty much the one that the United States has come to adopt: the best way to initiate change and progress is through trade, travel, open dialogue, etc. That's what made the US embargo so absurd (I mean we'll open China and work with them while we simultaneously apply pressure for human rights, why not Cuba? Hint: Soviets and politics.)

                                                                                        But specifically for Trudeau, The Trudeau family has been close to Castro for decades. Castro was a pallbearer at the elder Trudeau's funeral. Trudeau isn't speaking for the Left here, Castro is literally a family friend. There is an American equivalent of being friends with dictators.

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                        • #45
                                                                                          If Obama was so great why wasn't Hillary elected in a landslide? Why are democratic governors down 20% since Obama got elected? He stinks

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                          • #46
                                                                                            Originally posted by Rizzophil View Post
                                                                                            If Obama was so great why wasn't Hillary elected in a landslide? Why are democratic governors down 20% since Obama got elected? He stinks
                                                                                            Because those people aren't Obama?

                                                                                            And who said he was great?

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                            • #47
                                                                                              Originally posted by Rizzophil View Post
                                                                                              If Obama was so great why wasn't Hillary elected in a landslide? Why are democratic governors down 20% since Obama got elected? He stinks
                                                                                              1. Because HRC isn't Obama.

                                                                                              2. Because empirical evidence isn't everything in politics.

                                                                                              3. Because the people who were least happy with Obama have a disproportionate amount of voting power.

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                              • #48
                                                                                                Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                                                                                Because those people aren't Obama?

                                                                                                And who said he was great?
                                                                                                I actually do think he was kind of great but yeah that wasn't my point.

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                • #49
                                                                                                  Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                                                                                  But specifically for Trudeau, The Trudeau family has been close to Castro for decades. Castro was a pallbearer at the elder Trudeau's funeral. Trudeau isn't speaking for the Left here, Castro is literally a family friend. There is an American equivalent of being friends with dictators.
                                                                                                  Right, which is exactly my point.

                                                                                                  There is a big difference between managing a relationship with a country and a leader who is less-than-desirable for diplomatic reasons... and being personally supportive and friends with someone that by all objective measures is evil. Trudeau can not self-style himself the moral authority of the West and an anti-hate progressive while associating with and supporting someone like Castro. It's not just a diplomatic strategy, it is being friends with him and everything that implies.

                                                                                                  Consider the David Duke/Trump controversy from when Trump didn't immediately disavow him. Would you or anyone with a brain tolerate Trump being friends with a morally bankrupt person like David Duke? Now realize that the Castro is orders of magnitude worse than Duke in terms of actual oppression he has enacted on people.

                                                                                                  Maybe I'm biased from the Cubans I know but the stories they have is some of the most tragic stuff I have ever heard. And it's Castro's doing. Anyone who is "friends" with that kind of person can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned. What a time to be alive when Trump of all people is the world leader showing moral clarity on this issue.
                                                                                                  Last edited by IrishLax; 11-27-2016, 06:20 PM. Reason: cell phone typo

                                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                                  • #50
                                                                                                    Here's an interesting piece from the Cato Institute circa 1985 that discusses the US relationships with oppressive regimes. Also briefly talks about Cuba.

                                                                                                    https://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa058.html

                                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                                    Adsense

                                                                                                    Collapse
                                                                                                    Working...
                                                                                                    X