Trannies for Trump

[Ben in LA]

This popped up on my Twitter feed. Comments from the peanut gallery are most welcome.

"Yes, that’s right — a growing number of transsexuals are coming round to the hottest, coolest, most charismatic Presidential candidate in recent memory. And why wouldn’t they? Particularly if you’re a male-to-female tranny, I expect Trump is irresistible — as he is for me."

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/05/16/trannies-for-trump/

[filghy2]

There also were 'Jews for Hitler', apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews

Even if everything she's said about past his past words and actions was correct, the man has a very long history of inconsistencies and reversals http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801

[christianxxx]

comparing trump to hitler should get you permabanned for being a fucking idiot

[bassman2546]

I agree. Hitler was a lot fucking smarter.

[giovanni_hotel]

There also were 'Jews for Hitler', apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews

Even if everything she's said about past his past words and actions was correct, the man has a very long history of inconsistencies and reversals http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801

Trump is a con man.
It was revealed yesterday his campaign fundraising money had only a little over $1 million left with very little spent on staff, polling and opposition research, because Trump had developed a scam where nearly ALL the money that comes into his campaign is used to pay himself and his family for services rendered.

It's why Trump gives all his speeches at Trump owned buildings, so the campaign has to pay him for use of his own venue.

Trump is trying to make MONEY off his campaign budget, which is why the deep pocket Republican donors so far have refused to fund his campaign the 10s of millions of dollars he's going to need to run a general election campaign.

This from a guy who said he was worth $10 billion and was going to self-finance his own campaign.

And still people believe this dude is telling it straight.

[nevada64]

Trump is a reflection of the ill-informed American electorate. It is most unfortunate, but I'm afraid we are receiving what we deserve. He disgusts me as well as his bigoted, pea brained minions that follow him. What a country... I never thought George W. Bush could look good in any light.

[APD2]

Isn't Trump socially very liberal and longtime friends of the Clintons? Still not entirely convinced that he's not a plant by Hillary,let alone a serious presidential candidate.....


http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/TrumpBClinton.png







He had Jenna Talackova,the first openly trans US beauty pageant contestant, in his Miss Unvierse contests,a few years back....


944644



http://69.imagebam.com/download/emcCtfuWpitKi0NsHwzzQA/18375/183746716/Jenna%2BTalackova%2BMiss%2BUniverse%2BOrganization %2BUM1kBaWYfoul.jpg

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?65724-I-like-Jenna-Talackova/page2





Anyone else think Jenna shared an odd facial resemblance with Ivanka?

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2016/stylewatch/blog/160418/ivanka-trump-600x450.jpg

[sean1916]

comparing trump to hitler should get you permabanned for being a fucking idiot

HA HA, In no way did your man make that comparison. I believe was trying to say "Some people support stupid shite, even when its not in their best intrest".. Relax with the permaban superstar.

[housekeeper]

The most farcical display of political absurdity that has ever been perpetrated on the American people in the history of the free world. To think that someone with zero political experience, whose only recent claim to fame was hosting a bullshit reality TV show, would be coveted as a legitimate candidate for the presidential seat, the commander in chief.

Then again Bloomie bought himself three terms as mayor, so the most tragic aspect of this story is the fact that it could actually happen, tragic indeed.

[jennieh]

I support Trump.

[sean1916]

I support Trump.

944686

[sean1916]

I support Trump.

is this one of your 5 post a year?

[jennieh]

is this one of your 5 post a year?

Does that in someway lessen the value of my opinion?

[chupapau]

Does that in someway lessen the value of my opinion?

Would you care to elaborate why?

[sean1916]

Does that in someway lessen the value of my opinion?

no no, it just defines your intelect

[sean1916]

Would you care to elaborate why?

yes, please

[jennieh]

no no, it just defines your intelect

At least I can spell intellect. FYI, I prefer to voice my opinions in other ways. I have a Veterans for Trump bumper sticker on my car - next to my pro-gun sticker.

[sean1916]

At least I can spell intellect. FYI, I prefer to voice my opinions in other ways. I have a Veterans for Trump bumper sticker on my car - next to my pro-gun sticker.

That should make the difference, well done lad. very powerful reply

[sean1916]

At least I can spell intellect. FYI, I prefer to voice my opinions in other ways. I have a Veterans for Trump bumper sticker on my car - next to my pro-gun sticker.

Trump & Guns... good luck matey :p

[fred41]

The most farcical display of political absurdity that has ever been perpetrated on the American people in the history of the free world. To think that someone with zero political experience, whose only recent claim to fame was hosting a bullshit reality TV show, would be coveted as a legitimate candidate for the presidential seat, the commander in chief.

Then again Bloomie bought himself three terms as mayor, so the most tragic aspect of this story is the fact that it could actually happen, tragic indeed.

it's also a bad example because Bloomie was a much, much better mayor than the present professional politician DeBlasio.

[christianxxx]

HA HA, In no way did your man make that comparison. I believe was trying to say "Some people support stupid shite, even when its not in their best intrest".. Relax with the permaban superstar.

he did indeed make that comparison and it was patently ridiculous. Comparing anyone in the modern day to Hitler is hyperbolic, fear-mongering, and absolute crap.

[sean1916]

he did indeed make that comparison and it was patently ridiculous. Comparing anyone in the modern day to Hitler is hyperbolic, fear-mongering, and absolute crap.

Sorry, was that post perhaps deleted? Is it one that is not on this thread anymore? when did he "make" the comparision?

[sean1916]

he did indeed make that comparison and it was patently ridiculous. Comparing anyone in the modern day to Hitler is hyperbolic, fear-mongering, and absolute crap.

Could you kindly provide the comparison statement?

[christianxxx]

you can be obtuse all you want, the point is still the same chief.

[sean1916]

you can be obtuse all you want, the point is still the same chief.

I am being very literal… please could you provide the comparison statement that you felt your man should be “permaband”?

[sean1916]

"fear-mongering, and absolute crap" sounds like a trump line

Go on superstar... got that comparison yet?

[lifeisfiction]

It's about to get all political up in here. There both Republicans and Democrats, extreme right and left on this forum, but I argue to have it moved to the political section, because it's election season and it brings out the crazy in people.

[sean1916]

There was only one man asking for some other man to be banned... Permabanned... then called him a "fucking idiot".. He is being a bully, i aint sitting for that.

[sean1916]

Cats gots his tongue i guess. not looking to fight.. he just attack someone for no reason... i am not cool with that.

[fred41]

Cats gots his tongue i guess. not looking to fight.. he just attack someone for no reason... i am not cool with that.

and yet you did the exact same thing right after someone simply said " I support Trump"...nothing else.



...(I may have missed 'reply with quote' the first time and hit 'like'...only mentioned it because it seems awkward to like a post I'm criticizing ...anyway...)

[jennieh]

and yet you did the exact same thing right after someone simply said " I support Trump"...nothing else.



...(I may have missed 'reply with quote' the first time and hit 'like'...only mentioned it because it seems awkward to like a post I'm criticizing ...anyway...)

Thanks for your support. We need to be able to express our opinions without being ridiculed.

[trish]

If the opinion is ridiculous, ridicule the opinion - not the one who opined. If the opined persists, then they too are open to ridicule.

[fred41]

Thanks for your support. We need to be able to express our opinions without being ridiculed.

My stance on the election so far is posted in various threads of the 'politics and religion' section.

I'm not voting for Trump...
but you have a right to voice your support for anyone you wish. I absolutely support that.
but once you state your reasons, there's usually a debate.

[jennieh]

My stance on the election so far is posted in various threads of the 'politics and religion' section.

I'm not voting for Trump...
but you have a right to voice your support for anyone you wish. I absolutely support that.
but once you state your reasons, there's usually a debate.

Thank you for your tolerance!

[filghy2]

HA HA, In no way did your man make that comparison. I believe was trying to say "Some people support stupid shite, even when its not in their best intrest".. Relax with the permaban superstar.

That is what I meant, thank you. Sure I chose an extreme example, but it wasn't meant to be taken literally. It's called satire: "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

Just for the record Mr 'Hyperbolic', I was not suggesting that Trump would put transexuals into concentration camps or have them gassed. Does it not occur to you that your own reaction is just a touch hyperbolic? And how about not calling people a "fucking idiot" just because they express a view you don't like?

It's true that Trump has expressed some liberal views in the past, but he has clearly moved to the right more recently. Why would you trust someone to support tolerance in office when their election pitch is based primarily on appealing to intolerance? I suspect the guy actually has no principles other than doing or saying anything he thinks will advance his self-interest at the time.

[nysprod]

This popped up on my Twitter feed. Comments from the peanut gallery are most welcome.

"Yes, that’s right — a growing number of transsexuals are coming round to the hottest, coolest, most charismatic Presidential candidate in recent memory. And why wouldn’t they? Particularly if you’re a male-to-female tranny, I expect Trump is irresistible — as he is for me."

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/05/16/trannies-for-trump/


While I don't subscribe to his far right agenda, I gotta say the article itself is smart and funny while it hurls insults.

It's subtle in its condescension, like when he denies having an "irrational fear of people who suffer from gender dysphoria" as a way of saying transgender people have a mental illness.

One the other hand I would say he's immersed himself chaser culture, at least to the point of knowing the terms "batshit" and "pass" lol

[DeezNuts515]

is this one of your 5 post a year?

Do you know how to NOT double post? I don't think I've seen you post a single post reply on any thread yet.

[trish]

Thank you for your tolerance!
No, thank you - for supporting Trump's intolerance.

[giovanni_hotel]

I suspect the guy actually has no principles other than doing or saying anything he thinks will advance his self-interest at the time.


This is what makes Trump IMO a very dangerous proposition as the next POTUS.
He has no core values. Never has. Trump believes EVERYTHING is transactional, something to be negotiated for his advantage.

His final goal is self-enrichment.
What's in it for him and how can he game the system.

However the conservatives are swallowing him whole, convincing themselves a billionaire who's never put his skin in the game for a cause other than himself, is suddenly going to become this populist hero fighting for the middle class and American jobs.

LOL.

Once the king makers get in Donald's ear and show him how he can really get rich by making the right deals in the Oval Office, all these Trump devotees are going to convince themselves they never really voted for him.

[Stavros]

The most farcical display of political absurdity that has ever been perpetrated on the American people in the history of the free world. To think that someone with zero political experience, whose only recent claim to fame was hosting a bullshit reality TV show, would be coveted as a legitimate candidate for the presidential seat, the commander in chief.

Then again Bloomie bought himself three terms as mayor, so the most tragic aspect of this story is the fact that it could actually happen, tragic indeed.

Surely the key point is that in the USA anyone can become President? I write from a country where we do not, and for the foreseeable future will not have the right to elect our Head of State, or the upper chamber of our Parliament. I can't vote in the US and I think Trump is an idiot, but he is an American and has as much right to run for the White House as you do. Maybe you should give it a shot.

PS Nobody needs compare Trump to Hitler when there are plenty of Americans to compare him to.

[BLKGSXR]

HBO's John Oliver had a pretty dope skit about how Trump really pays for his campaign...

[broncofan]

I am convinced the people who support Trump do not listen to the things he says. One would expect any candidate who mocks a former prisoner of war, mimics the movements of a disabled man, or accuses Mexicans of being rapists would have no shot at the presidency. But he has a certain bluster that appeals to people...

Yet I find him obnoxious not purely because of ideology but because he shows a striking lack of competency. In interviews he appears to not only have a poor grasp of public policy but to barely understand how our government works. He has now had months to discuss these matters with advisors and he's still clueless because he's too arrogant to take advice. He's more articulate than Sarah Palin (the average toddler is), but he's not any more informed.

Let's hope he loses in the general election and we can forget that he was even a mainstream candidate. And while I don't want to openly mock anyone for supporting him, I do urge his supporters to listen to any extemporaneous remarks he's made about foreign or domestic policy. If he knows nothing about the world, how can he solve today's problems?

[broncofan]

One would expect any candidate who mocks a former prisoner of war
I'd like to target this one because I've heard conservatives attack the patriotism of Democrats from time to time.

How is this not disqualifying? I'm not a McCain supporter and voted for Obama in 2008, but there's no way I would have voted for Obama if he laughed at McCain for being a prisoner of war. I'd love to hear Trump supporters explain this one.

Is it not problematic that your choice for President mocked a soldier who was captured, tortured, who refused special treatment, and remains disabled to this day from his captivity? Please explain to me how this does not show an inexcusable lack of respect for our military?

[sean1916]

Let's not mention his misogyny. If any man would condone the absolute discustiing way he treats women, well I hope you think of your mother , sister, wife, or gf. This man is a bigot. Those are the old days.

Most of us are beyond this fear mongering and bigotry.

Let's hope peace prevales.

[sean1916]

That is what I meant, thank you. Sure I chose an extreme example, but it wasn't meant to be taken literally. It's called satire: "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

Just for the record Mr 'Hyperbolic', I was not suggesting that Trump would put transexuals into concentration camps or have them gassed. Does it not occur to you that your own reaction is just a touch hyperbolic? And how about not calling people a "fucking idiot" just because they express a view you don't like?

It's true that Trump has expressed some liberal views in the past, but he has clearly moved to the right more recently. Why would you trust someone to support tolerance in office when their election pitch is based primarily on appealing to intolerance? I suspect the guy actually has no principles other than doing or saying anything he thinks will advance his self-interest at the time.

You are right mate, wonder how many partners Christian would have to film with if trump got into office.

[sean1916]

Walls and all

[SP27]

This is what makes Trump IMO a very dangerous proposition as the next POTUS.
He has no core values. Never has. Trump believes EVERYTHING is transactional, something to be negotiated for his advantage.

His final goal is self-enrichment.
What's in it for him and how can he game the system.

That definition .... fits Hillary to a T.

3rd party canidates ftw in '16

[giovanni_hotel]

People forget that when McCain was a prisoner of war at the Hanoi Hilton, he was given chance to go home early but CHOSE to stay with the rest of his American soldiers.

I don't agree with hardly anything McCain believes when it comes to domestic and foreign policy and I suspect his alleged incompetence as a pilot was part of the reason his F1 got shot down, but McCain's record as a POW IMO is unassailable.

When the man was tested as a POW, he stood up as a hero.

The fact the Republican party pisses on military service nowadays and allows any major presidential candidate to attack McCain's war record tells me as an observer the GOP is on the verge of imploding.

[giovanni_hotel]

That definition .... fits Hillary to a T.

3rd party canidates ftw in '16


At least Hillary has a career record to contradict this assertion.
Trump has for the most part done NOTHING in his entire life that didn't accrue some benefit to himself.

Trump first made headlines in the early 1970s because he wouldn't allow Blacks to rent from his properties.smh.

The GOP is supporting a fox to be in control of the hen house.
If Trump is elected, I promise you he will bump Nixon, Truman and Dubya as the biggest presidential failures in U.S. history.

As broncofan already explained, Trump doesn't know how the federal government works, believes our entire bureaucracy is filled with incompetents, and has no desire to LEARN how all three branches of government are supposed to work in concert together.

A recipe for disaster.

[SP27]

At least Hillary has a career record to contradict this assertion.
Trump has for the most part done NOTHING in his entire life that didn't accrue some benefit to himself.

Trump first made headlines in the early 1970s because he wouldn't allow Blacks to rent from his properties.smh.

The GOP is supporting a fox to be in control of the hen house.
If Trump is elected, I promise you he will bump Nixon, Truman and Dubya as the biggest presidential failures in U.S. history.

As broncofan already explained, Trump doesn't know how the federal government works, believes our entire bureaucracy is filled with incompetents, and has no desire to LEARN how all three branches of government are supposed to work in concert together.

A recipe for disaster.

How is that going to be any worse than Hillary placing a "FSBO" sign on the white house lawn the day after she gets elected? (and yes, i believe she will be elected.) Guess it will be business as usual for her. Can't wait for graft and corruption to hit epic proportions after 11/16.

I am not arguing for trump. don't try to paint me in that light. But I am also not supporting hillary. I think she is even more venal and malicious than Trump. She is not a good person.

enough politics for me... peace out.

[Torris]

Hermaphrodites for Hellary
Ladyboys for Bernie
Shemales for Stein

[nysprod]

Let's not mention his misogyny. If any man would condone the absolute discustiing way he treats women, well I hope you think of your mother , sister, wife, or gf.

Oh give me a break, this entire forum is based on objectification lol

[sean1916]

Oh give me a break, this entire forum is based on objectification lol

😁, not sure if I agree with that. However, none of us here are running for President

[WendyWilliams]

As a Transsexual woman I could NOT vote for a man who wants to add a conservative to the Supreme Court, over turn Gay Marriage, and has the temper of a 5 year old. Is Hillary the perfect candidate? NO but she at least stands for LGBT rights (she has evolved), would not put someone on the Supreme Court who thinks the Bible is the only thing important when making social judgements and has Bill Clinton whom I think is one of the best Presidents we have ever had.

Though I disagree with both on some issues I could not in good conscious sleep knowing this man has his finger on the red button or dealing with other countries one on one. I do however think he would be a good deal maker with trade etc but he just scares me.

As a Trans woman I am Team Hillary!

[alpha2117]

he did indeed make that comparison and it was patently ridiculous. Comparing anyone in the modern day to Hitler is hyperbolic, fear-mongering, and absolute crap.

Look I agree it's hyperbole but the problem is that it's worryingly close to the mark

Hitler was a charismatic egotist who played on the fears and insecurities of the far right and targeting minorities as the problem during a difficult time for the world and when given too much power ran amok

On the other hand Trump currently is just a charismatic egotist playing on the fears and insecurities of the far right and targeting minorities as the problem in a difficult time for the world who as of now doesn't have any real power.

If he gets power he may well be utterly benign - the concern is that if he get power he may not be benign!

I don't know about you but I'd rather not find out either way. I doubt he would turn into Hitler but if you look at his statements there's a possibility he could turn into something just as bad in a different way
For me the thing that was most worrisome was his statement that he would just keep spending and if they ran out of money he'd do what he's done in the past and make a deal - in other words he'd send the US bankrupt and rely on the assumption that the rest of the world couldn't afford to let the US economy collapse - he's the exact opposite of a fiscal conservative - he's effectively a high 20 something college chick maxing out her daddies credit cards and hoping he'll bail her out of trouble.

The only time in the last 50 years the US was in surplus was 2 years under Bill Clinton so whilst Hillary creeps me out a bit I'm going to make a guess that she'll at least try not to send the world into the next great depression.

People shouldn't compare Trump to Hitler but they definitely should point out he's a dangerous individual who should be given absolutely NO power whatsoever.

[broncofan]

. I doubt he would turn into Hitler but if you look at his statements there's a possibility he could turn into something just as bad in a different way
.
I don't like him, but just as bad in a different way? Hitler wrote Mein Kampf eight years before he became Chancellor, so the idea that he was just a populist and gave no indication as to his deep-seated beliefs is not accurate (it's true some people thought he was a buffoon who was bluffing, but he was actually quite clear in his beliefs).

In Mein Kampf Hitler made many references to exterminating enemies, and his enemies were often described in racial terms. He even talked about gassing Jews, though he discussed gassing 15 or 20 thousand Jewish "traitors" (traitors in scare quotes for obvious reasons). In other chapters he discussed the desire for lebensraum and an expansion of German territory through conquest to the east. So the outline of his program was there. The mistake was to not believe he meant what he said, but there is very little relation between the things that Trump and Hitler have said. Trump is an isolationist, where Hitler openly discussed conquest. If you don't believe me, read a couple of chapters of Mein Kampf.

I understand the comparisons of Trump to Hitler in terms of his rhetoric or his ability to whip up the public, but the idea that there are deeper parallels between the two seems absurd to me.

[broncofan]

I know you say at the end of your post that you don't think the comparison should be made, but I think most of the what you write is a comparison.

[Stavros]

Look I agree it's hyperbole but the problem is that it's worryingly close to the mark

Hitler was a charismatic egotist who played on the fears and insecurities of the far right and targeting minorities as the problem during a difficult time for the world and when given too much power ran amok

On the other hand Trump currently is just a charismatic egotist playing on the fears and insecurities of the far right and targeting minorities as the problem in a difficult time for the world who as of now doesn't have any real power.

If he gets power he may well be utterly benign - the concern is that if he get power he may not be benign!

People shouldn't compare Trump to Hitler but they definitely should point out he's a dangerous individual who should be given absolutely NO power whatsoever.

Then why the rubbish about Hitler? The USA is not in economic meltdown, your territory has not been occupied and changed by external powers, you are not obliged to render half of your national income to Mexico, Canada and the Caribbean, you have not lost Hawaii and the Pacific Islands to foreign powers....for heaven's sake, compare Trump to Americans who went before him, be it Batman, Davy Crockett, Paul Revere, John Wayne or Johnny Carson- or William Jennings Brian, Ross Perot, or whichever President takes your fancy. Judge America on American standards, the country with a Constitution and a system of government that has held strong for 240 years and- believe it because it is true- is the envy of the world.

[ElectricWoody]

WOW, look at all the Professional Turd Slingers. I'll start laughing when words are mixed with Hitler, German, Germany, Serbian Nazi, NAZI's, Mexican Immigration and Trump. The world is not a perfect. There are mean and nasty people who live here and if you want to stick your dick in their face, go for it.

[Ben in LA]

Don't hate the messenger...although I do,expect the usual suspects to thumb this post down.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/donald-trump-rhetoric-adolf-hitler-anti-trump-campaign

[runningdownthatdream]

Isn't Trump socially very liberal and longtime friends of the Clintons? Still not entirely convinced that he's not a plant by Hillary,let alone a serious presidential candidate.....


http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/TrumpBClinton.png







He had Jenna Talackova,the first openly trans US beauty pageant contestant, in his Miss Unvierse contests,a few years back....


944644



http://69.imagebam.com/download/emcCtfuWpitKi0NsHwzzQA/18375/183746716/Jenna%2BTalackova%2BMiss%2BUniverse%2BOrganization %2BUM1kBaWYfoul.jpg

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?65724-I-like-Jenna-Talackova/page2





Anyone else think Jenna shared an odd facial resemblance with Ivanka?

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2016/stylewatch/blog/160418/ivanka-trump-600x450.jpg

Damn dude.....two shots, two hits. I'm not American so my understanding of American culture and politics is different than yours (assuming you're American) but the way Trump kept ratcheting up his bullshit time and time again led me to seriously consider that he was really on Clinton's team. I think over time though, as he realized that he had support from certain groups regardless of what he said, he started to think he might actually pull it off. Idiocracy come to life........

And you nailed it with the Jenna/Ivanka comparison!

[giovanni_hotel]

Trump is an opportunist.
He doesn't stand for anything.

He used to be 'friends' with the Clintons because Bill was the former POTUS and Trump believed he had international connections that could benefit his bottom line.

Trump supporters are betting that the Donald goes against type and becomes a champion of the common man and puts their interests before his own socioeconomic class.

Unlikely.
But keep hoping.

I'm saying it right now, if Trump ends up becoming POTUS, this country will be in a recession before the end of his four year term.

Trump isn't Ross Perot, who actually stood for something.

Trump is about fame and money and is going to turn being POTUS into a global reality TV show.
Can you imagine an EMPOWERED Donald Trump with the title of Commander in Chief????

Good night, AMerica.

[AshlynCreamher]

Donald Trump wants to rally us to the standard of excellence we once epitomised.

Donald Trump apposes globalism and supports nationalism. - America First means: "no American will ever again feel that there needs come second to that of a citizen of a foreign nation" he says were going to make America Great Again for EVERYONE.

He wants to invest in infrastructure which is something we haven't really done in decades.

We're going to build a wall to stop the stream of illegal immigration - millions of American children go hungry every day, why would we add to the problem by bringing in people who we don't want or need.

He said he will Strengthen our military, take care of our Vets 'who are incredible people' and bomb the hell out of the Islamic state.

He's going to reopen the coal mines which crooked Hitlary Clinton has vowed to keep the miners out of work. We have an estimated 50 billion in natrual resources on federal land.

Donald Trumps Free Trade policy will encourage businesses to stay in the United States keeping American works employed - Bill Clinton sign NAFTA and crooked Hitlary Clinton will not hasitate to sign TPP into law, which will be far worse than NAFTA

Donald Trumps immigration plan will guarantee a birth in the African American community. Black youth unemployment has never worse than it is now.

The Donald has been a advocate for lgbtq rights in the work place (2000) long before crooked hillary (2003), and crooked hillary? "Don't ask, and she won't tell"

Vote Trump and Thrive!!!

[Stavros]

I think you need to ask yourself how much a President Trump would be able to achieve in a system of government that does not give the President absolute power. Just one example -Obama has been unable to close Guantanamo Bay, and I don't see Congress giving Trump everything he wants. But right now Trump is not the Presidential candidate for the Republican Party and until the party meets in Cleveland in July we do not know who their candidate will be, and don't be surprised if Trump drops out of the race anyway as this whole thing started as a publicity stunt to maintain the visibility of the Trump brand, and he really is only interested in money.

[riccadevia]

Trump is a con man.
It was revealed yesterday his campaign fundraising money had only a little over $1 million left with very little spent on staff, polling and opposition research, because Trump had developed a scam where nearly ALL the money that comes into his campaign is used to pay himself and his family for services rendered.

It's why Trump gives all his speeches at Trump owned buildings, so the campaign has to pay him for use of his own venue.

Trump is trying to make MONEY off his campaign budget, which is why the deep pocket Republican donors so far have refused to fund his campaign the 10s of millions of dollars he's going to need to run a general election campaign.

This from a guy who said he was worth $10 billion and was going to self-finance his own campaign.

And still people believe this dude is telling it straight.
Ummm, really?! So who revealed this..? Source?

[AshlynCreamher]

Ummm, really?! So who revealed this..? Source?

Wacky news? The fact remains that our Donald has invested 53 million of his own money, and unlike crooked Hitlary, he hasn't taken money from wall Street or Saudi Arabia "whom persecute gays.

[alpha2117]

I know you say at the end of your post that you don't think the comparison should be made, but I think most of the what you write is a comparison.

Of course it's a comparison - I didn't make the Hitler statement nor do I think it's a particularly valid argument. What I'm saying is that he's that sort of personality type. It's pretty unlikely he's an insane sociopath like Hitler but he is using similar political tactics and methods to get into power.

My worry with him is that by his own admission he is GOING to send the US broke by spending like a drunken sailor and then make a deal - that is to any rational fiscal conservative a nightmarish scenario.

The worlds economy is already shaky with large parts of South America, Europe, Africa and parts of Asia already teetering on the brink and frankly nobody can afford to prop an economy the US's size up so what that means that if he did spend like he says he will the world economy can only really go one way - a global depression. It would result in 30's levels of poverty in western countries and god knows what in the developing world. The damage could be devastating.

That's one of the reasons why so many republican politicians oppose him - because they know that policy wise he's proposing things that could damage the long term future of the US.

The truth of the matter is both Republicans and Democrats are actually fairly close in terms of basic economic policy. Normally whichever one gets in doesn't really matter long term because they try to keep everything stable. Trump on the other hand appears to be proposing fiscal policy that advocates lunacy.

[broncofan]

It is scary that Trump analogized sovereign bankruptcy to corporate bankruptcy. But the power of the purse in our country resides in Congress. That does not mean he could not spend recklessly but funds are appropriated by Congress and that would be a check on runaway spending. I don't agree that Democrats and Republicans are all that similar fiscally but that's another thread. Perhaps it's something worth discussing in the politics and religion forum.

[giovanni_hotel]

Ummm, really?! So who revealed this..? Source?

Please read the link.
Trump is using his campaign as a revenue stream for Trump Inc.

http://fortune.com/2016/06/21/donald-trump-campaign-spending-companies/

Donald has already said once more campaign donations come in, he's going repay himself for the 'loan' of $53 million he made to his campaign.

Believe in a con man and don't be surprised when you're pockets are empty.
When someone calls themselves the "King of Debt" and describes his debt strategy of NOT PAYING the full balance of any debt owed, which is a big part of the reason Trump Inc. can't get a loan from ANY major bank in the United States, that's called a sign.

Warning.

Brick wall head.

[sean1916]

Please read the link.
Trump is using his campaign as a revenue stream for Trump Inc.

http://fortune.com/2016/06/21/donald-trump-campaign-spending-companies/

Donald has already said once more campaign donations come in, he's going repay himself for the 'loan' of $53 million he made to his campaign.

Believe in a con man and don't be surprised when you're pockets are empty.
When someone calls themselves the "King of Debt" and describes his debt strategy of NOT PAYING the full balance of any debt owed, which is a big part of the reason Trump Inc. can't get a loan from ANY major bank in the United States, that's called a sign.

Warning.

Brick wall head.


Well said.

[giovanni_hotel]

Please read the link.
Trump is using his campaign as a revenue stream for Trump Inc.

http://fortune.com/2016/06/21/donald-trump-campaign-spending-companies/

Donald has already said once more campaign donations come in, he's going repay himself for the 'loan' of $53 million he made to his campaign.

Believe in a con man and don't be surprised when you're pockets are empty.
When someone calls themselves the "King of Debt" and describes his debt strategy of NOT PAYING the full balance of any debt owed, which is a big part of the reason Trump Inc. can't get a loan from ANY major bank in the United States, that's called a sign.

Warning.

Brick wall head.


your pockets,
not you're pockets.

(The edit function on HA should be 24 hours, not 15 minutes.)

[broncofan]

He had to loan money to his campaign as an emergency measure because he's done such an incompetent job of fundraising. He initially said that he does not need other people's money because he's so wealthy, but when you loan money to your campaign you are depending upon other donors to reimburse you.

It also will not help further fundraising efforts because people know their funds have a good chance of being used to reimburse Donald. Lending money to a campaign with the expectation of reimbursement does not create any less of a potential conflict for a politician than doing a competent job of fundraising to begin with.

[broncofan]

http://www.people.com/article/donald-trump-50-million-campaign-loan-donation

Apparently he converted it to an outright gift and it's not a loan. I hate to sound sadistic but it makes me happy that he's had to dump fifty million dollars. Not doing it would really have hampered fundraising efforts which I'm sure he realized. But if he's too incompetent to raise money, why should he be commander in chief?

[trish]

But he's so hugely talented at making deals. Good deals. He promises us. He hears somewhere that Hillary is absolutely corrupt. More corrupt than any politician in American history. Believe him. He heard it. He calls that orange weave his real hair. If you're a pretty girl he'll let you tug on it. It's really woven on there tight! He's so wonderful. He's building a wall. And Mexico will pay for it. Sure we'll have to condemn the private land on which much of it will be built, but Mexico will pay for it. He promises us. Believe him. The blacks love him too. Look, there's one in his audience. Right there. Look. There are just so many bigly (or is that 'big league'?) things about the Donald. His hands are the perfect size, and his dick too, which by the way is not a cheeto. I always wanted to vote in a president who couldn't even keep a casino afloat. Let's bankrupt America, spend even more of our money on the military, make the poor really shit poor and kick some immigrants in the teeth. It'll be fun (until it happens), I promise you.

[sean1916]

But he's so hugely talented at making deals. Good deals. He promises us. He hears somewhere that Hillary is absolutely corrupt. More corrupt than any politician in American history. Believe him. He heard it. He calls that orange weave his real hair. If you're a pretty girl he'll let you tug on it. It's really woven on there tight! He's so wonderful. He's building a wall. And Mexico will pay for it. Sure we'll have to condemn the private land on which much of it will be built, but Mexico will pay for it. He promises us. Believe him. The blacks love him too. Look, there's one in his audience. Right there. Look. There are just so many bigly (or is that 'big league'?) things about the Donald. His hands are the perfect size, and his dick too, which by the way is not a cheeto. I always wanted to vote in a president who couldn't even keep a casino afloat. Let's bankrupt America, spend even more of our money on the military, make the poor really shit poor and kick some immigrants in the teeth. It'll be fun (until it happens), I promise you.

I think i might love you :D

[scroller]

I think i might love you :D

But sir, there is a line.

[yellowtango]

This is kind of too heavy to be in the general chat, but oh well. Overall, it's the lesser of two evils.

[nysprod]

I think i might love you :D

You'll never love her like I do lol

[crystalsopen]

...

3rd party canidates ftw in '16

I agree. So I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77Av3YFfnBk)


due to my fondness for johnsons (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?page=2&term=Johnson).

[JPeterson]

Lesser of 2 evil's

He won't attack LGBT people/ the culture wars are over

Phil Jackson is such a great hire for the Knicks

[Billy Blueballs]

If you are a midget-amputee-transgender-ex-coal-miner-mother-father-sales-manager-veteran-beggar...oh yes, I love you more than anyone has ever loved you and will work for you more than anyone in the history of ever - I mean there's been people...but not like anyone since...maybe there's someone who liked cake too - even apple pie, but they never believed in apples like I do...like I believe in you - I can promise you that, believe me.

What - that was a dude? Fake news! I'll leave this to Mike

[dc_guy_75]

People who were naive enough to support Trump should be forever ashamed for ever supporting such a mentally unstable buffoon.

They should do us all a favor and never vote again in any election.

[giovanni_hotel]

Critical thinking just isn't a prerequisite to be a conservative anymore.

The Donald just kicked the trans community square in the teeth for no practical reason at all, and people still believe this man's bullshit.:screwy

[Aticus100]

It's fascinating (if a little disconcerting) to watch from the outside. I have absolutely no inter st in US party politics but it's incredible to think that, regardless of partisan affiliation, this guy is actualy POTUS.
Outside of the US he really has utterly destroyed the credibility of the office.

[Ben in LA]

It's fascinating (if a little disconcerting) to watch from the outside. I have absolutely no inter st in US party politics but it's incredible to think that, regardless of partisan affiliation, this guy is actualy POTUS.
Outside of the US he really has utterly destroyed the credibility of the office.
But his followers (aka #Cult45) say he's more loved outside of the US than Obummer was :wiggle:

[last_stop]

But his followers (aka #Cult45) say he's more loved outside of the US than Obummer was :wiggle:

The depths of delusion of Trumptards is something to behold. I'm abroad frequently and the general sentiment is that our country has gone completely off the deep end.

[Aticus100]

The depths of delusion of Trumptards is something to behold. I'm abroad frequently and the general sentiment is that our country has gone completely off the deep end.
Completely agree. I don't know a single person outside the US who doesn't think Comrade Trump is a howling fucking loon. It's like watching some kind of ridiculous reality show where the script writers have given up even trying to make it seem realistic!

[Fitzcarraldo]

Completely agree. I don't know a single person outside the US who doesn't think Comrade Trump is a howling fucking loon. It's like watching some kind of ridiculous reality show where the script writers have given up even trying to make it seem realistic!

I think some Aussies like him, but they're likely bogans.

[lordworm]

https://lgbtperspectives.com/2016/02/12/donald-trump-has-shown-his-support-for-transgender-people/

[Stavros]

https://lgbtperspectives.com/2016/02/12/donald-trump-has-shown-his-support-for-transgender-people/

All this link in lordworm's post shows is that he chose to abide by Canadian law, it was not a specific endorsement of any M2F transgendered beauty queen taking part in any of his pageants (he sold Miss Universe in 2015 after his disgraceful comments about Mexicans). He was not going to damage his brand in 2012 by taking sides for or against the contestant Jenna Talackova, all he was interested in at the time was making money from the pageants and -when he could- ogling the contestants in their dressing room (including teenage pageant contestants) and inviting others to 'visit him' in the Tower where he could 'discuss their career options' in private...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/donald-trump-has-words-for-transgender-miss-universe-contestant/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/timeline-of-trumps-creepiness-while-he-owned-miss-universe-w444634

[wearboots4me]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/donald-trump-has-words-for-transgender-miss-universe-contestant/[/URL]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/timeline-of-trumps-creepiness-while-he-owned-miss-universe-w444634

He does that, but his party is the one who impeached Bill Clinton for an affair with a consenting adult. What a bunch of fucking HYPOCRITES they are!

[Ben in LA]

Had to revisit this thread again.


This is what makes Trump IMO a very dangerous proposition as the next POTUS.
He has no core values. Never has. Trump believes EVERYTHING is transactional, something to be negotiated for his advantage.

His final goal is self-enrichment.
What's in it for him and how can he game the system.

However the conservatives are swallowing him whole, convincing themselves a billionaire who's never put his skin in the game for a cause other than himself, is suddenly going to become this populist hero fighting for the middle class and American jobs.

LOL.

Once the king makers get in Donald's ear and show him how he can really get rich by making the right deals in the Oval Office, all these Trump devotees are going to convince themselves they never really voted for him.
This post has been spot-on.


Trump is an opportunist.
He doesn't stand for anything.

He used to be 'friends' with the Clintons because Bill was the former POTUS and Trump believed he had international connections that could benefit his bottom line.

Trump supporters are betting that the Donald goes against type and becomes a champion of the common man and puts their interests before his own socioeconomic class.

Unlikely.
But keep hoping.

I'm saying it right now, if Trump ends up becoming POTUS, this country will be in a recession before the end of his four year term.

Trump isn't Ross Perot, who actually stood for something.

Trump is about fame and money and is going to turn being POTUS into a global reality TV show.
Can you imagine an EMPOWERED Donald Trump with the title of Commander in Chief????

Good night, AMerica.
Another post that's close to coming true.

[Ben in LA]

Donald Trump wants to rally us to the standard of excellence we once epitomised.

Donald Trump apposes globalism and supports nationalism. - America First means: "no American will ever again feel that there needs come second to that of a citizen of a foreign nation" he says were going to make America Great Again for EVERYONE.

He wants to invest in infrastructure which is something we haven't really done in decades.

We're going to build a wall to stop the stream of illegal immigration - millions of American children go hungry every day, why would we add to the problem by bringing in people who we don't want or need.

He said he will Strengthen our military, take care of our Vets 'who are incredible people' and bomb the hell out of the Islamic state.

He's going to reopen the coal mines which crooked Hitlary Clinton has vowed to keep the miners out of work. We have an estimated 50 billion in natrual resources on federal land.

Donald Trumps Free Trade policy will encourage businesses to stay in the United States keeping American works employed - Bill Clinton sign NAFTA and crooked Hitlary Clinton will not hasitate to sign TPP into law, which will be far worse than NAFTA

Donald Trumps immigration plan will guarantee a birth in the African American community. Black youth unemployment has never worse than it is now.

The Donald has been a advocate for lgbtq rights in the work place (2000) long before crooked hillary (2003), and crooked hillary? "Don't ask, and she won't tell"

Vote Trump and Thrive!!!
How's that "advocate for lgbtq rights in the work place" working out for you? Where's the infrastructure investment? Black youth unemployment was already going down under Obama. How are those coal mines doing? And his (and his daughter's) branded shit is STILL made in China.

And don't think we all missed you comparing Hillary to Hitler.

[Torris]

comparing trump to hitler should get you permabanned for being a fucking idiot

Godwin’s law in action

[Torris]

The depths of delusion of Trumptards is something to behold. I'm abroad frequently and the general sentiment is that our country has gone completely off the deep end.

Your smug elitism is EXACTLY how Trump won in 2016 and if you keep it up it will be your fault when he wins re-election in 2020

And I say that as a Jill Stein voter. Not a Trumptard. Nor a Putin bot.

[Torris]

I think some Aussies like him, but they're likely bogans.

Is that local slang for Deplorable?

[Fitzcarraldo]

Is that local slang for Deplorable?

More like "redneck."

[Nick Danger]

Interesting to go back to the beginning of this thread and look at the posting dates. Most of these comments were made back when a Trump presidency didn't seem at all realistic, certainly not inevitable. I can't think of anyone I know who actually thought Trump would win until he won.

There's something about Donald Trump that liberals don't understand - Trump is backlash. Against you, and liberal politics. Liberals are merely intelligent, compassionate, normal people who haven't given the matter of Liberal vs Conservative politics enough thought. You can't have it all. You can't save everyone. It doesn't help people when you give them handouts. We don't need warning labels on our coffee. No, and no, and no, and no - the answer to all your questions is actually "No," but confirmation bias has turned YOUR answer into "Yes." Because you're an idealist.

Trump voters are realists. And they are sending a message - they simply don't want want the politics the Democrats are offering. California is warning enough against too long a descent into liberalism.

Now go ahead, have at me you crazy liberal fuckers.

[Fitzcarraldo]

First, I'm not a liberal. Second, Trump voters are not realists. Yes, he was elected because of backlash, but voting for him was an idiotic thing to do, as he proves daily.

Now call me some names to prove how intelligent you are instead of talking about Trump's lack of qualifications for office.

[filghy2]

There's something about Donald Trump that liberals don't understand - Trump is backlash. Against you, and liberal politics.

I don't think there is much evidence that people turned to Trump because they were sick of "big government". Such people would have been voting Republican anyway, and why Trump rather than a more conventional Republican?

Clinton received around 3 million more votes than Trump, which is hardly a rejection of liberal politics. Also, Trump received a smaller share of the votes than Romney did in 2012. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

There appear to be two main reasons why Trump won.

First, the key factor behind him winning the critical states that were previously Democrat appears to be been less-educated white people concerned about losing their previously-dominant status. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/existential-anxiety-not-poverty-motivates-trump-support/558674/
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/04/26/trump-voters-were-motivated-by-fear-of-losing-their-status

Second, turnout among Democrat-leaning groups (eg blacks) was lower than in the previous two elections. That was probably due to them not being inspired by the candididate rather than any rejection of liberalism.

[Nick Danger]

First, I'm not a liberal. Second, Trump voters are not realists. Yes, he was elected because of backlash, but voting for him was an idiotic thing to do, as he proves daily.

Now call me some names to prove how intelligent you are instead of talking about Trump's lack of qualifications for office.

Not a big name-caller me. When I do call someone a name though, I prefer "miserable wretch."

I'm not clear on what the complaints are about Trump. He fucked a porn star? Good for him! Wants to build a wall to keep out illegal immigrants? Sounds quite reasonable. Shady business dealings? His are simply more public than the other candidates. Huge ego? I'd think that would be a prerequisite for thinking you ought to be President. Tweets too much? Why is that worse than keeping secrets? World's biggest asshole? I want my President to be the world's biggest asshole, but unfortunately I think Putin's got him beat.

Anyway, yeah, country's doing FANTASTIC!! Market's at an all-time high, unemployment at a very low level, every other country on the planet is now scared to death of us, and we're deporting illegal immigrants en masse for the first time in my lifetime.

But gee, we could have had Hillary. If only there were more Americans who actually believed in the liberal agenda anymore. People are getting smarter. I mean, not liberals, they're still living the same fantasy - but people in general, here in the Information Age, are starting to realize that taking care of business is quite a bit more important to this country than taking care of special interest groups or shoving multi-culturalism down people's throats.

Obama had 8 years of liberalizing America. And when it was over, we said, uh yeah, you know what? No.

[filghy2]

Your smug elitism is EXACTLY how Trump won in 2016 and if you keep it up it will be your fault when he wins re-election in 2020

And I say that as a Jill Stein voter. Not a Trumptard. Nor a Putin bot.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't recall you saying a single negative word about Trump on this forum, and only negative things about the other side. And what exactly is your prescription for defeating Trump in 2020?

Also, what is anti-elite about a President whose main domestic priorities have been massive tax cuts for the very rich, taking benefits away from people at the bottom and reducing regulation of corporations?

[Paladin]

He does that, but his party is the one who impeached Bill Clinton for an affair with a consenting adult. What a bunch of fucking HYPOCRITES they are!

It wasn't for the act, it was for LYING UNDER OATH.

[Paladin]

First, I'm not a liberal. Second, Trump voters are not realists. Yes, he was elected because of backlash, but voting for him was an idiotic thing to do, as he proves daily.

Now call me some names to prove how intelligent you are instead of talking about Trump's lack of qualifications for office.

My retirement accounts would tend to disagree with you.

[Torris]

[QUOTE=filghy2;1838725]Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't recall you saying a single negative word about Trump on this forum, and only negative things about the other side. And what exactly is your prescription for defeating Trump in 2020?
——

I don’t come here for politics, but sometimes the shit said by people on this site is staggeringly anti-Deplorable. Those of us who live in Elvis country are really sensitive to people who didn’t vote for Hillary as being called stupid.

My mom, sister, father, brother in law all voted for Trump. They are not stupid and they are not bad people

And as to massive tax cuts for the rich? Maybe you don’t have a job, but my personal take home pay went up about $300 a month. Democrats in my state just upped the sales tax rate. Again. and nearly doubled my water/sewer bill

Take responsibility for Trump’s victory. Or it doesn’t matter who runs against him in 2020 bc your contempt for working class white people will not win you elections outside of the West Coast and North East

[Stavros]

I'm not clear on what the complaints are about Trump. He fucked a porn star? Good for him! Wants to build a wall to keep out illegal immigrants? Sounds quite reasonable. Shady business dealings? His are simply more public than the other candidates. Huge ego? I'd think that would be a prerequisite for thinking you ought to be President. Tweets too much? Why is that worse than keeping secrets? World's biggest asshole? I want my President to be the world's biggest asshole, but unfortunately I think Putin's got him beat.
Anyway, yeah, country's doing FANTASTIC!! Market's at an all-time high, unemployment at a very low level, every other country on the planet is now scared to death of us, and we're deporting illegal immigrants en masse for the first time in my lifetime.


-People, even Americans, have the right to expect that their Head of State will behave in a decent manner, to earn rather than buy respect (which is worth nothing when bought), and that he (or she) will not regularly insult and abuse Gold Star families, Veterans, the Disabled and his own government institutions such as the FBI.

-The rate of unemployment has been falling since the first Obama Administration, so if you want to crow about it, at least slot the Obama years into the frame even if it means your dismissal of 'liberal' politics then appears phoney -which it is.

-Illegal immigrants were deported 'en masse' during the Obama Presidency, so if nothing has changed -other than the aggressive and offensive language used - what was it that 'liberal' government got wrong?

-this thread is about the support for the Confederacy in power that 'trannies' might have been willing to give them, but when it comes to the reversal of 'liberal' policy with regard to transgendered Americans serving in the military, or the 'bathroom' issue, you have nothing to say and as Ben in LA has been pointing out with justification, it seems so odd that people would support a President who acts against their interests that you wonder if they now regret giving their support.

-Finally, you would do well to consider that you are being played by a man who in reality has no interest in the USA but only in himself and the means whereby he can make himself richer than he already claims to be, who makes foreign policy decisions on trade with China that benefit him personally, who takes a position on Qatar that benefits his son-in-law, and that is without including the Russian involvement in his election.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/opinion/trump-china-bribe-national-security.html

This is the most nakedly corrupt Administration in US history but it seems you don't care; but you would do better to show some sympathy for those transgendered Americans being marginalized in their own country with no regard to their patriotism, their bravery, their aspirations -or indeed, their rights.

[filghy2]

And as to massive tax cuts for the rich? Maybe you don’t have a job, but my personal take home pay went up about $300 a month. Democrats in my state just upped the sales tax rate. Again. and nearly doubled my water/sewer bill

Take responsibility for Trump’s victory. Or it doesn’t matter who runs against him in 2020 bc your contempt for working class white people will not win you elections outside of the West Coast and North East

The top 1% will get 83% of the gains from the tax changes. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/18/16791174/republican-tax-bill-congress-conference-tax-policy-center The bottom half of income earners will actually pay more tax after 2025 because their tax cuts expire. Also, the tax cuts are mostly paid for by borrowing and who do you think will pay for that in the long run?

Sorry, but you're being conned by a master conman. Or am I not allowed to point this out because that would be showing contempt?

[BostonBad]

Top 1% pay most of the taxes.

Tax the rich too much and they reduce investment and some will even leave. America should focus on growing the pie rather playing the game of envy. Why be jealous of others. Life is good lets suck some ts dick and be happy.

[Nick Danger]

-People, even Americans, have the right to expect that their Head of State will behave in a decent manner, to earn rather than buy respect (which is worth nothing when bought), and that he (or she) will not regularly insult and abuse Gold Star families, Veterans, the Disabled and his own government institutions such as the FBI.

-The rate of unemployment has been falling since the first Obama Administration, so if you want to crow about it, at least slot the Obama years into the frame even if it means your dismissal of 'liberal' politics then appears phoney -which it is.

-Illegal immigrants were deported 'en masse' during the Obama Presidency, so if nothing has changed -other than the aggressive and offensive language used - what was it that 'liberal' government got wrong?

-this thread is about the support for the Confederacy in power that 'trannies' might have been willing to give them, but when it comes to the reversal of 'liberal' policy with regard to transgendered Americans serving in the military, or the 'bathroom' issue, you have nothing to say and as Ben in LA has been pointing out with justification, it seems so odd that people would support a President who acts against their interests that you wonder if they now regret giving their support.

-Finally, you would do well to consider that you are being played by a man who in reality has no interest in the USA but only in himself and the means whereby he can make himself richer than he already claims to be, who makes foreign policy decisions on trade with China that benefit him personally, who takes a position on Qatar that benefits his son-in-law, and that is without including the Russian involvement in his election.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/opinion/trump-china-bribe-national-security.html

This is the most nakedly corrupt Administration in US history but it seems you don't care; but you would do better to show some sympathy for those transgendered Americans being marginalized in their own country with no regard to their patriotism, their bravery, their aspirations -or indeed, their rights.

Not 100% sure you've got your facts straight, Stavros. I'd like to see some attribution of your claim that Obama deported illegal immigrants en masse, for one thing.

Obama was a good leader. He had/has that quality. Highly intelligent, likeable, funny. He was the President we had but not the President we needed.

It's a corrupt world, Stavros. VERY corrupt. As in, corruption is the norm and altruism is the aberration.

Trump voters know he is corrupt. We know he is a cheeto-skinned, pelt-haired, patently dishonest, egomaniacal, self-serving madman.

But we're okay with that. Because what America needs right now is someone who will serve us by serving himself. That ego of his is his best quality. It won't allow him to fail, and FYI, he is not failing, he's doing an amazing job. He's taking a hard line on trade. He's lying to the American public in order to pass tax cuts for the rich, which is what got us here in the first place - rich, corrupt people want to live in America, and that's what makes us the strongest country in the history of the planet, whatever delusions the poor, uneducated masses might have about manifest destiny or us being "the good guys."

As for Trump's moves against transsexuals, well, it was coming. His voting base is the religious right, he is going to cater to them, and they do not like transsexuals. But this is only token action. How many t-girls do you know who actually want to join the Army, Stavros? How many do you know who have not already worked out the bathroom situation on their own terms? Are these important issues? Not at all, but they seem important to Trump's voting base. Do I care about this? Sorry, I just don't see these things as being particularly important to transsexuals, and I'm 100% certain that the next Democratic administration - however far in the future it may be - will squash all of Trump's anti-gay/anti-trans agenda.

Good post, Stavros, well-written and concise. But unfortunately, none of your talking points are relevant compared to the reality of our country's unquenchable thirst for enriching and empowering itself at the expense of the rest of the planet. That's realpolitik.

[dirtrail]

This man speaks the truth. Calling half the country deplorables and demonizing gun owners is a sure way to win elections!!🙄
Interesting to go back to the beginning of this thread and look at the posting dates. Most of these comments were made back when a Trump presidency didn't seem at all realistic, certainly not inevitable. I can't think of anyone I know who actually thought Trump would win until he won.

There's something about Donald Trump that liberals don't understand - Trump is backlash. Against you, and liberal politics. Liberals are merely intelligent, compassionate, normal people who haven't given the matter of Liberal vs Conservative politics enough thought. You can't have it all. You can't save everyone. It doesn't help people when you give them handouts. We don't need warning labels on our coffee. No, and no, and no, and no - the answer to all your questions is actually "No," but confirmation bias has turned YOUR answer into "Yes." Because you're an idealist.

Trump voters are realists. And they are sending a message - they simply don't want want the politics the Democrats are offering. California is warning enough against too long a descent into liberalism.

Now go ahead, have at me you crazy liberal fuckers.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1838765]

Not 100% sure you've got your facts straight, Stavros. I'd like to see some attribution of your claim that Obama deported illegal immigrants en masse, for one thing.
--Statistically Obama is ahead of the current Administration, but note that 'mass deportations' did not become annual affairs until 1986 and the record under Obama is also due to the way illegal immigrants are defined ('Felons, not families' was common in the Obama era). Thus:
figures released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on December 5th show that the total number of deportations has declined over the past fiscal year—from October 1st 2016 to September 30th 2017—to the lowest level seen since 2006. The data also show that deportation has become less selective in the Trump era.
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/12/14/donald-trump-is-deporting-fewer-people-than-barack-obama-did

and
In his first year in office, President Donald Trump's administration's arrests of immigrants -- especially those without criminal convictions -- were up substantially, but actual deportations lagged behind his predecessor, according to statistics released Friday.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/trump-immigration-arrests-deportations/index.html

The fact check that gives you insight into definitions is here-
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-deported-more-people/

Trump voters know he is corrupt. We know he is a cheeto-skinned, pelt-haired, patently dishonest, egomaniacal, self-serving madman.
--If Americans were aware or accepted that they live in a corrupt economy they were at least able to earn enough to own their own home, send their children to school, pay for health care, have two weeks holidays a year -but the fact is that technology from the 1960s and the off-shoring of industrial jobs to Asia since the 1980s has eroded the income base of the working and middle class, which is where you are now. So why vote for people who claim that the 'good times will come back' and at the same time applaud a liar who promotes policies that do the opposite? He has already reneged on the tariff and sanctions policy on China because it affected jobs back in the USA, the policy has failed before it even begins to take effect.

As for Trump's moves against transsexuals, well, it was coming...Do I care about this? Sorry, I just don't see these things as being particularly important to transsexuals, and I'm 100% certain that the next Democratic administration - however far in the future it may be - will squash all of Trump's anti-gay/anti-trans agenda.
--There are approx 15,500 transgendered people serving in the US Military, I guess there won't be so many willing to serve their country in the future, if they are told they are not wanted, regardless of their commitment. It is in my view callous and offensive to dismiss the issues transgendered Americas face as some sort of 'political correctness' problem around 'trivial' matters like rest-rooms that they themselves -you suggest- do not think are important. Surely the issue, as it has been for many others in the USA, the difference between the equal rights they have under the Constitution and the lack of these rights being met in their daily lives? And is it not also the case that as a small percentage of the US public, it would not take much effort or cost to meet the needs -and the rights of Transgendered Americans, so why discriminate against them?

You may not personally like the President or be fooled by his rhetoric, but you are seeing those around him build on his rhetoric of hate -has any President so constantly attacked, abused and denigrated his own country, his fellow citizens, and American institutions?- build on that rhetoric to cause damage to the US economy, to deepen divisions in US society, to widen the gap between rich and poor, and that in the long term means that this current Republican Administration will cause more harm than good, and that it will take some time for Americans to embrace the changes demanded of the 21st, rather than the 18th century in which so many of the President's admirers seem to live in.

[javier81]

So California exists as a warning of what happens when you descend into liberalism. The world's 5th largest economy. All the 'winning' in the GOP sectors of the country has literally dazed people into mental retardation.

[johncock0]

The problem is that some ppl are so consumed by their ideologies and what they think it's ok or right and talk like they know it in politics on certain topics without showing evidence/statics or something to back it up with. You can tell by the way they comment is full of ignorance. They be drink too much of that kool-aid also.

Kinda fucked up sliding trans-issues/trans rights under the rug! I wonder what you will think if trans porn becomes illegal.

[Stavros]

So California exists as a warning of what happens when you descend into liberalism. The world's 5th largest economy. All the 'winning' in the GOP sectors of the country has literally dazed people into mental retardation.

You cite California as a warning of what happens when you descend into liberalism, but you don't offer as a comparison the insane tax cutting radicalism of Kansas that has all but bankrupted the State so Krazy even the local Republicans are now opposed to it. Yet this is what con-man, crook and liar in the White House wants for all the USA.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/the-republican-blowback-against-sam-brownback-kansas/517641/

What did he say about Africa?


https://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/MjAxMy1kY2Q0Mjg1MGI4OGU1YzA1.png

[Nick Danger]

There are approx 15,500 transgendered people serving in the US Military

That you accept this as fact tells me you have not done much research on this matter, Stavros. That figure comes from a 2014 UCLA study which acknowledges itself that it is merely estimating the figure based on percentages from the general population. It completely fails to account for the alternative lifestyles followed by many transsexuals that certainly do NOT include military service. The Rand Corporation completed a more thorough study in 2017, which sourced from interviews and surveys with actual service members, and came up with the figure range 1,320 to 6,630 transgenders currently on active duty.

Even that sounds like a lot until you consider that there are 1.3 million active duty soldiers in the U.S. Military, meaning that if the lower figure in the range is accurate, we're actually talking about 1/10th of 1% of service members.

Still, is this fair? Of course not. Is it a big problem? I don't see how it is. There are plenty of other reasons people get disqualified from serving in the military, and there are plenty of other paths in life to follow.

Also, the full truth is, there are currently ZERO people in this country who are denied the possibility of serving in the U.S. Military because they are transgender - a tweet from President Trump does not constitute DoD policy.

Bottom line though? When a President is elected by the religious right, he has to give them something. Trump is giving them very, very little. You, Stavros, and others like you who choose to magnify these small matters of military service and bathroom use into matters of great importance, are very helpful to a man like Trump. He loves that so many people are making a big deal out of it, because he knows that his voting base is thinking, "Wow, look at President Trump come down on those gays and transsexuals!!" They fucking LOVE that shit. But in the end, they are getting practically nothing and don't even realize it.

As for Obama's deportation stats, it's pretty common knowledge among those who follow these matters that his seemingly high numbers in this area are due to a change in the definition of "deportation" rather than a particularly high number of deportees. The vast majority of Obama's deportees would once not have been counted as deportations, but as "catch-and-release" cases, in which busloads of Mexicans are essentially driven across the border and cut loose.

Since illegal crossings of the Mexican border are currently at an all-time low after decades of decline, it would be impossible for Trump to match Obama's numbers. UNTIL he outlaws sanctuary cities. When that happens, it won't even be competitive. Not that it's a competition, these are human beings. But illegals are a drain on the economy, and Trump is on that.

Also, Trump is taking numerous steps to bring jobs back to the USA, including cutting corporate taxes, withdrawing from the TPP, renegotiating NAFTA, and personally negotiating with a few corporations to place their operations here. At this point, he is trying to figure out what to do about China, but making threats is a good place to start. We'll see what happens. But whatever you say about him, you can't deny that he has created high optimism for manufacturing in the USA. In a macro-economic sense, optimism tends to translate to jobs and money.

He's been President for less than a year and a half. Give him more time and you may REALLY hate him. But everything he's done so far has been great for the USA, and not TOO awful for our beloved t-girls.

[filghy2]

I'm not sure what rock you've been hiding under Dangerman, but can you please crawl back under it? You seem to be inhabiting the same fictional world as the character in your picture.

It's hard to know where to start, but here's a few points on things I know something about.

1. If illegal border crossings are at an all time low, why is it imperative to spend billions on building a wall?

2. If immigration is bad for the economy, how did the US achieve full employment in the past when immigration was high?

3. Have you never heard of population ageing? In future, there will be fewer working-age people to support each retired person. The US will need more working-age immigrants, not less - in fact, without past immigration the problem would be here already.

4. If government controls are bad, how is it that trade barriers are the exception? Most true free-marketers don't agree with your position.

5. You pointed out earlier that the US is close to full employment. If so, how can foreign competition be costing jobs and how can trade barriers create more jobs? If you think that trade barriers are good for the economy then maybe you should study economy history a bit more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

6. Is Trump's bizarre backflip on ZTE a good place to start in dealing with China? https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/14/17352088/trump-zte-china-trade-war

By the way, there's nothing special about Trump's economic record. Don't believe the hype. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/05/17/trump-lags-behind-his-predecessors-on-economic-growth/

[Ben in LA]

Please don't tell people to "give him more time" when republican leadership literally tried to sabotage Obama's agenda at every turn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc

[javier81]

So, California exists as a warning of what happens when you descend into liberalism? The world's 5th largest economy? All the so-called 'winning' in the GOP sectors of the country has literally dazed those people into mental retardation.

Fixed previously poorly worded post; that made it seem like I support Trump. Insomnia is a helluva drug.

[filghy2]

So California exists as a warning of what happens when you descend into liberalism. The world's 5th largest economy. All the 'winning' in the GOP sectors of the country has literally dazed people into mental retardation.

Yep, the evidence is very conclusive. The blue states are all clearly economic basket cases, while the red states are doing just great. https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2018/03/13/red-states-blue-states-two-economies-one-nation/

[javier81]

Yep, the evidence is very conclusive. The blue states are all clearly economic basket cases, while the red states are doing just great. https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2018/03/13/red-states-blue-states-two-economies-one-nation/

I hear red states have the best schools, too.

[filghy2]

Top 1% pay most of the taxes.

Tax the rich too much and they reduce investment and some will even leave. America should focus on growing the pie rather playing the game of envy. Why be jealous of others. Life is good lets suck some ts dick and be happy.

No, you are thinking only of income taxes and forgetting about payroll tax, sales tax, excise tax etc. It's true that the top 20% pay almost 70% of all Federal taxes, but they also received more than half of all pre-tax income. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/02/the-state-of-the-american-tax-system-in-8-charts/?utm_term=.1b35181229f3

Also, the top 20% and particularly, the top 1% have been getting pretty much all of the income gains since 1980. The top 1% are now receiving more than the bottom 50%. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-world-inequality-report-20171215-story.html

If rewarding the rich produces economic miracles then why haven't we seen those miracles already?

[Nick Danger]

I'm not sure what rock you've been hiding under Dangerman, but can you please crawl back under it? You seem to be inhabiting the same fictional world as the character in your picture.

It's hard to know where to start, but here's a few points on things I know something about.

1. If illegal border crossings are at an all time low, why is it imperative to spend billions on building a wall?

2. If immigration is bad for the economy, how did the US achieve full employment in the past when immigration was high?

3. Have you never heard of population ageing? In future, there will be fewer working-age people to support each retired person. The US will need more working-age immigrants, not less - in fact, without past immigration the problem would be here already.

4. If government controls are bad, how is it that trade barriers are the exception? Most true free-marketers don't agree with your position.

5. You pointed out earlier that the US is close to full employment. If so, how can foreign competition be costing jobs and how can trade barriers create more jobs? If you think that trade barriers are good for the economy then maybe you should study economy history a bit more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

6. Is Trump's bizarre backflip on ZTE a good place to start in dealing with China? https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/14/17352088/trump-zte-china-trade-war

By the way, there's nothing special about Trump's economic record. Don't believe the hype. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/05/17/trump-lags-behind-his-predecessors-on-economic-growth/

So funny that liberals seem to feel the need to insult people who don't accept their ill-conceived and briefly-considered fantasies about the reality of politics. "Crawl back under your rock..." indeed.

I could knock you down point-by-point, but I'm not running for President and I'm not particularly concerned about what you think. Obviously you've made up your mind - "Trump bad! Everything else good!"

But as time goes on and the country continues to prosper under President Trump's leadership - as your insults and piebald interpretations of complex issues begin to ring more and more hollow until they're just a willowy echo in the distance like the cry of the flightless cormorant - I certainly hope you will pay attention to what you are learning, which will be that pragmatism always triumphs over idealism.

:smileysex:

[Fitzcarraldo]

Yes, the president is well known for his pragmatism. He's also a master of subtlety. And the healthiest president ever. And he knows the difference between HPV and HIV.

[Nick Danger]

Yes, the president is well known for his pragmatism. He's also a master of subtlety. And the healthiest president ever. And he knows the difference between HPV and HIV.

He's also got the highest IQ...of all time.

[javier81]

So funny that liberals seem to feel the need to insult people who don't accept their ill-conceived and briefly-considered fantasies about the reality of politics. "Crawl back under your rock..." indeed.

I could knock you down point-by-point, but I'm not running for President and I'm not particularly concerned about what you think. Obviously you've made up your mind - "Trump bad! Everything else good!"

But as time goes on and the country continues to prosper under President Trump's leadership - as your insults and piebald interpretations of complex issues begin to ring more and more hollow until they're just a willowy echo in the distance like the cry of the flightless cormorant - I certainly hope you will pay attention to what you are learning, which will be that pragmatism always triumphs over idealism.

:smileysex:

Wow, you are quite delusional, aren't you?

[filghy2]

But as time goes on and the country continues to prosper under President Trump's leadership - as your insults and piebald interpretations of complex issues begin to ring more and more hollow until they're just a willowy echo in the distance like the cry of the flightless cormorant - I certainly hope you will pay attention to what you are learning, which will be that pragmatism always triumphs over idealism.

Are you for real? Surely you must be a satirical character.

[Nick Danger]

Wow, you are quite delusional, aren't you?

Is that your argument?

[Nick Danger]

Are you for real? Surely you must be a satirical character.

Is that your argument?

[Ben in LA]

So funny that liberals seem to feel the need to insult people who don't accept their ill-conceived and briefly-considered fantasies about the reality of politics. "Crawl back under your rock..." indeed.

I could knock you down point-by-point, but I'm not running for President and I'm not particularly concerned about what you think. Obviously you've made up your mind - "Trump bad! Everything else good!"

But as time goes on and the country continues to prosper under President Trump's leadership - as your insults and piebald interpretations of complex issues begin to ring more and more hollow until they're just a willowy echo in the distance like the cry of the flightless cormorant - I certainly hope you will pay attention to what you are learning, which will be that pragmatism always triumphs over idealism.

:smileysex:

Save this post.

[javier81]

Is that your argument?

It's merely an observation, based on your statements thus far in this thread.

[Nick Danger]

Save this post.

I get it, Ben. I think you'll be disappointed.


It's merely an observation, based on your statements thus far in this thread.

Just saying, Javier, I've made a few points, and you haven't made any. I am totally open to a debate on any political matter, as long as the person I'm debating seems to have at least a 3-digit IQ and isn't relying on the other person (me) reacting to the usual rhetorical insults and sub-intellectual liberal idealism just to continue the conversation.

tl;dr? If you have a point to make, let's hear it. Otherwise, stop wasting my time. It's Friday night and I'm considering a drinking binge.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Wow, you are quite delusional, aren't you?

"He says what's on his mind!"

[Nick Danger]

"He says what's on his mind!"

Most successful people have a filter.

[Nick Danger]

Save this post.

My apologies, Ben, I forgot you were on my side. Got too comfortable being the enemy for a while there.

[Nick Danger]

So in summary...

We, the United States, are involved in a world war of our own making. It's an economic war, and we are winning, have been for quite some time. Since the Korean War, which we categorize as "over since 1953" but in reality is ongoing, we have taken what we want by intimidation and overt, or covert military action.

So we're the bad guys.

But we do have enemies, and they aren't the good guys any more than we are. No one is the "the good guys," everyone is out for their own political advancement.

The USA can do many things at this historical juncture - the apex of our global power; the apex of ANY global power - we are, by far, the most powerful nation in the history of the planet.

We can rest on our laurels (yes, we can), in which case pseudo-communist China or Russia will eventually win the hearts and minds of our citizens. Our way of life - a comfortable, prosperous way of life - will be threatened by insurgency.

We can bring war to the planet (yes, we can), in which case we will cast the globe into endless turmoil as we vainly attempt to eat what we have killed.

We can demand peace (yes, we can), in which case the sleeping nations of the world will be indefinitely subject to the inevitable rise of aggression in hostile rogue countries.

We can adopt a non-intervention policy (always an option), which will end with the rest of the world against us, as the defenseless nations are progressively taken over by aggressive forces.

OR...we can negotiate. I don't really care what anyone THINKS about Donald Trump - there is no denying he is a master negotiator. He knows all the tactics, up to and including this one - "You are dealing with an incredibly powerful yet insane person; you better just do what I want you to fucking do."

The obvious choice is to have a master negotiator at the helm.

And I definitely don't want to deny the proletariat their opportunity to rage against the machine. That is our right as Americans. Everyone is self-motivated, so whatever is important to YOU, well, it should be noted, it should be analyzed, and if others agree with you, there should be an opportunity for a quorum, and for action to be taken.

But there has to be a guy who says Yes or No. I'm VERY comfortable with Donald Trump being that guy. He has an eye on his legacy. He's not going to fuck off the Presidency of the United States of America, he wants to be remembered as GREAT!!

He'll squash the "situation" in North Korea - which is really not much of a situation at all but hey, whatever keeps the people scared, right?

He'll negotiate a reasonable trade agreement with Russian and China - something we have never had.

He'll have his war too. Every President wants his war. Against whom? My guess is Iran. No love lost, and I'm fine with that. I've been to Iran. They don't like us any more than we like them.

In the end, we're looking at a GREAT President, whose main enemy is his own people - people who are far too eager to believe the liberal media (the media's credo: WE are the President), far too prepared to dismiss a great man as a poser, far too inundated in false information.

We've got great leadership in Donald Trump. He may not be the leader you like. He may be too much for many people. "I just can't deal with Trump right now" is the cry heard 'round the country!

But here is a man who has been successful at everything he has done, despite the fact that most people don't find him to be "likeable." Even the people who voted for him.

You don't have to be liked to be President of the USA. You just have to be elected. The citizens of this country are not so stupid that they don't recognize these plain and simple facts.

USA all the way!

And now, I'm done with this thread.

[Stavros]

He'll have his war too. Every President wants his war. Against whom? My guess is Iran. No love lost, and I'm fine with that. I've been to Iran. They don't like us any more than we like them.


In the previous exchange we had you asked me to give your President more time to prove himself, yet he himself says that he has already achieved more in one year than any other President, and that, as a matter of fact -as defined by himself- he is the greatest and most popular President since 1776. There is a word for this, which I believe originated in the USA: Bullshit.

The quote above and the earlier comment in your post that your President is a 'master negotiator' is quite simply rubbish. Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron went in person to the White House to explain why the US should continue to support the Iran Nuclear Deal, but there was no negotiation at all, as your President simply ignored them and made his own decision without even telling his own Secretary of State who found out from Twitter. He has not attempted to negotiate tariffs with China or persuade them to support sanctions against Iran, but threatened them, which is not negotiation; he has not opened negotiations with North Korea -a country that the US Congress has yet to recognize- but threatened them. But when ZTE pointed out that they also had trade links with the US that would lead to job losses there as well as in China, this 'master negotiator' suddenly flipped on tariffs to say the US must save jobs in China! Only then it emerged the Chinese will now invest in his businesses in Indonesia, but if that is masterful negotiation it is for his personal benefit so why doesn't he negotiate for the benefit of the USA? Is he President to line his own pocket, or to serve the people of the USA and their Constitution?

As for Iran, what happens after you blow some holes in the ground and maybe kill some people? They do retaliate, as they have shown in the past. And come to think of it, if Iranians detest the US so much, why has it been the No 1 destination for Ianian emigrants going back 50 years or more?

And yes, it does matter that Transgendered Americans have equal rights, because if they don't have the same rights as you they have no rights at all, and that leads one to ask: who's next in the win-lose lottery of American rights? If you don't want to honour your Constitution, get rid of it.

[filghy2]

My apologies, Ben, I forgot you were on my side. Got too comfortable being the enemy for a while there.

Wow. Only two possibilities here - a send-up or a fruit loop.

[javier81]

So in summary...

We, the United States, are involved in a world war of our own making. It's an economic war, and we are winning, have been for quite some time. Since the Korean War, which we categorize as "over since 1953" but in reality is ongoing, we have taken what we want by intimidation and overt, or covert military action.

So we're the bad guys.

But we do have enemies, and they aren't the good guys any more than we are. No one is the "the good guys," everyone is out for their own political advancement.

The USA can do many things at this historical juncture - the apex of our global power; the apex of ANY global power - we are, by far, the most powerful nation in the history of the planet.

We can rest on our laurels (yes, we can), in which case pseudo-communist China or Russia will eventually win the hearts and minds of our citizens. Our way of life - a comfortable, prosperous way of life - will be threatened by insurgency.

We can bring war to the planet (yes, we can), in which case we will cast the globe into endless turmoil as we vainly attempt to eat what we have killed.

We can demand peace (yes, we can), in which case the sleeping nations of the world will be indefinitely subject to the inevitable rise of aggression in hostile rogue countries.

We can adopt a non-intervention policy (always an option), which will end with the rest of the world against us, as the defenseless nations are progressively taken over by aggressive forces.

OR...we can negotiate. I don't really care what anyone THINKS about Donald Trump - there is no denying he is a master negotiator. He knows all the tactics, up to and including this one - "You are dealing with an incredibly powerful yet insane person; you better just do what I want you to fucking do."

The obvious choice is to have a master negotiator at the helm.

And I definitely don't want to deny the proletariat their opportunity to rage against the machine. That is our right as Americans. Everyone is self-motivated, so whatever is important to YOU, well, it should be noted, it should be analyzed, and if others agree with you, there should be an opportunity for a quorum, and for action to be taken.

But there has to be a guy who says Yes or No. I'm VERY comfortable with Donald Trump being that guy. He has an eye on his legacy. He's not going to fuck off the Presidency of the United States of America, he wants to be remembered as GREAT!!

He'll squash the "situation" in North Korea - which is really not much of a situation at all but hey, whatever keeps the people scared, right?

He'll negotiate a reasonable trade agreement with Russian and China - something we have never had.

He'll have his war too. Every President wants his war. Against whom? My guess is Iran. No love lost, and I'm fine with that. I've been to Iran. They don't like us any more than we like them.

In the end, we're looking at a GREAT President, whose main enemy is his own people - people who are far too eager to believe the liberal media (the media's credo: WE are the President), far too prepared to dismiss a great man as a poser, far too inundated in false information.

We've got great leadership in Donald Trump. He may not be the leader you like. He may be too much for many people. "I just can't deal with Trump right now" is the cry heard 'round the country!

But here is a man who has been successful at everything he has done, despite the fact that most people don't find him to be "likeable." Even the people who voted for him.

You don't have to be liked to be President of the USA. You just have to be elected. The citizens of this country are not so stupid that they don't recognize these plain and simple facts.

USA all the way!

And now, I'm done with this thread.

Holy fuck! "Trump is a master negotiator", "We've got great leadership in Donald Trump", "In the end , we're looking at a great president". Only in America folks. Only in America can the retarded rationalize the leadership of someone who's dangerously incompetent/stupid. But yeah, the world's worst business man-who no real billionaire respects, and who no American bank would touch with a ten foot pole, and who's only VC's are corrupt third world oligarchs, and who's failures have outnumbered his successes-is the right man for the job. But this is all rhetorical insults ��

[Fitzcarraldo]

Most successful people have a filter.

Yet the president has been praised by his adorers for saying what's on his mind. That was a key part of his appeal for many voters, no matter how stupid or ridiculous or hateful or spiteful whatever was on his mind was.

[Stavros]

Yet the president has been praised by his adorers for saying what's on his mind. That was a key part of his appeal for many voters, no matter how stupid or ridiculous or hateful or spiteful whatever was on his mind was.

Although I understand the point you are making, is it not better for the President, precisely because he is Head of State, to promote a United, rather than a Divided States? Even if we agree most Presidents have been racists who considered Black people to be inferior beings, they did not say so (Nixon referred to Africans as 'jiggies' in private), what is on their mind is best left inside, whereas Americans should look to their head Head of State for a dignified representation of their country. This is not just lacking in .45, insulting Americans seems to be a key element of the Brand, I have never in so many years heard a man of such limited intelligence relentless in his disparaging remarks about his fellow Americans branding them as 'criminals', 'traitors' and 'liars'; but I am still chilled by that moment in the campaign when the Republican Candidate like a ragged schoolboy mocked Disabled Americans, the lowest point in a low campaign that should have been his last.

And when is someone going to explain why Transgendered Americans are not worthy of the equal rights they share with every other American citizen?

[Fitzcarraldo]

Although I understand the point you are making, is it not better for the President, precisely because he is Head of State, to promote a United, rather than a Divided States? Even if we agree most Presidents have been racists who considered Black people to be inferior beings, they did not say so (Nixon referred to Africans as 'jiggies' in private), what is on their mind is best left inside, whereas Americans should look to their head Head of State for a dignified representation of their country. This is not just lacking in .45, insulting Americans seems to be a key element of the Brand, I have never in so many years heard a man of such limited intelligence relentless in his disparaging remarks about his fellow Americans branding them as 'criminals', 'traitors' and 'liars'; but I am still chilled by that moment in the campaign when the Republican Candidate like a ragged schoolboy mocked Disabled Americans, the lowest point in a low campaign that should have been his last.

And when is someone going to explain why Transgendered Americans are not worthy of the equal rights they share with every other American citizen?

I thought I made it pretty clear that I'm not among his adorers.

[luvzbig1s]

Only thing I will say is why would someone support Trump when and his administration considers that person and people like them "WRONG" and "UNNATURAL" and will do anything and everything to take away any and all rights those people have? I am sorry but I just do not get it. Plus unlike his supporters I know a con man when I see one and Trump is exactly that

[Nick Danger]

Normally if I say I'm done with a thread, I'm actually done with it. But I was skimming the news this morning and stumbled onto this little gem:

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-china-agree-to-increased-trade-cooperation-2018-5

Just couldn't resist a little told-you-so.

I sincerely hope you're all having a lovely weekend, wherever you stand on the political spectrum.

1075611

[Nick Danger]

1075685

[buttslinger]

Jesus Wept.
Trump not only has no interest in transsexuals, he has no interest in the Republicans, Democrats, or any other living being. He's the same little shit his daddy sent to military school.
Until he gets hung for treason, he will be the best friend big business ever had. Lincoln freed the slaves, Trump freed the one percent. On paper, concentration camps are fantastic business models. High profit margin. Low regulation.
Run transsexuals!
Run Porn Stars!
Run ex-Playboy models!
He's no good for you!

[luvzbig1s]

Normally if I say I'm done with a thread, I'm actually done with it. But I was skimming the news this morning and stumbled onto this little gem:

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-china-agree-to-increased-trade-cooperation-2018-5

Just couldn't resist a little told-you-so.

I sincerely hope you're all having a lovely weekend, wherever you stand on the political spectrum.

1075611

Actually did you see where Trump said “Too many jobs in China lost,” the president wrote. “Commerce department has been instructed to get it done!” So taxpayer dollars are now going to create more jobs in China?? And all this after the Chinese government is extending a $500 million loan to a state-owned construction company to build an Indonesian theme park that will feature a Trump-branded golf course and hotels. Trump is only looking out for himself and his businesses and nothing else

[filghy2]

Normally if I say I'm done with a thread, I'm actually done with it. But I was skimming the news this morning and stumbled onto this little gem:

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-china-agree-to-increased-trade-cooperation-2018-5

Just couldn't resist a little told-you-so.

It's a fairly obvious strategy for the Chinese - offer up some vague concessions that will allow Trump to declare victory but are unlikely to make much difference. Most commentators seem pretty underwhelmed.
http://fortune.com/2018/05/19/trumps-bizarre-trade-deal-with-china/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/20/china-is-winning-trumps-trade-war/?utm_term=.45801a181c01

[bryanferryfan2]

I have a theory. I believe Putin has made copies of the trump sex tape and gave one to China and one to North Korea and probably Iran . So he's gonna get hit from all sides. So he will do their bidding.

[Nick Danger]

Let this thread be an educational journey for any would-be liberals who are still on the fence. President Trump just achieved an HISTORIC economic accord with China, exactly as he promised he would do. And what do the liberals have to say about it? Not much. "It's a self-serving ruse," they say, even as China is literally writing legislation right this minute to adjust its own patent laws to this new trade paradigm.

Yes, you too can be a liberal. All you have to do is remember two things:

1. Everything President Trump accomplishes is just a cleverly-disguised scheme to obtain more Cheetos for himself, no matter how amazing or unprecedented it might seem.

2. Tilting your fedora to the right means you're gay, tilting it to the left means you're pansexual, wearing it straight means your food stamps are gone for the month and you'd really appreciate it if someone would toss you a sandwich.

[trish]

Cheetos...'splains a lot.

[filghy2]

Lincoln freed the slaves, Trump freed the one percent.

Nice line. It's pretty incredible that the party of the Great Emancipator is now led by a man who thought there were some very fine people at Charlottesville - another thing the Trump apologists here are very quiet about.

[johncock0]

Nick Danger's plan for this thread is NOT educational nor do you sound smart. What you are doing and is more concerned on is convincing ppl why trump is the best for America and this thread is not about that. You want to divert the subject or maybe have poor reading comprehension skills. However, what you have proven though, you like to sweep trans-rights under the rug!

If you want to educate ppl on why trump is the best thing that could of happen to America maybe perhaps start a new thread more relevant to the subject you want to discuss!

[Nick Danger]

Nick Danger's plan for this thread is NOT educational nor do you sound smart. What you are doing and is more concerned on is convincing ppl why trump is the best for America and this thread is not about that. You want to divert the subject or maybe have poor reading comprehension skills. However, what you have proven though, you like to sweep trans-rights under the rug!

If you want to educate ppl on why trump is the best thing that could of happen to America maybe perhaps start a new thread more relevant to the subject you want to discuss!

If YOU had read the thread, you'd know that I already expressed how I feel about Trump's treatment of transsexuals - it's politically necessary, and it ain't so bad. In the end, if all he gives to the religious right is keeping transgenders out of the Army and a few bathrooms, consider the LGBT community lucky. What the far right really wants is gay marriage abolished and transgender people treated as mental patients. But it looks like they are going to settle for what they're getting.

The title of this thread is "Trannies For Trump," and there actually are quite a few - trans people who understand politics and economics, and who therefore realize that a couple of token actions against them is a small price to pay for the prosperity of their country.

In an ideal world we could have liberal morality politics and conservative fiscal policy. But this isn't an ideal world, so we are, unfortunately, under our current 2-party system, required to choose one or the other.

I'm certainly not trying to educate any liberals, only the fence-sitters. Liberals cannot be educated, because everything they believe is quite fair and reasonable-sounding on the surface. "Feed the hungry, house the homeless, give money to the poor, let everyone do whatever the hell they want, and tax the rich to pay for it." That's the liberal agenda in a nutshell.

What I have personally found when debating liberals is that they will never let go of that agenda, because to them, that's what makes them good people. And I'd even go so far as to say that most liberals actually ARE good people.

Good people who don't understand politics or economics. And their reaction to President Trump's great triumph in China is just embarrassing for everyone.

[filghy2]

The title of this thread is "Trannies For Trump," and there actually are quite a few - trans people who understand politics and economics, and who therefore realize that a couple of token actions against them is a small price to pay for the prosperity of their country.

Where are they then? Name names. I googled the four TS mentioned in the article at the start of this thread and none of them seem to be defending Trump publicly any more, and one is positively against him.

I have a post-grad degree in economics by the way, and you clearly know shit about the subject. Which economic textbook describes blowing out the deficit in an already strong economy as a conservative fiscal policy? I asked a number of pertinent economic questions in an earlier post and you just made a pathetic excuse to avoid answering.

[Stavros]

I thought I made it pretty clear that I'm not among his adorers.

My apologies if you thought that, I was using the argument you cited to make a point, it didn't mean I assumed you agreed with it.

[Stavros]

Let this thread be an educational journey for any would-be liberals who are still on the fence. President Trump just achieved an HISTORIC economic accord with China, exactly as he promised he would do. And what do the liberals have to say about it? Not much. "It's a self-serving ruse," they say, even as China is literally writing legislation right this minute to adjust its own patent laws to this new trade paradigm.
Yes, you too can be a liberal. All you have to do is remember two things:
1. Everything President Trump accomplishes is just a cleverly-disguised scheme to obtain more Cheetos for himself, no matter how amazing or unprecedented it might seem.
2. Tilting your fedora to the right means you're gay, tilting it to the left means you're pansexual, wearing it straight means your food stamps are gone for the month and you'd really appreciate it if someone would toss you a sandwich.

That you think Transgendered Americans are just cannon fodder in the new civil war to be discarded because their rights are not important is shocking on a forum dedicated to them, that you don't think it is a big deal to deprive those Americans of their rights is a shocking moment for your country. Again, if you are so offended by the Constitution because it gives rights to All Americans, then scrap it and replace it with the Bible, the document preferred by the 'Evangelical Christians' to whom you claim the President is delivering on his promise and who may be his core constituency (he is actually losing votes now among them).

That'll be the same people who claim to be Christian but are remote from the concept of love and forgiveness that Jesus said is non-negotiable if you want to live as God intend; fixated, indeed obsessed as they are with the Apocalypse and the End-Times, who for that reason like their President have no coherent policies in the here and now, to combat discrimination and segregation, debt, drug abuse and poverty across their own country.

Liberals are not the problem, fake Christians brandishing the Bible in one hand and a gun in the other are. Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition. -To kill whom?

[Nick Danger]

Where are they then? Name names. I googled the four TS mentioned in the article at the start of this thread and none of them seem to be defending Trump publicly any more, and one is positively against him.

I have a post-grad degree in economics by the way, and you clearly know shit about the subject. Which economic textbook describes blowing out the deficit in an already strong economy as a conservative fiscal policy? I asked a number of pertinent economic questions in an earlier post and you just made a pathetic excuse to avoid answering.

Yeah, Flighty, everyone on the internet has a post-grad degree in whatever they happen to be discussing at the time. I don't recall you asking any "pertinent economic questions," I recall you calling me names and dismissing me as an asshole.


That you think Transgendered Americans are just cannon fodder in the new civil war to be discarded because their rights are not important is shocking on a forum dedicated to them, that you don't think it is a big deal to deprive those Americans of their rights is a shocking moment for your country. Again, if you are so offended by the Constitution because it gives rights to All Americans, then scrap it and replace it with the Bible, the document preferred by the 'Evangelical Christians' to whom you claim the President is delivering on his promise and who may be his core constituency (he is actually losing votes now among them).

That'll be the same people who claim to be Christian but are remote from the concept of love and forgiveness that Jesus said is non-negotiable if you want to live as God intend; fixated, indeed obsessed as they are with the Apocalypse and the End-Times, who for that reason like their President have no coherent policies in the here and now, to combat discrimination and segregation, debt, drug abuse and poverty across their own country.

Liberals are not the problem, fake Christians brandishing the Bible in one hand and a gun in the other are. Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition. -To kill whom?

"Cannon fodder" seems a lot like hyperbole to me, Stavros. It was less than a decade ago that gays and transsexuals had no rights at all. A slight rollback during the subsequent Republican administration doesn't make them cannon fodder, it was quite anticipated. My point is simply that it's not nearly as bad as it could be.

People who talk about human rights as if they are an entitlement lack perspective. If you ever happen to find yourself at odds with the U.S. Government or an agent thereof, you'll find out exactly how many human rights you don't have.

Everything is a negotiation, Stavros, including our "rights," which can all be taken away instantly at the whim of someone with enough power.

I agree with you that the religious right is a problem. But it's our problem, we live in a country which was built by Christians. They are still the most powerful political force in the country and therefore on the planet. They don't get everything they want, but they will be catered to for their voting power, and that's just the way it is. Might not always be that way, but that's how it is now. Again, that's realpolitik - which is nothing more than accepting reality and dealing with it pragmatically instead of idealistically.

[Stavros]

Stavros. It was less than a decade ago that gays and transsexuals had no rights at all.
My point is simply that it's not nearly as bad as it could be.


I think the point is that because in the US States are allowed to make their own laws, the history shows that it is not true to claim that It was less than a decade ago that gays and transsexuals had no rights at all -homosexuality as far as I know, has never been illegal in the USA, but Sodomy has been, and it was the law against Sodomy that changed when the state of Wisconsin changed its definition to allow 'consensual sodomy' in 1961, a law enacted in 1962. Some states followed Wisconsin's model while others moderated the law to lessen the punishment for Sodomy, but it was not until Lawrence -v- Texas in 2003 that the Supreme Court decision effectively made the repeal of sodomy laws universal throughout the USA, which may fall in line with the general point you made, but it was hardly a matter of negotiation, rather the Supreme Court recognizing that Sodomy laws were not applicable to American society in the 21st century.

A similar problem arises with the case of same-sex marriage because as far as I am aware, it was not illegal in US law until 1973 when a State -Maryland- actually defined marriage in law as the union of a man and a woman, rather than of people of the same sex, and did so because two men had applied for a marriage license in 1970 which was rejected by the State, with the Supreme Court later declining to hear the case for want of a substantial federal question. Other states then followed the Maryland example to make same-sex marriages illegal, a position the supposedly 'liberal' President Clinton agreed with, signing the Defence of Marriage Act in 1996.

On the other hand, in the same year the senior Judge in Hawaii ruled that the State had no right to deprive same-sex couples the right to marry, while in the late 1980s in San Francisco same-sex and heterosexual but non-married couples were given a form of 'spousal rights' that allowed them to register for domestic partnerships, which granted hospital visitation rights and other benefits.

What these examples show is that the question of Constitutional Rights is one that is contested on a regular basis, and that what is illegal in 1973 can be legal in 2003. But what the transition from Gay Rights to Spousal Rights to Same-Sex Marriage Rights also shows is that however much they were, and are resisted, it is difficult in law to deny one set of Americans what the law gives to others, particularly in private matters that concern human relationships.

It is in this clash between the specific and the general that over time 'States rights' have had to concede to Federal Law, but this is clearly something some States don't like, just as southern states are using existing law to roll back civil rights legislation to suppress the Black vote, now they are fighting back on same-sex marriage and abortion, especially now they have a President who ridicules political correctness which many of his supporters blame for legal changes that give rights to Transgendered Americans as if they were not 'proper rights' at all.

Thus, when you argue: My point is simply that it's not nearly as bad as it could be, in fact it is worse because this President has set himself up as a judicial activist who is eager to change as many laws as he can while trashing anyone who disagrees with him as a 'criminal', a 'traitor' and a 'liar'. The USA has gone from Stonewall to the Writing on the Wall, and the message is: this country belongs to us, not to you.

Some sources I used-
https://www.infoplease.com/us/gender-issues/american-gay-rights-movement-timeline
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/28/us/same-sex-marriage-fast-facts/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/lgbt-rights-milestones-fast-facts/index.html
http://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4182201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States#History
https://www.history.com/topics/gay-marriage

[Nick Danger]

I think the point is that because in the US States are allowed to make their own laws, the history shows that it is not true to claim that It was less than a decade ago that gays and transsexuals had no rights at all -homosexuality as far as I know, has never been illegal in the USA, but Sodomy has been, and it was the law against Sodomy that changed when the state of Wisconsin changed its definition to allow 'consensual sodomy' in 1961, a law enacted in 1962. Some states followed Wisconsin's model while others moderated the law to lessen the punishment for Sodomy, but it was not until Lawrence -v- Texas in 2003 that the Supreme Court decision effectively made the repeal of sodomy laws universal throughout the USA, which may fall in line with the general point you made, but it was hardly a matter of negotiation, rather the Supreme Court recognizing that Sodomy laws were not applicable to American society in the 21st century.

A similar problem arises with the case of same-sex marriage because as far as I am aware, it was not illegal in US law until 1973 when a State -Maryland- actually defined marriage in law as the union of a man and a woman, rather than of people of the same sex, and did so because two men had applied for a marriage license in 1970 which was rejected by the State, with the Supreme Court later declining to hear the case for want of a substantial federal question. Other states then followed the Maryland example to make same-sex marriages illegal, a position the supposedly 'liberal' President Clinton agreed with, signing the Defence of Marriage Act in 1996.

On the other hand, in the same year the senior Judge in Hawaii ruled that the State had no right to deprive same-sex couples the right to marry, while in the late 1980s in San Francisco same-sex and heterosexual but non-married couples were given a form of 'spousal rights' that allowed them to register for domestic partnerships, which granted hospital visitation rights and other benefits.

What these examples show is that the question of Constitutional Rights is one that is contested on a regular basis, and that what is illegal in 1973 can be legal in 2003. But what the transition from Gay Rights to Spousal Rights to Same-Sex Marriage Rights also shows is that however much they were, and are resisted, it is difficult in law to deny one set of Americans what the law gives to others, particularly in private matters that concern human relationships.

It is in this clash between the specific and the general that over time 'States rights' have had to concede to Federal Law, but this is clearly something some States don't like, just as southern states are using existing law to roll back civil rights legislation to suppress the Black vote, now they are fighting back on same-sex marriage and abortion, especially now they have a President who ridicules political correctness which many of his supporters blame for legal changes that give rights to Transgendered Americans as if they were not 'proper rights' at all.

Thus, when you argue: My point is simply that it's not nearly as bad as it could be, in fact it is worse because this President has set himself up as a judicial activist who is eager to change as many laws as he can while trashing anyone who disagrees with him as a 'criminal', a 'traitor' and a 'liar'. The USA has gone from Stonewall to the Writing on the Wall, and the message is: this country belongs to us, not to you.

Some sources I used-
https://www.infoplease.com/us/gender-issues/american-gay-rights-movement-timeline
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/28/us/same-sex-marriage-fast-facts/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/lgbt-rights-milestones-fast-facts/index.html
http://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4182201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States#History
https://www.history.com/topics/gay-marriage

Great post, Stavros.

I certainly don't have any points of contention with anything you're saying here, it's all sourced and factual.

One thing I will say, though, is that when I say "no rights at all," I don't mean that gays and transgenders haven't had the right to breathe, co-habitate, vote, own guns, fuck each other, or that sort of thing. I'm talking about protection under the law, as in civil rights; i.e., protection from discrimination, status as a protected minority - the kind of rights that blacks and women have had for a very long time, relatively speaking. For transgenders, lack of this status extended as far as not even being able to legally gender-identify.

But the LGBT community has those rights now, and that has come within the last decade under President Obama. Good for him, and good for them.

The Republicans, of course, opposed all that legislation to the extent they could. And now they are in a position to squash some of it, and they are going to do that. I'm against it, but I know for a fact it's going to happen. And I also know that next time the Democrats are in power, they will reverse President Trump's policies and increase the LGBT community's standing even more than Obama already has, as a concession to THEIR voting base. Perhaps next time it will come in the form of a Constitutional amendment - something that can never be squashed. I hope so. Americans are ready for that, Obama primed the pump.

Meanwhile, I'm totally in favor of the LGBT community making a big deal out of these minor matters, because as long as they do, the religious right will see them squirming and be content.

But in the big picture, these things just don't matter much. If a trans person doesn't want to join the military and doesn't care where he/she pisses, it doesn't matter AT ALL. That's what I mean when I say the LGBT community should consider itself lucky, because it actually could be much, much worse.

You think President Trump really wants to hurt transsexuals? Please, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he's been with several. The guy's definitely got a sexual appetite, and he's from the second queerest city in the USA. He's definitely had 8 inches of femboi trouser trout down his throat at some point. Keep your eye out for hard negotiations with Thailand before his term is over.

We agree more than we disagree, Stavros. But I'm making a conscious choice to take the long view. I think you are concerned that these small grievances are just the tip of an iceberg. But Trump has a lot of cross-party voters as well, and IMO, he is very cleverly giving the religious right as little as he thinks he can get away with. They're not his people, they're just his voters.

[Stavros]

The only further point I would make is that we can agree that Transgendered Americans should have the same rights under the Constitution that other Americans have, and that because Transgendered people are a minority in the USA, extending those rights in law and in practice does not threaten, or undermine the USA in any way.

It is when those rights are taken away that you see the true face of an administration and its supporters who are still unable to accept the fact that in 2009 a Black man walked into the White House as President of the USA, and so great is their resentment, so unlimited their need for revenge they are determined to reverse every law and every regulation that was passed when Obama was President.

The issue of Transgendered service personnel in the military is in reality so minor it did not need to be challenged, but the Republicans have a complete list of items they want crossed off the list, so I think you should see the attack on Transgendered Americans as both a specific, targeted attack on transgendered people, and part of the broader campaign whose slogan is Obama made it, we destroy it.

The latest being the repeal of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ruling that 'dealer markups' in auto sales forcing minorities to pay more for cars, would lead to criminal prosecution. That the repeal itself violated Congressional rules on amendments to law is an example of the growing contempt for the law that the Republican Party now practices, led by a President who thinks he can instruct the Justice Department on who to investigate (and find guilty of course) -but is an example of a small matter of law that was passed in the Obama era which has real impact on minorities but, because they are minorities can have their rights discarded even though the Bureau rule on 'dealer markups' most Americans, I would like to think, was a fair one.

It is when you see rights being taken away that you should begin to worry, as each one chips away at the base of justice itself, until the edifice can no longer stand, and falls apart, leaving nothing in its place other than a gloating President demanding absolute obedience.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-auto-loan-rule-repeal-racial-discrimination-minorities-dealer-markup-congressional-review-act-a8362596.html

[johncock0]

Yeah, Flighty, everyone on the internet has a post-grad degree in whatever they happen to be discussing at the time. I don't recall you asking any "pertinent economic questions," I recall you calling me names and dismissing me as an asshole.



"Cannon fodder" seems a lot like hyperbole to me, Stavros. It was less than a decade ago that gays and transsexuals had no rights at all. A slight rollback during the subsequent Republican administration doesn't make them cannon fodder, it was quite anticipated. My point is simply that it's not nearly as bad as it could be.

People who talk about human rights as if they are an entitlement lack perspective. If you ever happen to find yourself at odds with the U.S. Government or an agent thereof, you'll find out exactly how many human rights you don't have.

Everything is a negotiation, Stavros, including our "rights," which can all be taken away instantly at the whim of someone with enough power.

I agree with you that the religious right is a problem. But it's our problem, we live in a country which was built by Christians. They are still the most powerful political force in the country and therefore on the planet. They don't get everything they want, but they will be catered to for their voting power, and that's just the way it is. Might not always be that way, but that's how it is now. Again, that's realpolitik - which is nothing more than accepting reality and dealing with it pragmatically instead of idealistically.

Well, it's kinda sad that you think transgender folks have any rights anymore, specially at this point.

Your ignorance clearly shows on trans-rights the way you minimize or see it as something SO minuscule by using words like "A slight rollback" "that a couple of token actions against them is a small price to pay" when you simply don't see the bigger problem and the discrimination they are up against today specifically the trans-community. You speak as it is no biggy since it doesn't affect you personally and like it's a matter a fact that it's no big problem. Have you experience to live life with a trans-folk on daily basis ? or faced discrimination ? It appears to me that you don't face discrimination of any sort from the way you speak. Can you show how it's no big problem to you ?

When you take federal protections against trans-folks such as employment, health insurance and etc it is a big deal a huge one/s. What's next ? For what's next for this Administration it won't be a surprise but I do question why is there a primal focus on this community aside from responding to their base when US has bigger issues to fry.

Your replies are nothing but based on ideology and opinion not on facts or statistics. At this point, I think you might be trolling half of the time but I don't doubt trump is your GOD, oops I meant the devil, since you have a preference for the bad guy. Just remember we are in the belly of the beast yo, no ones truly safe.

[luvzbig1s]

The thing is some may see this as a "small roll back" until it isn't Once certain people start having rights taken away it then becomes a lot easier to apply it to other people over and over again until the only people who have rights are those who agree 100% with the one in power

[filghy2]

Normally if I say I'm done with a thread, I'm actually done with it.

This must be the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

[filghy2]

People who talk about human rights as if they are an entitlement lack perspective.

Everything is a negotiation, Stavros, including our "rights," which can all be taken away instantly at the whim of someone with enough power.

I guess these guys were just another bunch of wrong-headed idealists then? http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

[Nick Danger]

I just find it very difficult to accept that some grown people don't recognize the ebb and flow of American politics.

This was always going to happen, as soon as Americans elected a Republican administration. Republicans are not your friends. They are businessmen with law degrees who know how to make a nation prosper economically. They are put into office by an un-defeatable combination of three voting blocs after every Democratic administration. Those blocs are the religious right and the wealthy - on whom they can always rely - and the necessary swing-vote, the Change vote.

There's a price to pay for the prosperity the Republicans bring. While they are in office they will do everything possible to take care of their voting base. They'll do things most people consider morally reprehensible. They will cater to the religious right and the wealthy, because they know they will need them next time the cycle repeats itself.

Likewise with the Democrats. After every Republican administration, the Democrats will win with their voting base, combined with the always-necessary Change vote. Like the Republicans, they will do everything in their power to take care of their voting base, because they will likewise need them next time the cycle repeats.

And on and on it goes, where it stops nobody knows. The balance is what makes America the greatest country in the world.

All this outrage seems like people who went to a cookout and are surprised to find out there are hot dogs there.

I mean jeezus, wait a few years, folks. It's not your time right now.

[filghy2]

Republicans are not your friends. They are businessmen with law degrees who know how to make a nation prosper economically.

Evidence?

1075965

You forgot the other Republican voting bloc, by the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[Nick Danger]

Evidence?

1075965

You forgot the other Republican voting bloc, by the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Tell the truth, Flighty - what grade are you in?

[filghy2]

Tell the truth, Flighty - what grade are you in?

I'll take that as "No, I have no evidence for my claim".

I asked earlier if you were really a satirical character, but it seems that you have actually based yourself on an existing satirical character, Dr Pangloss: "All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds."
https://www.shmoop.com/candide/dr-pangloss.html

[Nick Danger]

I'll take that as "No, I have no evidence for my claim".

I asked earlier if you were really a satirical character, but it seems that you have actually based yourself on an existing satirical character, Dr Pangloss: "All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds."
https://www.shmoop.com/candide/dr-pangloss.html

Well at least we're not arguing. For us to be arguing, you'd have to make a counter-argument. And if we're not arguing, we must be in full agreement.

Have a good night, friend Flighty.

[filghy2]

Well at least we're not arguing. For us to be arguing, you'd have to make a counter-argument. And if we're not arguing, we must be in full agreement.

Which part of the chart I posted did you not understand? Here, I'll even do the maths for you - Democrat average 3.8% growth, Republican average 2.9% growth.

Perhaps you just need some tips on the art of argument. http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php

[Superrage]

Can someone close this thread? Its killing my boner.

[Stavros]

I just find it very difficult to accept that some grown people don't recognize the ebb and flow of American politics.


I find your 'realist' view of this Presidency to be indifferent to what is happening as if it were just 'politics as usual', whereas the whole purpose of this Presidency is to change in a way previous administrations have not.

It is easy to dismiss campaign rhetoric as just that, assuming the reality of DC politics will always neutralize the most extreme President, but in this case we have already seen that the almost insane, unhinged need of the President (for personal reasons) and the Republicans (for political reasons) to smash to pieces every vestige of the Obama Presidency is becoming the most comprehensive reversal of the policies inherited from one administration by another yet seen in American history.

The point about Transgendered Americans that I and other posters have pointed out is precisely that with regard to military service it is a minor issue in the general scheme of things that could easily have been left as it was with little cost in terms of finances and administration, but is of major importance to the individuals concerned as it affects their livelihoods, their ambitions, and appears to denigrate their commitment to the security of their country. It does not just take rights away it takes away the dignity of people who are prepared to serve, even if it means dying, but is the preferred option of a draft-dodging coward who did everything he could, with Daddy's help, not to serve.

It is ironic that someone who despises 'political correctness' has in effect borrowed the mantra of 1960s identity politics so that with more than any other President I can think of, with this one, the personal is political. But where the conduct of politics resembles more the court of a vain King in constant need of praise and adulation while across the country young transgendered people are homeless, struggling with money problems, mental health problems, problems of alcohol and drug abuse, all the while being told by the rest of society they are not worth a dime anyway. Who speaks for them? Not their President.

[luvzbig1s]

The thing is, As I see it. Everyone says Trump will never do this or Trump will never do that right up to the point when his actually does it. Then they say well I didn't think he would and shorty afterwards it will be come "Fake News" and all his supporters will shout about the lying liberal media and blame it all on Obama

[Nick Danger]

Which part of the chart I posted did you not understand? Here, I'll even do the maths for you - Democrat average 3.8% growth, Republican average 2.9% growth.

Perhaps you just need some tips on the art of argument. http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php

We COULD have THAT conversation, Flighty. You know the one, it's about whether GDP growth happens during, or after, an administration's economic policies have been in effect.

But really, should we? I mean, so far, the full extent of your argument is an appeal to authority ("I have a post-grad degree in economics") and an almost unreadable jpeg that could just as easily be used to prove my point as yours.

I'm pretty good at debates, Flighty. But if I have them, I prefer them to be with someone whose awesomeness is not so obvious to himself that he doesn't even feel the need to compose an argument or make a counterpoint.


I find your 'realist' view of this Presidency to be indifferent to what is happening as if it were just 'politics as usual', whereas the whole purpose of this Presidency is to change in a way previous administrations have not.

It is easy to dismiss campaign rhetoric as just that, assuming the reality of DC politics will always neutralize the most extreme President, but in this case we have already seen that the almost insane, unhinged need of the President (for personal reasons) and the Republicans (for political reasons) to smash to pieces every vestige of the Obama Presidency is becoming the most comprehensive reversal of the policies inherited from one administration by another yet seen in American history.

The point about Transgendered Americans that I and other posters have pointed out is precisely that with regard to military service it is a minor issue in the general scheme of things that could easily have been left as it was with little cost in terms of finances and administration, but is of major importance to the individuals concerned as it affects their livelihoods, their ambitions, and appears to denigrate their commitment to the security of their country. It does not just take rights away it takes away the dignity of people who are prepared to serve, even if it means dying, but is the preferred option of a draft-dodging coward who did everything he could, with Daddy's help, not to serve.

It is ironic that someone who despises 'political correctness' has in effect borrowed the mantra of 1960s identity politics so that with more than any other President I can think of, with this one, the personal is political. But where the conduct of politics resembles more the court of a vain King in constant need of praise and adulation while across the country young transgendered people are homeless, struggling with money problems, mental health problems, problems of alcohol and drug abuse, all the while being told by the rest of society they are not worth a dime anyway. Who speaks for them? Not their President.

I will not and have not disputed that President Trump has a personality disorder. He's a megalomaniacal narcissist. With anger issues.

But he's the same megalomaniacal narcissist with anger issues that he's been for like 50 years now in front of the entire country on national television.

One question I've always wanted to ask Obama's supporters is (and I should qualify this by saying that I voted for Obama - twice - but I have very little tolerance for spending time in the company of hardcore Democrats), how politically savvy do you really think Obama is, considering his incredible underestimation of Donald Trump? What I mean by that is, he insulted the guy in front of the entire country, assuming there'd be no consequences.

Well, now there are consequences. Trump is going to destroy his legacy, has pretty much already done so - his advances in socialized medicine, his more-conservative-than-the-conservatives economic policy, his withdrawal from Middle East politics, and his cooperative trade policy - all will be or have been destroyed.

But do you really understand what Trump is doing, Stavros? In a nutshell, he's simply stopped being nice. To other countries I mean. America doesn't have to be nice. Trump knows this.

And that is the crux of his appeal, that's the core policy that is going to buy him 4 more years (bank on it).

In the end he's going to take care of the rich, and the religious right; but he's also going to enrich the middle class and the poor by clamping down on the rest of the world. "America First" is no bullshit, he's fucking after it. We're not going to be the planet's rich uncle while Trump is in office.

And that's what's needed, for America, right now, in this imperfect world where we truly can't have it all. We can't be the free world's protector, benefactor, and police force all at the same time.

You don't have to convince me that there are a lot of problems with Donald Trump, the man. But no one can convince me that Donald Trump, the President, isn't exactly what we need to transcend our economic problems and assume the mantle of full global hegemony. That's the change you'll see from this administration that you have never seen before, Stavros.

If I weren't an American, I would despise Donald Trump. But I am.

[Stavros]

A confused post, Nick which reveals the weaknesses in your argument. President Obama ridiculed a notoriously vain con-man at the White House Correspondents dinner, an event which thrives on ridicule and satire so nobody targeted should complain, let alone bear a grudge of such destructive intensity for so long. But here's the key point: if you don't want to be publicly ridiculed, don't be President. A President must be robust enough to take all the crap thrown at him -or her- and let's face it, from the 'birther controversy' to open racism, Obama was at the time the most abused -and publicly abused President in living memory, and not even for his policies.

Neither Obama nor his successor managed to extricate the USA from the Middle East, both retained and retain a military presence in Iraq, both committed US forces to Syria, both retain their intelligence facilities in Jordan and both appear to have committed the USA to be guarantors of Israel's security in perpetuity with no regard to the cost to American tax-payers. But this President has gone further, allying himself with Saudi Arabia in the Kingdom's savage war in Yemen that has displaced millions, slaughtered hundreds of thousands and all but destroyed the country, while joining the Butcher Kingdom's blackmail of Qatar because it wouldn't buy his son-in-law's dud money-pit in Manhattan, which it has now agreed to do. The USA is up to its neck in the Middle East quagmire, and more than ever before, so the President and his family can use the Office of the President to stuff their pockets with money with no regard to the interests of the USA. Indeed, the government of the USA is now as much a family business as is the so-called government of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

And you can't put 'America First' and then seek the mantle of full global hegemony. You really want to replace globalization with the American Empire? Why have a President when you can have an Emperor, or maybe he would prefer being referred to by his supporters as their God and King? And anyway, the 21st century will be an Asian century, with this President remembered as the man who sold his country to foreign buyers in exchange for adulation and lots and lots of money, most of it parked in foreign bank accounts the taxman can't get his hands on. Americans are not about to get rich under this President. That is the reality, not the bullshit about Making America Great Again.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Poor little guy. He was so confident just 2 weeks ago: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/trump-on-whether-he-deserves-nobel-everyone-thinks-so.html

And now he's canceled the summit and threatened nuclear war in the letter.

[buttslinger]

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. -Abraham Lincoln
"You can fool some of the people all the time. - Donald Trump

[Nick Danger]

A confused post, Nick which reveals the weaknesses in your argument. President Obama ridiculed a notoriously vain con-man at the White House Correspondents dinner, an event which thrives on ridicule and satire so nobody targeted should complain, let alone bear a grudge of such destructive intensity for so long. But here's the key point: if you don't want to be publicly ridiculed, don't be President. A President must be robust enough to take all the crap thrown at him -or her- and let's face it, from the 'birther controversy' to open racism, Obama was at the time the most abused -and publicly abused President in living memory, and not even for his policies.

Neither Obama nor his successor managed to extricate the USA from the Middle East, both retained and retain a military presence in Iraq, both committed US forces to Syria, both retain their intelligence facilities in Jordan and both appear to have committed the USA to be guarantors of Israel's security in perpetuity with no regard to the cost to American tax-payers. But this President has gone further, allying himself with Saudi Arabia in the Kingdom's savage war in Yemen that has displaced millions, slaughtered hundreds of thousands and all but destroyed the country, while joining the Butcher Kingdom's blackmail of Qatar because it wouldn't buy his son-in-law's dud money-pit in Manhattan, which it has now agreed to do. The USA is up to its neck in the Middle East quagmire, and more than ever before, so the President and his family can use the Office of the President to stuff their pockets with money with no regard to the interests of the USA. Indeed, the government of the USA is now as much a family business as is the so-called government of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

And you can't put 'America First' and then seek the mantle of full global hegemony. You really want to replace globalization with the American Empire? Why have a President when you can have an Emperor, or maybe he would prefer being referred to by his supporters as their God and King? And anyway, the 21st century will be an Asian century, with this President remembered as the man who sold his country to foreign buyers in exchange for adulation and lots and lots of money, most of it parked in foreign bank accounts the taxman can't get his hands on. Americans are not about to get rich under this President. That is the reality, not the bullshit about Making America Great Again.

I don't think either one of us are confused, Stavros, unless perhaps you are confused about my intelligence level. The USA has been joined at the hip with Saudi Arabia since WWII because of our pathetic dependence on Saudi oil, but President Trump is only in bed with them because he's seeking vengeance over a sour real estate deal? Okay.

You are welcome to armchair-president all you like, Stavros. You can insist our country act for strictly altruistic reasons then complain like hell every time it doesn't (which is every time BTW).

But me, I am going to kick back and watch my bank account grow for the next few years while the big boys play their little games. As a counterpoint to your statement, "Americans are not about to get rich under this President," I can only tell you that I am already getting rich under this President. I'll be putting a good bit of it in U.S. bonds too - gotta be prepared for the next Democratic administration in 2024.

Now, I have a 5-day weekend that just started about a half hour ago, and I won't be spending it debating politics. Think I'm gonna drive up to Vegas this weekend and check out that Lounge.

I have enjoyed our conversation, Stavros.

[buttslinger]

...But me, I am going to kick back and watch my bank account grow for the next few years while the big boys play their little games. As a counterpoint to your statement, "Americans are not about to get rich under this President," I can only tell you that I am already getting rich under this President. I'll be putting a good bit of it in U.S. bonds too - gotta be prepared for the next Democratic administration in 2024.
Were you poor under Obama? Better save some of your money to pay for that Wall.

[filghy2]

We COULD have THAT conversation, Flighty. You know the one, it's about whether GDP growth happens during, or after, an administration's economic policies have been in effect.

But really, should we? I mean, so far, the full extent of your argument is an appeal to authority ("I have a post-grad degree in economics") and an almost unreadable jpeg that could just as easily be used to prove my point as yours.

I'm pretty good at debates, Flighty. But if I have them, I prefer them to be with someone whose awesomeness is not so obvious to himself that he doesn't even feel the need to compose an argument or make a counterpoint.

When Danger lurked upon the stair
He saw some facts that just weren't there
Those facts weren't there again today
Oh why can't inconvenient facts go away.

While I'm on the Monty Python theme, here's another scene that seems relevant. http://www.montypython.net/scripts/HG-blkscene.php

[luvzbig1s]

Do people understand why the stock market is doing so well these days? It is because the money all these companies are getting from Trump's tax policies is going into buying back stocks. That is right the companies are not investing into their own company and are not creating jobs they are instead trying to buy back the stocks that the public has. Which in turn causes the stock to increase in price which inflates the stock market. The CEO's are making millions and in some cases billions off if this, While at the same time are still laying people off and sending those jobs over seas

[BostonBad]

Why is unemployment so low? Trump on the economy is better than Obama.

[filghy2]

Why is unemployment so low? Trump on the economy is better than Obama.

Actually, Trump has close to the worst record of any president who came into office during an economic expansion. Better than Obama so far, but Obama came into office after the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/05/17/trump-lags-behind-his-predecessors-on-economic-growth/

[KelliBlueEyes]

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. -Abraham Lincoln
"You can fool some of the people all the time. - Donald Trump

I thought that quote was from P.T. Barnum

[Stavros]

I thought that quote was from P.T. Barnum

Barnum may have said it, there is no documentary evidence Lincoln did. The first possible use of the phrase may have been made in 1684 -
… ont pû tromper quelques hommes, ou les tromper tous dans certains lieux & en certains tems, mais non pas tous les hommes, dans tous les lieux & dans tous les siécles.

Americans had close relations with France before, during and after their Revolution, so it is possible an educated American picked this up and it filtered through various channels before becoming an English phrase, there are numerous examples of provenance in the links below for anyone who is interested-

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/12/11/cannot-fool/
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/161924

[Fitzcarraldo]

I thought that quote was from P.T. Barnum

I think you're thinking of Barnum's "There's a sucker born every minute." (And while that is associated with him, he may not have ever said it.)

[Fitzcarraldo]

Speaking of suckers: https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/25/politics/viktor-vekselberg-trump-tower-michael-cohen-meeting/index.html

[dreamon]

For those stating that the economy is doing well, I'm curious what policies that Trump has enacted that you feel has contributed to the economy doing well. Or is it just a residual effect from the Obama Administration?

[giovanni_hotel]

Most people have a visceral and intellectual defense against admitting they've been conned.

Trump has made a living off talking big, delivering little and inspiring suckers.

Glad I live close enough to NYC to know Trump's track record before he was ever on The Apprentice.

I can't be too mad at the gullibles who voted for Trump. Those are the ones Donald preys upon and makes them believe in his horseshit.

[manowar50]

It's always astounding to me how these folks have bought into Trump - hook, line and sinker. But it's not surprising b/c these are the same folks who believe Alex Jones of Infowars but think the New England Journal of Medicine is fake news. In the meantime, i'm just happy Trump is "MAGA" and inspiring companies across 'merica to "hire bigly" aka do stock buybacks because i'm making bank while these idiots are gleeful about whatever little crumb they've been tossed.

[javier81]

It's always astounding to me how these folks have bought into Trump - hook, line and sinker. But it's not surprising b/c these are the same folks who believe Alex Jones of Infowars but think the New England Journal of Medicine is fake news. In the meantime, i'm just happy Trump is "MAGA" and inspiring companies across 'merica to "hire bigly" aka do stock buybacks because i'm making bank while these idiots are gleeful about whatever little crumb they've been tossed.

I'm still bewildered by the sychophancy. It's made me lose the tiny amount of respect I still had for the Republican party. The man is so obviously a con artist with almost no business savvy or successes. I really don't get how people don't see that. It almost feels like I'm taking crazy pills.

[buttslinger]

Reality is moving a little too fast for the Republican Party, if it weren't for Trump you would have had the first consecutive Democratic Presidents since Johnson and Kennedy, Trump is President of the Sean Hannity Party. Be Afraid. Be VERY Afraid!

[steviedresses]

I am afraid. I am very afraid. His last comment about NFL players and their right to Freedom of Speech was:

"They don't belong in this country."

Trump is saying that a whole class of citizen's should lose their rights and be ejected from the country because they are exercising the right to freedom of speech.

What stuns me is not so much that the Liar in Chief said it... (He will say anything that pops into that deluded brain of his...) but that the Republican's did not denounce him for it.

Anybody who supports Trump is stupid, evil, or both.

[Ben in LA]

Fascism has arrived. Deny it all you want, but on the surface it appears to be in full swing.

[Nick Danger]

Yet another stroke of pure genius by President Donald Trump: Cancelling the North Korea summit.

Anyone who's ever negotiated a car deal understands that there's one master bargaining chip - being willing to walk away with no deal. Now, the summit is back on, and the USA is firmly-entrenched in the driver's seat.

I know no one in this thread is prepared to give President Trump any credit for anything whatsoever. So as you groan and bluster about trivia while patting each other on the butt over Cheeto jokes and student-council-tier political theories dredged from the shallow end of the pool, I'll be glad to pop back in from time to time to point out when President Trump does something amazing down in the deep end.

It's a tough world. Trump is a tough guy. Can you imagine Obama pulling out of that summit? No fucking way, he'd have given NK the farm just to stop them from waving nukes in our faces. Obama was a hell of a nice guy. He was inspiring in a very positive way. Now we've got a closer in the White House.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4PE2hSqVnk

[giovanni_hotel]

Let me know when NK agrees to unilaterally end their nuke program and get rid of their nuclear arsenal.

Trump isn't in control of these negotiations and never has been. Trump has no plan of action. As he stated, he operates on his 'instincts'.

That's not how you accomplish anything with the North Koreans.

It will be more of the same, NK will be given more foreign aid for concessions they will never fulfill.

For all you Trump supporters, just because someone declares they are THE BEST NEGOTIATOR doesn't mean it's true.
It's no different than when Trump had his personal physician write up a phony report that he was in 'excellent' health.

Look at Trump's business history, track the bankruptcies and realize the man is conning you too.

[Stavros]

I know no one in this thread is prepared to give President Trump any credit for anything whatsoever. So as you groan and bluster about trivia....
It's a tough world. Trump is a tough guy. Can you imagine Obama pulling out of that summit? No fucking way, he'd have given NK the farm just to stop them from waving nukes in our faces.

Nick I think you and I can agree that the resolution of the Korean war with a Peace Treaty that satisfies North and South is not a trivial matter, but the question then is, will the summit be concerned with the long-term political arrangements for the Korean peninsula as a whole, or just the question of North Korea's nuclear arsenal?

Obama would not have opted for the 'quick fix' that your President wanted, because the Obama Presidency did not have the opportunity to make an advance in Korea, which began with the election of President Moon who has made rapprochement with the North one of his key policy commitments. That the Republican President and his team had no detailed plan of negotiation was evident when John Bolton argued that de-nuclearisation in North Korea would mean transporting every missile, centrifuge, nut and bolt to the USA, a demand so preposterous it could only have been made to be rejected; and that he then argued- it was echoed by the Christian Mike Pence- that if North Korea did not comply, the 'Libya option' was on the table, but almost at the same time Mike Pompeo was in Pyongyang telling the North Koreans something else.
There is a word for this: incompetence. Not a clever political move at all.

The USA does not recognise North Korea as a state, something only Congress can do, so the President can sign as many documents as he likes with North Korea, but surely none of them will be legally binding on the USA unless Congress recognizes the existence of North Korea as an independent state and then affirms the treaties signed by the President?

Then there is the question of what the Peace Treaty, if there is one, would actually say. Will it confirm that there are two Koreas on the peninsula and that each will recognise the other as an independent country, with a 'non-aggression' clause to guarantee -on paper, at least- that neither country will lay claim to the other, and would this not be a victory for North Korea and a defeat for South Korea?

But here is the greatest irony of all, it looks to me like any deal on de-nuclearisation that is acceptable to both sides will look almost exactly like the 'Iran Nuclear Deal' that your President has called 'the worst deal in history' or words to that effect. North Korea has the nuclear weapon Iran does not have, but could agree to the same terms and conditions on future development, external monitoring and so forth, that is for some reason unacceptable to the USA with Iran.

We have to hope there is a reasonable deal for both North and South Korea, a deal those two countries should negotiate for themselves without the interference of a lunatic like John Bolton who still thinks Ronald Reagan sold out the USA when he agreed an arms reduction programme with Gorbachev, and is determined not to let that happen again. If there is one President who is willing to sell the farm, and the tractors, and the chickens -and billions of dollars of investment in North Korea he would never spend in the USA, in exchange for the Nobel Prize, it is the ignorant fool sitting in the White House spewing forth lies and conspiracy theories to deflect attention away from his own incompetence.

And just as this thread is about the rights Transgendered Americans are losing under the Republican Administration, you can all but guarantee that in any deal signed with this President and that Dear Wise Leader, there will be not one mention of Human Rights, for the simple reason that your President has no regard for Human Rights of Americans, and is not about to lose any sleep over the 100,000+ political prisoners in North Korea, the unknown number working like slaves in the North Korean Gulag, or the victims of summary execution without trial.

We shall watch these developments with interest. Prepare to be disappointed.

[Nick Danger]

That's not how you accomplish anything with the North Koreans

Armchair politics, Giovanni. How DO you accomplish anything with the North Koreans? I noticed you didn't offer a solution to go along with your criticism. But in fact, what are we even trying to accomplish? De-nuclearization? Yeah, that's one thing, but there are also humanitarian problems with North Korea - poverty, hunger, a brainwashed population - at least if we believe what we're told, which, when it comes to North Korea, I kinda do. There are infrastructure problems, i.e., how do you take a country that's essentially a giant slave camp and turn it into something that's acceptable to John Q. American in Cincinnati?

The first step is to sit down at a table and open negotiations, preferably with as much leverage as possible on our side. Not clear on what it is you're suggesting we should do.


it looks to me like any deal on de-nuclearisation that is acceptable to both sides will look almost exactly like the 'Iran Nuclear Deal' that your President has called 'the worst deal in history' or words to that effect.

How can you say that before negotiations have even begun? The deal doesn't look like anything at all to me yet, not even a deal. We've achieved some level of de-nuclearization already just by being open to negotiation, and we have video evidence to prove that. We've found out, via President Trump's crafty dealing, that North Korea wants this summit more than we do. But that's all we really know. I'm sure there are some insiders who know a lot more about what we want and what they want than you and I do, but at this point, the only thing that's certain is we are going to sit down with Kim Jong-il and see what's what, and we are going to do it with a clear negotiating advantage.


We shall watch these developments with interest. Prepare to be disappointed.

I'm always prepared to be disappointed, Stavros. Disappointed by politicians, disappointed by the general public, disappointed by girls, corporations, charities, baseball teams, you name it.

But I have not yet been disappointed by Donald Trump. More like just the opposite - I didn't fully expect he would be trying so hard to keep all his campaign promises, but that's just what he's doing. Liberals, of course, disagreed with his promises on the face of it and don't want to see them kept. But I see a President who's on the verge of achieving great things in the arena of international diplomacy while simultaneously keeping America first in all he does. It really doesn't seem that complicated to me either - we are the strongest country in the history of...history. Finally we have a President who's acting like he realizes that.

[javier81]

Armchair politics, Giovanni. How DO you accomplish anything with the North Koreans? I noticed you didn't offer a solution to go along with your criticism. But in fact, what are we even trying to accomplish? De-nuclearization? Yeah, that's one thing, but there are also humanitarian problems with North Korea - poverty, hunger, a brainwashed population - at least if we believe what we're told, which, when it comes to North Korea, I kinda do. There are infrastructure problems, i.e., how do you take a country that's essentially a giant slave camp and turn it into something that's acceptable to John Q. American in Cincinnati?

Speaking of brainwashed.



But I have not yet been disappointed by Donald Trump. More like just the opposite - I didn't fully expect he would be trying so hard to keep all his campaign promises, but that's just what he's doing. Liberals, of course, disagreed with his promises on the face of it and don't want to see them kept. But I see a President who's on the verge of achieving great things in the arena of international diplomacy while simultaneously keeping America first in all he does. It really doesn't seem that complicated to me either - we are the strongest country in the history of...history. Finally we have a President who's acting like he realizes that.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1839987
How can you say that before negotiations have even begun? The deal doesn't look like anything at all to me yet, not even a deal. We've achieved some level of de-nuclearization already just by being open to negotiation, and we have video evidence to prove that. We've found out, via President Trump's crafty dealing, that North Korea wants this summit more than we do. But that's all we really know. I'm sure there are some insiders who know a lot more about what we want and what they want than you and I do, but at this point, the only thing that's certain is we are going to sit down with Kim Jong-il and see what's what, and we are going to do it with a clear negotiating advantage.
--Sorry but this is nonsense. It is a basic rule of diplomacy that Heads of State do not meet to sign documents unless the negotiation has been done in advance and there is something to sign, these guys are not meeting in Singapore for a plate of noodles, some tea and a friendly chat. Nothing has been achieved so far, other than the demolition of some concrete buildings, a claim that North Korea is willing to participate in the de-nuclearization of the Peninsula, with the implication they would like the USA to leave and go home. And I note you say nothing about the issue of North and South Korea as two separate states and whether Congress will endorse any document signed in Singapore, or is the photo opportunity all that matters?

But I have not yet been disappointed by Donald Trump. More like just the opposite - I didn't fully expect he would be trying so hard to keep all his campaign promises, but that's just what he's doing. Liberals, of course, disagreed with his promises on the face of it and don't want to see them kept. But I see a President who's on the verge of achieving great things in the arena of international diplomacy while simultaneously keeping America first in all he does. It really doesn't seem that complicated to me either - we are the strongest country in the history of...history. Finally we have a President who's acting like he realizes that.

-Not just liberals but many others opposed the policies not 'on the face of it' but because, as with the denial of climate change, the President is plain wrong and the alternative policies which in effect simply reverse the policies introduced by Obama will damage the environment -enabling coal companies to dump their slurry in local rivers and streams, for example, or allowing 'Hunters' from Texas to slaughter baby bears in their dens in Alaska because there no other means of controlling the bear population.
And what was the ban on Transgendered Americans serving in the military about if not just a knee-jerk reversal of Obama's policy to enable it? Is this all politics is now, resentment and revenge?

And I thought your guy kept insisting that America is weak not strong, which is why it needs 'America First' and a 'strong man' at the helm of the ship, even if he is looking Starboard when the ship is listing to Port.

[steviedresses]

My issue with President Trump has nothing to do with negotiations with North Korea, China, Iran, or building a wall, or draining the swamp, or repealing Obamacare, or any of the other policy decisions he is trying to enact.

My issue with Trump is his willingness to divide the country. He is systematically creating an US vs THEM mentality which I fear will lead to civil war. His instance on calling NBC and CNN 'Fake News', saying NFL players Don't belong in the country, and his continued derogatory treatment of anyone who opposes him are all intended to create an enemy within the United States that his supporters can rally against.

Remember, this is the President who wanted to change the libel laws so he could sue the NY Times.

And I will part with this bomb... these are the same tactics Adolf Hitler and the Nazis used when they came to power.

I don't own a gun. I am going to buy several. I am going to Arizona to take a real gun handling course. I am going to become expert in the usage of the firearms, so much so that if (when) I have to defend myself from the coming right wing dictatorship I will at least take a couple of them down with me.

Oh, I live in the heart of Trumpland, yes, the belly of America. There are sane people here, but not many.

[filghy2]

And I will part with this bomb... these are the same tactics Adolf Hitler and the Nazis used when they came to power.

Don't you know it is taboo to mention Hitler and the Nazis (see page one of this thread)? Most people probably don't realise that Hitler was voted into power through constitutional means and was very popular in Germany until things started to go badly in WWII.

Rather than Nazi Germany, however, I think the more relevant example is what has happened in places like Hungary, Poland and Turkey in recent years. In each case the ruling party, after being voted into power, has ruthlessly manipulated the system to entrench itself, suppress opposition and systematically undermine independent institutions like the legal system, while using the same sort of 'us vs them' rhetoric to keep it's supporters on side.

It's not inevitable that the US will go the same way, but if half the country and their elected representatives continue to give Trump a free pass for whatever he does then the conditions for it to happen will be in place. Putting the President above the law is the first step on the way to autocracy.

[nysprod]

Excellent post.

The one thing I will say is that things go in cycles.

And we need control of the House, at the least.

[filghy2]

And we need control of the House, at the least.

It's been estimated that Democrats will need a margin of up to 11 per cent in order to get a House majority, due to gerrymandering in states governed by Republicans. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/17144198/gerrymandering-brennan-center-report-midterms-democrats-house-2018 That's the sort of manipulation I was referring to. You can also bet that voter suppression will continue to be ramped up in the name of combating 'voter fraud'.

[Nick Danger]

Closed minds make for shit-tier conversations, and results count for a hell of a lot more than speculation.

I am not closed-minded. I'm a snow-white small business owner who was raised about 40 miles from the birthplace of the KKK. But that didn't stop me from voting for a black Democrat when given a choice between Obama and a grizzled war-hawk riding on little more than 50 years of ex-POW status, or Obama and an elitist religious fanatic. I may have even voted Democratic at that point no matter who was running, since I have a helpful understanding of the fact that the back-and-forth political cycle is necessary to keep our country strong.

But I suppose you all wanted Hillary. And I suppose further that even after her childish, months-long post-election tantrum revealed that she was really just a power-hungry dilettante all along, you'd still maintain she was the better choice.

Because your minds are closed. With the possible exception of Stavros, who at least does the reading.

I suggest you all sit back and observe the prosperity the USA is experiencing, and will continue to experience for the next several years, as President Trump leverages our military might into dollars and cents. Enjoy it - you're an American and you are entitled to reap the benefits. You sure as hell are going to reap the down-side of being American, so you may as well get something out of it.

But you really should stop trying to convince people that we're living some kind of nightmare here just because you personally can't get everything you want. LGBT rights have come a long, long, long way in the last decade. The American state of mind is turning away from persecuting people over their sex lives. I can almost guarantee you that in 2024, we'll have a new Democratic administration and most likely, a final solution (no nazi joke intended) to the LGBT rights problem - in the form of a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing them. In fact it wouldn't surprise me at all if that is the very first thing on the new agenda. When the time comes.

It's not going to happen while Donald Trump is President though, and the reason SHOULD be obvious.

[broncofan]

I can almost guarantee you that in 2024, we'll have a new Democratic administration and most likely, a final solution (no nazi joke intended) to the LGBT rights problem - in the form of a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing them.
We're most likely to have a Constitutional amendment? What would that amendment say? A constitutional amendment requires 38 states to ratify it. Have you seen a map of the U.S. lately?

I think the ratification of a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing gay rights is very unlikely. I have a feeling you're just talking but can you tell me what it is you think will happen there? Also, what is it the amendment would provide that isn't guaranteed by the 14th amendment, particularly after Obergefell?

[yodajazz]

My issue with President Trump has nothing to do with negotiations with North Korea, China, Iran, or building a wall, or draining the swamp, or repealing Obamacare, or any of the other policy decisions he is trying to enact.

My issue with Trump is his willingness to divide the country. He is systematically creating an US vs THEM mentality which I fear will lead to civil war. His instance on calling NBC and CNN 'Fake News', saying NFL players Don't belong in the country, and his continued derogatory treatment of anyone who opposes him are all intended to create an enemy within the United States that his supporters can rally against.

Remember, this is the President who wanted to change the libel laws so he could sue the NY Times.

And I will part with this bomb... these are the same tactics Adolf Hitler and the Nazis used when they came to power.

I don't own a gun. I am going to buy several. I am going to Arizona to take a real gun handling course. I am going to become expert in the usage of the firearms, so much so that if (when) I have to defend myself from the coming right wing dictatorship I will at least take a couple of them down with me.

Oh, I live in the heart of Trumpland, yes, the belly of America. There are sane people here, but not many.

I strongly agree. I'll take the ban, and compare current America to the rise of Hitler. I don't know a lot about recent Eastern Europe these days, but I did study the rise of Nazi Germany as a youth. I can't help but feel a certain deja vu, about how Illegal immigrants, are being rounded up, these days. Hitler rounded up, other classes of people, besides the jews, that included, gypsies, and gays. So today's administration has that similarity. Not with rounding them up, but more like what I call scapegoating. In some ways there are some similarities with Mussolini's more classic fascism, with corporate interests, united with the public interests. I may read Madeline Albright's new book, "Fascism: A Warning", next. So it appears that i am not the only one concerned about the direction, we are headed.

[Nick Danger]

We're most likely to have a Constitutional amendment? What would that amendment say? A constitutional amendment requires 38 states to ratify it. Have you seen a map of the U.S. lately?

I think the ratification of a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing gay rights is very unlikely. I have a feeling you're just talking but can you tell me what it is you think will happen there? Also, what is it the amendment would provide that isn't guaranteed by the 14th amendment, particularly after Obergefell?

That’s the short view, Bronco. In 6 years, everything will be different.

1. The economy will be better. You’ll just have to trust me on that one.

2. The majority of the early Baby Boomer generation will be deceased, meaning a lot fewer votes for Jesus and a lot more votes for earthly concerns.

3. People will be tired of Republican politics.

4. Assuming the LGBT community don’t overplay their hand and create a backlash - you know, by demanding there be 112 genders or some other nonsense - it will seem totally natural to people to validate their rights further, in a very permanent manner.

I see it coming. Watching American politics play out isn’t much different than watching the ebb and flow of the ocean tide - do it long enough and you know exactly when to move your towel.

[Stavros]

LGBT rights have come a long, long, long way in the last decade. The American state of mind is turning away from persecuting people over their sex lives. I can almost guarantee you that in 2024, we'll have a new Democratic administration and most likely, a final solution (no nazi joke intended) to the LGBT rights problem - in the form of a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing them. In fact it wouldn't surprise me at all if that is the very first thing on the new agenda. When the time comes.


But the point I have been making, Nick, is that you don't need an amendment to the Constitution because LGBTQIAPN/B people are citizens with the same rights as every other American, they don't need a special amendment as if they were some new species of American who need special treatment. The other key point is that the withdrawal of the right of Transgendered Americans to serve in the military if they choose to do so, is nothing but vindictive, and was made because the Obama Presidency made it easier and if Obama did it, then the Republicans must undo it. It has no political benefit -if anything Americas should see it for the spiteful act that it is- and has no economic justification as the Military spends more proving its limp-dicked personnel with Viagra. Yes, it might just be a temporary glitch while these people are making the decisions, but what message does it send to Americans who want to serve but are told 'We don't want you'. In the longer term it adds to the problems that Transgendered Americas have across a range of issues in health, education and work, with the bleak assessment they may make that nobody cares about them, at a time when teenagers in particular need a lot of support. An example of how a small, even trivial policy decision made out of spite can in fact have a more serious impact elsewhere, and thus cost more to repair in the longer term.

[Nick Danger]

But the point I have been making, Nick, is that you don't need an amendment to the Constitution because LGBTQIAPN/B people are citizens with the same rights as every other American, they don't need a special amendment as if they were some new species of American who need special treatment. The other key point is that the withdrawal of the right of Transgendered Americans to serve in the military if they choose to do so, is nothing but vindictive, and was made because the Obama Presidency made it easier and if Obama did it, then the Republicans must undo it. It has no political benefit -if anything Americas should see it for the spiteful act that it is- and has no economic justification as the Military spends more proving its limp-dicked personnel with Viagra. Yes, it might just be a temporary glitch while these people are making the decisions, but what message does it send to Americans who want to serve but are told 'We don't want you'. In the longer term it adds to the problems that Transgendered Americas have across a range of issues in health, education and work, with the bleak assessment they may make that nobody cares about them, at a time when teenagers in particular need a lot of support. An example of how a small, even trivial policy decision made out of spite can in fact have a more serious impact elsewhere, and thus cost more to repair in the longer term.

You do need a Constitutional amendment, Stavros, because being a citizen of this country does not guarantee you the rights of which you speak. There are many citizens who can't join the armed forces. My grandfather fought in WWII, but my father couldn't join because of a vision impairment. Some people are conscientious objectors for religious or other reasons - the mere stating of their beliefs denies them entry into the armed forces. And the list goes on.

The current administration is willing to look at transgenderism as a mental health problem, and would probably be willing to take it one step further and define homosexuality that way. If there were a Constitutional amendment defining their rights, he'd be unable to do that. It surprises me that people don't see it that way.

Both the 10th and 15th amendments define rights for specific groups of people. LBGT people are a specific group of people who are complaining that their rights are being violated. It's practically a generic case study in the best possible use of a Constitutional amendment.

Also, Presidents love signing amendments. It becomes a huge part of their legacy.

It needs to happen and it will happen.

And as for "sending the wrong message," well, by political standards, Trump is sending exactly the right message to his voting base, and doesn't give much of a flying fuck what the LGBT community - most certainly, for the most part, NOT his voting base - thinks about it.

[morim]

"these are the same tactics Adolf Hitler and the Nazis used when they came to power."

To die with laughter!!!

[broncofan]

Both the 10th and 15th amendments define rights for specific groups of people. LBGT people are a specific group of people who are complaining that their rights are being violated. It's practically a generic case study in the best possible use of a Constitutional amendment.
.
I'm not trying to engage in one upsmanship by correcting you but the 10th amendment says that what power does not belong to the federal government resides in the states. It prevents the federal government from encroaching on state sovereignty but it doesn't protect "specific groups of people".

You don't seem to understand how unlikely it is that 38 states would support bolstering lgbt civil rights, and your vagueness about what civil rights would be enhanced is understandable since such protections should be sought through legislation directed at discriminatory private conduct rather than through a constitutional amendment. Although the 13th amendment banned slavery and badges of slavery and was directed at private conduct, most constitutional amendments place limits on the types of actions that can be taken by the government.

The reason the 14th amendment equal protection clause protects lgbt members is because it should in theory prevent the government from passing laws that use arbitrary classifications and discriminate against lgbt members. You can take a look at Karnoski v Trump if you're curious how the 5th amendment due process protects lgbt members against federal government action that is "[d]ripping with animus" and "unsupported by any compelling, important, or even rational justification". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnoski_v._Trump

The lgbt community could be protected by federal civil rights legislation, which like the civil rights act would be passed by Congress and would not require 38 states to ratify. Sadly, in eight years, no matter how liberal our country is and I personally hope we move in that direction, states would be more likely to ratify an amendment discriminating against lgbt members than protecting them (see the federal marriage amendment).

Even civil rights legislation that protects lgbt members in the same manner as other minority groups would be unpopular among religious groups who seek to exempt religious people from doing business with gay couples under the religious freedom restoration act. The best we can hope for at this point is a Congress that tries to protect the lgbt community and a President who does not try to actively discriminate against them. We don't have that right now...

[giovanni_hotel]

People are really overestimating the size of Trump's base.

He won't win Ohio/Michigan/Wisconsin again. That was a total fluke.

[broncofan]

People are really overestimating the size of Trump's base.

He won't win Ohio/Michigan/Wisconsin again. That was a total fluke.
Probably true as he lost the popular vote and he was a bit lucky to win those states you mention. But he's the incumbent and the Democrats aren't sure who they're going to run though it's early. Remember also that people thought he had no chance in 2016. Pretty disconcerting that he got 63 million votes to begin with. You think he'll definitely lose in 2020? I don't have any confidence at all about it. When I asked people a couple months before the last election what they thought it would be like to live under a Trump presidency a lot of people said they couldn't imagine him winning.

[buttslinger]

Trump owns the next 5 months. Then you get mid-terms and the Mueller probe.
The insults get teeth. Don't boo, vote!!!!!!

[Nick Danger]

I'm not trying to engage in one upsmanship by correcting you but the 10th amendment says that...

That was an unfortunate typo, Bronco, I meant the 19th amendment - which of course gives suffrage to women.

You seem like an intelligent guy, so I'm sure you're familiar with the Equal Rights Amendment. I envision an updated, all-inclusive version of that finally getting serious consideration, and I think Americans are ready to say, yeah, you know, we're pretty tired of all this discrimination - hearing about it, talking about it, and fucking with it in general. Time to put it to bed once and for all.

That's what I think is going to happen. Trump isn't going to do it, but he is playing a vital role - setting the stage with his antics.

One thing most people don't consider is that the generation that has brought this county conservative morality politics for so many decades is...dying. They're not dead yet, but the worst of them are in their 70's right now - those born right after WWII. Not bad people, but people with a very specific, very collective set of values.

Once this MASSIVE ultra-conservative voting bloc is underground, everything will change. You'll get what you think will never happen, it's really just simple mathematics.

The LGBT community is involved in a war of attrition, whether they realize it or not. Their most effective weapon is...waiting. Victory is 6 years away IMO.

[broncofan]

One thing most people don't consider is that the generation that has brought this county conservative morality politics for so many decades is...dying. They're not dead yet, but the worst of them are in their 70's right now - those born right after WWII. Not bad people, but people with a very specific, very collective set of values.

Once this MASSIVE ultra-conservative voting bloc is underground, everything will change. You'll get what you think will never happen, it's really just simple mathematics.

The LGBT community is involved in a war of attrition, whether they realize it or not. Their most effective weapon is...waiting. Victory is 6 years away IMO.
That's an interesting idea but it might not offer additional protection. An equal rights amendment like that proposed for gender would be an additional layer on top of the 5th and 14th. It certainly wouldn't be a bad thing but I'm not sure what it adds, particularly since there has never been a sexual orientation litmus test for voting which would necessitate a 15th or 19th amendment analogue.

The civil rights act has been interpreted to protect sexual orientation and gender identity at various times but it was not written with the rights of these groups in mind. Title VII for instance, considers sex a protected classification with respect to employment rights but it was written at a time when it was permissible for states to pass anti-sodomy laws so it's unlikely it was intended as an lgbt protection.

I think it would be a bit more useful to pass a comprehensive civil rights law that includes gender identity and sexual orientation as protected categories and which expressly trumps any statutory exemptions that exist at the state or federal level under the religious freedom restoration act. See ENDA and Equality act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act .... but given that Congress could not pass those by a simple majority, you can see how far we are from three-fourths of state legislatures.

The lesson with the transgender military ban is that if the commander in chief wants to discriminate, even if doing so is unconstitutional, it takes a while to challenge it and win in court. The President has a lot of power, some of his actions are not reviewable in court, and those which are can cause a lot of damage in the interim and waste resources litigating.

[JPeterson]

People are really overestimating the size of Trump's base.

He won't win Ohio/Michigan/Wisconsin again. That was a total fluke.
On one hand

It's hard to imagine Democrats could *uck it up again and nominate someone with Hilary personal baggage,laziness,entitlement,incompetence and gaffe prone way's all rolled into a single candidate.

On the other hand
Incumbent's tend to get reelected in America more then they don't

If Democrats are still talking Russia in 2019 bet on his reelection,if we get hit with a recession or major international incident then bet on him going down in flames.

[filghy2]

The lesson with the transgender military ban is that if the commander in chief wants to discriminate, even if doing so is unconstitutional, it takes a while to challenge it and win in court. The President has a lot of power, some of his actions are not reviewable in court, and those which are can cause a lot of damage in the interim and waste resources litigating.

It's worth bearing in mind that the southern states were allowed to maintain a system of explicit racial discrimination up until the 1960s, despite the equal protection clause in the constitution. That shows that constitutional protections are no panacea when administrations are unwilling to abide by or enforce them.

[Stavros]

Also, Presidents love signing amendments. It becomes a huge part of their legacy.
It needs to happen and it will happen.
And as for "sending the wrong message," well, by political standards, Trump is sending exactly the right message to his voting base, and doesn't give much of a flying fuck what the LGBT community - most certainly, for the most part, NOT his voting base - thinks about it.

There have not been many Constitutional Amendments for Presidents to get excited about, the last one was signed in 1992, and as I and others have argued, the application of existing law makes more sense than a Constitutional Amendment to protect and promote Transgender rights, as would be the case with Disabled Americans. The USA is not the only country where the application of the law varies from one place to another, and from one social group to another. That is where the difficulty lies, not least when a State can legally impose rules on Black Americans that in effect bars them from registering to vote or even to vote on polling day. If Americans lose faith in the rule of law, a fundamental pillar of a free and democratic society is weakened.
https://worldhistoryproject.org/topics/us-constitution-amendments

But here is the killer: if the President claims to be the President of ALL Americans, then he should not be solely concerned with delivering to his voter base, even if I agree with your point that tactically that is what he appears to be doing. Just when every Transgendered Americans has the right to be respected, their President spends an astonishing amount of time heaping insult and abuse on any and indeed, all Americans who don't agree with him, as if that simple fact alone was a form of treachery deserving of the Presidents wrath. This is not the President of all Americans, indeed one is tempted to quote Jeremy Cobyn and suggest the USA would be better of if it had a President for the Many, not the Few.
Respect must be earned, it cannot be bought. Or sold.

[filghy2]

Closed minds make for shit-tier conversations, and results count for a hell of a lot more than speculation. I am not closed-minded.

I suggest you all sit back and observe the prosperity the USA is experiencing, and will continue to experience for the next several years, as President Trump leverages our military might into dollars and cents. Enjoy it - you're an American and you are entitled to reap the benefits. You sure as hell are going to reap the down-side of being American, so you may as well get something out of it.


It's good to know that you are open-minded and base your views on evidence, not preconceptions. Otherwise I might have thought you ignored my post showing that Democrats achieve better economic results simply because it contradicted your argument that a few Republican nasties are the necessary price for a better economy.

You Trumpeteers seem to forget (or maybe never knew) that every boom ends in a bust, and that the busts happen at least once every decade, so we are due for another. If the current expansion was to continue for another 6 years it would probably be the longest ever in US history.

[dreamon]

It's a crazy time to be a conservative.

The Republican President just enacted an anti-free trade policy against allies.

“Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.”
-Milton Friedman

[Stavros]

It's a crazy time to be a conservative.
The Republican President just enacted an anti-free trade policy against allies.
“Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.”
-Milton Friedman


Republicans have been doing it for decades, the latest version calling it 'Fair Trade' though the definition of fair seems to be limited to what he thinks it is. If the President and indeed, any other politician truly believed in free trade, all deals, domestic or international would be done by companies and entrepreneurs without the interference of the state, other than the parties involved abiding by the law.

[Stavros]

It's good to know that you are open-minded and base your views on evidence, not preconceptions. Otherwise I might have thought you ignored my post showing that Democrats achieve better economic results simply because it contradicted your argument that a few Republican nasties are the necessary price for a better economy.
You Trumpeteers seem to forget (or maybe never knew) that every boom ends in a bust, and that the busts happen at least once every decade, so we are due for another. If the current expansion was to continue for another 6 years it would probably be the longest ever in US history.

And just as not a word of gratitude has been extended to President Obama, under whose watch the US economy recovered from the 2008 crisis to grow year on year, if there is a bust, it will be blamed on him and the 'liberals'.

[dreamon]

Republicans have been doing it for decades, the latest version calling it 'Fair Trade' though the definition of fair seems to be limited to what he thinks it is. If the President and indeed, any other politician truly believed in free trade, all deals, domestic or international would be done by companies and entrepreneurs without the interference of the state, other than the parties involved abiding by the law.

It's been a change for sure. Here in the US, the Democrats have become the party of free trade. It's interesting times in America for sure.

[giovanni_hotel]

On one hand

It's hard to imagine Democrats could *uck it up again and nominate someone with Hilary personal baggage,laziness,entitlement,incompetence and gaffe prone way's all rolled into a single candidate.

On the other hand
Incumbent's tend to get reelected in America more then they don't

If Democrats are still talking Russia in 2019 bet on his reelection,if we get hit with a recession or major international incident then bet on him going down in flames.



Believe it or not the Russia conspiracy is real. More indictments are coming.

When Mueller finally drops his report, Trump may be charged with treason.
The only question left is will a GOP Congress hold the POTUS accountable??

I know the Dems will.:)

[Stavros]

Believe it or not the Russia conspiracy is real. More indictments are coming.
When Mueller finally drops his report, Trump may be charged with treason.
The only question left is will a GOP Congress hold the POTUS accountable??
I know the Dems will.:)

If Mike Pence becomes President, expect an official pardon from him within days, I mean, it's only treason. And we all know what a caring, compassionate Christian Michael is, yearning to forgive sinners.

[Nick Danger]

It's a crazy time to be a conservative.

The Republican President just enacted an anti-free trade policy against allies.

“Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.”
-Milton Friedman


"Tariffs on our allies? But...but...but our allies help us to...you know...stuff!!"

Yes, tariffs on our allies, because...wait for it...business.

Canada is OUTRAGED that they are actually going to have to pay in order to sit comfortably away from the turmoil of the outside world and prosper outrageously under our protection.

Stop the madness, liberals. It's another amazingly intelligent and savvy business decision by our new CEO and Commander-in-Chief. Deal with it.

I challenge any one of you auto-resisters and contrarians to give even one good reason we shouldn't tax the countries we protect, at great expense to ourselves, to the extent we deem fit. Just one.

Have a nice day, fellow Americans, it's glorious to be in the USA right now under President Donald Trump.

[broncofan]

I challenge any one of you auto-resisters and contrarians to give even one good reason we shouldn't tax the countries we protect, at great expense to ourselves, to the extent we deem fit. Just one.

I am going to wait to see some pretty good answers but I have a feeling at least one of the reasons will involve the potential for retaliatory tariffs and the cost of propping up industries that are not competitive. Maybe something about the gains of trade not being zero sum and economic prosperity not being entirely reducible to the trade balance. Further we don't live in a zero sum world generally and so taking punitive actions against countries because we "protect" them may hurt them economically but doesn't help us. We typically haven't treated alliances like extortion opportunities but it is a new era.

Trump is not the financial success story he makes himself out to be. His investments have neither been as bad as his worst detractors say nor anywhere near spectacular. The man inherited a large estate, had access to loans other people do not, and using tons of leverage made average rates of return over decades. Actually successful investors like Warren Buffett think he's a blustering buffoon. He deserves credit for being able to con so many people, which is a skill that requires a certain amount of audacity to master and a complete deficit of integrity.

[Nick Danger]

I am going to wait to see some pretty good answers but I have a feeling at least one of the reasons will involve the potential for retaliatory tariffs and the cost of propping up industries that are not competitive. Maybe something about the gains of trade not being zero sum and economic prosperity not being entirely reducible to the trade balance. Further we don't live in a zero sum world generally and so taking punitive actions against countries because we "protect" them may hurt them economically but doesn't help us. We typically haven't treated alliances like extortion opportunities but it is a new era.

I see, so it's not a tariff, it's "extortion." It's not smart business, it's "punitive." Hyperbole much, Bronco?


Trump is not the financial success story he makes himself out to be. His investments have neither been as bad as his worst detractors say nor anywhere near spectacular. The man inherited a large estate, had access to loans other people do not, and using tons of leverage made average rates of return over decades. Actually successful investors like Warren Buffett think he's a blustering buffoon. He deserves credit for being able to con so many people, which is a skill that requires a certain amount of audacity to master and a complete deficit of integrity.

But Trump is indeed A financial success story, whether he blows it out of proportion or not. Whatever shady dealings, bankruptcies, etc., he was involved in, the end result was, Donald Trump is a billionaire, and he's not in prison. In fact, to my knowledge, he has never even been charged with any kind of financial crime. So he played by the rules and made himself wealthy, or wealthier as may be the case.

If you're longing for integrity in your public officials, Bronco, you're on the wrong planet. Doesn't work that way. The veneer of integrity is the best you're going to get. You think Obama doesn't have skeletons in his closet? Bad bet.

You're right about one thing. He definitely deserves credit for achieving results, by whatever means necessary. The guy has been a blatant liar for so long that I doubt he even recognizes the difference in the truth and deceit anymore. But he does recognize that saying what needs to be said, and doing what needs to be done to achieve the best end result - for himself, the USA, and no one else - is the path to 4 more years.

I hate to fall back on an old cliche, but it applies - money talks and bullshit walks, Bronco. Results are what count, not "integrity."

[Fitzcarraldo]

I've never seen anyone worship any president so hard.

[Nick Danger]

I've never seen anyone worship any president so hard.

Pretty standard liberal mockery, Fitz. And where has it gotten you? Trump is in the White House, Republicans own the House and the Senate, and the Democratic Party is just a limp-dicked beggar playing spoons on the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and Desolation Lane.

Substance over style, Fitz, say something intelligent if you can.

[dc_guy_75]

That fact that over 25% of eligible voters voted for Trump is beyond disturbing.

For me, this is unforgivable. I will not be have be friends with with any Trump voter for as long as I live. Luckily, I don't have any family members who voted for Trump, but if I did, I would've cut them out of my life.

Trump voters are disgusting, and I hate them on visceral level. I have yet to see any Trump voter (in any media) who seems like a good person.

[filghy2]

I challenge any one of you auto-resisters and contrarians to give even one good reason we shouldn't tax the countries we protect, at great expense to ourselves, to the extent we deem fit. Just one..

Aside for the points already mentioned, a tariff is not a tax on foreign countries. It is a tax on American consumers and businesses who purchase those imported products. Raising tariffs on steel and aluminium is particularly dumb because those are inputs used by pretty much every other US manufacturer. Nice way to make US manufacturing more competitive.

Here's a challenge for you. Can you name a single Republican-leaning economist (not working for Trump) who agrees that trade wars are a good idea?

[Nick Danger]

Aside for the points already mentioned, a tariff is not a tax on foreign countries. It is a tax on American consumers and businesses who purchase those imported products. Raising tariffs on steel and aluminium is particularly dumb because those are inputs used by pretty much every other US manufacturer. Nice way to make US manufacturing more competitive.

Here's a challenge for you. Can you name a single Republican-leaning economist (not working for Trump) who agrees that trade wars are a good idea?

I'm not sure we're even playing the same game here, Flighty. You do realize, I assume, that placing a tariff on imported goods means American goods have the clear advantage in the American market. Don't you?

My assumption is that you do realize it, but you're consciously ignoring the truth so you can keep pretending Trump's not doing a fantastic job.

"Trade war" is just code for "war," Flighty. Behind every trade agreement ever made, there's a loaded gun under the table. We've got the biggest gun of all, and Trump just pulled it out and cocked it.

Pure balls. Thank God we've finally got a President who's immune to the cowardly mewling of the ignorant masses.

[Nick Danger]

That fact that over 25% of eligible voters voted for Trump is beyond disturbing.

For me, this is unforgivable. I will not be have be friends with with any Trump voter for as long as I live. Luckily, I don't have any family members who voted for Trump, but if I did, I would've cut them out of my life.

Trump voters are disgusting, and I hate them on visceral level. I have yet to see any Trump voter (in any media) who seems like a good person.

OMG


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y69tkCbeC5o

[Fitzcarraldo]

Pretty standard liberal mockery, Fitz. And where has it gotten you? Trump is in the White House, Republicans own the House and the Senate, and the Democratic Party is just a limp-dicked beggar playing spoons on the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and Desolation Lane.

Substance over style, Fitz, say something intelligent if you can.

As usual, all your assumptions are wrong. I have never had any ties to the Democratic--or any other--political party.

Now get back on your knees to worship your White House wet dream.

[Nick Danger]

As usual, all your assumptions are wrong. I have never had any ties to the Democratic--or any other--political party.

Now get back on your knees to worship your White House wet dream.

You just gave me a new sexual fantasy - me fucking Carrie Emberlyn missionary style while President Trump jacks her off and live-tweets it!

But really, I'm just standing my ground, Fitz. I didn't expect much companionship in this thread and it turns out I have none. Doesn't change the fact that I'm right and everyone else is grasping at straws for "visceral" reasons.

[broncofan]

I'm not sure we're even playing the same game here, Flighty. You do realize, I assume, that placing a tariff on imported goods means American goods have the clear advantage in the American market. Don't you?
.
You're ignoring his point though. So I'll repeat it. Steel will be more expensive for U.S. manufacturers. This makes these manufacturers less competitive. Other countries place tariffs on our goods which will close off markets to our industries. How is this good and are their right wing economists who think trade wars are good for the economy?

You're engaging in some of the same bluster as Trump. I don't accept that he's a great negotiator, I don't think he's an exceptional businessman, and I'm not opposed to playing hardball or being tough but it doesn't justify being stupid. So how is he not doing something counter-intuitive and destructive?

[filghy2]

My assumption is that you do realize it, but you're consciously ignoring the truth so you can keep pretending Trump's not doing a fantastic job.

"Trade war" is just code for "war," Flighty. Behind every trade agreement ever made, there's a loaded gun under the table. We've got the biggest gun of all, and Trump just pulled it out and cocked it.

"Consciously ignoring the truth so you can keep pretending" You really have no sense of irony at all, do you Dangler?

You think Trump is going to send warships to China to force them to make trade concessions? This is not the 19th century.

If military might is always the answer then what happened in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan? Did you learn nothing from those debacles?

[broncofan]

If military might is always the answer then what happened in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan? Did you learn nothing from those debacles?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X6QqZF3J14

[Nick Danger]

You're ignoring his point though. So I'll repeat it. Steel will be more expensive for U.S. manufacturers. This makes these manufacturers less competitive. Other countries place tariffs on our goods which will close off markets to our industries. How is this good and are their right wing economists who think trade wars are good for the economy?

You're engaging in some of the same bluster as Trump. I don't accept that he's a great negotiator, I don't think he's an exceptional businessman, and I'm not opposed to playing hardball or being tough but it doesn't justify being stupid. So how is he not doing something counter-intuitive and destructive?

I'm not a professional economist like Flighty, Bronco. But the math seems pretty simple to me - American steel will not be more expensive for American manufacturers - well, maybe a little, I'm sure American commodity suppliers will jack their prices up in light of new tariffs, that's the American way. But it will be cheaper than imported steel.

If manufacturing suffers a little, commodities will prosper a lot. And remember, Bronco, foreign countries dependent on American military protection for their continued prosperity are not in a position to play hardball with us. They may very well institute tariffs of their own, but they won't be enough to piss us off; whereas we, of course, needn't care whether we piss them off or not. That's what I meant in an earlier post when I said President Trump will be leveraging America's military might into dollars and cents.

You are not required to accept all this, Bronco. I encourage you to give all the credit for the pending American economic boom to Obama. He deserves it, he's a hell of a nice guy.

[broncofan]

I'm not a professional economist like Flighty, Bronco. But the math seems pretty simple to me - American steel will not be more expensive for American manufacturers - well, maybe a little, I'm sure American commodity suppliers will jack their prices up in light of new tariffs, that's the American way. But it will be cheaper than imported steel.

If manufacturing suffers a little, commodities will prosper a lot.
Well, American steel may not be more expensive than it would be but it will be more expensive than the foreign steel without tariffs. Our manufacturers will end up subsidizing our steel producers. I thought we were going to make America great again. Instead we're going to get better at furnishing raw materials at the expense of our competitiveness in making finished goods. Doesn't sound great. That kind of protectionism sounds like a step backwards.

We don't know what's pending as we haven't seen the results of the trade wars he seems intent on starting. I have no dogma here. If you can make it convincing I can be convinced.

[Nick Danger]

"Consciously ignoring the truth so you can keep pretending" You really have no sense of irony at all, do you Dangler?

You think Trump is going to send warships to China to force them to make trade concessions? This is not the 19th century.

If military might is always the answer then what happened in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan? Did you learn nothing from those debacles?

Military-Industrial Complex, Flighty. Our economy is dependent on the constant research, construction, destruction, and re-supply of ridiculously expensive military hardware. I thought everyone knew that. It was pretty much the only reason we were in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central America, Lebanon, and the list do go on. Maybe I've over-estimated the collective intelligence of the current generation. Far from being "debacles," the wars you mentioned all fulfilled their function perfectly. In fact, look for a new, unnecessarily-prolonged, unwinnable war, probably with Iran, during Trump's second term. Second term is always the best time to start one.

But that doesn't relate in any way at all to the matter at hand. I'm talking, once again, about realpolitik, i.e., the negotiations that don't get reported on the evening news, conducted by people who know exactly where they stand militarily.

America is a bully. Were you really not aware?

[filghy2]

Military-Industrial Complex, Flighty. Our economy is dependent on the constant research, construction, destruction, and re-supply of ridiculously expensive military hardware.

America is a bully. Were you really not aware?

Military spending is good for the military-industrial complex, but not for the rest of the economy because it diverts resources that could be used for more productive things. The US spends 3.5% of its GDP on the military, so it would need to gain more than 3.5% from this just to come out ahead.

You really need to read more history - great powers in the past have been ruined by military overstretch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers What do you think happened to the previous great power, the British Empire? It was exhausted after fighting two world wars, even though it was on the winning side.

Are you not aware that they have politics in other countries? Most foreigners cannot stand Trump, so do you think their politicians are more likely to give in to his bullying or stand up to it? The Chinese, in particular, are very motivated to avoid any repeat of the humiliations of the 19th C when they were pushed around by foreign powers.

It's pity somebody else already took the username 'dreamon'. It would have been perfect for you,

[Nick Danger]

Military spending is good for the military-industrial complex, but not for the rest of the economy because it diverts resources that could be used for more productive things. The US spends 3.5% of its GDP on the military, so it would need to gain more than 3.5% from this just to come out ahead.

You really need to read more history - great powers in the past have been ruined by military overstretch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers What do you think happened to the previous great power, the British Empire? It was exhausted after fighting two world wars, even though it was on the winning side.

Are you not aware that they have politics in other countries? Most foreigners cannot stand Trump, so do you think their politicians are more likely to give in to his bullying or stand up to it? The Chinese, in particular, are very motivated to avoid any repeat of the humiliations of the 19th C when they were pushed around by foreign powers.

It's pity somebody else already took the username 'dreamon'. It would have been perfect for you,

Meh, pretty naive outlook IMO, Flighty. World War II was when the sly businessmen of the USA figured out that war is profitable business, Korea was when they tested the theory, and Vietnam and everything since has been pure profit.

"3.5% of the GDP" is a misleading statistic though, so I will give you credit for finally showing up with some gamesmanship. A more telling figure is % of total spending, which was 16% during Obama's last year and 18.6% this year. That is, by far, the biggest kitty on the planet that's open for bidding to private (American) contractors. That's what keeps the economy in motion, take that away and you're pulling $700 billion or so straight out of the American economy and putting it into wasteful government giveaways or worse.

By current American economic standards, the greatest sin in war is to win it.

[buttslinger]

The truth is going to come out that Trump is a complete sham, the majority of people will suffer financially from Trump, just like they did with Bush. The true horror in the USA today is not an ISIS tank on every corner, it's NICK DANGER in every other house!!!
OK Nick, let's play....
1) who's the best leader, Adolf Hitler, or Nancy Pelosi???
2) this whole Russia thing, fake news?
3) Try some new clothes, man, maybe some L L Bean. People might take you more seriously......

[Nick Danger]

The truth is going to come out that Trump is a complete sham, the majority of people will suffer financially from Trump, just like they did with Bush. The true horror in the USA today is not an ISIS tank on every corner, it's NICK DANGER in every other house!!!
OK Nick, let's play....
1) who's the best leader, Adolf Hitler, or Nancy Pelosi???
2) this whole Russia thing, fake news?
3) Try some new clothes, man, maybe some L L Bean. People might take you more seriously......

1. Adolf Hitler was a magnificent leader, which is how he convinced an entire nation of seemingly-sane people to buy into his insane ideas. Nancy Pelosi is a decent saleswoman who probably has to have 3 stiff drinks every time she steps up to a podium to lie to America.

2. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if Trump and Putin are in cahoots, and if you’re one of those morons who believe Russia is a threat to the USA, I can definitely understand why that upsets you.

3. My usual wardrobe is Levi’s 505’s and one of my many ancient rock concert t-shirts. Is L.L. Bean country? I fucking hate country.

Game over, Buttslinger. You should try jacks, it’s more about reflexes than intellect.

[buttslinger]

....Game over, Buttslinger. You should try jacks, it’s more about reflexes than intellect.

Ouch, you got me good,
1) What percentage of local patrons are white at your local Walmart?
2) Who was the intellectual superior, Trump or Obama?
3) Who are your top 3 favorite conservative spokespeople?

[filghy2]

1. Adolf Hitler was a magnificent leader, which is how he convinced an entire nation of seemingly-sane people to buy into his insane ideas. Nancy Pelosi is a decent saleswoman who probably has to have 3 stiff drinks every time she steps up to a podium to lie to America.

You don't see any similarities? I'm afraid you don't qualify as 'seemingly-sane' though. Your hero certainly doesn't need any stiff drinks - lying comes so naturally I don't think he even knows he's doing it.

Mention of Hitler is fitting because your insane logic seems to imply that Nazi Germany was the ideal state. After all, Hitler took militarisation to the nth degree and he certainly put Germany first and made the country great again by making other countries afraid of it.