POTUS 45.08: Suckers

[GrinCDXX]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Pretty much what happened with Brent in the last couple of days isn't it?

At least from my perspective, no, that is absolutely not what happened with Brent. I responded to him a few pages back with a mocking tone specifically because his arguments were most decidedly not
"reasoned". He responded to a request for specific issues he has with HRC with, among other things, "the Clinton Foundation Shadow Shenanigans". It was a lazy response almost entirely devoid of substance. The blowback he got (which was mild, btw) had very little to do with him being a "centrist" voice in a sea of crazy libs.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Ivanka setting up her own "Clinton Foundation" while running it out of her White House office.

But, as the article asks, will it be a true non-profit(and does that really matter, as we all know how the Trumps view "Foundations"), or will it be set up to make her a buck?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/this-is-amazing-6

I'm sure all our centrists here will have no problem with this.

Yesterday, the headlines were that Trump was proposing to cut the $8.25 million Office of Global Women's Issues among other things and it was Disaster! Today Ivanka is putting together $100 million plus in private funding to invest in women and it's Disaster!


I kinda like Ivanka and here's why-- I have a very smart and very liberal friend who has worked at the very top levels of a half-dozen or more major clothing retailers over the years. She also worked directly for Ivanka a few years back as a VP for a while. She maintains that Ivanka was the best CEO she has ever worked for (which is saying a lot) and can only say what an exceptional boss, and what an intelligent and kind person she is. Ivanka is naturally going to get murdered over every little thing because Trump, but personally, going by my friend's endorsement, I'm glad she's in the room with a voice.

I'd like to perhaps wait and see what the entire plan is before shooting it down.

[unofan]

The only centrists most of us know are those we see when we look in the mirror.

I hesitate to speak for someone else, but I think what eric is getting at is if you are a person who is anywhere on the right half of the political spectrum, you're going to feel like a pretty distinct minority around here. It's like if I wandered over to gopher puck live or you posted at siouxsports. Posters there may disagree with one another, quite strongly, on a number of things. But when we enter, we'll hear it from all sides and to us it will sound like the rest of the posters are all saying the same thing.

Now, some people, like Bob Gray, choose not to put up with that aggravation. Others don't mind. Me personally, I kind of like it. As a middle aged white male with no known disabilities, I don't find myself in a lot of minority groups. Personally I'd hate it if everything I posted most of the board with agree with in some form or another.

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

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

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

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

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Yesterday, the headlines were that Trump was proposing to cut the $8.25 million Office of Global Women's Issues among other things and it was Disaster! Today Ivanka is putting together $100 million plus in private funding to invest in women and it's Disaster!

Sounds great. But you can't do it that way from the White House. That's the problem. Also interesting that she appears to be setting up something that is very similar to the Clinton's Foundation. Which Brent and countless others have been vilifying for months which helped the Orange Baboon get elected.

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

How many of Trump's orders are actions for laws already on the books vs. new "legislating" from the presidential pen?

Why don't we ask the courts, who keep striking them down?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Lying wins elections. You just have to lie about the right things.

SUCKERS

President Trump’s populist, antitrade deal rhetoric was always hard to believe coming from someone who outsourced production of his clothes and other merchandise to low-wage countries like China. Now it is becoming clearer that he has no coherent plan to lower the trade deficit or bring back lost manufacturing jobs. In fact, Mr. Trump’s promise of huge tax cuts might actually increase the trade deficit and hurt the very workers he says he supports.

In recent weeks the Trump administration has backed away from many of the president’s most ambitious trade promises. The Treasury Department has decided not to label China a currency manipulator and Mr. Trump said he would cut a favorable trade deal with Beijing if it agreed to help him with North Korea. The administration has also indicated that it will not seek sweeping changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement, which the president called the “worst trade deal” ever and has threatened to terminate. And his proposal to put in place a big border tax is going nowhere in Congress because of internal disagreements among Republicans. As he seems to be finding out about so many things, trade policy is a lot more complicated than Mr. Trump ever imagined.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/o...smtyp=cur&_r=0

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Sounds great. But you can't do it that way from the White House. That's the problem. Also interesting that she appears to be setting up something that is very similar to the Clinton's Foundation. Which Brent and countless others have been vilifying for months which helped the Orange Baboon get elected.

Yeah, I mean, isn't that pretty much the Clinton Foundation? But we couldn't put Hillary in the WH because of it. But they're ok with Ivanka doing it.

Centrism, and all.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Why don't we ask the courts, who keep striking them down?

Why don't we ask why all of these cases are going to the 9th circuit, which is filled with activist judges that get overturned about 80% of the time?

[BassAle]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

The difference is that you take the iPhones comment from Chaffetz as literal, where I (and others) take it as a symbolic example (keep in mind as a general rule, I can't stand Chaffetz) Or another way of saying that the country would be a lot better off if more people took more personal responsibility for some of their health care costs. To illustrate the point check out:

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/10/...n-society.html

My son's broken leg cost $40,000 (and counting since he needs another surgery to remove the temporary hardware this fall). I have insurance. What if some kid shows up and his parents don't? Does he not deserve care if his parents happen to have a smartphone or a tattoo (which wouldn't even cover the cost of the anesthesia).

Now I agree many poor people tend to spend their money stupidly. Get a tax refund? Spend it on a large HDTV and a new tattoo, but then somehow can't afford a twice yearly dental exam. I'm not poor, but my phone is an iPhone 5S, which I bought when it was released in September 2013 (I've replaced the battery and screen myself, I refuse to buy a new one until it dies). My only TV is a 32". Yeah, it kind of ****es me off when someone has ****ty teeth or tells their kid they can't afford to send them to swimming lessons but somehow has money for a snowmobile or $1000 worth of tattoos.

But blaming the uninsured person's inability to afford healthcare on a couple "luxuries" is kind of ridiculous. It's always easier to blame these people than actually admit our system is ****ed up.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Yeah, I mean, isn't that pretty much the Clinton Foundation? But we couldn't put Hillary in the WH because of it. But you're ok with Ivanka doing it.

Centrism, and all.

Want to be worth billions? Hide your money in a non-profit and take a salary from it. Oh wait, I think I just used a previous argument, only replacing "offshore account" with "non-profit". Perhaps just following the lead of the NFL, which uses the Hall of Fame as their shelter.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

My son's broken leg cost $40,000 (and counting since he needs another surgery to remove the temporary hardware this fall). I have insurance. What if some kid shows up and his parents don't? Does he not deserve care if his parents happen to have a smartphone or a tattoo (which wouldn't even cover the cost of the anesthesia).

Now I agree many poor people tend to spend their money stupidly. Get a tax refund? Spend it on a large HDTV and a new tattoo, but then somehow can't afford a twice yearly dental exam. I'm not poor, but my phone is an iPhone 5S, which I bought when it was released in September 2013 (I've replaced the battery and screen myself, I refuse to buy a new one until it dies). My only TV is a 32". Yeah, it kind of ****es me off when some has ****ty teeth or tells their kid they can't afford to send them to swimming lessons but somehow has money for a snowmobile or $1000 worth of tattoos.

But blaming the uninsured person's inability to afford healthcare on a couple "luxuries" is kind of ridiculous. It's always easier to blame these people than actually admin our system is ****ed up.

When a person not familiar with money management happens upon a boatload of money, the person usually spends it as quickly as possible.

[unofan]

For example, I was disappointed that Bob walked and hope, like me, he'll eventually come back.

Bob became a caricature of himself by the end before he left. Honestly, he struck me as someone who had fallen into the over 65, Fox News watching death spiral. But then it somehow became personal to him whenever I commented (the story of which I will not regurgitate here, long time posters will remember it), so my experience dealing with him may not be the same as what others recollect.

[BassAle]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

At least from my perspective, no, that is absolutely not what happened with Brent. I responded to him a few pages back with a mocking tone specifically because his arguments were most decidedly not
"reasoned". He responded to a request for specific issues he has with HRC with, among other things, "the Clinton Foundation Shadow Shenanigans". It was a lazy response almost entirely devoid of substance. The blowback he got (which was mild, btw) had very little to do with him being a "centrist" voice in a sea of crazy libs.

yup.

don't expect a response. It's easier to play the victim card than actually admit you've been duped.

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Why don't we ask why all of these cases are going to the 9th circuit, which is filled with activist judges that get overturned about 80% of the time?

Just cause Trumpy says that in a tweet doesn't mean it's true. Look it up.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Just cause Trumpy says that in a tweet doesn't mean it's true. Look it up.

That 80% number has been debunked so many times. Can't believe anyone with a brain cell still buys it.