Decency, Trump and Obama.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-06-2017, 02:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You also must have missed the day at Patriot Class that explained how our officials are elected. 

A request of everybody in this forum:

Name one tangible thing that Trump's election done to truly hurt you? 

We may not have any women he sexually harassed on here or contractors he scammed or minorities he descriminated against or students he screwed over but we do have some citizens paying for him to go play golf at his private resort while his sons rent out rooms in his overseas hotels to the secret service while conducting business for the family and his white house spokeswoman peddles his daughters clothing line in the white house briefing room and he eliminates environmental regulations to benefit his business interests.

That and he hurts my feelings when i have to see his dumbass hair on top of his goofy orange face.

[hollodero]

(03-06-2017, 12:25 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Illegal use of the powers of the federal govt to attack a political opponent.  Really think about the implications of that, and then tell me what would be an appropriate punishment (which at this point is purely hypothetical).

Sure. You're not wrong here, and I did not intend to imply you were.
It's just scary.
--

(03-06-2017, 01:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote: plus I like to see folk's heads explode.

That is not a healthy attitude. Not in these times. And I say that with knowing exactly about political schadenfreude, which up to some point is an OK feeling. Not now.

(03-06-2017, 02:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: A request of everybody in this forum:

Name one tangible thing that Trump's election done to truly hurt you? 

Well, nothing. But that question is a false flag and dangerously short-sighted. As soon as things truly hurt everyday folk, it's already too late.

So let's look at things. You have a country with people all armed to the teeth, that more and more believe the true enemy is within their own society. Who see a president engaging in dark conspiracy theories promoting that very emotion. Who more and more lose basic trust in all of the institutions, all the agencies, in government. For they all got smeared based on nothing factual, e.g. nothing refutable. Now I don't know about you, but that sure seems dangerous.
And emotionally agitated people don't just calm down naturally, that's not how these things go. At some point it turns into a self-enhancing principle. All together, I talk about civil unrest, about people taking matters in their own hands, about division, about an ideological civil war. Things that stay for a long time and don't simply go away. I'm European, we historically know about these things.
And don't even start with "but the left..." and what protester threw a stone. It's about more than some idiots that exist on both sides. And this is your president's doing, who has no intention whatsoever to unite the country. And this is Bannon's agenda. 1:1.

Additionally, of course there are things like environment policy, which won't hurt you at this moment, so the question you asked is stupid to begin with. Sure it doesn't affect you now when lead is put in the rivers and whatnot. Sure it hurts your grand-chlldren more when CC dangers are neglected (OK, I believe in CC for scientific reasons, you probably don't believe in CC for ideological reasons, but just for the argument's sake). Or let's talk debt, or the loss of international reputation, which won't affect you right away either - most policies don't. So your question... really isn't amongst the most smart ones. And you know that. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-06-2017, 02:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You also must have missed the day at Patriot Class that explained how our officials are elected. 

A request of everybody in this forum:

Name one tangible thing that Trump's election done to truly hurt you? 

I can't name one tangible thing that W.'s invasion of Iraq has done to truly hurt me. 

[GMDino]

(03-06-2017, 02:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You also must have missed the day at Patriot Class that explained how our officials are elected. 

A request of everybody in this forum:

Name one tangible thing that Trump's election done to truly hurt you? 

I'd assume nothing unless you live where the pipeline is going through or someplace where mine drainage is now allowed into your water supply.
That's so far.

[Griever]

(03-06-2017, 10:21 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'd assume nothing unless you live where the pipeline is going through or someplace where mine drainage is now allowed into your water supply.
That's so far.

his admin stopped the overtime pay bill that would have given salary people more money because they tend to work more than 40 hours

[GMDino]

(03-06-2017, 12:04 PM)Griever Wrote: his admin stopped the overtime pay bill that would have given salary people more money because they tend to work more than 40 hours

Funny thing about that:  My wife is one of the ones affected so they put all these rules in and a time clock and everything months ago.  I told her that the rules wasn't in place and would be challenged AND that if Trump won it would be rescinded anyway.

So the rule never goes into effect...but the company has already changed everything so she is following it anyway.  

But the real reason is because one, just one, of the other employees that would have been affected often takes advantage of her "make up hours" and they want to make it hard on her.

But they've already budgeted for my wife's OT in the summer when she runs a special program for them so I'll call it a win for now.  

[*michaelsean*]

(03-06-2017, 09:35 AM)hollodero Wrote: Sure. You're not wrong here, and I did not intend to imply you were.
It's just scary.
--


That is not a healthy attitude. Not in these times. And I say that with knowing exactly about political schadenfreude, which up to some point is an OK feeling. Not now.


Well, nothing. But that question is a false flag and dangerously short-sighted. As soon as things truly hurt everyday folk, it's already too late.

So let's look at things. You have a country with people all armed to the teeth, that more and more believe the true enemy is within their own society. Who see a president engaging in dark conspiracy theories promoting that very emotion. Who more and more lose basic trust in all of the institutions, all the agencies, in government. For they all got smeared based on nothing factual, e.g. nothing refutable. Now I don't know about you, but that sure seems dangerous.
And emotionally agitated people don't just calm down naturally, that's not how these things go. At some point it turns into a self-enhancing principle. All together, I talk about civil unrest, about people taking matters in their own hands, about division, about an ideological civil war. Things that stay for a long time and don't simply go away. I'm European, we historically know about these things.
And don't even start with "but the left..." and what protester threw a stone. It's about more than some idiots that exist on both sides. And this is your president's doing, who has no intention whatsoever to unite the country. And this is Bannon's agenda. 1:1.

Additionally, of course there are things like environment policy, which won't hurt you at this moment, so the question you asked is stupid to begin with. Sure it doesn't affect you now when lead is put in the rivers and whatnot. Sure it hurts your grand-chlldren more when CC dangers are neglected (OK, I believe in CC for scientific reasons, you probably don't believe in CC for ideological reasons, but just for the argument's sake). Or let's talk debt, or the loss of international reputation, which won't affect you right away either - most policies don't. So your question... really isn't amongst the most smart ones. And you know that. 

As far as debt goes, the last guy ran up a pretty good one.  International reputation?  I think it's time we rein it all in.  We will trade with other nations, but outside of that, let someone else try to run the world a while.  China would probably like the chance. We could save a fortune in military alone if we just had a defensive military.  spend saved military money on stronger measures to prevent terrorism here.  We've tried to police the world and it hasn't worked out that well.  Next man up.  Or maybe nobody up next.  

[Belsnickel]

(03-06-2017, 01:10 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That's why we'd need to see the evidence presented to justify the FISA warrant.

I'm not sure how "possible" that outcome is because I've not seen any real evidence of a connection, beyond Flynn starting the job too soon and undermining the duly elected and still sitting administration (and, really, I'm of the opinion that any sanctions should have been coordinated with the incoming administration).  But that's post-election.

I'm hardly an expert on FISA, other than having the opinion that it gives wide latitude and power to gather intel on foreign agents.  But I think when talking about a Presidential Candidate, to demonstrate that he was acting as an agent of a foreign power would require very substantial evidence with a high degree of certainty.  Otherwise there is unacceptably massive potential for abuse for purposes of targeting political opponents.

My feeling is the investigation into the banking transactions, which was apparently justified and mostly innocuous, was the basis for building a conspiracy theory that ensnared the easily trolled Trump.

In order for them to have surveillance gathered by our IC on Trump, there would have had to been a FISA warrant which would have to be approved by a federal judge. Personally, I don't think there was any wiretapping done on Trump and that there was no FISA warrant. I do not, however, discount that there may have been one or more people connected to the campaign that may have had such a warrant issued on them given that it was known they had contact with Russian intelligence officers. Even if they didn't know they were Russian intelligence, the DoJ may have wanted surveillance in order to determine the nature of the contacts.

What I have heard from people that were formerly a part of the IC and from some investigative journalists with a decent reputation, is that there is information that has been received from partners (foreign offices) regarding collusion that was provided to our IC post-inauguration. This was not necessarily collected by our IC, but by international partners. What veracity exists in these claims, I do not know.

Personally, I just want an independent investigation on all of this mess so we can put it behind us. I want to start having discussions on actual policy. Whether Trump is doing it or Pence, I want some ***** substance.

[Rotobeast]

(03-06-2017, 02:43 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Maybe. Possibly one of the meetings with Dmitry Rybolovlev as the Russian billionaire had his private jet oddly in the same place as the Trump campaign on more than one occassion. The same guy who paid Trump more than twice what he bought a moldy mansion for.

The same guy who worked at the bank of cypress which is the same place our new commerce secretary worked when he happened to appoint the guy who was fired from Deutsche Bank for helping some russians launder money.

Its all good though. Even though the Dmitry paid Trump 95 million dollars for a mansion he would bulldoze and their jets happened to be in the same place at the same time more than once , Trump assures us he never met him.

Well done !

(03-06-2017, 12:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Personally, I just want an independent investigation on all of this mess so we can put it behind us. I want to start having discussions on actual policy. Whether Trump is doing it or Pence, I want some ***** substance.

A thousand times, this !

[hollodero]

(03-06-2017, 12:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: As far as debt goes, the last guy ran up a pretty good one.

No doubt. This was discussed often, a vast ecomocic crisis, the automobile bailout and the wars were all part of the heritage Obama had to deal with. If he did good or bad, I don't know and it doesn't matter here. What I know is that Republicans were up in arms about the debt, maybe rightfully so - but also that Trump suggests a whole lot of things now that cost enormous amounts of money, they were listed and you know about it.
So whatever valid critizism there might be about Obamas handling of the finances, it's not like Trump will reduce the debt, it's more probable he multiplies it if all his plans go through. If one believes tariffs or cutting development aids will finance all that stuff, I'd say that's illusional.

(03-06-2017, 12:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: International reputation?  I think it's time we rein it all in.  We will trade with other nations, but outside of that, let someone else try to run the world a while.  China would probably like the chance.

Fair enough.
Just, reputation isn't only an important thing if you want to rule the world. It's maybe even more important if you don't.

(03-06-2017, 12:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: We could save a fortune in military alone if we just had a defensive military.  spend saved military money on stronger measures to prevent terrorism here.  We've tried to police the world and it hasn't worked out that well.  Next man up.  Or maybe nobody up next.  

Yeah you could save a fortune. Just, obviously you won't. New nukes, new carriers, new fancy stuff that doesn't exactly reduce the terrorism threat.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-06-2017, 01:09 PM)hollodero Wrote: No doubt. This was discussed often, a vast ecomocic crisis, the automobile bailout and the wars were all part of the heritage Obama had to deal with. If he did good or bad, I don't know and it doesn't matter here. What I know is that Republicans were up in arms about the debt, maybe rightfully so - but also that Trump suggests a whole lot of things now that cost enormous amounts of money, they were listed and you know about it.
So whatever valid critizism there might be about Obamas handling of the finances, it's not like Trump will reduce the debt, it's more probable he multiplies it if all his plans go through. If one believes tariffs or cutting development aids will finance all that stuff, I'd say that's illusional.


Fair enough.
Just, reputation isn't only an important thing if you want to rule the world. It's maybe even more important if you don't.


Yeah you could save a fortune. Just, obviously you won't. New nukes, new carriers, new fancy stuff that doesn't exactly reduce the terrorism threat.

Oh no I doubt they will ever do any of that stuff, it's just what I would prefer.  and our reputation wouldn't really matter because people wouldn't be depending on us for anything.  If the leader is acting goofy, who cares?  

[hollodero]

(03-06-2017, 02:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh no I doubt they will ever do any of that stuff, it's just what I would prefer.  and our reputation wouldn't really matter because people wouldn't be depending on us for anything.  If the leader is acting goofy, who cares?  

Hm. I do not want to be stuck for an answer but I honestly can't tell. At some point, political or economical partnerships probably fancy some sense of stability. Right now this stability is not provided by Trump, but exists in spite of Trump - I don't know if that's sustainable. Then again, the development of the stock market really contradicts my initial expectations, so maybe it doesn't really matter regarding economics. 

Now with politics, I don't know. Even if you want to isolate yourself more (which I think is an illusion in itself, you get dragged into things at some point, the US won't be without any interests), cooperations might be necessary, and if I were a leader of a country I would not rely on Trump in any way. (I might want to try to benefit of his attitude, like Netanyahu obviously did when he got him to say the two-state solution is no longer a non-negotiable condition.)

Ah, what do I know. I have nothing important to add to this.

[BmorePat87]

If he's gonna make an ass out of this country, can he at least tweet more coherent conspiracy theories and stop talking about the Apprentice? If he came off as a crazy person, maybe people would be afraid of us. He just comes off as everyone's retired uncle, retweeting fake news from Breitbart, talking about reality TV, and complaining about black people.

[hollodero]

(03-06-2017, 03:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If he's gonna make an ass out of this country, can he at least tweet more coherent conspiracy theories and stop talking about the Apprentice? If he came off as a crazy person, maybe people would be afraid of us. He just comes off as everyone's retired uncle, retweeting fake news from Breitbart, talking about reality TV, and complaining about black people.

I don't know if we count, but depite all the head-shaking and laughter we are also a bit afraid now, more than before. Don't know how that is particularly helpful, though.

[Benton]

(03-06-2017, 03:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If he's gonna make an ass out of this country, can he at least tweet more coherent conspiracy theories and stop talking about the Apprentice? If he came off as a crazy person, maybe people would be afraid of us. He just comes off as everyone's retired uncle, retweeting fake news from Breitbart, talking about reality TV, and complaining about black people.

I thought that's why other people were scared?

Many other countries depend on the US for their economies, defense and quality of life. If Team Trump is more worried about what's on Fox News and television and how his company is doing, I think the concern is they're going to overlook some important things.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-06-2017, 05:47 PM)Benton Wrote: I thought that's why other people were scared?

Many other countries depend on the US for their economies, defense and quality of life. If Team Trump is more worried about what's on Fox News and television and how his company is doing, I think the concern is they're going to overlook some important things.

Not our problem.  When in my preferred scenario, when we step out, they are on their own as far as defense and quality of life if that goes outside the bounds of trade.

[Dill]

(03-06-2017, 09:35 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, nothing. But that question is a false flag and dangerously short-sighted. As soon as things truly hurt everyday folk, it's already too late.

So let's look at things. You have a country with people all armed to the teeth, that more and more believe the true enemy is within their own society. Who see a president engaging in dark conspiracy theories promoting that very emotion. Who more and more lose basic trust in all of the institutions, all the agencies, in government. For they all got smeared based on nothing factual, e.g. nothing refutable. Now I don't know about you, but that sure seems dangerous.
And emotionally agitated people don't just calm down naturally, that's not how these things go. At some point it turns into a self-enhancing principle. All together, I talk about civil unrest, about people taking matters in their own hands, about division, about an ideological civil war. Things that stay for a long time and don't simply go away. I'm European, we historically know about these things.
And don't even start with "but the left..." and what protester threw a stone. It's about more than some idiots that exist on both sides. And this is your president's doing, who has no intention whatsoever to unite the country. And this is Bannon's agenda. 1:1.

Additionally, of course there are things like environment policy, which won't hurt you at this moment, so the question you asked is stupid to begin with. Sure it doesn't affect you now when lead is put in the rivers and whatnot. Sure it hurts your grand-chlldren more when CC dangers are neglected (OK, I believe in CC for scientific reasons, you probably don't believe in CC for ideological reasons, but just for the argument's sake). Or let's talk debt, or the loss of international reputation, which won't affect you right away either - most policies don't. So your question... really isn't amongst the most smart ones. And you know that. 

So many good points here.  This indirectly points out the real problem, which is that for a portion of the electorate this unrest and potential damage was either unforeseeable or not a real problem.

A real problem, for example, would be how climate change scientists and the EPA are using hyperbolic warnings about global warming and corporate irresponsibility to impose socialism on us.  Trump has stopped them in their tracks. That is really why the MSM are trying to take him down.

[Dill]

(03-06-2017, 05:47 PM)Benton Wrote: I thought that's why other people were scared?

Many other countries depend on the US for their economies, defense and quality of life. If Team Trump is more worried about what's on Fox News and television and how his company is doing, I think the concern is they're going to overlook some important things.

Yes, that is why other people are scared.  The leader of the "free world" gets angry and lets you know it if you aren't buying his daughter's fashion product. Don't forget she and her husband are sitting in on meetings with world leaders. He'll get to the North Korean situation later.

[Dill]

(03-06-2017, 05:51 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Not our problem.  When in my preferred scenario, when we step out, they are on their own as far as defense and quality of life if that goes outside the bounds of trade.

Does the US depend upon those other countries economies, defense, and quality of life?

[Dill]

(03-06-2017, 12:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: As far as debt goes, the last guy ran up a pretty good one.  International reputation?  I think it's time we rein it all in.  We will trade with other nations, but outside of that, let someone else try to run the world a while.  China would probably like the chance. We could save a fortune in military alone if we just had a defensive military.  spend saved military money on stronger measures to prevent terrorism here.  We've tried to police the world and it hasn't worked out that well.  Next man up.  Or maybe nobody up next.  

Oh no I doubt they will ever do any of that stuff, it's just what I would prefer.  and our reputation wouldn't really matter because people wouldn't be depending on us for anything.  If the leader is acting goofy, who cares?  

After WWII, the US helped set up a system of treaties (NATO, SEATO etc.) and economic measures (World Bank, IMF) designed to prevent the world from ever falling back into the cataclysm of a world war.  And so far that has worked, turning our former enemies into staunch allies.


The economies of many countries depend upon these treaties and measures for stability.  To say that they would no longer be depending upon us doesn't sound good for either them or the US. 

Bring military considerations into the discussion, a goofy leader becomes more troubling, for the US as well as those other countries.  Many committed Trumpsters love to hear Trump talk tough about existing or potential US enemies. But a large part of US power post WWII has come from its ability to gain consent and cooperation from many countries.  E.g. Bush 41 put together a coalition of 31 states to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991. Obama got most of the world to buy in to Iran sanctions, and then a treaty to reduce their nuclear threat signed by France, Russia, China and Great Britain. The US brokered peace between Pakistan and India during the Kargil war in '99, insisting that Pakistan remove the Nukes it was positioning in Kashmir, likely averting a nuclear conflagration. That would have been bad for the world, including the US, not just Pakistan and India.

China is right now a surgent power, both economically and military, and challenging the US in the Pacific Rim. Would this be a good time to create a vacuum to enable their expansion?  And with a nuclear-capable North Korea on that rim, which also has a goofy leader?