(01-31-2018, 05:20 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Isn’t the infrastructure number a bit of a myth. 1.5 Trillion total but isn’t it like only 200b gov money the rest private. I could be wrong but I swear it was something like that.... Pelosi was furious about it he other day on Cuomo’s Show
Depends on whose analysis you look at. $200 billion seems a bit low out of that figure; I wouldn't be surprised to see a 2:1 split government to private sector. I can't remember what the final outcome was with the tax bill, but I know some versions would have crippled state and local spending on infrastructure in an effort to encourage private investment. But I can't remember off the top of my head what ended up being in the final version. I was too focused on the higher education implications.
Edit: Since writing this, I think I found where your number came from. The administration, based on leaked infrastructure plans, is looking to lower the expected federal share of infrastructure work from 50%, as it has been for decades, to 20%. So a $1 trillion infrastructure push would be $200 billion. It has members of both parties uneasy, though, so this won't likely be the final result.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
He also focused on one of the other hot issues with their fanbase, transgender issues. The Democrat made it sound like Republican death squads were roaming house to house within Democrat neighborhoods looking for “queers, impure individuals, faggots, and other abnormal degenerates!”
My eyes almost rolled out of my head they were rolling so hard.
Wow, what a distortion of far right goals and values!
Oops, wait.
(01-31-2018, 02:59 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: The speech embodies exactly everything that Americans by and large do not want to see in their country. Foreign languages being encouraged to be spoken here, politicians pandering to noncitizens, encouraging non Christian beliefs, massive and unfettered immigration, promoting transgenderism and other forms of sexual deviancy as normal.
So Republicans REALLY ARE against "degenerates"--religiously defined? Kennedy was NOT wrong about that then?
Also very important--
(01-31-2018, 02:59 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: #MeToo social justice movement got an honorable mention by Kennedy, who lest we forget, is the latest in a long dynasty of womanizers and rapists (at least what the SJWs would call rape in today’s world). Not to mention Ted Kennedy letting a young woman drown to death in a vehicle.
Think about this before you vote, everyone. Do you want to support a guy whose great uncle let someone drown 50 years ago? Before we consider ANYTHING Kennedy III says today we need to get straight what past Kennedy's may have done in earlier generations of that LONG DYNASTY. Maybe Democrats can accept misogyny and sexism in ancestors and people out of office, but not Republicans.
(I know Democrats don't like facts, but you might factor in that III's voice is very shrill and his skin pale.)
(01-31-2018, 02:59 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Democrats have tried to champion the #MeToo issue, yet they seem to be the biggest contributors to the rape culture that the movement is claiming to fight against. Harvey Weinstein and Al Franken were respected, influential Democrats… and Bill Clinton too.
Assessing party contributions to "rape culture" are we?
Al Franken. Gone. Harvey Weinstein. Gone. Bill Clinton. Gone.
Dill Wrote:Think about this before you vote, everyone. Do you want to support a guy whose great uncle let someone drown 50 years ago? Before we consider ANYTHING Kennedy III says today we need to get straight what past Kennedy's may have done in earlier generations of that LONG DYNASTY. Maybe Democrats can accept misogyny and sexism in ancestors and people out of office, but not Republicans.
Well he's elected due to his name and family money so you gotta take the good with the bad.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(01-31-2018, 05:20 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Isn’t the infrastructure number a bit of a myth. 1.5 Trillion total but isn’t it like only 200b gov money the rest private. I could be wrong but I swear it was something like that.... Pelosi was furious about it he other day on Cuomo’s Show
I’ve heard that number, but I don’t think anyone outside of the administration believes it. Much like the tax cut claims, it’s incredibly optimistic.
(01-31-2018, 05:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Depends on whose analysis you look at. $200 billion seems a bit low out of that figure; I wouldn't be surprised to see a 2:1 split government to private sector. I can't remember what the final outcome was with the tax bill, but I know some versions would have crippled state and local spending on infrastructure in an effort to encourage private investment. But I can't remember off the top of my head what ended up being in the final version. I was too focused on the higher education implications.
Edit: Since writing this, I think I found where your number came from. The administration, based on leaked infrastructure plans, is looking to lower the expected federal share of infrastructure work from 50%, as it has been for decades, to 20%. So a $1 trillion infrastructure push would be $200 billion. It has members of both parties uneasy, though, so this won't likely be the final result.
I thought I remembered that number. What I understood was democrats wanted and 80/20 split gov/private. But trump is basically flipping it. The conservative approach. From what I understand it makes the dems and progressive GOP uneasy. Probably because they both love to spend like teenage girls with a credit card.
Jennifer Grantholm mentored ib CNN that it was privatizing infrastructure projects. Honestly I can’t see a bad thing with this proposal. Probably see more toll roads but we already have them.
So, naturally, Trump lied about the ratings being the most watched ever.
Thank you for all of the nice compliments and reviews on the State of the Union speech. 45.6 million people watched, the highest number in history. @FoxNews beat every other Network, for the first time ever, with 11.7 million people tuning in. Delivered from the heart!
Quote:As anticipated as the speech was in punditry circles, Trump’s 80-minute stint on the teleprompter was expectedly down in total viewers, though not by much, from remarks he gave to members of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs and more on February 28, 2017. Following the usual Presidential trajectory of lessening viewer interest over time, last night’s speech declined 5% from the 48 million that watched last year’s non-SOTU address overall ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, Univision, PBS, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, FBN and NBC Universo.
In the interest of comparison, Tuesday’s speech was also shown on ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, Univision, PBS, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, FBN, NBC Universo and Estrella. The Rupert Murdoch-run Fox News was the single most-watched outlet with an audience of 11.5 million. Comparison may actually be where the rub gets a bit raw for Trump, especially in terms of his immediate predecessors. Barack Obama had just more than 48 million total viewers for his first SOTU in 2010 on 11 outlets, and nearly 52 million watched George W. Bush’s post-9/11 first SOTU in 2002 on eight outlets. Adding to the con column, Trump did not beat the 45.8 million who tuned in for Bill Clinton’s first SOTU on ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN in 1994.
Which means Trump’s initial SOTU, the third longest in history, is now also the least watched address in nearly a quarter of a century.
I just wish his daddy would have hugged him more as a kid. Maybe he'd be a good person now.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
"This president with his vulgarity and his disrespect for women and people of color is a terrible role model for our children," Waters said. "Whenever he appears on TV there should be a disclaimer that says 'This may be may not be acceptable for children."
"This president with his vulgarity and his disrespect for women and people of color is a terrible role model for our children," Waters said. "Whenever he appears on TV there should be a disclaimer that says 'This may be may not be acceptable for children."
Why do they let that screwball even speak? She has to be one of the biggest morons on this planet.
(01-31-2018, 11:21 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I thought I remembered that number. What I understood was democrats wanted and 80/20 split gov/private. But trump is basically flipping it. The conservative approach. From what I understand it makes the dems and progressive GOP uneasy. Probably because they both love to spend like teenage girls with a credit card.
Jennifer Grantholm mentored ib CNN that it was privatizing infrastructure projects. Honestly I can’t see a bad thing with this proposal. Probably see more toll roads but we already have them.
I read the other day where Blackstone has $40 billion set aside to move forward, so that got me wondering what they were doing. Blackstone already gets the kind of pork only our corrupt Congress can dole out from a laundry list of things, but with few ties to economic development. That got me wondering what exactly the money would be going for, as I thought the bulk of private sector money would go toward — is you mention — toll roads.
Blackstone, likely, won't do either. From what I've read and those I've spoken with in economic development, most likely, those companies with cash in hand like Blackstone will be looking to privatize things like gas terminals, ports, rural air port management, etc. One guy I talked to told me about a rural airport that had gotten in disrepair, a couple million dollars worth. Essentially, privatization of the airport allowed a private company to charge the state several million dollars over about a 8-year period. Because the state was trying to save a couple million bucks it spent 2 or 3 times that.
Privatizing bridges may work, but from many of the stories I've heard lately, I'll be investing in a canoe.
(02-02-2018, 05:03 PM)Benton Wrote: I read the other day where Blackstone has $40 billion set aside to move forward, so that got me wondering what they were doing. Blackstone already gets the kind of pork only our corrupt Congress can dole out from a laundry list of things, but with few ties to economic development. That got me wondering what exactly the money would be going for, as I thought the bulk of private sector money would go toward — is you mention — toll roads.
Blackstone, likely, won't do either. From what I've read and those I've spoken with in economic development, most likely, those companies with cash in hand like Blackstone will be looking to privatize things like gas terminals, ports, rural air port management, etc. One guy I talked to told me about a rural airport that had gotten in disrepair, a couple million dollars worth. Essentially, privatization of the airport allowed a private company to charge the state several million dollars over about a 8-year period. Because the state was trying to save a couple million bucks it spent 2 or 3 times that.
Privatizing bridges may work, but from many of the stories I've heard lately, I'll be investing in a canoe.
Will be interesting to see. I am willing to try privatization.
Trump suggested that Democrats not clapping for him was "unamerican" and "treasonous".
We don't live in a dictatorship or a monarchy. I swore an oath—in the military and in the Senate—to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not to mindlessly cater to the whims of Cadet Bone Spurs and clap when he demands I clap https://t.co/99gW1yalDl
(02-06-2018, 10:08 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Trump suggested that Democrats not clapping for him was "unamerican" and "treasonous".
We don't live in a dictatorship or a monarchy. I swore an oath—in the military and in the Senate—to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not to mindlessly cater to the whims of Cadet Bone Spurs and clap when he demands I clap https://t.co/99gW1yalDl
Yeah, his statement was rather concerning. I'm looking forward to our systems keeping him in check, because if he wasn't so inept he would end up being quite the tyrant.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
1. He said "can I call that treason" from what I saw. It was a question, not a statement.
2. I'm pretty sure he's using this definition of treason: "the action of betraying someone or something.", rather than suggesting it was the crime of treason and all who sat should be arrested. But don't let that get in the way of any good "Trump is Hitler" talk.
3. Treason isn't a word that should be thrown around loosely, but Trump has no filter. Still, I don't think this means he has intentions to be an evil dictator who wants to kill freedom. It's just another dumb slip of the tongue from Trump, that dems will run with.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
(02-06-2018, 02:45 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 1. He said "can I call that treason" from what I saw. It was a question, not a statement.
2. I'm pretty sure he's using this definition of treason: "the action of betraying someone or something.", rather than suggesting it was the crime of treason and all who sat should be arrested. But don't let that get in the way of any good "Trump is Hitler" talk.
3. Treason isn't a word that should be thrown around loosely, but Trump has no filter. Still, I don't think this means he has intentions to be an evil dictator who wants to kill freedom.
In context it seems he meant treason in the most simple of terms:
Especially the first, bolded part.
Trump knowing anything but the first definition of a word would surprise me greatly.
So Trump was quoting someone else that said it, then asked if it was ok to call it treason. I don't see where I was incorrect.
Btw, here's the other part of that online dictionary page:
Quote:trea·son
ˈtrēzən/ noun
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. "they were convicted of treason" synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More
the action of betraying someone or something. plural noun: treasons "doubt is the ultimate treason against faith" synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More
historical
the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband. noun: petty treason; plural noun: petty treasons
This part of the definition could also be in context. You can betray your own country without it being a crime.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
