[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< I can respect that, but truthfully, given that post, I find it a little hard to believe you are as neutral between the parties as you contend. >>>[/quote]Muf is one of my oldest friends here, but I’ve been beating him up about this forever, though it’s been a while now.
RE: presidential debt commission:
Why was this bi-partisan commission created by executive order? Wasn’t there legislation that would have required a straight up-or-down vote? What happened to it? Who killed that legislation? Did six of the co-sponsors to the bill actually then vote against it? (and a seventh not show up?) What party were they from?
There’s plenty of blame to spread around. Yet the furor with which each “side” continues to hurl insults and attacks while purposefully ignoring the issues in their own house is astounding and saddening.
Donald Trump is an absolute fucking disaster. The worst part is that he will turn the Republican primary into a popularity contest and take votes away from Ron Paul.
There’s danger ahead. And its name is Donald Trump.
In recent interviews, Trump has been claiming that there are two things wrong with government policy. The first, he says, is that the stimulus bill should have been used for roads, rather than “pork.” Apparently trillions of dollars in unsustainable debt and devaluation of the currency are acceptable when spent on roads, but not when itâ??s spent on anything else. The second is that businesses should be restricted or outright forbidden from doing business with China, Mexico, or other foreign nations. This, he says, will “keep jobs in America.” Ridiculous!
Businesses hire Chinese or other foreign workers because it’s cheaper. If they are no longer allowed to do business with foreign companies, then the jobs previously done by them will simply go away. Businesses owe it to their stockholders to make a profit. If that profit is restricted or eliminated by protectionist Big Government policies, then there will be fewer jobs. Slapping foreign trade restrictions on business is no different than taxing them or forcing them to pay for expensive health insurance plans. The expenses and losses created by government restrictions undermine profit, and in the process drive up unemployment â?? further deepening the recession.
Normally these facts are evaded by people who know nothing about business, like Democrats, liberals and socialists. Now we have someone who is successful at business (and supposedly a Republican) making the same kind of mistake. Trump may run for president as a Republican. If he got the nomination, he would be no more a friend of capitalism than Barack Obama. It would be a matter of â??choose your poison.â?? If Trump runs as an Independent, he’ll kill any chance of a Republican winning the presidency, even a good candidate, and Obamaâ??s clearly socialist agenda will be around for another six years. Trumpâ??s ideology of protectionism refers to government restrictions on business with foreign nations, on the premise that trade should exclusively take place within a country. Protectionism violates the moral and Constitutional right of individuals to freedom of trade, and it makes the world poorer than it otherwise would be.
The worst of the danger is not Trump himself. Hopefully, he’ll go away or simply shut up. But the false “appeal” of protectionism may grow as economic conditions continue to worsen under Obama’s disastrous policies and the Republicansâ?? inability to quickly reverse any or all of them. This variation of Big Government socialism is something even Bill Clinton was smart enough to opposeâ??but todayâ??s Obama Democrats will blindly support it. “Sure, we’ll use government to block and restrict trade with China and other countries outside the U.S. But first give us socialized medicine, control over banking, control over the Internet – and then we’ll talk.” This is the kind of governing coalition you could expect if Trump became president, and Congress continued expanding the welfare state as it has done for the last hundred years.
Free market Republicans and Tea Party types are our last hope. If they mean it when they say that government should get out of the way of business, then they will fight protectionism as much as they fight ObamaCare and other socialist disasters. But Obama has already done his damage to our country, and the full effects are yet to be felt. People are going to become more fearful and angry as the economy worsens. If you think we have trouble now, think of what happens when Big Government gets even bigger and essentially shuts down international trade.
I recognize that China is a deeply corrupt government with no respect for individual rights. But shutting down trade will do nothing for individual rights. It will impoverish the United States and lead to even higher unemployment. Historically, protectionism usually leads to war. Government has to get out of the economy altogether and not continue to intensify its already massive role.
Mr. Trump: Mind your own business and please shut up.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
RE: presidential debt commission:
Why was this bi-partisan commission created by executive order? Wasn’t there legislation that would have required a straight up-or-down vote? What happened to it? Who killed that legislation? Did six of the co-sponsors to the bill actually then vote against it? (and a seventh not show up?) What party were they from?
There’s plenty of blame to spread around. Yet the furor with which each “side” continues to hurl insults and attacks while purposefully ignoring the issues in their own house is astounding and saddening.[/quote]
Swing and miss. That is irrelevant to the point at hand. Obama claimed he was serious about debt reduction and against the current of Congress created his own commission by executive order. That gives the indication that Obama is more interested than anyone else in getting serious debt reduction, not less.
But then, he completely ignores the debt commission he empaneled, and then produced a budget that was simply surreal in light of his professed desire. So, why is he doing that?
Enough with the “a plague on both their houses” and the fanboy protection of Obama - Obama declared himself as the “most serious” about debt reduction and has consequently proven, by action, to be the least serious.
Explain why.
[quote]jre67t wrote:
I gotta go with Christie, and Rubio has the same amount of exp. as Obama did when he got in office. I honestly think we need fresh new blood, I really do not think Romney fits the bill. I really love Col. West…maybe the Gov. of La…Jindall might fit the bill…
All we need is a fresh strong voice and I hate to say it a minority as VP at minimum…And forget about Perry and Palin they are to polarizing…maybe Palin as having Hilary’s current position.
Hopefully someone will emerge.[/quote]
My opinion is that Palin is too ignorant and incompetent to be a high ranking federal official. But at least she has a good reality show 
[quote]Mufasa wrote:<<< 2) My desire to see the President succeed in ways that would be beneficial to the Country. >>>[/quote]When, my friend will you finally break down and face the now unavoidable fact that, whether due to incompetence or malicious intent, probably both, only stopping HIS desires will be beneficial to the country?
Actually, Palin is very smart.
She took her “15 minutes”; ran with it; and became a millionaire in the process.
Recent Polls show her support eroding, even among the Tea Party wing of the GOP. They seem to be questioning her commitment to change that goes beyond her bank account.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Actually, Palin is very smart.
She took her “15 minutes”; ran with it; and became a millionaire in the process.[/quote]
I agree she knows she’s not going to be President but dang about 3 mil a year aint bad.
[quote]Recent Polls show her support eroding, even among the Tea Party wing of the GOP.
Mufasa[/quote]
And I am very thankful for this. I certainly don’t want her to be on the 2012 ticket in any capacity. The press would get out their “beat Palin senseless clubs” once again and have a field day. The GOP needs a fresh face but at the same time someone who can handle the inevitable attacks that will come from an Obama friendly press. The republican will be running against Obama and the media.
Yeah I know you don’t like this king of talk and I know why
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Actually, Palin is very smart.
She took her “15 minutes”; ran with it; and became a millionaire in the process.
Recent Polls show her support eroding, even among the Tea Party wing of the GOP. They seem to be questioning her commitment to change that goes beyond her bank account.
Mufasa[/quote]
Alright… I’ll give you that she’s a good business woman.
To fletch she was a governor, do you believe our dither in Chief is more qualified?
[quote]jre67t wrote:
To fletch she was a governor, do you believe our dither in Chief is more qualified?[/quote]
Yeah, not that it’s saying much.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]jre67t wrote:
To fletch she was a governor, do you believe our dither in Chief is more qualified?[/quote]
Yeah, not that it’s saying much.[/quote]
I think you are confusing ,good business skills with learning how to stir the pot of discontent .
Yeah she was a great Governor that bailed . Could you hear the squawking if Obama quit tomorrow because he could make more money else where, we would all be calling him GREAT:)
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
RE: presidential debt commission:
Why was this bi-partisan commission created by executive order? Wasn’t there legislation that would have required a straight up-or-down vote? What happened to it? Who killed that legislation? Did six of the co-sponsors to the bill actually then vote against it? (and a seventh not show up?) What party were they from?
There’s plenty of blame to spread around. Yet the furor with which each “side” continues to hurl insults and attacks while purposefully ignoring the issues in their own house is astounding and saddening.[/quote]
Swing and miss. That is irrelevant to the point at hand. Obama claimed he was serious about debt reduction and against the current of Congress created his own commission by executive order. That gives the indication that Obama is more interested than anyone else in getting serious debt reduction, not less.
But then, he completely ignores the debt commission he empaneled, and then produced a budget that was simply surreal in light of his professed desire. So, why is he doing that?
Enough with the “a plague on both their houses” and the fanboy protection of Obama - Obama declared himself as the “most serious” about debt reduction and has consequently proven, by action, to be the least serious.
Explain why.[/quote]
We’re talking about different things. If you can’t see that both sides share blame in this, then you cannot be helped.
If you want a more serious answer, you’ll have to respond with a different tone. I’m not in the mood to banter.
Back to the original topic:)
The Daily Show with Trevor Noah - Season 28 - TV Series | Comedy Central US?
I can’t persuade myself to take Trump seriously as a president.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I can’t persuade myself to take Trump seriously as a president.[/quote]
The day Trump is president is the day I move to Canada.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I can’t persuade myself to take Trump seriously as a president.[/quote]
The day Trump is president is the day I move to Canada.[/quote]
I’ve heard a lot of talk about how Trump would be a bad President. And as I’ve said earlier I don’t think he’s even serious, he’s just trying to get press to pump up his TV show and brand name. But with that said, do you honestly think he would do a worse job than Baraaaaack Obama?
Quite honestly as bad a candidate as Trump may be I would prefer him to the inexperienced leftist that we now have. Granted that’s not saying much for Trump.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I can’t persuade myself to take Trump seriously as a president.[/quote]
The day Trump is president is the day I move to Canada.[/quote]
I’ve heard a lot of talk about how Trump would be a bad President. And as I’ve said earlier I don’t think he’s even serious, he’s just trying to get press to pump up his TV show and brand name. But with that said, do you honestly think he would do a worse job than Baraaaaack Obama?
Quite honestly as bad a candidate as Trump may be I would prefer him to the inexperienced leftist that we now have. Granted that’s not saying much for Trump.[/quote]
Yes, I think Obama is better because he’s innocuous. At this point, Obama is like a lame duck and is pretty harmless and I’m sure the republicans will modify or get rid of the health bill in due time, but I have yet to hear what kind of health care plan the republicans have. I think Hillary would have done a lot better since she knows the ropes. Obama would have been good in the future but is too inexperienced now.
Donald Trump would be pissing off the UN and Arab nations and cause way too much partisanship, I think more so than Obama.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I can’t persuade myself to take Trump seriously as a president.[/quote]
The day Trump is president is the day I move to Canada.[/quote]
I’ve heard a lot of talk about how Trump would be a bad President. And as I’ve said earlier I don’t think he’s even serious, he’s just trying to get press to pump up his TV show and brand name. But with that said, do you honestly think he would do a worse job than Baraaaaack Obama?
Quite honestly as bad a candidate as Trump may be I would prefer him to the inexperienced leftist that we now have. Granted that’s not saying much for Trump.[/quote]
Yes, I think Obama is better because he’s innocuous. At this point, Obama is like a lame duck and is pretty harmless and I’m sure the republicans will modify or get rid of the health bill in due time, but I have yet to hear what kind of health care plan the republicans have. I think Hillary would have done a lot better since she knows the ropes. Obama would have been good in the future but is too inexperienced now.
Donald Trump would be pissing off the UN and Arab nations and cause way too much partisanship, I think more so than Obama. [/quote]
Yeah, he’s an innocuous President that has driven the debt up trillions and given us a horrible government run health care bill. Not to mention how he has emboldened our enemies because he’s weak! Yes, he’s too inexperienced but he would have never made a good President. At least Trump had to deal with real world problems and didn’t lead an ivory tower existence. I’ll take Trump any day over the anointed one. Unfortunately we won’t get that choice. Obama will be reelected and the country will continue to suffer for it.