I agreed that the other 16 republicans would have appointed a conservative to SC, and attacked ISIS/missiles in Syria. If that means to you that I agreed that the other 16 would have governed in the same fashion as Trump regarding everything else you clearly didn’t read anything I said lol.
This conversation is pretty pointless though. I forgot who I’m talking to last night. My bad.
I feel pretty much the same way…especially after you agree with me and then want to go off on a rant about Trump. That was not the topic.
Rants about Trump are cool but this was about something different.
Okay.
Over to you, Senator Rubio:
“I don’t understand why people are that shocked,” Rubio told CBS Face the Nation on Sunday. “This president ran a very unconventional campaign. I was there for a big part of it at the beginning alongside, being one of his competitors.”
And, he added, “that’s what the American people voted for. And, in essence, this White House is not much different from the campaign. People got what they voted for. They elected him.”
Nah man. He’s marching right in line with how the republican party has always governed. You just need to ignore all the ways he’s different from other republicans and he’s basically exactly the same.
I know you’re not thick just argumentative.
Here you go:
"Despite all the controversy and volatility in his first 100 days, President Donald Trump is governing like a “traditional Republican,” the London Financial Times reported.
“Albeit chaotically, he is governing more as an orthodox post-Reagan Republican than most expected,” wrote Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator at the Times.
“This now seems true in all the main policy areas, both domestic and international. It is clearly true in economic policy,” he wrote."
“Trump’s policies look ever more like Reagan’s,” he said.
Wolf does have doubts about details and ramifications of Trump’s plans so far.
“Trump won the nomination by promising to be a different sort of Republican. He is not,” Wolf said.
I guess there are others that agree with me…outside T Nation where it actually matters…
Nah you’re right. I mean he did appoint a conservative to the SC after all.
And those other three things I mentioned.
Aside from that read the article that I posted. Do you have an open mind, or is it simply poised for the next Trump bashing? Like I implied it’s easy to bash Trump he is a personally an odd politician, quirky and unconventional IN BEHAVIOR. Start a thread talking all about that stuff and I will join in and agree with you.
But as I said and the article backs up he is governing like any other republican.
2 of the other 3 weren’t exclusive to republicans and the 3rd was a wish list, but keep on towing that party line. I’ll be busy over here reworking my definition of most to include anything sub 10%
True, and I know you don’t especially follow Presidential history (by your own admission). But how many previous recent democrat Presidents called for deep tax cuts, building up the military and rolling back entitlements? Want me to tell you the last democrat that actually cut taxes for everyone?
Anyway…
…you say he’s not governing as a traditional republican then tell me is he governing as a traditional democrat? A traditional populist? A traditional Independent? If you believe any of the former please explain in detail how this is so. Give examples and make sure they are directly related to policy and governing.
As I suggested in my previous post you are confusing the chaos swirling around Trump (much of what he creates with his tweeting and other nonsense) and his very quirky ways of doing business as not governing as a traditional republican.
But as the article above states and what is clearly the case:
Despite all the controversy and volatility in his first 100 days, President Donald Trump is governing like a “traditional Republican,”
The issue with this argument is that Trump has no real positions, no real convictions, no guiding principles. Look at the past 20 years of Trump. He has been over every square inch of political positions. He has been liberal on some things, then far right on the same things, and then bouncing back. He is the definition of you can’t believe anything I say. He’s anti-Chinese and then pro. He’s pro-choice then pro-life. He’s against getting involved in other affairs and then he does it. He hates NATO and then loves it. His history is womanizing, divorce, ripping people off and now he’s a die hard Christian (except for not knowing Bible verses and saying 2 Corinthians).
[quote]Brooks attempted to define Trump’s political philosophy as an “utter repudiation of modern conservatism,” which he defined as foreign policy hawkishness, social conservatism, and fiscal hawkishness. “For the last 40 years, the Republican Party has been a coalition of [these] three tendencies,” he wrote. “Trump rejected or ignored all of them.”
No one should be surprised. “There is no wizard behind the curtain of Trumpism,” MTV News political writer Jane Coaston wrote in National Review on Tuesday, “and no governing ideology.” Trumpism was never a coherent worldview, much less a moral code that anchors the president. Trump is not so much flexible or unpredictable as rudderless, and that’s what makes him so scary. Prudence and pragmatism are political imperatives, but a complete ideological vacuum yields disorder and chaos.[/quote]
Just remember when you are arguing with Zeb that he is the hall mark of the supporter Trump was talking about when he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and still keep voters.
FWIW if Trump said he was a Democrat and did EXACTLY what he has done so far Zeb would kill him for it. His partisanship is beyond belief.
Trump’s minimum wage flip flops are hilarious.
If you read further it only allow higher premiums for one year between changing.
H factor you are looking foolish with that statement. You have either been away too long (maybe not long enough), or you are just trying to misstate my position. With you there is no telling which is the case.
I have said multiple times that I supported Marco Rubio early on, when he left the race my support went to Ted Cruz. In fact, I have stated many, many times that I preferred all 16 candidates over Donald Trump. In addition to that I have called Trump a big mouth a bragger and overly obnoxious many times. But I will stick to my original supposition and that is…he’s far better than Hillary Clinton would have been. We already have a conservative on the SC…and if you are paying attention even a little you know that he wants to lower taxes and that was my other major reason for voting for him. If you are going to pop in try to get the facts straight, otherwise you will only look foolish…like you did last time you poked your nose in here.
keep in mind that I will never allow one of your nonsensical posts go without a retort.
Bye.
Edit: One more salient point, the debate was about Trump governing as a republican…not his flip-flops or, as you say, the lack of his core beliefs.
Try again real soon and do better!
Lol you have licked his balls from the moment he won. The person who looks foolish is the person that is constantly called out for ridiculous positons on this forum over the years. If Barack Obama did the Saudi Arms deal you would flip. If it cost a ton of taxpayer money because his wife wasn’t in the white house you would flip. If he went to Florida regularly you would flip. If he said he was going to build a wall and didn’t do it you would flip.
It doesn’t really matter that you won’t admit anything to yourself. Everyone on the forum knows your shtick and it is the same all the time. Predictable. The person who looks foolish is the one who is constantly called out by the majority of the forum which is Zeb. I mean zeb 1. I mean mick 28. I mean, where was my book of multiple accounts at again?!
Yes, I am predictably correct. Not all the time but far more than say YOU. Is that why you left the forum H? I know the only reason that you’ve come back is to attack me. You need to look in your rear view mirror H…last time didn’t work out for you any better than this time.
Try again?
Actually I took a hiatus because I was really busy with a new business venture. Not all of us have the time to have conversations with ourselves on the forum.
“And I’m really going to go out on a limb here and address my old friend Zeb.”
“First of all Mick I’m glad you’re back posting you always brought sanity to this site. Secondly, I know you remember that I never personally attacked anyone that did not first attack me in a personal way.”
Although after decades of posting the same drivel on the forum it is always nice to come back and see similar action. Thunderbolt and other characters owning you. You ignoring it (but never failing to have the last reply). And conversations with multiple accounts. Zeb1 thinks I look foolish. I hope my old friend Mick doesn’t 
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-submarines-idUSKBN18K15Y
A quote from Trump on the campaign trail:
“I don’t want the enemy to know what I’m doing.”
“We must as a nation be more unpredictable. We are totally predictable. We tell everything. We’re sending troops; we tell them. We’re sending something else; we have a news conference. We have to be unpredictable”
I can understand that. I have a good size business and great people to help run it so I guess I have more time than you.
Yes, you agree with his positions therefore he is “owning” me. Got it!
Come back with something clever H…or don’t come back at all.
(And I actually would prefer clever as I’ve never seen that from you)
LOL
I agree with logic, reason, and well thought out arguments. Seeing your posts lack in these for years is probably why I don’t agree with them. Also BLATANT inconsistency based upon the letter beside someone’s name.
But sure label it all as people who agree with other people. As long as you and mick know you can’t be wrong what does anything else ever matter? Keep fighting your good fight together and best of luck with the Trump defense. We know you can do it however long he is in office.
So, are the subs there or not?
Interesting, first you say I am always being partisan and now you say I am blatantly inconsistent. That is actually funny and I thank you for the laugh. You are a liberal and usually disagree with conservatives. This is no exception. You have a particular “thing” for me because we have clashed on every issue both politically and otherwise. You now come back to try to even the score. But for the many posts that I have owned you back in the day you won’t be able to even the score. But you will be able to disrupt threads with your vengeful attitude.
You have three options here: The first is that you can bring the conversation back onto Trump’s first year. Second, you can stop posting. Third, since you have a fierce vengeful attitude you can start a thread attacking me personally. Of course you can continue to play the asshat that you are and disrupt this thread…
Choose.