The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[Dddrees]

Well...



So this was your reply to that.



I'm still waiting for you to address my original comment. And when I get around to it, I'll give Bush's speech a listen.



You may be better qualified to answer that than you think.



No. Not the worst. Remember, there were two worst choices available at the ballot box. Of both worsts, I picked the slightly least worst, and I'd do it again, given the same to worst choices. I expected Trump to be bad. And he is. But so far Trump hasn't been any worse than I expected him to be, and given Hilary's behavior after the election, she's behaved just as I expected she would. Thus my choice continually confirms itself.

And here's the thing. As long as the divisive, partisan, slide into progressively worse hyperbolic rhetoric against both sides continues, we will have progressively worse choices. I mean, I can see a day when the presidential choices are Kid Rock vs Alec Baldwin. And you're participating in that progressive slide by continually over-hyping the problem.

Let's keep it real. Let's stay between the rails. Trump derangement syndrome is curable. You and I can work to bring that cure of reality to the masses. You can help me bludgeon the hyperbole. Yes. Trump is a low character individual, as most powerful people are. Trump is just more open about it. He's not literally Hitler. He's not particularly great for America.But he's not bringing the nation to ruin either.

Here you go, here’s a link.

Full text: George W. Bush speech on Trumpism - POLITICO

 

[Birds Away]

Historical data you say. I feel like that data might be on the internet somewhere. I'll bet there's even a way to provide others with a way to access that quickly so they can see it too.

Tenacity is a virtue.

 

[Birds Away]

Yeah, I guess you haven’t spent much time taking a look at the historical data. Didn’t seem to do that for Reagan or Bush 1.

As always, it depends on whose historical data you are looking at. There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

 

[jamil]

I have a hard time seeing them being able to pass anything. Besides their whole premise is just as wrong as their premise on Healthcare. We’re going to come up with something that starts out not making any sense and attempt to sell something so blantly obviously wrong to the American people. Oh, we can cut taxes but it will end up decreasing and not increasing the deficit due to our new and improved voodoo economics. LOL

How about we cut taxes across the board, and reduce spending on bull****? We can't tax ourselves into prosperity anymore than we can spend ourselves into prosperity. Allowing freedom of opportunity is generally the best wealth-builder. I don't mind social programs for those who are physically or mentally incapable of caring for themselves-a legitimate safety net, but good grief we have an incredibly high number of people on some form of government assistance.

 

[Dddrees]

How about we cut taxes across the board, and reduce spending on bull****? We can't tax ourselves into prosperity anymore than we can spend ourselves into prosperity. Allowing freedom of opportunity is generally the best wealth-builder. I don't mind social programs for those who are physically or mentally incapable of caring for themselves-a legitimate safety net, but good grief we have an incredibly high number of people on some form of government assistance.

Yeah, that would be nice and I sure would like it if things that really matter like our infrastructure was getting addressed.

 

[actaeon277]

Okay, Trump is a buffoon, Obama was a criminal on a Nixonian level and Clinton simply sold her soul to the highest bidder. Are we caught up now?

And Sanders?

 

[jamil]

Yeah, that would be nice and I sure would like it if things that really matter like our infrastructure was getting addressed.

I'm okay with updating infrastructure. That would be a better use of tax payer money than funding wild secret service parties in South America.

 

[Birds Away]

Here you go, here’s a link.

Full text: George W. Bush speech on Trumpism - POLITICO

They label it as a speech on Trumpism but it covers a lot more ground than just that.

 

[Birds Away]

And Sanders?

You and I are old Cold Warriors. We know what Bernie is.

 

[actaeon277]

You and I are old Cold Warriors. We know what Bernie is.

Yes. Thought maybe you'd have a funny label.
All my labels might get a joint task force of LEOs and Mods come down on me.

 

[Woobie]

You and I are old Cold Warriors. We know what Bernie is.

 

[Dddrees]

They label it as a speech on Trumpism but it covers a lot more ground than just that.

I didn’t choose the label I just provided a link that contained his speech.

 

[Dddrees]

I'm okay with updating infrastructure. That would be a better use of tax payer money than funding wild secret service parties in South America.

Or giving money away to people who are obese because they eat too much.

 

[Birds Away]

I didn’t choose the label I just provided a link that contained his speech.

That's why I say "they" and not "you".

 

[Birds Away]

Yes. Thought maybe you'd have a funny label.
All my labels might get a joint task force of LEOs and Mods come down on me.

Because people have no clue how low communists/socialists will stoop in order to win.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Sorry, the classism crap doesn't ring with me. I want people to have more of the money they earned. The tax system is so structured toward taxing the rich, that anything approaching a move toward fairness will look like "tax cuts for the rich." You can cry on someone else's shoulder about that one.

This all just melting snowflake agony over the way government takes something that isn't theirs in the first place. They aren't even giving back what doesn't belong to them, just pledging to take less in the future.

I agree... and DC has "invented" their own language to describe tax policy changes. A decrease in the EITC, whereby people who pay NO federal income tax still get a refund, i.e. a negative tax rate, is called a TAX INCREASE. Meanwhile, cutting tax rates on people who actually pay federal income taxes is called a SPENDING INCREASE that must be PAID FOR.

I've yet to find actual spending cuts in the vernacular, though the term appears to be used to describe to INCREASES in spending that are deemed not big enough. Lol!

They be cray, I tell you...

 

[Dddrees]

That's why I say "they" and not "you".

Thank you.

 

[Hawkeye]

I really detest Trump. I can't stand to watch him speak. I just know he will try to make a point and hash it all up and the MSM will pounce like the rabid dogs they are. But, then I watch Hillary on here "blame everyone but me" book tour and it convinces me that America still got the better end of the last election. It's really sad we are in such a state.

Agree totally.

 

[Dddrees]

I really detest Trump. I can't stand to watch him speak. I just know he will try to make a point and hash it all up and the MSM will pounce like the rabid dogs they are. But, then I watch Hillary on here "blame everyone but me" book tour and it convinces me that America still got the better end of the last election. It's really sad we are in such a state.

I really don’t need the media too confirm for me how despectable and dangerous that jerk really is.

 

[indiucky]

That would be a better use of tax payer money than funding wild secret service parties in South America.