Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 653 of 4573 (803244)
03-27-2017 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 636 by Rrhain
03-26-2017 4:35 PM


Re: Reality
The logistical aspect is that Congress was in Republican hands with a Democratic President. Thus, the Republicans knew that they wouldn't get what they wanted and thus could grandstand and showboat and not actually try to do anything. Their entire playbook was spectacle.
There's no grandstanding and showboating going on with Democrats today? As they celebrate their latest victory of prolonging the status quo?
They've had seven years to come up with a "repeal and replace" bill. Why did they try to do it in 60 days? Oh, that's right: Because it was never about healthcare. It was never about the actual job of running a country. It was all for show.
I'd say they tried to do it in 60 days because Trump wanted it done in 60 days. It was Trump's mistake, he actually thought making deals with politicians was slightly similar to making deals in the free-market private sector with people who actually have some brains.
The practical matter is that Democrats in government behave differently than Republicans do. When you have one faction which proudly states that they think government is incapable of doing anything right, then they will act that way when in government.
They believe the government is capable of doing plenty of things right, those things are outlined in the constitution. Healthcare isn't in there.
The other faction thinks that government is sometimes the only entity capable of doing something and thus, they will act that way when in government.
Sometimes? Or all the time, despite what the 10th amendment says?
That's why, for example, Sanders is introducing a Medicare-for-all bill. It's why when the Democrats were in charge and were passing the Affordable Care Act, it took two years and the bill that was put forward was made available for everyone, including the public, to read and comment upon before it was passed.
Sanders free-for-alls, Democrats tax and spend bills, are all for one reason, to increase the size and scope of government. Can you describe any action the Democrats have attempted over the past....20 years that attempt anything that doesn't make the government bigger, first and foremost?
The Democrats are in the minority, but they are still behaving as if they have a job to do and are working to do it, even though they know that the Republicans will be against anything and everything they suggest due to their inability to let anybody think that they "caved to the Democrats."
Yes, they caved to the Democrats in allowing the ACA, and now the people are increasingly aware of its unsustainability. Democrats continue to think their only job now is to block everything the Republicans want to do, even though the voters have them in the minority. In the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Governorships. We'll see how it works out for them in November of 2018. As we saw, Hillary got the majority vote for the presidency, but that's only because the inner-city mobs came out to vote. They're not intelligent enough to come out for the mid-term elections. They don't know enough about how our country works to do that.
It's a bit like the way both McCain and Trump claimed that they had these wonderful plans that would solve our problems...but no, they aren't going to tell us what they are now. You'll have to wait until they get elected.
Um...if it is such a wonderful plan, spit it out! Of course, it turns out that it was all just hype, but that's the Republicans for you.
Why should they make anything public before they have to? It only would give the Democrats more time and ability to block it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 636 by Rrhain, posted 03-26-2017 4:35 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 662 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 8:54 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 664 by 14174dm, posted 03-28-2017 1:45 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 665 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2017 3:15 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 654 of 4573 (803245)
03-27-2017 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 637 by NoNukes
03-26-2017 6:03 PM


Re: Reality
Didn't almost all of those 'diverse' Republicans already vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act something close to 50 times? Your answer would not seem to be much cover for not coming up with an acceptable solution sometime over the last seven years.
There's never going to be an acceptable solution to the current U.S. healthcare mess, until one very non-politically correct thing is realized. New medical innovations, research and development is VERY expensive. As soon as it's applied, everyone demands it. It has to be reigned in, because our society can't afford it. When new innovations are applied, they have a higher likelihood of failure, because they're not proven yet by the test of time. As soon as the slightest thing goes wrong with them, then here come all the ambulance-chasing lawyers to get their cut. In the end, guess who pays it.
There's always a demand for new medications and treatments for the results of careless living, be it poor nutrition, laziness, or effects from the use of the illegal drugs pouring over our southern border. Those who demand it, can't afford it. They expect successful people to give it to them. More and more people riding in the wagon, and fewer and fewer people pulling the wagon. Eventually the wagon will stop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 637 by NoNukes, posted 03-26-2017 6:03 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 656 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2017 11:16 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 657 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2017 11:47 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 675 of 4573 (803509)
03-31-2017 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 662 by Rrhain
03-28-2017 8:54 AM


Re: Reality
marc9000 writes:
There's no grandstanding and showboating going on with Democrats today? As they celebrate their latest victory of prolonging the status quo?
That you think being happy that people are not going to die is "grandstanding and showboating" says a lot.
"Not going to die" ?? I assume this must be a reference to the continuation of Obamacare. The U.S. got along well enough before the passing of Obamacare, and it will when it's over. People "died" in the U.S. in 1817, in 1917, and they still do in 2017. Not only from old age, but from society coming up short on coming to their rescue when they can't provide their own medical care. They do in every country all over the world.
But Trump wasn't involved. They had seven years to come up with a plan and they scrapped it all to come up with yet another one and only gave themselves a couple months to do it? After all, Trump was saying all during the campaign that he had a "wonderful" plan. It was going to cover everyone.
Where was it?
He's only been in office 10 weeks. It's a recurring problem throughout this thread - Trump is getting put down for not fulfilling in 2 months every promise he made during his campaign. No president in the past has done any better.
And when it became clear that he didn't actually have a plan, why didn't Congress simply say, "No, this is complicated. It's going to take more time"? Of course, that leads to the question of "Seven years isn't enough time?" There was no guarantee that Trump was going to win. Surely they were working on a better way to provide actual health care to people no matter what, right? I mean, that is their job, isn't it? To write laws no matter who is in the White House? The Republicans may have this silly rule that no bill will come before the House unless a majority of Republicans support it, but the Democrats don't.
They don't?
quote:
[Former House Speaker]Pelosi called proposals to allow more offshore drilling a deceptive "decoy" rather than a solution and indicated she would bar a vote on any bill that included it. "I'm not giving the gavel away to a tactic that supports the oil (companies), big oil at the cost and the expense of the consumer," she said on ABC's This Week.
Pelosi firm: No vote on offshore drilling - ABC News
marc9000 writes:
They believe the government is capable of doing plenty of things right, those things are outlined in the constitution. Healthcare isn't in there.
Except it is. Let us not play dumb and pretend that the Constitution is a laundry list.
Enumerated powers is the actual term, one of us is playing dumb, and it's not me.
Hint: What do the words "general welfare" mean to you?
Since I have a middle school history education, they mean to me exactly what they meant to the most prominent of the U.S. founders. What do Federalist Papers 41 and 45 mean to you?
quote:
Madison, from Federalist 45; "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.
"Few and defined", I'm sure Rachel Maddow and Ed Shultz have instructed you to call enumerated powers a "laundry list", but that's only current liberal efforts to re-write history.
You could learn more about actual U.S. history concerning the general welfare clause here if you'd like to actually learn something.
Someone doesn't understand what the 10th Amendment means.
Yes it's very clear that you don't. Tell me, if the general welfare clause gives congress unlimited power in domestic issues (not "external objects", Madison's words), then what is the purpose of having the 10th amendment at all?
But, back to the point: You tax people to raise the money that you then spend on the services to be enjoyed by the people which is why they paid those taxes in the first place.
Are you about to say that you would rather spend $8000/year in "premiums" because to pay $4000 in "taxes" is anathema? In the end, is it really simply the word being used? You're going to pay for it no matter what. Do you really want to pay twice as much for worse outcomes simply because it isn't a "tax"?
Hmmm, $8000 versus $4000, so you believe the government is twice as efficient as free markets?
marc9000 writes:
are all for one reason, to increase the size and scope of government.
Incorrect:
To provide for the general welfare as mandated by the Constitution and demanded by the populace since it has become apparent that only the government can effectively manage the problem.
"Demanded by the populace" that currently has Republicans in control of the presidency, the house, the senate, and the majority of governorships?
marc9000 writes:
Can you describe any action the Democrats have attempted over the past....20 years that attempt anything that doesn't make the government bigger, first and foremost?
Yes.
Can you?
No, I can't. I can't think of a thing that today's Democrats do that doesn't directly or indirectly increase the size and scope of government. You say you can, but you didn't name any. Maybe in your next post?
If you can't, why not? Have you considered the possibility that you are parroting talking points you don't understand?
We DO have irony! Do Maddow and Schultz ever mention the Federalist papers to their audiences?
Hint: Don't you find it interesting that in all the 8 years of Obama, we had the longest sustained period of private sector job growth?
Yes it is interesting, how the private sector can grow IN SPITE OF every government effort to license, regulate, restrict and prohibit most everything it tries to do. But some of the "private sector job growth" you refer to is private companies that support government mandates, like private environmental companies as one example.
Actually, the voters have them in the majority. More people voted for Democrats, both for the presidency and for Congress, than for the Republicans. However, due to the Electoral College, the will of the people was thwarted with regard to the presidency and due to gerrymandering, the will of the people was thwarted with respect to Congress. And that goes for state legislatures, too.
So, of this Constitution that you embrace, the Electoral College is the ONE THING that you'd like to do away with. Anything else? The second amendment maybe? The fourth and fifth amendments if global warming is involved?
Oh...I see...they don't count. Trump got more votes if you don't count all the people who voted for Clinton because hey, those votes don't count.
According to U.S. foundings, some votes can mean less than others. Especially today, when so many Clinton voters just want free stuff, and so many voters from your state are ineligible-to-vote Mexicans, which your state allows to vote anyway.
Because it would be evil to withhold a solution to a problem that is causing people to die. If you see a problem and you know how to fix it, then "right now" is the time you have to tell us what it is.
That can lead to complications on both foreign and domestic issues. On foreign issues, it allows enemies who hate the U.S. to plan how to defeat that solution. In domestic ones, it allows Democrats who hate the U.S. to defeat that solution.
marc9000 writes:
It only would give the Democrats more time and ability to block it.
Why would they block it if it were a solution to the problem?
Because it would make them look bad politically. Democrats have demonstrated that it's their power first, and the good of the U.S. second. Their thirst for more and more refugees pouring into this country to vote for them is proof of it.
And thus, we're back to healthcare: Majorities in both the House and Senate and they still couldn't manage to get a bill passed.
This is what happens when you elect people who think government can't do anything: They'll fulfill their own prophecy.
It's only been 10 weeks for this president. Maybe a better bill, one that reduces government meddling in health care even better, will come along.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 662 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 8:54 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 676 by Percy, posted 04-01-2017 7:17 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 680 of 4573 (803541)
04-01-2017 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 676 by Percy
04-01-2017 7:17 AM


Re: Reality
marc9000 writes:
....but from society coming up short on coming to their rescue when they can't provide their own medical care. They do in every country all over the world.
Most first world countries already provide universal healthcare. The US is an outlier.
I know that, but my point was that even countries with universal healthcare still have problems keeping all their patients happy. Non-U.S. posters here seem slow to go into any detail about long waiting periods for procedures that got taken care of right away here even before Obamacare.
You misunderstand the criticism. The criticism is not that Trump failed to come up with a plan in less than two months. The criticism is that he lied during the campaign when he said he already had a better and cheaper health care plan. Turns out he had no plan and they had to cobble one together at the last minute.
I can't defend everything Trump has said, I think he said that he had a plan where "everyone would be covered and it will be wonderful", or something close to that. That's ridiculous, the entire healthcare situation is far too complicated to solve with one plan and make everyone happy. There's no going back to the 50's and 60's, when the U.S. populace really was content with the way healthcare was. Because the government wasn't involved. There was a time when people recognized the proper role of the U.S. government.
One wonders when the Trump supporters will finally learn that braggadocio is just the way Trump talks.
I realized that before I voted for him. I think it's a very small part of how he'll do his job as president.
Everything he says is better and bigger and more wonderful. It's always a nice fairy tale, but it's rarely the truth.
I recall Obama having a similar problem back in 2008 and 2012. Maybe not quite as obvious, largely because is wasn't so shouted from the rooftops by the news media.
It's way too early to tell whether the Democrats have the same silly rule, since no significant legislation has actually come to a vote. We'll probably get our first indication with the Gorsuch vote - we'll see if any Democrats vote in favor. It would be nice if we could begin to see more reaching across the aisle.
The majority leaders not bringing bills from the minority to a vote is something that goes on from both sides, neither side really has room to point fingers about it. Rrhain specifically mentioned the House, but I remember Harry Ried refusing to bring several Republican bills to a vote back when he was the Senate leader.
Gorsuch is as qualified as anyone could be - he would easily be confirmed if anyone but Trump had nominated him. Schumer and his followers are gong to vote against ANYONE Trump nominates.
Combined with the "General Welfare" clause this casts a fairly wide net. You go on to discuss the clause as originally interpreted, but its interpretation has grown increasingly expansive over time, most notably about 80 years ago with the advent of social security, and later Medicare.
I agree, and I admit that some of it can be good, but not much. The founders seemed to draw a clear distinction between government involvement with "external objects", dealing with foreign countries, providing national defense etc. - things that people can't do individually. But 'internal objects', things that people can and should do for themselves, should be left to individuals. It was the reason for the 10th amendment. To briefly touch on that;
quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Rrhain told me that today's nuclear weapons aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but they are a logical extension of "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces". Providing retirement plans and healthcare don't extend from anything in the Constitution, other than the very vague "general welfare" clause.
Considering the wording of the 10th amendment, I don't understand why there aren't more ~issue~ votes. How can the powers be reserved to the people without a more foolproof way of finding out the peoples opinion? I've seen lots of local issue votes on the ballot since 1972 when I first started voting, but I can't remember a single federal one. There wasn't one on the national 55 mph speed limit back then. It was a clear violation of the 10th amendment, and it did lasting damage to this day.
The significant example that comes to mind is Bill Clinton's reformulation of the welfare laws back in the 1990's.
I'll concede that one, but it was unusual for Clinton, and it was 20 years ago. The Democrats have grown more liberal since then.
A better bill meaning one that doesn't take healthcare away from 24 million Americans over the next decade?
"Take healthcare away" is a big talking point of the anti-Trump media. If they do nothing to earn it, if they recently had it handed to them at the expense of others who can't afford to prop them up, and if the mistake is being fixed, there are other ways to describe it than as a "take away". It's one of many problems when government grows too unsustainably fast, properly reigning it in gets described in emotional, not rational ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 676 by Percy, posted 04-01-2017 7:17 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 683 by Percy, posted 04-02-2017 8:10 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 685 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2017 8:49 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 681 of 4573 (803542)
04-01-2017 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 677 by Percy
04-01-2017 8:28 AM


Re: Trump Approval Rating
Trump's approval rating is the lowest in modern memory thus far in a presidency (according to the Gallup Poll, so these are apples-to-apples numbers):
Not a surprise, considering all the negative press he gets. The news media's approval ratings aren't anything for them to brag about either. We'll see how the ratings of each progress in the coming months/years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by Percy, posted 04-01-2017 8:28 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 684 by Percy, posted 04-02-2017 8:34 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 682 of 4573 (803543)
04-01-2017 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 679 by NoNukes
04-01-2017 11:05 AM


Re: Reality
I wouldn't let marc9000 get away with quite so much. He is cherry picking his founders. Hamilton is no less a "prominent" founder than the others.
quote:
Historian Richard B. Morris in 1973 identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.
Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia
(this link also shows a list of U.S. founders, numbering well over 100)
He really was prominent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 679 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2017 11:05 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 686 by Theodoric, posted 04-02-2017 9:40 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 691 of 4573 (803628)
04-02-2017 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 683 by Percy
04-02-2017 8:10 AM


Re: Reality
The real question is since little he says can be trusted (it's mostly just non-specific boasting and "selling glitter") how would anyone know what they were getting when they voted for him. I mean, besides the boasting and preening.
I knew a lot about what we would be getting - competent people appointed to his cabinet, the removal and lessening of job killing regulations, less business destroying regulations from the EPA, the list is actually pretty long. Are you not satisfied that all of it isn't perfectly in place yet? After only 10 weeks? I'm confident that it will happen, and I think you might be too. That's why you're so angry.
The increase in size of government that people are so worried about didn't happen - there was no call to put a madman in charge.
The national debt increased by $9 trillion during Obama's administration. That's what I call madness.
Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 683 by Percy, posted 04-02-2017 8:10 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 698 by Percy, posted 04-03-2017 8:17 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 692 of 4573 (803629)
04-02-2017 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 684 by Percy
04-02-2017 8:34 AM


Re: Trump Approval Rating
All of it true and caused by his own incompetence. The press didn't force Trump to make absurd claims about inauguration crowd sizes or voting by illegals or wiretapping by the Obama administration. The press didn't force Trump to insult allies and trading partners. The press didn't force Trump to fail to develop a healthcare plan before claiming he had a healthcare plan. Etc., etc. Trump was the force behind all the negative press.
When the press reported on the Trump / Republican health plan, how did the opening headline almost always read - "24 MILLION AMERICANS SET TO LOSE HEALTH COVERAGE UNDER THE TRUMP PLAN". Yet in the mid 1990's, did the reports on Clinton's welfare reform read - MILLIONS OF AMERICANS SET TO LOSE THEIR SAFETY NET UNDER CLINTON'S WELFARE REFORM". It wasn't reported that way for a Democrat, was it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 684 by Percy, posted 04-02-2017 8:34 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 694 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2017 8:37 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 699 by Percy, posted 04-03-2017 8:27 AM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 693 of 4573 (803630)
04-02-2017 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 685 by Tangle
04-02-2017 8:49 AM


Re: Reality
In the UK's NHS, Accidents and Emergencies (A&E) are dealt with immediately. Some other stuff is dealt with within days or weeks. There are targets for various types of operations - the maximum wait time for non-emergency operations is 18 weeks. (Though this target is permanently under severe pressure.)
What are some symptoms of that pressure? Overworked, unhappy doctors?
The rest of the developed world looks on in amazementat why you guys think it ok to pay massively more for an inefficient and unfair system.
The rest of the world probably has little appreciation for so much of the technology their country has because of the innovation the U.S. has provided for them, innovation that wouldn't have happened under a socialized U.S. system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2017 8:49 AM Tangle has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 695 of 4573 (803632)
04-02-2017 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 694 by NoNukes
04-02-2017 8:37 PM


Re: Trump Approval Rating
This is a favored tactic of yours; asking questions based entirely on your flagging memory alone. Do you actually know whether there were unfavorable headlines in the 1990s,
I know that Clinton wasn't hated by the press with anywhere near the intensity that Trump is today.
or are you relying on that same set of recollections that could not recall any activity on gun control in the sixties?
And this is a favored tactic of yours, trying to draw a lone poster facing a gang to go off topic. There really was very little gun control in the 1960's. See, you succeeded!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2017 8:37 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 696 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2017 8:59 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 697 by jar, posted 04-02-2017 9:11 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 700 of 4573 (803708)
04-03-2017 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 686 by Theodoric
04-02-2017 9:40 AM


Re: Reality
Not sure what your point is. Hamilton is third on the list. What am I missing?
That was my mistake, I mis-read what his point was. I quickly (too quickly) thought it was a downplaying of Hamilton's significance, it was actually a trumping up (pardon the expression) of Hamilton's significance. Enough said, further addressing it drifts off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 686 by Theodoric, posted 04-02-2017 9:40 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 701 of 4573 (803709)
04-03-2017 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 696 by NoNukes
04-02-2017 8:59 PM


Re: Trump Approval Rating
The question under discussion must include whether Trump has brought at least some of that negative treatment on himself.
He has, but most all of it is because of his more traditional views of how the U.S. should be governed. His views of it from a business perspective, not a self-serving politicians perspective. You know, the things he was elected to do. Most of the bluster against him is about him personally - lame attempts to distract from the lack of political arguments the left is able to make.
But stop ducking the question. Where is your evidence regarding the lack of articles criticizing Clinton's welfare reforms?
My claims in that regard are only to inspire anyone reading to think about their own experiences with what they witnessed in the differences in the reporting on the Clinton presidency versus the Trump presidency. If someone doesn't see any differences, it's almost certain that; 1) They're 20 years old or younger and haven't been around much, or;2) they're hopelessly blinded by a liberal point of view. In either case, my providing any evidence is going to be an exercise in futility. I might consider doing it if I got paid a few hundred dollars an hour to post here. Maybe you could recruit a collection service here for that purpose?
If you'd like me to pull up your actual claim regarding not remember significant debates about gun control or the passage of legislation, I will be happy to do so.
Again, I was just inspiring readers to think. We had the same second amendment in the 1960's as we did in the 80's, when we got the "Brady Bill". Was there a "Kennedy Bill" in the 1960's? If I have to provide evidence that gun control proposals in the 60's were far less than they were in the following decades, it's not going to make any difference to those closed-minded people who are bent on denying the obvious.
If you've got a point, back it up with some evidence. I don't think you have anything. But I am curious about how you are going to back up a posting of a negative claim.
I'm not going to worry about your demands. Liberals here don't provide any more evidence than I do, except in a few slight ways because they work in such huge gangs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2017 8:59 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 703 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-03-2017 8:41 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 704 by NoNukes, posted 04-04-2017 1:44 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 705 by Percy, posted 04-04-2017 7:41 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 702 of 4573 (803710)
04-03-2017 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 698 by Percy
04-03-2017 8:17 AM


Re: Reality
You mean like Rick Perry for Energy, Betsy DeVos for Education and Scott Pruitt for the EPA?
Scott Pruitt!!! Oh I could go gay for that guy! Just think, now all the millions of people in the U.S. (myself included) who depend on older trucks to make a living don't have to worry about losing their livelihoods to a brand new, knee jerk global warming regulation that would require expensive retro-fits for their trucks, or a complete replacement of them. That's only one example of many, of those who still have an appreciation for liberty.
With unemployment at 4.9% we're already at full employment. Increased employment from here would cause inflation.
There's always room for new business start ups, in a society that anywhere near resembles what its founders had in mind for it.
Not angry - aghast, disturbed, concerned.
What I see in your posts, and all around the mainstream media, is an increasing animosity towards Trump, and I don't remember ever seeing it before. In past elections where a large part of the population was unhappy with the results, like Bush's win in 2000, or Obama's win in 08, people seemed to grudgingly accept the election results to a degree, and move on, to at least discussing the issues. Not with Trump - the LA Times just yesterday "declared war on Trump".
The LA Times Just Declared War On President Trump
I guess no one told them that the NY Times and Washington Post declared war on him over a year ago. But really, Trump hasn't changed since his campaign. If he's so incompetent, so low in the polls etc. why is the left so agitated? Wouldn't it be healthier for their blood pressure to wait for the 2018 mid-terms, or better yet, wait for an opportunity to impeach?
The problem is two-fold, 1) The respect from the left for the election process in the U.S. is now at an all time low, the anger against Trump is actually an anger with the people who voted for him, they have no respect for it. But the second part (2) could very well be the recent breaking news about the Obama administrations electronic surveillance of Trump's staff during the campaign.
Conservative Review - 404 Not Found
quote:
Her efforts may draw parallels to former President Nixon’s efforts to spy on his political opponents. Following Nixon’s resignation, the intelligence community was reformed via the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with the hopes of imposing accountability measures for federal officials that spy on political opponents.
Not a word about it this evening on ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT WITH DAVID MUIR. Imagine that! Also;
Intelligence official who 'unmasked' Trump associates is 'very high up,' source says | Fox News
quote:
The White House, meanwhile, is urging Nunes and his colleagues to keep pursuing what improper surveillance and leaks may have occurred before Trump took office. They’ve been emboldened in the wake of March 2 comments from former Obama administration official Evelyn Farkas, who on MSNBC suggested her former colleagues tried to gather material on Trump team contacts with Russia.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Friday her comments and other reports raise serious concerns about whether there was an organized and widespread effort by the Obama administration to use and leak highly sensitive intelligence information for political purposes.
Dr. Farkas’ admissions alone are devastating, he said.
In other news, I saw on the local ABC report tonight that Trump met with the Egyptian leader today, something they said Obama refused to do during his administration, because Obama deemed him a dictator. Earlier today on the radio, it was said that the Egyptian leader said he looked forward to working with Trump and his "unique" personality. I'm not going to provide NoNukes with evidence for this however. Even without evidence, it's going to soon become clear to everyone, whether they like it or not, that all this bluster about Trump alienating the U.S. from its allies is pure BS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 698 by Percy, posted 04-03-2017 8:17 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 706 by Percy, posted 04-04-2017 8:09 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 717 of 4573 (803936)
04-05-2017 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 706 by Percy
04-04-2017 8:09 AM


Re: Reality
marc9000 writes:
Just think, now all the millions of people in the U.S. (myself included) who depend on older trucks to make a living don't have to worry about losing their livelihoods to a brand new, knee jerk global warming regulation that would require expensive retro-fits for their trucks, or a complete replacement of them.
There are two problems with this. First, it isn't true. The emission standards in effect for a truck's model year are the ones that apply.
That's the way it is now, but it could change overnight with a liberal EPA director like Carol Browner. She was Bill Clinton's EPA director for both of his terms, and became the "environment czar" for Obama in 2009. She seemed to do most of her damage to the economy during the Clinton administration. She was more responsible than anyone else for the auto emission testing fiasco that happened locally in my area from 2000 to 2006, wasting millions of dollars. Apparently there was enough backlash from this type of program all across the U.S. that helped prevent her from establishing a federal vehicle testing program, possibly for heavy trucks as well. All the government-built testing stations in my area have 14'6" clearance, much more than needed for only cars and light truck that they were testing at the time. 14'6" is enough for all heavy trucks.
So you're afraid of Scott Pruitt, I'm afraid of Carol Browner. Here's a little more info on just who she is;
Discover the Networks | Carol Browner
And from another link here's a brief description on what she'd like to do to the U.S.;
quote:
Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance", and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
I don't think Scott Pruitt is going to attack our economy.
Second, there are assistance programs for those interested in an engine retrofit or replacement, especially for diesels.
(no sarcasm) I know you won't understand this, but I DON'T WANT an assistance program! I was told by a neighbor that I probably qualified to have my house insulated for free. I just let his comment go without a confrontation, but if my house needs insulating, I'll do it my way! Like me, he supplements his home furnace with a woodburning add-on. He recently got a free, government supplied furnace. (he's partly disabled) He was told he had to get rid of his wood burner to qualify for his free furnace, and he dutifully complied. He hopes to slip one back in, in a year or two if they're not watching. I'm just amazed by this. NO ONE is going to tell me to get rid of my woodburner, they can shove their free stuff!
Different people have different grass-roots opinions on liberty, that's for sure.
That's because you haven't seen it before. I've already said several times that it's unprecedented, but Trump has brought it all on himself.
Not all of it, he has lots of fake news to deal with, and ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT WITH DAVID MUIR gave me a prime example for you tonight.
As I mentioned in Message 702, ABC World News Tonight on the evening of 4-3-17 had nothing to say about the political spying on Trump. To it's credit, it did address the issue on 4-4, and again tonight on 4-5, but just in ways to try to downplay it.
But tonight, my local station joined them in progress, about 1 minute into their broadcast. (the local's coverage of severe storms in my area caused the short delay.) As soon as WNT came on, the caption on the bottom of the screen read; ~Trump;"Crossed a Lot of Lines"~. The caption stayed there for over a full minute, while they talked about the chemical attack in Syria. Trump was upset about it, as any U.S. President would have been. He said the Syrian leader "crossed a lot of lines", and that he might change his position on foreign involvement because of it. They didn't seem to be putting him down for it. But they know of course, that their broadcast, in addition to being in home living rooms, is on countless thousands of Television sets at shopping malls, department stores, laundromats, sports bars etc. Places where lots of activity is going on, and chances are the volume is down, or is drowned out by other noise. How many tens of thousands of people walked by those sets, with other things on their minds, and only glanced at the caption; Trump "Crossed a Lot of Lines". Do you think they all perfectly noticed the punctuation? Or were they cleverly mislead? How many people who don't pay much attention to politics just get another slight little Trump slam etched in their minds?
This is only one example of clever fake news. You can take your low-poll ratings of Trump seriously if you want. Many people don't, for good reason.
Also, you seem to have become caught up in the Trump misdirection concerning his false wiretapping claim.
So your mind's made up, and you're closed to any new information on it? If, instead of Susan Rice and Obama in 2017, this were George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice in 2009, do you think skyrockets would be going up, with the words "Nixon" and "Watergate" mentioned 50 times in 1/2 hour on WORLD NEWS TONIGHT WITH DAVID MUIR?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by Percy, posted 04-04-2017 8:09 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 720 by Percy, posted 04-06-2017 9:10 AM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 718 of 4573 (803937)
04-05-2017 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 708 by NoNukes
04-04-2017 9:18 PM


Re: Reality has a liberal bias...
The third problem is that emission standards are unrelated to controlling greenhouse gasses. There is no way to prevent the production of CO2 from gasoline because that is the desired result of burning hydrocarbons, so of course, nobody tries to tweak cars to eliminate CO2. We've discussed this exact point before, but facts roll off of marc9000 like water off a duck's back.
Emission control is for smog. So marc9000 is actually complaining about not being allowed to pee in everyone else cornflakes (breathing air).
I made no distinction between CO2 and smog. All I was talking about was emission testing. I LOVE the way you get unhinged when you get mad at me. Keep it coming!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 708 by NoNukes, posted 04-04-2017 9:18 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 719 by NoNukes, posted 04-05-2017 10:34 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024