Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Trump Presidency – 2016 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=92014)

tarcone 04-20-2019 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum (Post 3236481)
This is a great post that gives a viewpoint much better than making insane generalizations about where a women would be happier or why we need more violence.

Personally I never thought all republicans were bad, but when you see the kind of person Trump so obviously is and continue to support him I can’t help but question your ethics and morality.


You are making generalizations. And I dont support Trump. Are you that stupid or did you fail in reading comprehension?

Im stating the reasons Trump was elected and why he will be again. You got butt hurt that I dont think like you.

NobodyHere 04-20-2019 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CU Tiger (Post 3236476)

Strong, Starchly right leaning on most, but not all, issues.
Voted for Trump in 2016. Knowing what I know now would vote for him in 2016 again.
Will not vote for Trump in 2020. Depending on what my options are determines whether I will vote D or abstain from any Presidential vote.


I don't get it. You'd still vote for Trump in hindsight but won't vote for him in 2020? What's the reasoning here?

tarcone 04-20-2019 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum (Post 3236483)
The sweeping generalizations you have made the last few pages of this thread are nothing short of repugnant.


I know being able to read is your weakness. But read this book A Framework for Understanding Poverty 4th Edition: Ruby K. Payne: 9781929229482: Amazon.com: Books

Scam is a harch word. I will say game the system. No I wont say game the system either.

They learn to live within the system. That is a much better way to put it.

Lathum 04-20-2019 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarcone (Post 3236484)
You are making generalizations. And I dont support Trump. Are you that stupid or did you fail in reading comprehension?

Im stating the reasons Trump was elected and why he will be again. You got butt hurt that I dont think like you.


Where in that post so I say you support Trump?

NobodyHere 04-20-2019 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarcone (Post 3236486)
I know being able to read is your weakness. But read this book A Framework for Understanding Poverty 4th Edition: Ruby K. Payne: 9781929229482: Amazon.com: Books

Scam is a harch word. I will say game the system. No I wont say game the system either.

They learn to live within the system. That is a much better way to put it.



CU Tiger 04-20-2019 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3236485)
I don't get it. You'd still vote for Trump in hindsight but won't vote for him in 2020? What's the reasoning here?

Here we go...
Because I think what we have had is not as bad as some people like to portray, but it is still bad.
Because no matter how bad it is, its less horrific than I fell it would have been under HRC.

I said numerous times in the run up to the election, in my lifetime I considered Trump the 3rd worst candidate on a ballot. Ahead only of HRC and BO.... 2 years later I still maintain that stance though I must say there are days when I wonder if he is better or equal to BO.

That is largely predicated on my feeling of the ACA...


EDIT: BTW whoever thought it was cute a couple years ago to screw up my account and add the filter that makes my posts space weird and makes the typing eratic - I hate you.

cuervo72 04-20-2019 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarcone (Post 3236410)
Because he came in and spoke to the blue collar american. Open up the steel woks and the coal mines. Which helps families when there are jobs.

People feel Obama neutered the police in this country in favor of criminals. And that didnt sit well. That makes people feel unsafe.

He is going after other countries. He is doing things that Make America Great Again.
Like it or not it speaks to a lot of people in this country.


He came in and lied his ass off. He doesn't give a crap about those things. THAT'S why we think support for him is ill-conceived. We can't believe people actually believe him.

lungs 04-20-2019 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarcone (Post 3236480)
There are ways to scam the system and the poor learn how to do it. I have studied this. Read Ruby Paynes book sometime. There are ways around the system. And they figure it out.

Your middle class thought process is completely different than that of the poor. It is well documented. Read into this stuff. You know that 16k isnt sustainable. But that is your Middle class upbringing.


So..... Even if I do acknowledge that it is possible to 'game' the system (as you put it). The implication you made is that this is an epidemic. Do you have numbers to back this up or is this just a perception because you know somebody or everybody knows somebody that games the system?

Scoobz0202 04-20-2019 11:48 AM

All I want to say is thanks for your contributions to the thread, CU Tiger. As somebody who disagrees with you on the majority of policy I greatly respect your opinion and willingness to continue to post even when you don't get the same treatment in return.


I appreciate your attitude regarding social programs, because I trust you are being honest with your contributions to the community. It's nice to see somebody very successful put their money where their mouth is and contribute to the less fortunate as much as you do. It can't be argued that your personal money can be more effective when delivered yourself in your local community instead of being entrusted to the government to do it fairly and effectively. My fear is that you are the minority of those that are successful. Remove or severely cut the social programs that are mandatory contributions via taxation and trust the private individuals to help those in need will never work. The vast majority do not want to part with their money they earned to help those that need IN MY OPINION.


I am one who strongly supports the social benefit systems we have. I know they are ineffective and can be taken advantage of at times. But I know people that do benefit from them. I just can't imagine an attitude that says "These people that take advantage of it while I work hard really piss me off so let's ruin for the majority that needs it." I just accept that a percentage of welfare systems are abused. Until somebody comes up with a solution that helps those in need financially and in skill training I accept that a percentage of my check goes to these systems and that a percentage of that money is wasted. It is what it is.

molson 04-20-2019 12:09 PM

I think the universal basic income offers some potential solutions to a lot of these tensions, and other problems we'll face going forward. If everybody gets it. From billionaires to those in poverty. You're not "penalized" for working or making just enough not to be poor. Everyone gets it. So you work not for basic life necessities (which would be guaranteed), but for a standard of living beyond. It could ease the transition into an more automated future where not everyone needs to work. And it also maintains our county's entrepreneurial and capitalistic values.

And there are things about it that would appeal to conservatives - true conservatives, not necessarily party loyalists or those who are anti-liberal more than they are conservative. Government could actually be smaller and much more efficient. You get what you get and that's it. Obviously many other government programs would be disbanded. And only citizens would benefit. A country with few social programs but a guaranteed minimum income could be a lot less desirable for illegal immigrants. And some portion of your guaranteed income could be collectible, before you even get it, for certain criminal fines or child support.

I don't know if 2019 is the right time, or the ins and outs of what Yang actually proposes, but I think discussion about universal basic income is going to be a big part of our progression into the next half of this century if not sooner.

tarcone 04-20-2019 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lungs (Post 3236493)
So..... Even if I do acknowledge that it is possible to 'game' the system (as you put it). The implication you made is that this is an epidemic. Do you have numbers to back this up or is this just a perception because you know somebody or everybody knows somebody that games the system?


I was wrong in my language.

I meant live within the system. The poor learn to do that. And they survive. But that is all they do.

This is fact. It is a well known fact.

When a politician comes in and threatens to change it, and they compare that politician to the one that will not change the system, who do you think they vote for?

That is my perception.

bronconick 04-20-2019 12:47 PM

Automation will force the UBI discussion. Hopefully before people are in the streets.

tarcone 04-20-2019 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuervo72 (Post 3236492)
He came in and lied his ass off. He doesn't give a crap about those things. THAT'S why we think support for him is ill-conceived. We can't believe people actually believe him.


Dont all politicians lie? This guy is just more blatant.

But his Make America Great Again message strikes a cord with a lot of people.

They accept his lies, because the lies fall within their belief system.

They didnt accept HRC lies because they were outside their belief system. But you believe HRC lies because they fall within your belief system.

People should not be called idiots and worse. it is what it is.

Atocep 04-20-2019 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarcone (Post 3236468)

You realize that the democrats were the party of slavery and fought against civil rights, correct?


This comment is straight out the alt-right playbook and it purposely ignores history. Based on this comment and the timing of your jump onto the Yang bandwagon I can safely say I have a good idea where you get at least some of your news.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarcone (Post 3236468)
Im not advocating for Trump. But you guys are the problem. You sit in your suburban homes and spout off about how bad the country is and if you dont think the way we do you are wrong and stupid.


This is exactly what you do to dems. The other side is the problem and your team has everything right.


Quote:

Originally Posted by tarcone (Post 3236468)
It is not solely about the economy. But there are more jobs now then there were in the last administration. And fed people are happy people.


Trump's economy is the equivalent of being brought in as a pinch runner on 3rd base and claiming you hit a triple.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjo.../#4cecaaa81af3


Quote:

Originally Posted by tarcone (Post 3236468)
We need to get back to those values that made this country great. Hard work, taking care of yourself, raising your kids. That is being lost.

one of the greatest dems of all time once said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country."

The democratic party has strayed way to far away from this brilliant idea.


Again, expecting everyone to have the same values that you have and looking down on them if they don't value these things with the same weight as you is very similar to how you portray liberals.

Edward64 04-20-2019 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum (Post 3236464)
We did have a $65 bottle of wine with dinner last night, so maybe so.


Heh. I keep it real with a Bud or Coors sitting in the back of a pickup with friends (circa college days).

tarcone 04-20-2019 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 3236496)
I think the universal basic income offers some potential solutions to a lot of these tensions, and other problems we'll face going forward. If everybody gets it. From billionaires to those in poverty. You're not "penalized" for working or making just enough not to be poor. Everyone gets it. So you work not for basic life necessities (which would be guaranteed), but for a standard of living beyond. It could ease the transition into an more automated future where not everyone needs to work. And it also maintains our county's entrepreneurial and capitalistic values.

And there are things about it that would appeal to conservatives - true conservatives, not necessarily party loyalists or those who are anti-liberal more than they are conservative. Government could actually be smaller and much more efficient. You get what you get and that's it. Obviously many other government programs would be disbanded. And only citizens would benefit. A country with few social programs but a guaranteed minimum income could be a lot less desirable for illegal immigrants. And some portion of your guaranteed income could be collectible, before you even get it, for certain criminal fines or child support.

I don't know if 2019 is the right time, or the ins and outs of what Yang actually proposes, but I think discussion about universal basic income is going to be a big part of our progression into the next half of this century if not sooner.


I like this a lot.

But there is a lot of learned behavior that needs to be unlearned and a lot of new soft skills that need to be taught.

I remember talking to a young lady that was very well educated and very respected in her field. She was talking Ruby Payne with me. She told me her family was poor. No one went to college, she was the first. In fact, her family made fun of her for going to college. They thought education was useless. And what she was doing was wrong. She has lost contact with her family. She is uppity.

There needs to be a basic change in our society. Its not just teaching the poor, but the middle class as well.

Why do you think all those middle class people that win the lottery lose that money and fall into bankruptcy. Because they dont have the soft skills to live in that part of society.

I think Yang has a lot to offer. But there needs to be a lot of education before these ideas will be functional.

Atocep 04-20-2019 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarcone (Post 3236499)
Dont all politicians lie? This guy is just more blatant.

But his Make America Great Again message strikes a cord with a lot of people.

They accept his lies, because the lies fall within their belief system.

They didnt accept HRC lies because they were outside their belief system. But you believe HRC lies because they fall within your belief system.

People should not be called idiots and worse. it is what it is.


I'm sorry but you are constantly defending Trump Supporters and trashing liberals while painting a picture of Trump Supporters that know they're being lied to but don't care, believe Trump is bring back blue collar jobs but he isn't, and are willing to believe anything Trump says simply because it's what they want to hear.

But liberals are the ones that don't get it.

tarcone 04-20-2019 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3236488)


Not at all. Again, reading comprehension.

The rich get all the breaks. Or the elite.

The poor learn to live within the system that was given to them. They survive. But they stay within that system. Because it is what they know and they know how to survive within that system.

tarcone 04-20-2019 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atocep (Post 3236504)
I'm sorry but you are constantly defending Trump Supporters and trashing liberals while painting a picture of Trump Supporters that know they're being lied to but don't care, believe Trump is bring back blue collar jobs but he isn't, and are willing to believe anything Trump says simply because it's what they want to hear.

But liberals are the ones that don't get it.


Exactly. Because it isnt your "guy". This whole thread probably mirrors the Obama thread. But you believe your "guys" lies and buy into them. When Trump supporters believe his lies, they are idiots.

tarcone 04-20-2019 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atocep (Post 3236501)
This comment is straight out the alt-right playbook and it purposely ignores history. Based on this comment and the timing of your jump onto the Yang bandwagon I can safely say I have a good idea where you get at least some of your news.



This is exactly what you do to dems. The other side is the problem and your team has everything right.




Trump's economy is the equivalent of being brought in as a pinch runner on 3rd base and claiming you hit a triple.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjo.../#4cecaaa81af3




Again, expecting everyone to have the same values that you have and looking down on them if they don't value these things with the same weight as you is very similar to how you portray liberals.


Yes and no. History is what history is. The democratic party is what it is. I have been talking about living within the system by the poor. the dems play into that. The scare the poor with stories about the big bad GOP taking their system away. So they keep voting dem. But the dems do nothing to help them except keep the statis quo.

It is not alt-right crap. It is fact. You cant deal with it so you do what you do best.

Yang brings some solid ideas that will help the poor. But it wont matter. They are taught how to live in the system and that is where their comfort zone is.

Yes, I have been an ass occasionally. I own that Im an asshole. Always have been,

Its hard to change what you know.

Edward64 04-20-2019 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lungs (Post 3236469)
Quote:

We need to get back to those values that made this country great. Hard work, taking care of yourself, raising your kids. That is being lost.
It all boils down this statement and you are dead fucking wrong. We've never lost those values. What evidence do you have that we have other than your own delusion?


I don't support everything that Tarcone is saying however, I do think this is an interesting discussion.

There is no doubt in my mind that the traditional "family unit" is declining.

Parenting in America | Pew Research Center
Quote:

Family life is changing. Two-parent households are on the decline in the United States as divorce, remarriage and cohabitation are on the rise. And families are smaller now, both due to the growth of single-parent households and the drop in fertility. Not only are Americans having fewer children, but the circumstances surrounding parenthood have changed. While in the early 1960s babies typically arrived within a marriage, today fully four-in-ten births occur to women who are single or living with a non-marital partner.
:
:
The share of children living in a two-parent household is at the lowest point in more than half a century: 69% are in this type of family arrangement today, compared with 73% in 2000 and 87% in 1960. And even children living with two parents are more likely to be experiencing a variety of family arrangements due to increases in divorce, remarriage and cohabitation.
I also think the traditional "family unit" is fracturing due to increased mobility of children. I see this with my siblings, with my spouse's siblings and parents, and it may well happen with my family.

So yes, I do believe we have lost/losing those values.

Its valid to ask if the traditional "family unit" was better than what we have today. My answer is some aspects of it certainly was better, and others not better (wife with no options but stay at home).

All things held equal, a two parent household is better than a single parent household. All things held equal, a family that stays physically close to each other is better than not etc.

miami_fan 04-20-2019 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CU Tiger (Post 3236476)
I am going to regret re-engaging but there are several folks in this thread who I respect greatly while differing in opinion.

There are also some folks I dis-repsect on higher levels though we share opinions.


However where I think we are talking past each other is this:





Where I think, at their core, the educated and intelligent centers of each part party ways is in the above.

It is what is the definition of help.


Instead of putting words in people's mouths let me speak only for myself, and what I think many who think like me think.


I oppose government welfare programs but strongly support helping the poor, down-trodden and in need.

I think the government is horribly inefficient and is the worst possible use of finite resources to help those people.
I know that if I keep more of my income out of government hands I will make a greater positive impact in my local area than they ever will.
I want to help the lower class. I don't think the left's policies help them. I think they hurt them.
I respect that many, maybe the majority, of the voter base of the left has their heart in the right place. They want to support policies that they think will help.

I also think that many of the controlling interest of the left party doesnt give two shtis about the lower class and wants to "help" them only to buy their votes.
In contrast, I think there is certainly a % of the right that wants to lower taxes just to keep more in their pockets.
I accept that there is a portion of the right that wants to abolish welfare (used generically) programs because they dont care about others and are selfish.
And I think there is a % that truly thinks all government mandated welfare programs amount to little more than giving a junkie a fix or a drunk a drink. And that they are not help and that they truly want to help them.


I think most reasonable people see that all the groups above I mention exist.

Where I think we disagree is the % of each group.

Some folks think 99% or all Rs are bad and evil and stupid and 1% are ok.
Some folks think 99% or all Ds are bad or evil and stupid and 1% are ok.

I think most reasonable people recognize neither of these to be true.

I think the real distribution is much, much closer to 80% of both parties being well intentioned though opposing on ideas on best way. I think the balance of power is essentially 49/51 and sways back and forth by the day and time.

I think there are a lot of folks on both sides who fail to consider that the other side may have a point, that stick their fingers in their ears and FA-LA-LA-LaLA so they dont hear the other side.

Its why I have a lot of emotional fatigue on the issue. I understand the belief that gov welfare helps. I disagree, but I understand it. If you have a new perspective I will gladly listen and try to learn. But when repeat tired platitudes and name call I tune you out.

Same goes for the side I agree with on any given issue. If you are just going to spew rheotric Im going to tune out and wander away pretty quickly.

Before I am labeled let me label myself.

Strong, Starchly right leaning on most, but not all, issues.
Voted for Trump in 2016. Knowing what I know now would vote for him in 2016 again.
Will not vote for Trump in 2020. Depending on what my options are determines whether I will vote D or abstain from any Presidential vote.


Great post. One question I have been asking people who have voted over the last two national election cycles. If you could break down your vote, how much of your vote was for what it would do for "your side" and how much of it was against what it would do for the "other side"? I am making the assumption that you believe what is good for "your side" is good for the country. Or maybe it was just what was good for you which is fine too. One of the frustrations of the last two election cycles has been how little of the discussion is FOR something. I guess it t does not really make a difference in the end. I just find that the productive discussion require people speaking for something and not just against something.

JPhillips 04-20-2019 02:00 PM

I think tarcone is Dinish D'Souza.

RainMaker 04-20-2019 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarcone (Post 3236471)
I can look at all the entitlement programs the government gives to those that are poor. No incentive to work, just hand outs.


What entitlement programs are you talking about where people feel they don't need to work? Do you understand how minuscule welfare payments are?

Take a look at our budget. Not a ton of money goes toward welfare. Compare it to how much we spend in Iraq. Or building a new fighter jet that Boeing lobbied for.

And this idea that government programs hurt people flies in the face of evidence from other countries. They have more assistance programs and higher generational income mobility than us.

Your mistake is thinking this country is a meritocracy.

RainMaker 04-20-2019 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarcone (Post 3236468)
You realize that the democrats were the party of slavery and fought against civil rights, correct?


This is nonsense. You need to pick up some history books. The Democrats changed their platform during the Civil Rights Era which caused a segment of their party to break off and eventually turn Republican. The Republicans then proceeded to build a strategy (Southern Strategy) around this.

Lathum 04-20-2019 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarcone (Post 3236499)
Dont all politicians lie? This guy is just more blatant.

They accept his lies, because the lies fall within their belief system.

.


I'm curious how a lie falls in to a belief system.

I think the frustration around Trumps lies are that he literally lies constantly, and when the facts are presented and he is proven to be lying, his supporters stick their fingers in their ears and yell FAKE NEWS!!!

I get that if you live in West Virginia and Trump says he is going to bring back coal jobs you support him. But once it becomes obvious that isn't happening, why would you continue to support him?

Same goes for the wall. If you are anti immigration, and it becomes obvious Mexico isn't paying for the wall, and there likely isn't going to be a wall, and he is lying when he says new construction is under way, why would you support him.

This is why Trump supporters get painted as fools, because he hasn't made good on his promises, and his base continues to rally behind him, often to their own detriment.

I thin when other politicians lie, it is typically around campaign promises not fulfilled. Trump says things that are flat out lies. Claims new steel mils being built, claims NK has denuclearized, claims the Mueller report completely exonerates him, etc...All things that are easily disproven, yet when they are it's fake news.

Brian Swartz 04-20-2019 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum
Personally I never thought all republicans were bad, but when you see the kind of person Trump so obviously is and continue to support him I can’t help but question your ethics and morality.


All you have to do is convince yourself that Democrats are worse. It's the same binary argument we hear ever election; only policies matter and only the R and D candidates matter. If that's true, then ethics and morality don't even enter into it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum
This is why Trump supporters get painted as fools, because he hasn't made good on his promises, and his base continues to rally behind him, often to their own detriment.


Ehh, he has made good on some of them. Tax cuts, SCOTUS appointments, etc. There are others he's tried to make good on but failed to. I.e. ACA something-or-other if senate republicans didn't vote against it.

thesloppy 04-20-2019 05:31 PM

If you treat 'politicians lying' as a matter of degrees, rather than just a binary yes or no, it's entirely obvious that trump lies significantly more than any other politician.

cuervo72 04-20-2019 06:17 PM

Catching back up.

Why is there more animosity for the poor "gaming the system" than there is for the rich gaming the system for much greater rewards?

(If the poor were benefiting so much from this, wouldn't they...no longer be poor?)

stevew 04-20-2019 06:23 PM

Why aren’t you people all getting stoned instead of fighting. It’s 4/20. :)

cuervo72 04-20-2019 06:25 PM

I also don't understand how Trump specifically could get any credit for SCOTUS appointments. That's all McConnell.

molson 04-20-2019 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuervo72 (Post 3236519)
Catching back up.

Why is there more animosity for the poor "gaming the system" than there is for the rich gaming the system for much greater rewards?

(If the poor were benefiting so much from this, wouldn't they...no longer be poor?)


I think because its harder to relate to rich people. It's easier to be frustrated by the guy down the street who doesn't work at all but seems to have a better lifestyle than you.

thesloppy 04-20-2019 07:00 PM

No individual person would look at the government budget (either in detail or abstract) and determine that abuse of social programs are a major issue. The Republicans of the '80s invented welfare abuse as a direct threat to people's paycheck and declared themselves the only solution. That it continues to be a major issue today speaks to...I dunno, something about GOP abuse of the poor as political currency and/or historic DEM incompetence?


...on a semi-related note, in regards to the endless Capitalism vs. Socialism argument I think the following doesn't get near enough play:



Is the point of your life to protect the bottom line of your bank account, or to be happy? I assume most conservative Americans think that a better bottom line IS the way to more happiness, and so they are motivated by practically the same values.....it's just that there's a literal world of evidence that a more collective and progressive country is actually the course to a happier life. FWIW the USA has dropped several spots since Trump was elected.

EagleFan 04-20-2019 07:11 PM

Don't let this distract you from the the fact that in 1966, Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School.

RainMaker 04-20-2019 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuervo72 (Post 3236519)
Catching back up.

Why is there more animosity for the poor "gaming the system" than there is for the rich gaming the system for much greater rewards?

(If the poor were benefiting so much from this, wouldn't they...no longer be poor?)


Because it's a dumb trope used by people who buy into propaganda to divide up a class. There isn't much fraud taking place by poor people and the benefits are minuscule. Like you said, if all this fraud is taking place, why aren't these people rich? The real fraud is in Medicare and defense contracts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 3236522)
I think because its harder to relate to rich people. It's easier to be frustrated by the guy down the street who doesn't work at all but seems to have a better lifestyle than you.


This is a great point. It kind of reminds me of the psychology behind the Ultimatum Game.

RainMaker 04-20-2019 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesloppy (Post 3236523)
No individual person would look at the government budget (either in detail or abstract) and determine that abuse of social programs are a major issue. The Republicans of the '80s invented welfare abuse as a direct threat to people's paycheck and declared themselves the only solution. That it continues to be a major issue today speaks to...I dunno, something about GOP abuse of the poor as political currency and/or historic DEM incompetence?


Well the "welfare queen" stuff played well to the Republican base because it played off two things they hate, black people and women who choose to have sex.

It shouldn't be a surprise that decades later it lead to the party nominating a white nationalist who has contempt toward women.

RainMaker 04-20-2019 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3236452)
Ouch.

Not sure this tells the full story but here's a statistic. I think there is value in having obtained a HS degree. You may have been thinking about college with your "top of the playing deck" but tbh, that's pretty presumptive.

6 facts about the U.S. military's changing demographics | Pew Research Center


It's a little more complex than that. The military has been fairly transparent in their recruiting strategy of targeting poor, underprivileged communities. This is going to lead to less educated people based on how our society doles out opportunities.

There has been an uptick in education level, but a part of that is due to how expensive college has gotten. It's no longer something a middle-class family can afford and so many have to turn to the military for the financial assistance to make that happen. If we valued education like other countries, I think those numbers would drop dramatically.

As for the upper echelon of the military with advanced degrees, remember that they are the geniuses behind the Iraq War. Not exactly mental giants there.

JPhillips 04-20-2019 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuervo72 (Post 3236519)
Catching back up.

Why is there more animosity for the poor "gaming the system" than there is for the rich gaming the system for much greater rewards?

(If the poor were benefiting so much from this, wouldn't they...no longer be poor?)


One of the most enlightening things I've read said that the key to understanding US politics is to realize that a guy will gladly live in a box and eat a pigeon so long as the SOB next to him has no box and no pigeon.

Atocep 04-20-2019 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3236531)
One of the most enlightening things I've read said that the key to understanding US politics is to realize that a guy will gladly live in a box and eat a pigeon so long as the SOB next to him has no box and no pigeon.


Sums it up.

We have corporations that make hundreds of millions or more in profits and pay zero taxes. Also, thanks to the Republican tax cuts the number of corporations in that group has doubled.

Meanwhile, people are pissed off and upset at the person down the street scamming the government for a couple hundred a month while at no point questioning why we live in a society where a couple hundred a month is vital to these families' welfare.

Atocep 04-20-2019 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 3236528)

There has been an uptick in education level, but a part of that is due to how expensive college has gotten. It's no longer something a middle-class family can afford and so many have to turn to the military for the financial assistance to make that happen.


While at the same time the military strongly pushes soldiers to use their GI Bill on for-profit institutions with worthless degrees that are allowed to set up shop on post. All in the name of maxing out the education part of your promotion points.

Edward64 04-20-2019 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 3236528)
It's a little more complex than that. The military has been fairly transparent in their recruiting strategy of targeting poor, underprivileged communities. This is going to lead to less educated people based on how our society doles out opportunities.

There has been an uptick in education level, but a part of that is due to how expensive college has gotten. It's no longer something a middle-class family can afford and so many have to turn to the military for the financial assistance to make that happen. If we valued education like other countries, I think those numbers would drop dramatically.


HS is obviously less educated than a 4-year BA/BS. The below post implies that Military support of Trump is because they aren't educated enough.

I'm simply saying that HS graduate is sufficient to vote and we should respect that. A HS graduate who is in the military should not have their vote/support discounted because they are not college educated.
Quote:

Originally Posted by PilotMan View Post
You know, the large chunk of the military aren't exactly pulling from the top of the playing deck. There are great examples of exemplary leaders, but a substantial part enlist for a reason.
Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 3236528)
As for the upper echelon of the military with advanced degrees, remember that they are the geniuses behind the Iraq War. Not exactly mental giants there.


Let's not blame the military alone for the mess-up.

Edward64 04-20-2019 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atocep (Post 3236534)
While at the same time the military strongly pushes soldiers to use their GI Bill on for-profit institutions with worthless degrees that are allowed to set up shop on post. All in the name of maxing out the education part of your promotion points.


Not sure what this is in reference to, assume its like college on-line learning?

NobodyHere 04-20-2019 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atocep (Post 3236534)
While at the same time the military strongly pushes soldiers to use their GI Bill on for-profit institutions with worthless degrees that are allowed to set up shop on post. All in the name of maxing out the education part of your promotion points.


Can you explain this? I was recently in the Air Force and I don't remember being "pushed" into a for-profit college institution.

I know they aggressively market to military members but there'd probably be lawsuits if the military tried to restrict advertisements.

Atocep 04-20-2019 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3236538)
Can you explain this? I was recently in the Air Force and I don't remember being "pushed" into a for-profit college institution.

I know they aggressively market to military members but there'd probably be lawsuits if the military tried to restrict advertisements.


In my experience it was worse when I was stationed in Germany, but Phoenix had a presence on post and young soldiers were strongly encouraged to sign up for their online classes as way of helping gain the promotion points necessary for E-5.

Excelsior was also pushed by senior NCOs as a credit bank to get your military experience easily converted to college credits for promotion points.

University of Phoenix gained special access to military base – for a price | Reveal

tarcone 04-20-2019 09:05 PM

Would the free online courses they take while in service be free?

That would save the government a lot of money with the people not using the GI bill

thesloppy 04-20-2019 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarcone (Post 3236542)
Would the free online courses they take while in service be free?

That would save the government a lot of money with the people not using the GI bill


I think when talking particularly about for-profit institutions it's probably safe to assume: hell no

...according to the article above University of Phoenix were the nation's largest recipient of GI Bill subsidies, and produced a graduation rate of 7%. So, no. Very unfree.

RainMaker 04-20-2019 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3236538)
Can you explain this? I was recently in the Air Force and I don't remember being "pushed" into a for-profit college institution.

I know they aggressively market to military members but there'd probably be lawsuits if the military tried to restrict advertisements.


It's a recent development. The 2008 GI Bill allowed for-profit colleges to bypass the 90/10 rule. This turned the for-profit schools into government subsidized entities.

On top of that, the government was real lax with enforcing fraudulent marketing tactics. These schools were using official military logos, registering military names, and acting as if they were recommended by the military (might be why there is the perception the military pushed people toward the schools).

The military is not to blame for this. It's politicians who took large sums of money from for-profit schools to leave that loophole in the GI Bill and the FTC turning a blind eye to blatant fraud.

RainMaker 04-20-2019 09:30 PM

And for those who don't know, the 90/10 rule was put in place back in the 90's that mandated for-profit schools must get at least 10% of their tuition from private tuition. This was done so that scam schools couldn't be set up to run entirely on federal subsidies.

thesloppy 04-20-2019 10:43 PM

Interesting and informative stuff, RainMaker & Atocep.

Atocep 04-20-2019 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 3236545)
.

The military is not to blame for this. It's politicians who took large sums of money from for-profit schools to leave that loophole in the GI Bill and the FTC turning a blind eye to blatant fraud.


The military gets partial blame. There's some shady stuff that's been encourage and openly supported by military leaderships over the years.

I believe there was a crack down on it at one point, but it wasn't out of the ordinary for senior officers and NCOs to set up "investment training" for soldiers where investment scammers would come in and encourage soldiers to sign up for terrible investments offered by these companies (mostly mutual funds) while those setting up the "training" received kickbacks.

I know different installations had a problem with it in the early 2000s (no idea how long it ran) and the Drill Sergeants at my AIT set one up for our class.

Brian Swartz 04-21-2019 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuervo72
I also don't understand how Trump specifically could get any credit for SCOTUS appointments. That's all McConnell.


Um, because he is the POTUS and the POTUS appoints justices? McConnell's job was to get them confirmed, but there is no confirmation without there first being an appointment. Hence why SCOTUS is a major campaign issue every presidential election cycle.

digamma 04-21-2019 09:06 AM

I think cuervo's point was that McConnell blocked Garland.

cuervo72 04-21-2019 09:38 AM

Right, that and basically that Trump was essentially given a list to choose from and he chose. I suppose he should get credit in that his election brought a Republican administration, but any Republican would have nominated conservative judges which would have been confirmed by McConnell. Simply nominating them takes no real talent.

Chief Rum 04-21-2019 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuervo72 (Post 3236561)
Right, that and basically that Trump was essentially given a list to choose from and he chose. I suppose he should get credit in that his election brought a Republican administration, but any Republican would have nominated conservative judges which would have been confirmed by McConnell. Simply nominating them takes no real talent.


I hear ya but this seems a rather weak reason to not give whatever credit is due. Trump has done about a million things that is stupid that we can jump on him about. It seems petty to not acknowledge one of the few campaign promises he followed through on.

cuervo72 04-21-2019 01:20 PM

That he'd...nominate someone? There was an opening. Why would he not? I don't understand why that's an accomplishment. "I nominate ____." Whoa, that was difficult. Momentous! It's like giving him credit for taking the oath of office. Would any of the other 15 Republican nominees have passed on nominating someone?

CU Tiger 04-21-2019 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miami_fan (Post 3236509)
Great post. One question I have been asking people who have voted over the last two national election cycles. If you could break down your vote, how much of your vote was for what it would do for "your side" and how much of it was against what it would do for the "other side"? I am making the assumption that you believe what is good for "your side" is good for the country. Or maybe it was just what was good for you which is fine too. One of the frustrations of the last two election cycles has been how little of the discussion is FOR something. I guess it t does not really make a difference in the end. I just find that the productive discussion require people speaking for something and not just against something.



This is a good post and one that's had me thinking a bit how to respond.


The best I can say, I guess, is the enemy of my enemy is my ally if not my friend.


If I am intellectually honest with myself, Im not sure I would have voted for any non-conservative last cycle. Solely because of the SCOTUS. I think it was pretty apparent 2 seats (at least) would change during this 4 year cycle...and Im not really sure I think any Executive Branch can have more impact than flipping the SC. That's getting way into the weeds...and its easy to say I just voted for a side there or that I was only concerned with winning. But I truly feel that more conservative policies are whats best for country, while also respecting that I may be wrong...but it is how I feel.


I have to be honest and look at my life. In many ways I am a product of government sponsored welfare. I was a ward of the state, grew up in foster and adopted homes, went to a free public school and was fed free lunch and rode to school (at times) on a free school bus.



As I try to analyze my thoughts they fall into this I believe in supporting kids and changing cycles. But the kid has to, somehow, see the need and desire to change. I wanted something different for as long as I can remember. I had friends who didn't. I dont know what that unique individual differentiation was ....but I grasped opportunities at every turn.



I attribute it to Divine intervention. That somehow God put the north star in my heart and had the courage and fortitude to chase it. I recognize, however, if you are a non-believer I my thought process will not resonate with you and will be discarded as foolish, simple, or stupid. And I suppose it may be. None of know for certain and wont until the end. But its all I have to explain it.



I've also seen the other side. I have listened to folks I grew up with who are disenfranchised and solemnly believe their only hope is the hand out. And I've listened at times to the discussions of how to work the system. And that's the right word, work...it is work to get free benefits. Salldy I do know some folks think that is their only way. Again what % of recipients are needful and appreciative, what % are lazy, what % are working the system.


I dont know how to answer that. I dont think there is an easy answer. 'The right thing is always the hardest thing to do' - yet we all want an easy button. Its hard to work 1 on 1 and change the world. There arent enough good people. So are we doomed? Should we just give up? Is my side right or yours? Does it even matter?


That's where my mind is on this reflective Easter Sunday.

CU Tiger 04-21-2019 01:41 PM

and again...all the crazy spacing there isnt mine. Im sorry. Im not editing it again.

tarcone 04-21-2019 01:47 PM

There is so much to be learned about poverty. It isnt just lot in life, it is a mind set. We will always have poor because that is what they know. Unless we change how they think and educate them on the soft skills of being middle class, they will never leave poverty.

The kids are the future of this nation. How we raise them and what we teach them sets up the next 4 decades of decisions for this country

I hope we all come together and understand the importance of our youth and train them to be productive members of society.

Just a ramble of thoughts that came to my mind reading parts of CUs post

JPhillips 04-21-2019 02:13 PM

With Rudy's comments this morning we've gone from

Of course we didn't do it

to

Of course we didn't know we did it

to

Of course we did it and that's fine

If there are no consequences for working with material stolen by a foreign government, you can be sure it will happen again in 2020 and most every election after that. The arms race will be what can you get from hostile foreign governments.

Chief Rum 04-21-2019 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuervo72 (Post 3236571)
That he'd...nominate someone? There was an opening. Why would he not? I don't understand why that's an accomplishment. "I nominate ____." Whoa, that was difficult. Momentous! It's like giving him credit for taking the oath of office. Would any of the other 15 Republican nominees have passed on nominating someone?


Brian's original point was that one of the few things Trump was involved in and actually campaigned on and got done was getting his SCOTUS appointments in. We can quibble about how much credit he deserves and who did the most to make it happen or how easy it was to do, but Brian is right. Trump did that. You're bending over backwards to not give him any credit at all, and it's pretty plain you can't be objective about it. And this is coming from someone who despises Trump nearly as much as the far left.

Edward64 04-21-2019 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 3236577)
Brian's original point was that one of the few things Trump was involved in and actually campaigned on and got done was getting his SCOTUS appointments in. We can quibble about how much credit he deserves and who did the most to make it happen or how easy it was to do, but Brian is right. Trump did that. You're bending over backwards to not give him any credit at all, and it's pretty plain you can't be objective about it. And this is coming from someone who despises Trump nearly as much as the far left.


Well said. I agree.

cuervo72 04-21-2019 03:46 PM

If Hilary had won and had a Democratic senate, I wouldn't have given her any credit either. I just don't see a nomination as an accomplishment. It's procedural. Just like you don't get credit for having a Secretary of State.

Chief Rum 04-21-2019 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuervo72 (Post 3236585)
If Hilary had won and had a Democratic senate, I wouldn't have given her any credit either. I just don't see a nomination as an accomplishment. It's procedural. Just like you don't get credit for having a Secretary of State.


No one is saying it is this massive achievement. But it does meet Brian's very low standard of being a campaign promise of Trump's that has actually been achieved (and, yes, he played a part).

JPhillips 04-22-2019 09:50 AM

Trump has filed a complaint against Elijah Cummings and the subpoena for accounting records. If Trump wins this seems like it would be very far reaching.

Quote:

"Chairman Cummings has ignored the constitutional limits on Congress' power to investigate," the complaint filed by Mr. Trump reads. "Article I of the Constitution does not contain an 'Investigations Clause' or an 'Oversight Clause.' It gives Congress the power to enact certain legislation. Accordingly, investigations are legitimate only insofar as they further some legitimate legislative purpose," the complaint reads.

Lathum 04-22-2019 09:58 AM

It’s almost as if he has something to hide.

Thomkal 04-22-2019 10:13 AM

So suddenly he's a constitutionalist?

RainMaker 04-22-2019 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3236650)
Trump has filed a complaint against Elijah Cummings and the subpoena for accounting records. If Trump wins this seems like it would be very far reaching.


Can't fathom he'd win. You can't sue Congressional members for carrying out their duties. And federal courts can't look into the motives behind Congressional subpoenas. Separation of powers and all that jazz.

RainMaker 04-22-2019 02:55 PM

The cases he cites too actually say the opposite of what his lawyers think. He has bad attorneys.

Atocep 04-22-2019 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 3236678)
The cases he cites too actually say the opposite of what his lawyers think. He has bad attorneys.


It's hard to find good attorneys that don't take notes

SirFozzie 04-22-2019 05:06 PM

So, this is Trump's pick to run the fed board. (He was the one that said "Capitalism is more important then democracy" earlier)

Quote:

n one of his 2002 columns, Moore suggested changes to March Madness tournament to get rid of "un-American" aspects of it. The first rule proposed by Moore was "no women."
"Here's the rule change I propose: No more women refs, no women announcers, no women beer venders, no women anything," he wrote in March 2002. "There is, of course, an exception to this rule. Women are permitted to participate, if and only if, they look like Bonnie Bernstein. The fact that Bonnie knows nothing about basketball is entirely irrelevant." He later wrote that Bernstein, a CBS sports journalist at the time, should wear halter tops.
Earlier the column, Moore expressed disgust at a woman refereeing an NCAA game.
"How outrageous is this? This year they allowed a woman ref a men's NCAA game. Liberals celebrate this breakthrough as a triumph for gender equity," Moore wrote. "The NCAA has been touting this as example of how progressive they are. I see it as an obscenity. Is there no area in life where men can take vacation from women? What's next? Women invited to bachelor parties? Women in combat? (Oh yeah, they've done that already.) Why can't women ref the women's games and men the men's games. I can't wait to see the first lady ref have a run in with Bobby Knight.

Moore wrote that this was part of the "bigger and more serious social problem in America" which was "the feminization of basketball generally." Moore added he didn't care about watching women's basketball and he was upset games were shown on ESPN.
"And while I'm venting on the subject, here's another travesty: in playground games and rec leagues these days, women now feel free to play with the men — uninvited in almost every case," added Moore. "There's no joy in dunking over a girl. Never mind that I can't dunk (except on the eight-foot baskets). If I could, I wouldn't celebrate dunking over someone named Tina."
Moore addressed complaints about his column the 13 days later, mocking claims of sexism.
"Several readers (all women) have called and e-mailed complaining about my last column as 'sexist' because I said that women shouldn't be permitted to ref the men's game," wrote Moore. "Their retort was: 'Well then why should men ref the women's games?' Look, for all I care the women can use chimpanzees to ref their games. I hate women's basketball."

Atocep 04-22-2019 05:27 PM

Matt Shea (Mr. Manifesto) showing off those good conservative values we're all missing.

Washington Democrats call for GOP state Rep. Matt Shea to be expelled after latest allegations | The Seattle Times

cuervo72 04-22-2019 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3236650)
Trump has filed a complaint against Elijah Cummings and the subpoena for accounting records. If Trump wins this seems like it would be very far reaching.


Well, at least Trump hasn't asked Mulvaney to fire him. (Probably.)

RainMaker 04-23-2019 10:00 PM

This is the guy Trump and 40 Republicans asked to be freed pending trial.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/u...es-of-war.html

Our good friends the Saudis.

Saudi Arabia beheadings: Western Michigan-student-to-be executed

Kodos 04-24-2019 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 3236766)
This is the guy Trump and 40 Republicans asked to be freed pending trial.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/u...es-of-war.html

Our good friends the Saudis.

Saudi Arabia beheadings: Western Michigan-student-to-be executed


Sickening stories.

digamma 04-24-2019 08:28 AM

Productive executive time this morning, I guess.

NobodyHere 04-24-2019 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 3236766)
This is the guy Trump and 40 Republicans asked to be freed pending trial.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/u...es-of-war.html

Our good friends the Saudis.

Saudi Arabia beheadings: Western Michigan-student-to-be executed


I looked at that the story with ad block off and there was an advertisement for a "Free Eddy" T-Shirt.

PilotMan 04-24-2019 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3236856)
I looked at that the story with ad block off and there was an advertisement for a "Free Eddy" T-Shirt.


It wasn't an ad, it was a photo to accompany the article.

panerd 04-25-2019 10:07 AM

No shock... Biden announces. I think I would vote for Biden assuming Trump is still in office and running in 2020. :) (Would possibly vote for Buttigieg or O'Rourke) Most of the other candidates (Free college forgiveness! Just print more money!) would likely have me voting Libertarian and Sanders would probably have me voting Trump.

Wonder how the general public would lean for Biden vs Sanders vs the rest against Trump? If 2016 taught us anything the polls probably won't clearly answer that question.

Kodos 04-25-2019 10:19 AM

I'd like to see something like a Biden/Harris ticket. Something to please both centrist and more liberal Democrats.

ISiddiqui 04-25-2019 11:20 AM

It was no surprise, but eesh... Biden is my second least favorite candidate running (after Sanders). I mean, yes, I'd vote for him over Trump, but that's the lowest bar one can imagine.

ISiddiqui 04-25-2019 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kodos (Post 3236901)
I'd like to see something like a Biden/Harris ticket. Something to please both centrist and more liberal Democrats.


That would really be a good way to piss off the Dems who want criminal justice reform. One of the marks against Harris is how heavy handed she was at times as an AG. Biden's campaign was smart to consider Stacey Abrams and if he wins, that may not be a bad call.

Izulde 04-25-2019 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kodos (Post 3236901)
I'd like to see something like a Biden/Harris ticket. Something to please both centrist and more liberal Democrats.


Harris wouldn't please as many liberal Democrats as you think she would. Like IS said, that angers the criminal justice reform crowd. I'd consider that a very underwhelming ticket and would be very reluctant in voting for it.

Biden is also my second least favorite candidate, though Beto is first among my most disliked.

albionmoonlight 04-25-2019 11:48 AM





From the "this should probably shock us, but we kind of already know it, so it does not anymore" files, Twitter admits that it does not take a strong hand in trying to shut down white supremacy because doing so would block content from some GOP politicians.

Radii 04-25-2019 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izulde (Post 3236912)
Biden is also my second least favorite candidate, though Beto is first among my most disliked.


+1


Biden's first event apparently is a fundraiser hosted by the CEO of Comcast. Given all the focus on campaign contributions, corporate influence, and net neutrality, this is just hilariously bad.

ISiddiqui 04-25-2019 12:55 PM

I'm a little less anti-Beto that some Democrats here. I'd put him above Buttigieg (ie, Mayor No-Policies) or Klobuchar.

BishopMVP 04-25-2019 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 3236914)




From the "this should probably shock us, but we kind of already know it, so it does not anymore" files, Twitter admits that it does not take a strong hand in trying to shut down white supremacy because doing so would block content from some GOP politicians.

I know the racism overlap is there, but I read it more that they find it a lot easier to block content of foreigners than American politicians. Which is probably a smart stance for a corporation based in the US and subject at times to the whims of those politicians.

BishopMVP 04-25-2019 01:20 PM

I'm pretty ambivalent on Biden as a politician, but it'll be fascinating now to see the internal civil war on the Dem side. I don't think the vocal feminist and #MeToo bloc will ever support him, so it'll be a good test to see just how much actual support that bloc has, and how many people like those ideas well enough but are willing to overlook them for a better chance to beat Trump.

I'm also not sure it'll be they who beat Biden, but I think it's more than a 50% chance this ends disastrously for him. He's gotten a pass on a whole lot of stuff because he's in a non-threatening position, and I don't think he understands the vitriol that will now be directed at him. I don't even think he really understands why his previous two Presidential campaigns failed to gain traction.

ISiddiqui 04-25-2019 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BishopMVP (Post 3236922)
I'm pretty ambivalent on Biden as a politician, but it'll be fascinating now to see the internal civil war on the Dem side. I don't think the vocal feminist and #MeToo bloc will ever support him, so it'll be a good test to see just how much actual support that bloc has, and how many people like those ideas well enough but are willing to overlook them for a better chance to beat Trump.

I'm also not sure it'll be they who beat Biden, but I think it's more than a 50% chance this ends disastrously for him. He's gotten a pass on a whole lot of stuff because he's in a non-threatening position, and I don't think he understands the vitriol that will now be directed at him. I don't even think he really understands why his previous two Presidential campaigns failed to gain traction.


Well at this point it looks like Biden and Sanders are going to be taking broadsides at each other. Which benefits everyone else really. I imagine they'll both take each other down.

JPhillips 04-25-2019 02:18 PM

A new book claims Trump okayed paying North Korea 2 million for the medical expenses related to Otto Warmbeier.

Lathum 04-25-2019 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3236924)
A new book claims Trump okayed paying North Korea 2 million for the medical expenses related to Otto Warmbeier.


His base won’t care. He will spin it as being the price he had to pay to get him back on US soil and his base will call him a hero for bringing him back.

PilotMan 04-26-2019 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum (Post 3236935)
His base won’t care. He will spin it as being the price he had to pay to get him back on US soil and his base will call him a hero for bringing him back.



Warmbeier's dad said, "sounds like it was a ransom payment."

panerd 04-26-2019 06:46 AM

The problem with our side/their sides politics is you can act outraged and then have to spin how half a billion was realeased to Iran right exactly the same.time as hostages were freed from there. Best to just not play the game and be outraged at everyone.

I know, I know Irans money right? Sure. Would you.be saying the same if Trump unfroze 500 million of North Koreas frozen assets?

JPhillips 04-26-2019 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 3237030)

I know, I know Irans money right? Sure. Would you.be saying the same if Trump unfroze 500 million of North Koreas frozen assets?


As part of a broader agreement? Yeah, I would.

The problem isn't as simple as no money for prisoners under any conditions. The problem is if Trump okayed a payment for a tortured, brain-dead guy and got nothing in return. A peace deal where both sides agree to exchanges of priorities is a very different thing.

Galaril 04-26-2019 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 3236923)
Well at this point it looks like Biden and Sanders are going to be taking broadsides at each other. Which benefits everyone else really. I imagine they'll both take each other down.


Which means we should count at least 4 more years of Trump.

Brian Swartz 04-26-2019 07:47 PM

Nah. There were lots of those on both sides in the last round of primaries.

Edward64 04-27-2019 12:17 AM

I'm not sure if this will help with increased "reasonable" gun control but it can't hurt. Hope he goes.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...eports-n999101
Quote:

Oliver North, the president of the National Rifle Association, has asked its longtime spiritual leader and chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, to step down amid challenges surrounding the organization's fundraising and nonprofit status, the New York Times reported Friday.

The report came just hours after President Donald Trump addressed the gun owners' rights group at its annual meeting in Indianapolis. The organization's 2016 election spending, including $36 million to help Trump, has prompted regulators in its charter base of New York state to threaten to investigate its nonprofit status.

whomario 04-27-2019 06:58 AM

Without digging into it i kinda doubt he is under pressure because the members want more gun controll.

Related:

Trump told cheering NRA of US withdrawal from UN global arms treaty

Was only a matter of time for him to fully turn to that demographic

digamma 04-27-2019 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3237084)
I'm not sure if this will help with increased "reasonable" gun control but it can't hurt. Hope he goes.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...eports-n999101


I'm not really sure what your post means, as the NRA is basically a gun selling organization. Anyhow, North is out as President and Wayne the weasel survives.

JPhillips 04-27-2019 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digamma (Post 3237091)
I'm not really sure what your post means, as the NRA is basically a gun selling organization. Anyhow, North is out as President and Wayne the weasel survives.



CU Tiger 04-27-2019 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3237084)
I'm not sure if this will help with increased "reasonable" gun control but it can't hurt. Hope he goes.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...eports-n999101


Quote:

Originally Posted by whomario (Post 3237088)
Without digging into it i kinda doubt he is under pressure because the members want more gun controll.

Related:

Trump told cheering NRA of US withdrawal from UN global arms treaty

Was only a matter of time for him to fully turn to that demographic


Quote:

Originally Posted by digamma (Post 3237091)
I'm not really sure what your post means, as the NRA is basically a gun selling organization. Anyhow, North is out as President and Wayne the weasel survives.


Without posting any opinionhere is a biased source of the genesis of this


400 Bad Request


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.