I have a hard time believing that Trump broke immigration law with his temporary ban, yet Obama did not do so by doing the exact opposite of the law.
I have a hard time believing that Trump broke immigration law with his temporary ban, yet Obama did not do so by doing the exact opposite of the law.Even if true (I disagree), there's no question that they're exponentially better than the Trump camp. Trump's team regularly tells egregious lies, pushes the limits of laws (and at least in the case of the immigration ban, likely broke it), tries to censor valuable science and is bent on avoiding accountability for its actions. I would much rather have a partisan but well-meaning group challenging these lies and violations at every turn than let Trump have the cheerleader section he so desperately wants from the press.
Trust me you will recieve an endless golden stream from the trump admin.It's all trickle down. The right wants wealth we earn from employers who prosper, and the left wants wealth gathered up by the government and trickled down upon them in an endless stream of gold.
I have a hard time believing that Trump broke immigration law with his temporary ban, yet Obama did not do so by doing the exact opposite of the law.
It's all trickle down. The right wants wealth we earn from employers who prosper, and the left wants wealth gathered up by the government and trickled down upon them in an endless stream of gold.
I have a hard time believing that Trump broke immigration law with his temporary ban, yet Obama did not do so by doing the exact opposite of the law.
It's all trickle down. The right wants wealth we earn from employers who prosper, and the left wants wealth gathered up by the government and trickled down upon them in an endless stream of gold.
It sure as fsck is not in the name of advancing the common man, which he sold to a bunch of ignorant voters it appears.
35 years of trickle down led us to where we are today, at a fragile zenith of inequality. We saw just how fragile it is in the collapse of the Ownership Society. It's utterly irrational to think that more of the same will yield different results.
You'd think conservatives would stop harping on supply-side nonsense in light of the overwhelming evidence facing us, that we have been living through for many, many years now, that it absolutely does not work.
But no, they parrot it out again. "Just try harder!"
I guess you have to realize that while they clearly haven't had any ideas over the last 8 years, this thought paralysis among conservatives really goes back 35 and more years. The same attempts to try the same failed policies over and over again. The only thing that "works" for them, is blaming all of the country's misery on democrats--just as democrats regain power and are tasked with fixing their highly predictable, always repeated messes. Their voters just eat it up--as long as their is an enemy "in some other state!" to blame.
You'd think conservatives would stop harping on supply-side nonsense in light of the overwhelming evidence facing us, that we have been living through for many, many years now, that it absolutely does not work.
But no, they parrot it out again. "Just try harder!"
I guess you have to realize that while they clearly haven't had any ideas over the last 8 years, this thought paralysis among conservatives really goes back 35 and more years. The same attempts to try the same failed policies over and over again. The only thing that "works" for them, is blaming all of the country's misery on democrats--just as democrats regain power and are tasked with fixing their highly predictable, always repeated messes. Their voters just eat it up--as long as their is an enemy "in some other state!" to blame.
I get a podcast called Intelligence Squared US Debates which is in an Oxford debate format and they cover various topics. The question posed on the one I just listened to was "should Trump be given a chance?". Straightforward topic but an interesting discussion and debate.
You can listen to it here (or I did on my phone with the podcast app): http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org
The British guy imo made the best points. He was very anti-Trump but argued that since Trump won the election then we should give not only the president but those who voted for him the chance to succeed or fail on his own merits. The opposing side basically argued that he has been given a chance already (which is a fair point to make) and now is the time to oppose, protect, act, etc.
Anywhom not a good summary so if you are bored and needing something to listen to it's a quality program (could be wrong but I think NPR hosts it). The other debates on there are great too.
I get a podcast called Intelligence Squared US Debates which is in an Oxford debate format and they cover various topics. The question posed on the one I just listened to was "should Trump be given a chance?". Straightforward topic but an interesting discussion and debate.
You can listen to it here (or I did on my phone with the podcast app): http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org
The British guy imo made the best points. He was very anti-Trump but argued that since Trump won the election then we should give not only the president but those who voted for him the chance to succeed or fail on his own merits. The opposing side basically argued that he has been given a chance already (which is a fair point to make) and now is the time to oppose, protect, act, etc.
Anywhom not a good summary so if you are bored and needing something to listen to it's a quality program (could be wrong but I think NPR hosts it). The other debates on there are great too.
I agree. However, Trump has a huge ego and wants to get things done. He's also highly intelligent and thoroughly understands the art of the deal. The more toxic he gets, the less eager the Pubbies will be to accommodate him. Either Trump learns to moderate his tone, or Congress will defang him as their fear of being defeated in the general becomes greater than their fear of being defeated in the primaries. (This will happen more in the Senate, of course; most House seats of either party tend to be fairly safe.) The more Trump appears to have lost the nation, the less the GOP will be willing to implement programs and changes without broad public support.
It’s almost impossible to have been more wrong in a prediction than he was, haha.lol. How's that worked out?
The real American people realize what a great leader Trump is turning out to be. The few malcontents will come around ... eventually.
Any day now, right @compuwiz1 ?Orders on their way...according to rumors. Sessions wants all files from FBI and Lynch.
That's because you don't make policy based on emotion, you use logic. I understand it's hard for the "feels" generation, but bringing up some picture of some kid as if that means anything is both stupid and pointless.
So far Trump has done a terrific job, so I guess it really doesn't matter if idiots want to "give him a chance" or not.
Bolded for lulz - that's basically been Trump's entire presidency - doing things that are broadly unpopular.I actually think all these attacks help the country. Every President comes in with a certain amount of political capital that he can use for virtually anything. After that, he needs popular support to act. The attacks on Obama drove him to be more moderate, and hopefully the attacks on Trump will do the same. Not immediately, but eventually Congressional Republicans will feel the heat and be less willing to act except where there is broad bipartisan public support. That can only be a good thing for any President, in my opinion. If something doesn't have broad support, then the government probably shouldn't be doing it. The lone exception off the top of my head would be minority civil rights (like gay marriage) where something may be morally imperative in and of itself but not yet acceptable to the majority. Those are the examples where leaders need to lead us in directions we might otherwise ignore since it isn't our ox being gored. Beyond that, I prefer that our leaders lead us where we all already want to go.
lol. How's that worked out?
lol. How's that worked out?
...and also patently refusing to do the moral, necessary things, that are not yet popular. (another part of wp's charge, there)Bolded for lulz - that's basically been Trump's entire presidency - doing things that are broadly unpopular.
lol. I can't imagine wp ever claiming that Trump "is thoroughly intelligent and understands the art of the deal." lol. wtf. That boggles my mind.
I'd say this explains why he buggered off soon after--not because people got too mean, but because he maybe felt that he could never live that down. I mean, I think people can change. I can't imagine in any possible world that wp still believes this to be true about Trump--I remain skeptical that he ever believed that, tbh. I think he just said it to troll.
No one with eyes and ears could ever think this about Trump.
He also made statements about going to the streets when the Jill Stein recount move was on, seeing it as an attempt to "overturn" the election, then edited those comments, but some of us caught it. Then he was made an Elite member.
Those were the days!
lol.
He also made statements about going to the streets when the Jill Stein recount move was on, seeing it as an attempt to "overturn" the election, then edited those comments, but some of us caught it. Then he was made an Elite member.
Those were the days!
lol.
And instead the swamp is now 4x deeper.Shutting it all down is why he got elected, drain the swamp etc.