2017 Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

http://observer.com/2017/01/the-clinton-fo...iative/?ref=yfp

 

Clinton was the greatest politician of his time, and the most flawed in terms of understanding his own weaknesses...perhaps, ultimately knowing that he could easily manipulate people to forgive him is what led to his ultimate undoing. But brilliant political mind and grasp of policy minutiae, the complete anti-Trump (except in one key way, that both were a boon for reporters/ratings/coverage). Ironically, he knew all along how important states like PA, Michigan and Wisconsin would be but was ignored by his wife's campaign until it was too late. All that because of the South Carolina primary in 2008 against Obama.

 

Sad that even those closest advisors like Band and Huma Abedin ended up as collateral damage along the way. Luckily for Greg there is no Chelsea for president groundswell to worry about anymore.

 

The best statement of how good of a politician that Bill Clinton was is that Hillary Clinton almost became President simply because she was married to the guy.

 

Until Donald Trump showed up on the scene he was easily the best con artist I have ever seen operate.

[caulfield12]

The best statement of how good of a politician that Bill Clinton was is that Hillary Clinton almost became President simply because she was married to the guy.

 

Until Donald Trump showed up on the scene he was easily the best con artist I have ever seen operate.

 

I barely remember Nixon (more Ford), but he has to rank right up there....although he did accomplish more positive results than Dems typically would like to give him credit for because Watergate tends to overshadow everything else looking back retrospectively.

 

John Edwards also belongs in this conversation somewhere...except he wasn't nearly as good at playing "populist crusader" act while earning millions of dollars as a lawyer and cheating on his wife at the same time. It was inauthentic for Gore to use that approach as well.

 

Actually, the last Dem to pull it off pretty effectively was Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.

[southsider2k5]

I barely remember Nixon (more Ford), but he has to rank right up there....although he did accomplish more positive results than Dems typically would like to give him credit for because Watergate tends to overshadow everything else looking back retrospectively.

 

John Edwards also belongs in this conversation somewhere...except he wasn't nearly as good at playing "populist crusader" act while earning millions of dollars as a lawyer and cheating on his wife at the same time. It was inauthentic for Gore to use that approach as well.

 

Actually, the last Dem to pull it off pretty effectively was Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.

 

I'm not old enough to remember Nixon. Edwards doesn't count as he wasn't able to win the big one.

[Quin]

Yes, I would think Chelsea's possible bid is over. Only hope for her is if she really wants to get in politics, she'd have to win an election in some state as mama did. Like governor of Illinois or senator of New York or something. I mean she could run off her name like Trump, but that probably wouldn't get too far at this point, considering Hillary's bid was for the oval office failed miserably.

 

She was never going to run and quite frankly your opinion is so bad on this that you're missing Trump actually having corruption with his kids.

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-th...6--finance.html

 

Trump at war with BMW now.

 

Would love to hear the fiscal conservatives explain how this type of approach is good for consumers as well as producers...? In a true free market economy, supply and demand should be able to meet at the equilibrium level without any government interference. Is Trump saying that he should be able to force BMW to located its factories in the US, and expect them to maintain the same exact prices for their automobiles? Is it Germany's fault that MOST consumers in both countries would, all things considered, prefer the quality of BMW/Audi/Mercedes/VW/Porsche despite the higher price tags...?

 

Would also love to see Ayn Rand's take on all this, if she was still alive.

 

 

 

Captain America

22 hours ago

Trump is an IDIOT who knows nothing of business and economics. If US auto makers want to work for $3 / hour like Mexicans do then let them make cars. But US families should not have to pay thousands more for a car through tariffs or increased prices in order to subsidize non-competitive workers and industries. Nobody subsidized me when my paper mill shut down and the industry moved to Asia. Trump is not only a fascist but a socialist. You cannot say that you are for business and then pass socialistic or communist laws. It is socialism that does these things. Get rid of him fast before he destroys the country. Trump has basically declared an economic and racial war on a friendly, developing neighbor country (Mexico) with his auto and wall talk buffoonery. He is trying to take away the economic advances this poor neighbor had made in the last few years. Despicable!! I guess he would rather see them lose their $3/hour auto jobs and go back to growing pot and making meth and heroine which there is no way he can effectively keep out of the USA.

Edited January 16, 2017 by caulfield12

[MexSoxFan#1]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-th...6--finance.html

 

Trump at war with BMW now.

 

Would love to hear the fiscal conservatives explain how this type of approach is good for consumers as well as producers...? In a true free market economy, supply and demand should be able to meet at the equilibrium level without any government interference. Is Trump saying that he should be able to force BMW to located its factories in the US, and expect them to maintain the same exact prices for their automobiles? Is it Germany's fault that MOST consumers in both countries would, all things considered, prefer the quality of BMW/Audi/Mercedes/VW/Porsche despite the higher price tags...?

 

Would also love to see Ayn Rand's take on all this, if she was still alive.

 

 

 

Captain America

22 hours ago

Trump is an IDIOT who knows nothing of business and economics. If US auto makers want to work for $3 / hour like Mexicans do then let them make cars. But US families should not have to pay thousands more for a car through tariffs or increased prices in order to subsidize non-competitive workers and industries. Nobody subsidized me when my paper mill shut down and the industry moved to Asia. Trump is not only a fascist but a socialist. You cannot say that you are for business and then pass socialistic or communist laws. It is socialism that does these things. Get rid of him fast before he destroys the country. Trump has basically declared an economic and racial war on a friendly, developing neighbor country (Mexico) with his auto and wall talk buffoonery. He is trying to take away the economic advances this poor neighbor had made in the last few years. Despicable!! I guess he would rather see them lose their $3/hour auto jobs and go back to growing pot and making meth and heroine which there is no way he can effectively keep out of the USA.

It's one thing to force American companies to not go overseas for cheap labor but to try to intimidate European and Asian companies to not go to Mexico is straight up thuggish behavior. The piece of s*** clearly has a stick up his ass about Mexico.

 

If he wants a trade war, let's have at it. Mexico can also add a 35% tax on US imports and services.I read somewhere that Mexico buys more US goods and services than Great Britain, Spain, France, Japan and Germany...put together. Somewhere around 7 to 8 million US jobs depend on trade with Mexico. Mexico is the US 3rd overall biggest trade partner. Sure, a trade war would probably be harsher on Mexico but Mexicans are used to hard times, with the s*** government they have, economic crisis are something they are used to. OTOH, Americans don't like tough economic times, and a trade war would certainly cause at the very least some economic discomfort, enough to ensure Trump loses his reelection bid...

 

Or Mexico could just wait out Trump when he eventually gets impeached for being Putin's b****.

 

[caulfield12]

In case you just woke up, we're getting closer to war with China/Mexico/Germany and continuing to cozy up to Russia. Oh, by the way, that little NATO deal is obsolete (AGAIN). Despite everything we've heard from his Cabinet choices on the matter.

 

Quoted in German by Bild from a conversation held in English, Trump predicted that Britain’s exit from the EU will be a success and portrayed the EU as an instrument of German domination designed with the purpose of beating the U.S. in international trade. For that reason, Trump said, he’s fairly indifferent to whether the EU stays together, according to Bild.

WHAT? It's the darned Nazis all over again, secretly planning global economic hegemony!!!

 

 

The Times quoted Trump as saying he was interested in making “good deals with Russia,” floating the idea of lifting sanctions that were imposed as the U.S. has sought to punish the Kremlin for its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and military support of the Syrian government.

 

“They have sanctions on Russia -- let’s see if we can make some good deals with Russia,’’ Trump said, according to the Times. “For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that’s part of it.’’ (Great, didn't he just wipe out the entire department and leave it without a chair/director for the first time in modern history?)

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/5f3214a9-0b49-...ny-have-it.html

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles...&yptr=yahoo

Edited January 16, 2017 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

Mass deportations are bad, unless they are to Cuba...

 

http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americ...0113-story.html

[Soxbadger]

Mass deportations are bad, unless they are to Cuba...

 

http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americ...0113-story.html

 

Uh what?

 

Cubans used to enjoy "special" privileges, it was referred to as "wet foot, dry foot." If a Cuban made it to the US they were immediately granted residency. Not one part of the article even suggests "mass deportation", nor even uses the word.

 

Instead the article states that now Cubans will be treated like every other immigrant, and not get a "special" status from the govt, that being offered immediate residency. This article is about those Cubans who were planning to come to America to get this "special" treatment, and are now worried that they will be treated like every other immigrant.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I didn't realize that the policy only dated back to 1995. I thought it was a 60's Cold War holdover.

[GoSox05]

Obama has done great work with normalizing relations with Cuba and Iran. Some of the best stuff he has done as president.

 

 

Which will probably be quickly ruined.

[southsider2k5]

Uh what?

 

Cubans used to enjoy "special" privileges, it was referred to as "wet foot, dry foot." If a Cuban made it to the US they were immediately granted residency. Not one part of the article even suggests "mass deportation", nor even uses the word.

 

Instead the article states that now Cubans will be treated like every other immigrant, and not get a "special" status from the govt, that being offered immediate residency. This article is about those Cubans who were planning to come to America to get this "special" treatment, and are now worried that they will be treated like every other immigrant.

 

lol. Yeah, poor guys fleeing murderous dictators. I wonder why we ever tried to protect them as special versus other people who were just fleeing for better opportunities that the Dems are saying they won't send back. Will they be doing the same to Syrians? You know, so no one gets "special" treatment, and all get treated like every other immigrant?

[southsider2k5]

I didn't realize that the policy only dated back to 1995. I thought it was a 60's Cold War holdover.

 

Nope, another of Clinton's works.

[StrangeSox]

lol. Yeah, poor guys fleeing murderous dictators. I wonder why we ever tried to protect them as special versus other people who were just fleeing for better opportunities that the Dems are saying they won't send back. Will they be doing the same to Syrians? You know, so no one gets "special" treatment, and all get treated like every other immigrant?

 

Syrians don't get a "wet foot, dry foot" policy either though? The US handles political refugees on a case-by-case basis for every country except Cuba until this change. Now Cuba is like everyone else.

[southsider2k5]

Syrians don't get a "wet foot, dry foot" policy either though? The US handles political refugees on a case-by-case basis for every country except Cuba until this change. Now Cuba is like everyone else.

 

Except that they are doing everything that they can to increase that number, while apparently trying to curb the same from Cuba.

[Soxbadger]

lol. Yeah, poor guys fleeing murderous dictators. I wonder why we ever tried to protect them as special versus other people who were just fleeing for better opportunities that the Dems are saying they won't send back. Will they be doing the same to Syrians? You know, so no one gets "special" treatment, and all get treated like every other immigrant?

 

 

Except that they are doing everything that they can to increase that number, while apparently trying to curb the same from Cuba.

 

 

I honestly dont know what your complaint is, well besides for originally misconstruing what the change in policy was. But if you think that we should accept all immigrants and give them the benefits that we were previously giving Cubans, I 100% agree. All immigrants, Syrian, Cuban, English, Italian, whatever should at minimum have the same policy that Cubans did.

 

But I have a feeling that you arent really pro-immigrant.

[caulfield12]

lol. Yeah, poor guys fleeing murderous dictators. I wonder why we ever tried to protect them as special versus other people who were just fleeing for better opportunities that the Dems are saying they won't send back. Will they be doing the same to Syrians? You know, so no one gets "special" treatment, and all get treated like every other immigrant?

 

Read about Batista's Cuba in the 1950's.

 

Arguably even worse in terms of civilian deaths. In the end, Trump was going to upend this policy anyway, since he's pretty much doing the opposite of Obama on nearly everything.

 

Would it have been better if Obama extended the eligibility period until the middle of the day next Friday? Isn't it better to pick a date ahead of time and give (the majority of) those who are planning to leave some advance warning? Granted, there will always be some "caught in the middle" of transit, but waiting until noon next Friday is basically as logical as replacing the leader of the DC National Guard in the very middle of Inauguration Day (which is always considered an honor for military personnel to participate in), out of political spite. Yet another unprecedented Trump action.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public...ba6b_story.html

 

Does that make any sense?

[caulfield12]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/us/polit...iness.html?_r=0

 

Anyone care to defend Jared Kushner still having a key role in the White House after reading this article?

 

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/a...es-trap/406756/

Well, guess it really doesn't matter since there's only a 12/16 (75%) probability of going to war with China. Bigger fish to fry.

Edited January 17, 2017 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

The Associated Press ‏@AP 3h3 hours ago BREAKING: Spokesman says former President George H.W. Bush admitted to intensive care unit, wife Barbara Bush also hospitalized.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Now we are seeing why the slow expansion of powers in the Presidency over the years is such a dangerous thing. We have watched each subsequent President take things a little bit further, until when we got a true lunatic in office, he is taking full advantage of all of these things without any sort of Presidential type of respect for this level of power. Trump has literally cut out Congress and is ruling by decree now. This why the Executive Order has always been dangerous and IMO should have been unconstitutional all along.

[Jenksismyhero]

Now we are seeing why the slow expansion of powers in the Presidency over the years is such a dangerous thing. We have watched each subsequent President take things a little bit further, until when we got a true lunatic in office, he is taking full advantage of all of these things without any sort of Presidential type of respect for this level of power. Trump has literally cut out Congress and is ruling by decree now. This why the Executive Order has always been dangerous and IMO should have been unconstitutional all along.

 

Those who were fine with Obama enacting an order to stop enforcement of immigration laws now see a problem with Trump enacting an order limiting immigration. Reap what you sow.

[caulfield12]

Now we are seeing why the slow expansion of powers in the Presidency over the years is such a dangerous thing. We have watched each subsequent President take things a little bit further, until when we got a true lunatic in office, he is taking full advantage of all of these things without any sort of Presidential type of respect for this level of power. Trump has literally cut out Congress and is ruling by decree now. This why the Executive Order has always been dangerous and IMO should have been unconstitutional all along.

 

Not to mention the Democrats made rules while in power that have completely neutered themselves in the Senate...in terms of the filibuster, specifically. Munchin, Price, DeVos, Carson, Sessions, Ross, Tillerson...no way they all get through at any other time in recent history. Daschle got stopped by a mere $15,000 in unpaid taxes, and he'd been majority leader.

 

Fwiw, if the Pacific Trade agreement went to Congress, Trump would surely lose, so they should consider themselves fortunate that they don't have to cross him so early. Or completely compromise their core beliefs.

 

By the way, us liberals are done with Warren and Booker. Bernie Sanders is the only one to remain consistent in his beliefs.

Edited January 25, 2017 by caulfield12

[illinilaw08]

Those who were fine with Obama enacting an order to stop enforcement of immigration laws now see a problem with Trump enacting an order limiting immigration. Reap what you sow.

 

Just to be accurate, Obama did not stop enforcement of immigration laws - the most recent number I can find shows 2.5M deportions between 2009-2015. The executive order provided semi-legal status to people who were brought to the US as children. We can argue about whether the executive order was overreaching, but let's not mischaracterize what it was.

 

To SSK's point, executive orders are tough. When Congress slows down appointments in the executive to the point that departments can't function, Executive Orders are a reasonable mechanism to keep government working. BUT they are obviously a power that can be abused (and have been abused).

[Reddy]

Not to mention the Democrats made rules while in power that have completely neutered themselves in the Senate...in terms of the filibuster, specifically. Munchin, Price, DeVos, Carson, Sessions, Ross, Tillerson...no way they all get through at any other time in recent history. Daschle got stopped by a mere $15,000 in unpaid taxes, and he'd been majority leader.

 

Fwiw, if the Pacific Trade agreement went to Congress, Trump would surely lose, so they should consider themselves fortunate that they don't have to cross him so early. Or completely compromise their core beliefs.

 

By the way, us liberals are done with Warren and Booker. Bernie Sanders is the only one to remain consistent in his beliefs.

 

LOL. You don't speak for me re: Booker and Warren. That type of attitude is why we have Trump.

[caulfield12]

Those who were fine with Obama enacting an order to stop enforcement of immigration laws now see a problem with Trump enacting an order limiting immigration. Reap what you sow.

 

Obama was in the wrong.

 

But, Congress also had a responsibility to work together with the president and reach a compromise. They never even tried, not really. They just punted the problem down the line.

 

And you're realistically going to gather up 11-12 million people, and evict them all...especially all the kids under 18 who grew up here? Even for the GOP, few have positions that extreme, and yet that would be technically carrying out the law. Well, that makes no sense after the money for education has already been invested in them. Quite a few of the kids don't even speak much more than barely passable Spanish. And a lot of those undocumented workers were already contributing to the economy by paying sales tax, rent or property tax (which was then paid by landlord/owner), etc.

 

Obama, fwiw, has deported 2.5 million already, and there are 800-900,000 remaining with criminal backgrounds who also should becsent back, with more extreme penalties for trying to come back again if they had committed felonies.

Edited January 25, 2017 by caulfield12