So I know we're not supposed to talk politics - Presidential Election - Poll

Disagree,

HRC is still under investigation, the wall is going up he just said fence in areas, plans to deport illegal aliens caught for crimes, is turfing the ridiculous trans atlantic trade agreement, put a ban on his political team lobbying, is getting rid a ton of job killing environmental bs policies. The guy has to bridge some of the gaps between the dems and republicans. He's not even in yet. I think its worse that the outgoing pres is encouraging the protests, and slandering the incoming pres. It shows a real lack of character..

I'm sure you do , sit back and watch it unfold. BTW, you might want to look up his and his campaign manager's quotes on HRC investigation today . The lobbying 5 year ban is a dog and pony show, nothing else.

I think people are plenty interested in policy, they are just sick of the nonsense of the establishment.

 

 

 

I don't know her economic policies, but considering that France is a literal quasi-socialist country, the solution to their problems is to undo a lot of the leftist policy that dominates the economy and make it more right-wing, more limited-government. More "public investment" is not going to fix anything. What France needs is its own equivalent of a Margaret Thatcher IMO, who can take a sledgehammer to the grip that the French left have on the country.

That would be a titanic task. Even right wing parties in France are considered leftist in the rest of the world. They have an immense public sector, not easy to put all those people to work in a short time span. Unemployment stands at 10-11% at the moment, because it's really hard to fire people and businesses only hire if it is absolutely necessary. Then you have unions, and all sorts of other headaches, high taxes, too many layers of administration (to create jobs) and generally unfriendly policies towards businesses. France is a great place to live in if you're a struggling artist but hell if you're an entrepreneur. Also nice if you're already very rich, not so nice if you'd like to be rich someday.

I'm sure you do , sit back and watch it unfold. BTW, you might want to look up his and his campaign manager's quotes on HRC investigation today . The lobbying 5 year ban is a dog and pony show, nothing else.

 

On the HRC thing, it isn't entirely up to him. If he gets out of the way and lets the Justice Dept & FBI do their jobs, they will carry on. HRC and the Clinton Foundation are far from out of the bullseye at this point.

 

The guy hasn't even been sworn in yet, can we all just chill out and see what actually happens.

 

I do like that he's slapping the MSM with his dick and putting up his own videos on YouTube.

He's better then the alternative... open borders, trans atlantic partnership, more environmental regulation. Id love to be American, our minister has a bromance with your outgoing pres and as a shrine to him will carry out his plans and thoroughly destroy our economy in the process. I think the biggest challenge the US faces right now is this new generation of flag burners and SJWs

I don't understand the deportation talk. Hasn't Obama deported more than any other President in history? More than Bush and more than the sum of all presidents in the 20th century.

 

Also, I don't think the wall will get built but I really don't think it would matter if it was. A lot of people cross the border in tunnels. The wall wont stop that.

Give the guy a chance.

I don't understand the deportation talk. Hasn't Obama deported more than any other President in history? More than Bush and more than the sum of all presidents in the 20th century.

 

Also, I don't think the wall will get built but I really don't think it would matter if it was. A lot of people cross the border in tunnels. The wall wont stop that.

 

:iamwithstupid:

 

Give the guy a chance.

 

 

Simply because NO ONE cares that they're being lied to .

 

Said he will prosecute Hillary , announces today that he won't.

 

Said he will build a wall , had all the rubes chanting it, announces he won't.

 

Said he would repeal Obamacare , now announces he will keep most elements of it.

 

Said he would "drain the swamp" , then hired nothing but Washington insiders.

 

Make all the excuses you want, its the same OLD SHIT!

 

He only said he would keep two provisions of it that have already been part of the GOP proposed bills, i.e. the ending of denying people care due to pre-existing conditions and letting parents keep their children on their health plan until 26. Many people knew Trump would never be able to build the wall, but they liked the blunt rhetoric, and saw it that he would be someone who would be tough about the border. Announcing he won't go after Hillary is probably good as it would really divide the country and there are more important things to go after as President than Hillary. He has had to hire some Washington insiders in order to be able to function. His whole administration can't be all Washington outsiders.

That would be a titanic task. Even right wing parties in France are considered leftist in the rest of the world. They have an immense public sector, not easy to put all those people to work in a short time span. Unemployment stands at 10-11% at the moment, because it's really hard to fire people and businesses only hire if it is absolutely necessary. Then you have unions, and all sorts of other headaches, high taxes, too many layers of administration (to create jobs) and generally unfriendly policies towards businesses. France is a great place to live in if you're a struggling artist but hell if you're an entrepreneur. Also nice if you're already very rich, not so nice if you'd like to be rich someday.

 

Yes, not saying it would be easy.

He only said he would keep two provisions of it that have already been part of the GOP proposed bills, i.e. the ending of denying people care due to pre-existing conditions and letting parents keep their children on their health plan until 26. Many people knew Trump would never be able to build the wall, but they liked the blunt rhetoric, and saw it that he would be someone who would be tough about the border. Announcing he won't go after Hillary is probably good as it would really divide the country and there are more important things to go after as President than Hillary. He has had to hire some Washington insiders in order to be able to function. His whole administration can't be all Washington outsiders.

 

 

Wheels , my normal policy on this site is to NOT engage you in long conversations on this site. But you literally just excused him backing up on damn near everything he promised during the campaign. I'm all for give the guy a chance , but if we had elected Hillary ( no, I'm not a supporter) and she had done this quick of a flip flop we'd all be up in arms. Excusing all this is WEAK !

Wheels , my normal policy on this site is to NOT engage you in long conversations on this site. But you literally just excused him backing up on damn near everything he promised during the campaign. I'm all for give the guy a chance , but if we had elected Hillary ( no, I'm not a supporter) and she had done this quick of a flip flop we'd all be up in arms. Excusing all this is WEAK !

 

I think most people knew that Trump would never be able to build the wall and have Mexico pay for it. Regarding healthcare, he always said that he was going to repeal and replace Obamacare, not that he was just going to get rid of it and that be that. I see your point regarding Hillary, but regarding Washington insiders, I think it is unrealistic to expect him to not have some insiders. The issue is will he also have outsiders (he has some) and will he make an honest effort to drain the swamp, or will he engage in all the crass textbook politics that Obama did

Zmydust.... yeah he's flip flopping pretty bad.. pretty disheartening

Zmydust.... yeah he's flip flopping pretty bad.. pretty disheartening

 

It's making me like him more. Makes him seem more level headed now. Now I'm optimistic that he's going to do a good job. This was expected. Most of his promises were utter BS. Just said it to get the vote. That's all. Now that he's getting title and office, he's being wiser.

It's making me like him more. Makes him seem more level headed now. Now I'm optimistic that he's going to do a good job. This was expected. Most of his promises were utter BS. Just said it to get the vote. That's all. Now that he's getting title and office, he's being wiser.

 

Yeah, I've had a similar take too. Your gut tells you he can't possibly want to do all of these drastic things and after winning he immediately is no longer shouting, talking big, etc.

 

It's still drawing criticism from those that do not like him. I guess it's a moral thing to not want to see someone bait & switch, which is understandable.

 

We just have to remember that Trump winning the election (and the primaries too) were a result of him playing the apolitical gameplan to the max. No way he's sitting here president elect with the polite courtesy of Carson, Kasich, etc. There's just no way.

 

Those guys could have made it being that style, just not Trump.

Zmydust.... yeah he's flip flopping pretty bad.. pretty disheartening

 

Nothing bad about that. Chasing after political opponents once you get power is third world stuff, not befitting of the US, changing his mind about the climate deal isn't bad either. He also condemned extreme right wing movements, and pledged to be a uniting force. His latest comments, I believe, led to the recent surge in the stock market. It eliminated some of the uncertainty, and calmed fears about his presidency.

 

It's making me like him more. Makes him seem more level headed now. Now I'm optimistic that he's going to do a good job. This was expected. Most of his promises were utter BS. Just said it to get the vote. That's all. Now that he's getting title and office, he's being wiser.

Absolutely. I think he started off well, I'm beginning to be optimistic about him, too.

Yeah, I've had a similar take too. Your gut tells you he can't possibly want to do all of these drastic things and after winning he immediately is no longer shouting, talking big, etc.

 

It's still drawing criticism from those that do not like him. I guess it's a moral thing to not want to see someone bait & switch, which is understandable.

 

We just have to remember that Trump winning the election (and the primaries too) were a result of him playing the apolitical gameplan to the max. No way he's sitting here president elect with the polite courtesy of Carson, Kasich, etc. There's just no way.

 

Those guys could have made it being that style, just not Trump.

 

Fair enough on not taking such hard line stances... a giant wall with Mexico and scrapping NAFTA were a bit extreme... On the flip side regarding HRC and her foundation.. he could have left it at the justice department will carry out their investigation... not " ohhh they are such good people, they have been through enough"... so is it back to a two tiered legal system? so much for draining the swamp.

I read this morning that Trump is also backing off of divorcing himself completely from his business while in office, I understand how hard this would be but I also think the office of POTUS demands 100% of the Presidents time and I am not even getting involved with the ethics of it at this time.

I was pleased to see him beat Hillary and also understood that promises made while on the campaign train are not real promises but I have real reservations regarding running a business while being President.

Anyone here consider themselves a true politics junkie or nerd?

 

Reason I ask is that some people I debate with on FB about issues (whom I know hate Trump and typically vote Democratic), get very particular on how they define liberals and conservatives.....totally different than perhaps what the mainstream definition is.

 

Here's a sample:

 

"Regarding Democrats being more "simple-minded" than Republicans: Democrat is a party affiliation. As is Republican. One cannot say a person identifying as a Democrat is a liberal--your other article's history of the Democratic party makes that clear. It used to be the party of the South and the South's racism. I have met plenty of conservative Democrats in San Francisco. They are the ones who run the City, not the liberals who make up the City (e.g. Gavin Newsom).

 

As a liberal I have often been accused of being a Democrat and I take great offense to that. So would many people who vote for Democrats. I hold my nose when I vote for Democrats. So do many people who vote for Republicans.

 

So liberal and Democrat should not be equated. Democrat to me just means conservative, but not as conservative or right-wing as the Republicans."

 

For all of this supposed nuance, it never explains why these people almost always vote Democratic and why the media tends to support Democratic politicians over Republican ones.

 

There's nothing wrong with that of course, I just rarely ever see any "conservative" (mainstream definition) resorting to these very scientific definitions.

 

These guys teach political science in universities btw...

Nothing bad about that. Chasing after political opponents once you get power is third world stuff, not befitting of the US, changing his mind about the climate deal isn't bad either. He also condemned extreme right wing movements, and pledged to be a uniting force. His latest comments, I believe, led to the recent surge in the stock market. It eliminated some of the uncertainty, and calmed fears about his presidency.

 

 

Absolutely. I think he started off well, I'm beginning to be optimistic about him, too.

 

He hasn't quite changed his mind about the climate deal, which IMO the U.S. should back out of if it proves too restrictive to our economy.

Fair enough on not taking such hard line stances... a giant wall with Mexico and scrapping NAFTA were a bit extreme... On the flip side regarding HRC and her foundation.. he could have left it at the justice department will carry out their investigation... not " ohhh they are such good people, they have been through enough"... so is it back to a two tiered legal system? so much for draining the swamp.

 

I agree on NAFTA, but a wall should be built. For those who say that illegals will just climb over it or tunnel under it, then why are they so against it? Why not just encourage it's being built to prove how ineffective it is?

Anyone here consider themselves a true politics junkie or nerd?

 

Reason I ask is that some people I debate with on FB about issues (whom I know hate Trump and typically vote Democratic), get very particular on how they define liberals and conservatives.....totally different than perhaps what the mainstream definition is.

 

"Liberal" and "conservative" are over-simplified terms as there are different types. One of the hilarious things IMO is when very right-wing people, such as Libertarians, accuse neoconservatives as being liberals who use the language of conservatives, not "true" conservatives, etc...meanwhile liberals at liberal websites accuse the neoconservatives (both call them "neocons") as being super far-right.

 

But for example, some conservatives are more socially conservative and want very limited military engagement by the United States around the world. If they had their way, they'd close a lot of the military bases. Such conservatism is very suspicious of both a standing military the way the Founders were and also see it that such a military gets the U.S. into costly wars. Also, historically, war is a path to socialism, as war requires the unification of the private economy and the State.

 

Then there are the neoconservatives, who often consist of people that are described as "liberals who have been mugged by reality." Neoconservatives tend to support more big-government than say the other type of conservative, but very much emphasize a strong, robust national defense and assertive foreign policy. Neoconservatism to a degree arose as a response to the horrors of Nazism and Soviet communism. One can see these views in how many of the former conservative support Trump while many neoconservatives viewed him dangerously.

 

Here's a sample:

 

"Regarding Democrats being more "simple-minded" than Republicans: Democrat is a party affiliation. As is Republican. One cannot say a person identifying as a Democrat is a liberal--your other article's history of the Democratic party makes that clear. It used to be the party of the South and the South's racism. I have met plenty of conservative Democrats in San Francisco. They are the ones who run the City, not the liberals who make up the City (e.g. Gavin Newsom).

 

As a liberal I have often been accused of being a Democrat and I take great offense to that. So would many people who vote for Democrats. I hold my nose when I vote for Democrats. So do many people who vote for Republicans.

 

So liberal and Democrat should not be equated. Democrat to me just means conservative, but not as conservative or right-wing as the Republicans."

 

For all of this supposed nuance, it never explains why these people almost always vote Democratic and why the media tends to support Democratic politicians over Republican ones.

 

There's nothing wrong with that of course, I just rarely ever see any "conservative" (mainstream definition) resorting to these very scientific definitions.

 

These guys teach political science in universities btw...

 

To the super hardcore liberals, yes the Democrats are just the least bad party to vote for. It's like the Libertarians who constantly vote Republican. Talk to them and they rant and rage about the GOP and it's big-government policies (or what they see as such). But they will always vote Republican because they see it as less big-government than the Democrats.

 

Not sure if this fits discussions here, but saw this on TV just FYI, WTF:

 

Chia Trump by JanDaMan, on Flickr

Chia Trump by JanDaMan, on Flickr

Canadian Cuck

 

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/news.nationalpos...p?client=safari

Yup.....

 

That's our leader.......

 

So F...N embarrassing.