Donald Trump

mrussel1

Meltdown99 said:

Tiki said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1083022011574747137

He could at least send them some rakes...

I think everyone is overreacting to this CA thing.  He's trolling.  

Abe Froman

Gern Blansten said:

Tiki said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1083022011574747137

His original post referred to "forrest" fires.  He has since corrected it or deleted/reposted.

What an absolute piece of shit.  

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

CM189191 said:

cincybearcat said:

josevolution said:

Idiot in chief is a disgrace , how many kids were killed in parkland? Where was his outrage back then ? I’d say mass shootings are national emergency 

Yeah I kept thinking of that during his awful speech.

and I can’t bekieve how awful Nancy and Chuck were. They made trump look better.

Really?  Were they taking children and keeping them in cages?  bc tRUmp did that

Huh? He did that on tv during his speech?

you all really are so anti-trump you can’t see any other idiots can you?

I don't understand what your criticism is of Chuck and Nancy.  Is it style, is it substance?  Did you not like the words they used or disagreed with the positions?  Perhaps you need to better describe your definition of "idiot".  

Both. They’ve done nothing for many many years on immigration. They, along with many Congress people and some presidents own this freakin mess.  

And their style was awful and it matters. Ask JFK and Nixon if it matters. They blew their chance to relate to people. What they said certainly had more truth than trump, but it matters how you say it. And it matters who says it, and these idiots helped create this mess.

I must say, since you accused others of it, your bias is really showing with your reaction to those two last night. I understand that you think they should have done more in the past, but they weren't humiliating fuckers on TV last night, and didn't say anything idiotic. I suspect you'd be saying this no matter what they said or how they said it last night.

Personally, I think their style is irrelevant (even though there was nothing wrong with it as far as I can tell. They were just quite serious and not overly emotional). All that matters was one sentence: "We don't govern by temper tantrum." End of story.

The style does matter if you are to win over people though. It matters a lot.

My bias is showing...not sure. Perhaps. I liked most but not all of what Chuck said. Nancy’s words were ok but not great.  It was more than being serious, it was stiff as hell. 

But you are probably a little right in that my ability to listen to people that helped cause a problem pretend to care about it now might cloud my thinking a little.  But seriously, watch it again and let me know if you really think their response helped their position. Do you think they helped gain any more support?  And please don’t deflect by saying neither did trump or anything like that cause that isn’t what I’m discussing. Trump and his speech can be discussed separately.  And yes he was awful and spoke limited truth and mostly rhetoric bullshit. 

I think their logic helped their position. A lot. Yes, I think they, combined with Trump's presentation, likely did help them gain support, just because common sense and logic dictates that it would. I don't think this is a difficult fight here, and I don't think needed an effective song and dance to win it, and I don't think bringing personality to this particular broadcast was relevant. I think their seriousness was appropriate. Even talking all the crazy shit into account, I think a good majority of Americans are able to recognize that what Trump is doing is plain wrong, and that he really can't be literally holding America hostage just to get funding for something he wants.

Meltdown99

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Tiki said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1083022011574747137

He could at least send them some rakes...

I think everyone is overreacting to this CA thing.  He's trolling.  

My effort was a bad attempt at sarcasm. But I agree, he's trolling.  Maybe even a little deflection to take some of the focus off a government shutdown.

PJ_Soul

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Tiki said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1083022011574747137

He could at least send them some rakes...

I think everyone is overreacting to this CA thing.  He's trolling.  

My effort was a bad attempt at sarcasm. But I agree, he's trolling.  Maybe even a little deflection to take some of the focus off a government shutdown.

So should we assume that it's not actually true that he has ordered FEMA to send no more money unless (whatever) happens? Should we assume he didn't even speak to anyone with FEMA at all? It's hard to guess what he has and hasn't said. I'm tempted to believe literally nothing he says ever, but sometimes there is at least some half truths in there....

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Tiki said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1083022011574747137

He could at least send them some rakes...

I think everyone is overreacting to this CA thing.  He's trolling.  

My effort was a bad attempt at sarcasm. But I agree, he's trolling.  Maybe even a little deflection to take some of the focus off a government shutdown.

So should we assume that it's not actually true that he has ordered FEMA to send no more money unless (whatever) happens? Should we assume he didn't even speak to anyone with FEMA at all? It's hard to guess what he has and hasn't said. I'm tempted to believe literally nothing he says ever, but sometimes there is at least some half truths in there....

Read what he said... "I ordered them not send money IF THEY DON"T GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER".  I'm paraphrasing, but you get the gist.  What does it mean to get your act together?  Who decides that?  What are those metrics?  It's bullshit.  He's not going to do that.  

Bentleyspop

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Tiki said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1083022011574747137

He could at least send them some rakes...

I think everyone is overreacting to this CA thing.  He's trolling.  

Well he is the troll-in-chief 

Halifax2TheMax

Fuck is Team Trump Treason a moron. And its all Chuck and Nancy's fault.

https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/apr/28/scott-peters/would-trumps-border-wall-cost-same-one-and-half-us/

From April 28, 2017

The debate over President Trump’s proposed border wall intensified this week, with opponents saying the barrier would be ineffective and a costly mistake.

Building "a big, beautiful wall" on the Southern border was Trump’s signature promise during his campaign, winning him support from advocates for hard-line immigration reform.

But when Trump initially demanded funding for the wall be included in a stop-gap budget measure needed to avoid a government shutdown, opponents in Congress balked.

Rep. Scott Peters, D-San Diego, said the billions needed to build the wall should be used elsewhere.

Peters went on to make an eye-opening claim about what money for the wall could fund instead:

"We’ve checked in with The Navy; if we don’t pass the 2017 budget, they’re talking here about five ships that won’t be available to sail just out of the Western region — and 15 worldwide...the money for the wall? That’s, by the way, (the cost of) one and a half aircraft carriers," Peters was quoted as saying on April 24, 2017 in a Politico news article.

We know cost estimates for the wall are high. But would the price really equate to "one and a half aircraft carriers"?

We set sail on a fact check.

Paying for a "big, beautiful wall"

The U.S. border with Mexico is nearly 2,000 miles long. It already includes about 650 miles of fencing constructed under previous administrations. Trump has said the wall doesn’t need to span the entire border, adding in a television interview that "We don’t need 2,000 (miles), we need 1,000 because we have natural barriers."

During his campaign, Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion and later estimated $6 billion to $7 billion. In April 2017, he put it at $10 billion or less.

The Associated Press reported in March that the Trump Administration wants to build a 30-foot-high border wall that "looks good from the north side and is difficult to climb or cut through," according to a pair of contract notices posted to a government website.

Cost estimates for the wall vary greatly. Here are some relevant estimates, as chronicled by news publication Quartz.

• In July 2016, Bernstein Research, a firm that analyzes material costs, put the price tag at $15 billion to $25 billion, for a wall that stretches 1,000 miles and is 40 feet high, which was Trump’s initial desired height.

• In January 2017, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said the wall would be $12 billion to $15 billion.

• In February 2017, a leaked report from the Department of Homeland Security put it much higher, at $21.6 billion.

• In April 2017, the Democratic staff of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said in a report that costs could soar to nearly $70 billion — not including the significant costs and legal resources required for land acquisition.

Peters’ spokesman Jacob Peters said the congressman used the $21.6 billion estimate because it "comes from the internal report done by the Department of Homeland Security."

"This estimate falls somewhere in the middle of the range of cost estimates," the spokesman added. "Because this report was commissioned by (Department of Homeland Security) Secretary Kelly, and is based on the Trump administration’s own planning process to build walls and fences to cover almost the entirety of the border that is not already fenced, it is the best current estimate for what President Trump is likely to ask Congress to appropriate to build his border wall."

We also used the $21.6 billion as our estimate.

Aircraft carrier cost

Finding the cost of the latest U.S. aircraft carrier is a bit easier. Peters’ spokesman pointed to a Congressional Research Service report from April 2017 that places the cost of each new "Navy Ford Class Aircraft Carrier" at approximately $12.9 billion.

That’s up from the $8.5 billion cost of carriers in the Navy’s most-recent Nimitz class, according to a Navy fact sheet.

The first carrier in the new class, the USS Gerald R. Ford, is expected to be commissioned later in 2017. It’s been described as "the most expensive and most advanced warship ever built."

Still, when we do the math, it appears Peters slightly underestimated his comparison: Building a $21.6 billion border wall would cost about 1.67 times the price of these new warships.

We asked Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego to examine the cost figures.

Reaser told us the number "does appear to check out."

Our ruling

Democratic Congressman Scott Peters recently claimed the estimated price of President Trump’s border wall is the same as the cost of "one and a half aircraft carriers."

Peters used a $21.6 billion estimate, citing a leaked report from the Trump Administration’s Department of Homeland Security. That figure is within the $15 billion to $25 billion range produced by a private research firm.

Peters referenced the $12.9 billion price tag on the Navy’s newest class of aircraft carriers from a Congressional Research Service report.

At this early stage, no one knows how much Trump’s wall will really cost. Partisan sources have it all over the map. And delays and cost-overruns are common for large government projects: Just take a look at California’s massive high-speed railinitiative.

But Peters selected what appears to be the best initial estimate from Trump’s own homeland security analysts.

If anything, Peters slightly underestimates the 1.67 aircraft carriers the U.S. could build for the cost of Trump’s border wall.

We rate Congressman Peters' claim True.

I heard Peter King, Independent senator from Maine, describe it most simple, if the governor of Maine came beofre the legislature requesting money for a new school but they didn't say where it was going to go, how much it was going to cost, when it would be completed or how large it would be, they would be laughed out of the state. Team Trump Treason has not submitted any detailed plan to Congress on how the money would be used, that Mexico was going to provide. Idiocy. Madness.

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Tiki said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1083022011574747137

He could at least send them some rakes...

I think everyone is overreacting to this CA thing.  He's trolling.  

My effort was a bad attempt at sarcasm. But I agree, he's trolling.  Maybe even a little deflection to take some of the focus off a government shutdown.

So should we assume that it's not actually true that he has ordered FEMA to send no more money unless (whatever) happens? Should we assume he didn't even speak to anyone with FEMA at all? It's hard to guess what he has and hasn't said. I'm tempted to believe literally nothing he says ever, but sometimes there is at least some half truths in there....

Read what he said... "I ordered them not send money IF THEY DON"T GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER".  I'm paraphrasing, but you get the gist.  What does it mean to get your act together?  Who decides that?  What are those metrics?  It's bullshit.  He's not going to do that.  

Yeah, I know, I saw that part and understood what it meant, but I'm still not sure if he actually had some sort of conversation with someone at FEMA about this, or if it's one of his 100% lies.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Tiki said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1083022011574747137

He could at least send them some rakes...

I think everyone is overreacting to this CA thing.  He's trolling.  

My effort was a bad attempt at sarcasm. But I agree, he's trolling.  Maybe even a little deflection to take some of the focus off a government shutdown.

So should we assume that it's not actually true that he has ordered FEMA to send no more money unless (whatever) happens? Should we assume he didn't even speak to anyone with FEMA at all? It's hard to guess what he has and hasn't said. I'm tempted to believe literally nothing he says ever, but sometimes there is at least some half truths in there....

Read what he said... "I ordered them not send money IF THEY DON"T GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER".  I'm paraphrasing, but you get the gist.  What does it mean to get your act together?  Who decides that?  What are those metrics?  It's bullshit.  He's not going to do that.  

Yeah, I know, I saw that part and understood what it meant, but I'm still not sure if he actually had some sort of conversation with someone at FEMA about this, or if it's one of his 100% lies.

lies. if he quantifies anything with an "if", it's a lie/threat that will mean zero. 

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Tiki said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1083022011574747137

He could at least send them some rakes...

I think everyone is overreacting to this CA thing.  He's trolling.  

My effort was a bad attempt at sarcasm. But I agree, he's trolling.  Maybe even a little deflection to take some of the focus off a government shutdown.

So should we assume that it's not actually true that he has ordered FEMA to send no more money unless (whatever) happens? Should we assume he didn't even speak to anyone with FEMA at all? It's hard to guess what he has and hasn't said. I'm tempted to believe literally nothing he says ever, but sometimes there is at least some half truths in there....

Read what he said... "I ordered them not send money IF THEY DON"T GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER".  I'm paraphrasing, but you get the gist.  What does it mean to get your act together?  Who decides that?  What are those metrics?  It's bullshit.  He's not going to do that.  

Yeah, I know, I saw that part and understood what it meant, but I'm still not sure if he actually had some sort of conversation with someone at FEMA about this, or if it's one of his 100% lies.

I'm not saying he didn't have a conversation about it somewhere, with teh FEMA director, etc.  I'm just saying it's trolling.  Feinstein's dismissal of the whole thing is telling.  

jeffbr

Gern Blansten said:

Tiki said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1083022011574747137

His original post referred to "forrest" fires.  He has since corrected it or deleted/reposted.

They started calling him Forrest Trump on Twitter after that misspelling.

mrussel1

jeffbr said:

Gern Blansten said:

Tiki said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1083022011574747137

His original post referred to "forrest" fires.  He has since corrected it or deleted/reposted.

They started calling him Forrest Trump on Twitter after that misspelling.

Ha!  See, now that's an appropriate use of twitter. 

PJ_Soul

So Trump walked out of the talks at the WH with Dems about reopening government. When they wouldn't say they'd fund the wall, he ended it. So..... Now what? Trump obviously can't just keep the government shut down indefinitely, and the Dems have to stand strong against his demands, because anything less would be the same as caving to ransom demands. How long will it take Trump to admit the government can't stay shut down?? How long can America take the shut down without really dire long term harm? Maybe another few weeks at most?

The Juggler

He's negotiating like he would a real estate deal in the 80's.

CM189191

The Juggler said:

He's negotiating like he would a real estate deal in the 80's.

jacked up on adderal?

The Juggler

How many hours (minutes?) will it be until we hear that this "walkout" was pre-planned? I'm guessing by 6 or 7ish tonight. 

Bentleyspop

The Juggler said:

He's negotiating like he would a real estate deal in the 80's.

By acting like an immature,  petulant, spoiled narcissist?
 
Trump walked out of shutdown meeting with Democratic lawmakers
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-walked-out-of-shutdown-meeting-with-democratic-lawmakers-schumer/ar-BBS2bGP

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

So Trump walked out of the talks at the WH with Dems about reopening government. When they wouldn't say they'd fund the wall, he ended it. So..... Now what? Trump obviously can't just keep the government shut down indefinitely, and the Dems have to stand strong against his demands, because anything less would be the same as caving to ransom demands. How long will it take Trump to admit the government can't stay shut down?? How long can America take the shut down without really dire long term harm? Maybe another few weeks at most?

my wife was asking about this yesterday, as she knows I follow this stuff, and she largely doesn't. if he lets this go much longer, it will be catastrophic, for his viability as a 2 term prez, and for the 800,000 families that are currently dealing without at least one of their incomes. he just doesn't give a fuck. did you see the video of the reporter asking what plans he has for a safety net for the workers not receiving pay? he said "the safety net would be the safety of a wall on the southern border". he has absolutely zero clue about what it's like to have a finite amount of money that runs out VERY quickly. 

his advisors are eventually going to force him to cave, Anne Coulter or no Anne Coulter. 

Halifax2TheMax

EdsonNascimento said:

You folks realize this thread has become the proverbial echo chamber that liberals love b/c of your crazy presumptions, idiotic links and refusal to actually listen to anyone that doesn't agree with you?

First - on Hitler comparisons - first - at "worst" you have to live with Trump as President for another 6 years. If he ever tries to do what Bloomberg did in NYC with term limits, then you can worry.  The Cult of Obama was/is no less in numbers than the Cult of Trump.

Second - on the relax - we survived Carter's Presidential incompetence that really almost sunk the country both financially and internationally, you'll be ok.  It's not meant to say that some (much?) of what Trump does sounds and is ridiculous. The point is - pay attention to what is ACTUALLY happening and not what you IMAGINE happening.  For example:

1) Do you agree or disagree with Prison Reform?
2)  Do you agree or disagree with a reduced military presence in the Middle East?
3)  Do you agree or disagree with MORE people then ever having jobs, average salaries increasing and an increase workforce participation rate?

Trump's rhetoric is no different than Obama's other than he says it in a less politically correct way. I don't mean no different in that you don't agree with one and disagree with another.  

Honestly, if Pelosi was smart, she'd give Trump a way out of the corner he's boxed himself into.  She's playing as much politics as he is. The difference is she says it with language that is more palatable and easier to understand to many.  But, that's paying attention to style over substance.  Substantively, they are putting their lines in the sand while posing that there's no middle ground. Now, what we need is grown ups on both sides to negotiate and come up with a compromise on illegal immigration. We've lost the common thread - I would think we all agree ILLEGAL immigration must stop. We don't agree with Trump's definition of that. It's a negotiating posture. Maybe, a poor one, but that's all it is. No different than Pelosi's - no wall stance.   I actually agree with Pelosi - a wall is silly. But, I don't reject the SUBSTANCE of what Trump is getting at- we must come up with a firm new policy on ILLEGAL immigration. The fact the left wants to wrap that in emotional stories is no less manipulative than what Trump is doing.  Funny thing is - compromise is something that Obama failed at and why many of his policies failed to get implemented. He wanted a rubber stamp from Congress (different METHOD, but same MADNESS as Trump), and they wouldn't give it to him - which is good for both Presidents - thus checks alive and well.   All or nothing on either side is not what this country is. We are moderates.  Compromise is critical.  And the Pendulum swings (so another on the relax- a Dem will be President again).

So, again - ignore the noise - debate the issue. So, one final agree/disagree -

4)  Do you agree or disagree that we need to have a firm, effective policy on illegal immigration? 

Now, Pelosi - what's your idea? Not allowed to punt it (As you are trying to do which is the politics as usual that got Trump (and Ocasio-Cortez) elected). You must answer with a clear, concise policy alternative to the wall.  C'mon - I know nobody's made you do this in years. Not comfortable?  Too bad.  Answer the question. What is your policy idea on illegal immigration reform?   Doesn't it bother you that her response does not include a sound policy alternative?

End.  Start blasting away with incorrect assumptions and ignore the actual substance of my soliloquy.

“Crazy presumption?” “Idiotic links?” “Refusal to listen to anyone who doesn’t agree with you?” Well, I read your post and am responding, not because I “refuse to listen,” but because I do disagree with you.

“Cult of Obama” was based on a shared reality, deference to the political process, see Obamacare and the amount of negotiating, time, debate, mark ups, compromise, etc. as opposed to Team Trump Treason and his stomping of feet and pouting. Funny, but because Obamacare passed without one repub vote doesn’t mean it was rammed down their throat. Repubs had ample opportunity to shape the outcome but they refused to play along. Tough, majority ruling, isn’t it? Obama didn’t get legislation passed not because he didn’t compromise but because McConnell announced that their number one job was to see him fail. Hell, Obama regularly borrowed repub ideas in attempts to get legislation passed.

We survived Carter’s incompetence because we were dealing with a shared reality and with someone who was and is honest to his core. But I’ll bet its more that Carter brought peace to Israel and Egypt? Maybe it was the SALT II treaty he signed with the Soviet Union? Or perhaps it was creating the Departments of Energy and Education? Or maybe it was testifying UNDER OATH in an investigation of his budget director? Or maybe his incompetence included the Panama Canal Treaty? Maybe that’s the incompetence of which you speak? So, maybe, you shouldn’t confuse incompetence with intelligence and pay more attention to what “actually” happened. Comparing Team Trump Treason to Carter is to make yet another false comparison. Carter was competent in his duties, Team Trump Treason is clearly not (how’s the NK denuclearization and China trade negotiations going by the way?). Ignoring what came before or after a president’s tenure is disingenuous. Carter inherited a mess, failure and lies (secret bombing of Cambodia and Laos, Pentagon Papers) of Vietnam, Nixon resignation, economy shot to hell, pardons of key Watergate players. Obama inherited or had to address the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression but good thing Team Trump Treason got elected to save us all? Please.

Prison reform? I agree but why did it take so long? Repubs could have passed it long before Jared Dear Boy got involved. But that might have given Obama a bill to sign, right?

Less US military involvement in the ME? Absolutely. But the way in which it was announced? Absolutely not. And, we’re not there yet. Bolton is already backtracking and another 4 star general has left the Administration. More indicative of chaos and disorganization than any sound leadership. Time will tell whether the US withdraws from Syria and halves its forces in Afghanistan. Based on NK and China, a little too soon to crow about this, yes?

More employment and higher work force participation? Absolutely agree, who wouldn’t? But at what cost and for how long? Is manufacturing roaring back? Coal industry? And what about the tax cut that was going to raise wages? Most of it went to stock buy backs. What about the added deficit? The long term harm to the environment? Nothing else matters and all the credit goes to Team Trump Treason? Obama unemployment: from 10% (October 2009) to 4.8% (January 2017); Team Trump Treason: 4.8% to a current 3.9%. Were you singing Obama’s praises at the end of his presidency? Team Trump Treason’s wage growth, thus far, is no better than Obama’s:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth

And Team Trump Treason’s manufacturing wage growth is really no better than Obama’s:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/manufacturing-payrolls

Continued.................