Jump to content
Radio Shack Killa

God save us....

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Newbomb Turk said:

I had a Poli Sci prof decades ago that noted that Ted Kennedy, by virtue of serving in the U.S. Senate for DECADES, had influenced public policy far more than any mere one- or two-term president.

 

I like Elizabeth Warren, and I LOVE her consumer advocacy and holding big banks to accountability, but I wish she'd just stay in the senate for the next twenty or thirty years and get some real work done instead of chasing the White House.

 

I'd estimate that she has somewhere between a 1-in-64 and a 1-in-1024 chance of winning the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2018 at 11:40 AM, Lyle Lanley II said:

If the Democrats' goal is to unseat Trump, I believe that nominating Warren would put them in peril of missing that goal.

 

Trump and Warren are two-sides of the same coin. If you like populism...they are your candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Mitt running for president in 2020, or angling again for sometime after the present wave of populism peaks and starts trending down again?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-the-president-shapes-the-public-character-of-the-nation-trumps-character-falls-short/2019/01/01/37a3c8c2-0d1a-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html

 

Sample quotes:

 

Quote

To a great degree, a presidency shapes the public character of the nation. A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.

...

 

Quote

To reassume our leadership in world politics, we must repair failings in our politics at home. That project begins, of course, with the highest office once again acting to inspire and unite us. It includes political parties promoting policies that strengthen us rather than promote tribalism by exploiting fear and resentment. Our leaders must defend our vital institutions despite their inevitable failings: a free press, the rule of law, strong churches, and responsible corporations and unions.

We must repair our fiscal foundation, setting a course to a balanced budget. We must attract the best talent to America’s service and the best innovators to America’s economy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

Is Mitt running for president in 2020, or angling again for sometime after the present wave of populism peaks and starts trending down again?

 

He'll be 73 in 2020, so you'd think it'd be now or never for him.  

 

I doubt he'll run, although I'm sure he's keeping his options open in the event that Trump either doesn't run for some reason - or is dramatically weakened politically within the party headed into late 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

Is Mitt running for president in 2020, or angling again for sometime after the present wave of populism peaks and starts trending down again?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-the-president-shapes-the-public-character-of-the-nation-trumps-character-falls-short/2019/01/01/37a3c8c2-0d1a-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html

 

Sample quotes:

 

...

 

 

 

 

yawn.

 

These political hasbeens that keep recycling drive me nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally got around to reading Romney's op-ed.

 

I understand questioning the timing or motivation behind it - he is a politician, after all.  And I understand why Republicans would be frustrated by it - no party wants a prominent Senator and former Governor within their own ranks criticizing current leadership.

 

But he's pretty spot-on in regard to Trump's character.  I'm glad someone within that party is willing to speak up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fine question from everyone's favorite RINO, David Frum ....

 

Why Is Trump Spouting Russian Propaganda?

 

“Russia used to be the Soviet Union,” he said.  "Afghanistan made it Russia, because they went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan. Russia … the reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there. The problem is, it was a tough fight. And literally they went bankrupt; they went into being called Russia again, as opposed to the Soviet Union. You know, a lot of these places you’re reading about now are no longer part of Russia, because of Afghanistan."

 

I'm sure the notion that the Soviet Union simply changed it's name to Russia is lost on Ukraine, the Baltics, Kazakhstan, etc ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Duquesne Frog said:

A fine question from everyone's favorite RINO, David Frum ....

 

Why Is Trump Spouting Russian Propaganda?

 

...

 

Worse...Frum was born a Canadian from a well known fairly liberal media family in Toronto. He is related to Paul Krugman as well and his sister is a Cdn senator. He is now a dual citizen.

 

Anyway, to answer the question: That must be some really damn fine kompromat Dear Leader Putin has on Trump, I think. Kinda' makes most any American truly proud to have him as their president, I should think. 

 

For much happier and much more patriotic news, see my latest sciency stuff post.

 

I close with the following quote from Donald J. Trump: "A shutdown falls on the President’s lack of leadership. He can’t even control his own party and get people together in a room. A shutdown means the president is weak." --Donald J. Trump 2013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

 

I close with the following quote from Donald J. Trump: "A shutdown falls on the President’s lack of leadership. He can’t even control his own party and get people together in a room. A shutdown means the president is weak." --Donald J. Trump 2013

 

Well as we all know, just because Trump says something, it doesn't mean it's true. Which in this case it's not. This "shutdown" falls square at the feet of Shumer and Pelosi. $5B is chump change to them. They just don't want Trump to be able to keep a campaign promise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

 

Well as we all know, just because Trump says something, it doesn't mean it's true. Which in this case it's not. This "shutdown" falls square at the feet of Shumer and Pelosi. $5B is chump change to them. They just don't want Trump to be able to keep a campaign promise.

That Mexico would fund the wall?

 

He's still not keeping it though many appear to have forgotten somehow.

 

As for "fault"...all the Senate has to do is stand behind the already unanimous consent they had only a few weeks ago. Pelosi set up a fairly nasty trap with that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone agrees there is a role for physical barriers in certain spots. Heck we already have 500 miles of wall. But a sea to sea wall?  Seems like a folly. I’d like to see a study about how effectively to use border funds before committing a bunch of taxpayer dollars to something that may not work efficiently and have unintended consequences. A few opinions of border patrol agents isn’t enough for me to be convinced it is the right direction. Trump needs to back down on this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

Trump needs to back down on this one. 

 

Like he did when his own party controlled both houses for the first two years of his administration.

 

This sudden brinksmanship is the hallmark of a weak individual who wants to introduce false bravado to mask the fact that he's in over his head.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

I think everyone agrees there is a role for physical barriers in certain spots. Heck we already have 500 miles of wall. But a sea to sea wall?  Seems like a folly. I’d like to see a study about how effectively to use border funds before committing a bunch of taxpayer dollars to something that may not work efficiently and have unintended consequences. A few opinions of border patrol agents isn’t enough for me to be convinced it is the right direction. Trump needs to back down on this one. 

Yep.  All the evidence you need to know that speaks to the ineffectiveness of barriers is to recall the Cuban refugees that would willingly pack rickety boats well beyond capacity to float across 90 miles of open ocean.  You cant create an artificial barrier better than that.  People desperate to brave the Sonoran desert to get here are going to find ways under, over, and through walls. 

 

Walls make sense in urban borders like San Diego-Tijuana, but across a desert, it is nothing but a ridiculously expensive symbolic boondoggle.  And bad symbolism at that.

 

And it is bad environmentally, but we know Trump doesn't give two shits about that ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lyle Lanley II said:

a weak individual who wants to introduce false bravado to mask the fact that he's in over his head.

I've had the phrase "petulant brat" running through my mind, but your summation sounds nicer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should also be noted that those executives of the NBPC (which is a public sector union that Republicans have been effectively wiping out over the last decade or so) are getting paid right now with union dues while the government workers they are supposedly advocating for are not ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

I think everyone agrees there is a role for physical barriers in certain spots. Heck we already have 500 miles of wall. But a sea to sea wall?  Seems like a folly. I’d like to see a study about how effectively to use border funds before committing a bunch of taxpayer dollars to something that may not work efficiently and have unintended consequences. A few opinions of border patrol agents isn’t enough for me to be convinced it is the right direction. Trump needs to back down on this one. 

 

So people who work on the border every day (people who I would deem experts) say that a strong physical barrier is essential for border security, but you're not convinced? A lot of democrats, including Schumer, a few years ago agreed with these people. So what changed? 

 

Trump should stand firm. We're talking about, what, a ~2% increase in the proposed budget? That's a no brainer imo if it's for securing our borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

 

So people who work on the border every day (people who I would deem experts) say that a strong physical barrier is essential for border security, but you're not convinced? A lot of democrats, including Schumer, a few years ago agreed with these people. So what changed? 

 

Trump should stand firm. We're talking about, what, a ~2% increase in the proposed budget? That's a no brainer imo if it's for securing our borders.

 

No I’m not convinced. I think their opinions should be thoughtfully considered but I think there are plenty of examples of “front line” opinions that are wrong or lack perspective. Plus there are always varying opinions about any “front line” controversy. 

 

I suspect there are more effective ways to use the money to secure the southern border that don’t include the Government seizing private land or destroying the natural beauty of the wild. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SuperToad said:

We're talking about, what, a ~2% increase in the proposed budget? 

 

Any increase in the budget is an issue when you're $21 trillion in debt.  

 

While he was running, Trump said that he'd balance the budget - and that "it will go relatively quickly".  Nearly two years into his term, we've racked up $2 trillion in additional debt.  That's roughly $2.8 billion in new debt every day.  

 

So much for draining the swamp.  This country can't just declare bankruptcy to erase our debt and start over by licensing our name and asshole persona to become a reality TV host.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lyle Lanley II said:

 

Any increase in the budget is an issue when you're $21 trillion in debt.  

 

While he was running, Trump said that he'd balance the budget - and that "it will go relatively quickly".  Nearly two years into his term, we've racked up $2 trillion in additional debt.  That's roughly $2.8 billion in new debt every day.  

 

So much for draining the swamp.  This country can't just declare bankruptcy to erase our debt and start over by licensing our name and asshole persona to become a reality TV host.

 

Trump really has turned out to be the swamp that needs to be drained. It really is an emperor has no clothes situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lyle Lanley II said:

 

Any increase in the budget is an issue when you're $21 trillion in debt.  

 

While he was running, Trump said that he'd balance the budget - and that "it will go relatively quickly".  Nearly two years into his term, we've racked up $2 trillion in additional debt.  That's roughly $2.8 billion in new debt every day.  

 

So much for draining the swamp.  This country can't just declare bankruptcy to erase our debt and start over by licensing our name and asshole persona to become a reality TV host.

 

Trump really has turned out to be the swamp that needs to be drained. It really is an emperor has no clothes situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SuperToad said:

We're talking about, what, a ~2% increase in the proposed budget?

How much of this increase are you willing to shoulder? Most people I know are already carrying quite a load already. You speak of this as though it's no big deal, but, as Lyle illustrated, that's an awful lot of new debt. Who is going to pay for it if Mexico won't, which was ludicrous to assert in the first place? Go ahead and ask your friends what share they want to chip in. I bet if everyone you know and I know pool our share, we couldn't build a square foot of the damn wall. And now the person who sits in the oval office says so offhandedly that he's prepared for this shutdown to go on for months or years if he doesn't get his money. What does he think the people his temper tantrum have affected, the government workers; people who will expect an IRS refund from their taxes; those who receive food benefits, will do come February when they begin to be evicted, can't buy food, can't make the car payment, etc? You think any of his supporters are going to be so keen to rally for him and his wall when they're hungry and homeless? I just read an estimation that if the shutdown is prolonged, it could shave an entire percentage point off the economy. People aren't going to be spending money they don't have or spend what they have saved if there is uncertainty with their income.

 

I'm with NEFrog. I'd like to see more people with real credentials, not cherry picked for a photo op, weigh in on the need and best practices for a physical barrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×