President Trump

[DawgyNWindow]

Open borders only works if you're not running a welfare state where the government hands out free food, clothes and medical care to anyone who needs it (and you're not already 20 trillion dollars in debt). Obamacare is a direct attack on libertarian ideals, and it is difficult to believe that any self-proclaimed libertarian would support a candidate that said they would work to save such a program.

True free trade is difficult when others put tariffs on your exports and you don't do the same. You have to acknowledge reality. It's like saying someone is your friend as they plot to murder you.

I think what is being proposed here is some sort of government funded anarchy. This would lead to the eventual collapse of America, and we are probably well on our way to that anyway.

A house divided cannot stand.

[Guisslapp]

Open borders only works if you're not running a welfare state where the government hands out free food, clothes and medical care to anyone who needs it (and you're not already 20 trillion dollars in debt). Obamacare is a direct attack on libertarian ideals, and it is difficult to believe that any self-proclaimed libertarian would support a candidate that said they would work to save such a program.

True free trade is difficult when others put tariffs on your exports and you don't do the same. You have to acknowledge reality. It's like saying someone is your friend as they plot to murder you.

I think what is being proposed here is some sort of government funded anarchy. This would lead to the eventual collapse of America, and we are probably well on our way to that anyway.

A house divided cannot stand.

That is why I am too pragmatic to be an actual libertarian, although it is more consistent with my core beliefs.

[WWDog]

I support gay marriage. The secular part of it, the civil, legal aspects. It's a contract between two people, with legal consequences. Makes no difference, in the secular/civil aspects, who the two people are. But, I also support churches' rights to reject gay marriage. That's okay for now....but I guarantee attacks on churches/religion is coming next. The ONLY reason such attacks haven't already begun is because of the mooslims. The left knows their allies, the mooslims, will NOT tolerate gay anything, and the leftists don't want to rock that boat yet. Instead, we see these snipe attacks against Christians on a case by case basis. While we never see even a disparaging word said about mooslims....who murder gays in gruesome ways.

Why is that, goosey? Why do you commies support mooslims murdering gays, and treating women as third-class citizens (not even second-class, that is reserved for their goats)?

Right to do drugs? As long as you don't expect we taxpayers to bail you out, go ahead. I think the ONLY taxpayer funded operations re: drug users, should be sanitation crews who go around picking up the dead, rotting, stinking bodies of druggies and taking them to a big incinerator.

Open borders? Not just NO but HELL NO! Minefields and motion-detector machine guns. Shows how libtard you are when you consider "open borders" to be equated with liberty.

You commie globalists hate anything to do with a nation protecting itself. Not surprising you would have that view. But, sorry, albeit too slowly, developed/civilized countries are starting to put their foot (feet?) down and say "enough is enough." It's happening here....thank God!...it's happening in Britian (Brexit), there's a movement in Germany that is slowly gathering momentum, and even liberal France is starting to say they've had enough too. Japan has always held that view, and China, a new player on the world's economic scene, is already all-in in doing what is best for itself. China is investing $billions to exploit Africa. Or, did you think they were there "to help" local Africans?

What exactly is "free" capitalism? I know what REAL capitalism is, and it already incorporates all the freedom necessary. Have an eerie feeling when someone like YOU advocates for "free" anything you really mean totalitarian government control.

I find it comical you equate Trump's agenda with being personal, to the detriment of the country, yet embrace the overtly destruction anti-American agenda of the 'craps. Yes, comical, because it's so ridiculous it doesn't warrant a serious response.

Trump a bully? Well....maybe...he does come on strong, I agree with that. He is opinionated and doesn't shirk from expressing said opinions. As has been discussed before, Trump is a strong-willed Type A personality. I encounter people like that all the time. They are all very successful....Nick Saban is such a type...Bama does pretty good with him at the helm. Yes, Saban is a dickhead on a personal level. But, folks like him get things done!

I know it's easy to simply say Trump is only doing this or that to benefit himself financially....nah! He is losing money while he serves as POTUS. No, not that anyone needs to be concerned about his landing in poverty. But, his net-worth is shrinking.

I also find it funny how people like you bash Trump, and the Bushes, for supposed personal financial benefits (or VP Don Cheney's ties to Halliburton), yet never say a word when Nancy Pelosi hooks a bill to some other to have US taxpayers finance a fishing company in Singapore, or wherever it was.....said company HER FAMILY happened to be a majority owner of! Why is that goosey? It was made public, by some dastardly (R) Congressman at the time...the libtard media refused to even mention it, FOX did, and Pelosi was questioned about it in a local press conference in San Fran. She was able to brush it off with some ridiculously stupid explanation, and being a (D) that was the end of it.

Guess HER true political ideals are really tied to her own personal interests and ego rather than what is best for the country.

That doesn't come as a surprise to those of us who know libtards like Pelosi are the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm.

I'd like to buy your a beer after that!

[brtransplant]

Was it an illegal immigrant that tried to snatch your wife’s purse?

If I had to guess, I'd say no, but I didn't ask him where he was from before I counter attacked, and I didn't afterwards because he just didn't seem to be in much of a mood for conversation. He looked to be just one of the thousands of doped out bums that now occupy the tent cities scattered all around downtown Seattle.

My point in mentioning the illegal immigrants was that these sanitary cities are already bursting at the seams with liberal bums that don't work and have nowhere to live other than on the streets or in the tent cities that are springing up everywhere. As these sanctuary cities fill up with more and more asylum seeking illegal immigrants, the crime rates in those cities will continue to skyrocket. As the competition for resources (aka welfare) grows, the situation will continue to get even worse.

[brtransplant]

You support liberty, eh? I didn’t realize you supported gay marriage and adoption, the right to do drugs, and open borders.

And free capitalism? Had me fooled there too. I thought you supported Trump’s tariffs, his crony capitalism that profits the Trumps and Kushners, his use of the bully pulpit to harm specific businesses that disagree with him (like the NFL).

Liberty and free capitalism are the ideals of libertarians (like me), and they are the polar opposite beliefs of authoritarians like Trump. But let me be clear, I don’t think Trump is an authoritarian because he agrees with its political ideology. Rather “bullying” is all the man knows and it is the mode he operates in. His true political ideals are really tied to his own personal interests and ego rather than what is best for the country.

A person can marry his mule for all I care, just not in the church that I choose to attend. He'll need to choose a church that allows that if that's what he wants to do. Adoption is something I'm not qualified to express an informed opinion about, so I won't attempt to. I'm for legalizing marijuana, and I don't think that our current drug laws are having any affect on the growing use of other illicit drugs, but the use of some of those is so tragic for the users that I'm unsure exactly what affect legalizing their use would have. On that issue, I again feel unqualified to express an informed opinion, so I won't attempt to. Open borders are as stupid as open airline boarding would be. We have to screen ALL passengers to make sure we keep as many crazy bastards off the planes as we can. The same is true for immigration. I'm for LEGAL immigration, period. Open borders are not feasible in today's world of Islamic terrorism.

I'm for free trade, but if we're the ONLY country that practices it, it doesn't work. This concept can't be too hard for anyone to grasp. When other countries place tariffs on our exports, they should expect the same from us. The "bully pulpit" has been known as such since long before President Trump was elected. All presidents have used it. You NEVER bitched about Obama's use of it, but that is typical of the hypocrisy that exist in the media and the rest of the DC establishment, so you fit right in. Attacking Trump about crony ANYTHING is absurd. He is attacked on a daily basis from practically every direction. His crusade against the corruption in DC is like nothing that's ever been done before. As for the NFL, how is what the NFL has allowed not a use of a "bully pulpit"? I've NEVER tuned into an NFL game to get political commentary. Why is it OK for them to push THEIR political opinions on us?

President Trump is dealing with a corrupt media, as well as a totally corrupt DC establishment. What you call "bulling" is what I call standing up to those assholes and taking them on. He can't play nice with the very people that are set out to destroy him at any price. The corrupt DC establishment and the fake news media have met their match with President Trump and it is driving them nuts. I believe that a we are literally watching a war being waged that will determine whether our nation survives or not. Unlike Obama and Hillary, President Trump's personal interests are to see America prosper. Why that offends you so is beyond me.

[Guisslapp]

If I had to guess, I'd say no, but I didn't ask him where he was from before I counter attacked, and I didn't afterwards because he just didn't seem to be in much of a mood for conversation. He looked to be just one of the thousands of doped out bums that now occupy the tent cities scattered all around downtown Seattle.

My point in mentioning the illegal immigrants was that these sanitary cities are already bursting at the seams with liberal bums that don't work and have nowhere to live other than on the streets or in the tent cities that are springing up everywhere. As these sanctuary cities fill up with more and more asylum seeking illegal immigrants, the crime rates in those cities will continue to skyrocket. As the competition for resources (aka welfare) grows, the situation will continue to get even worse.

That is a boogeyman. The data shows that illegal immigrants are less likely than citizens to commit violent crimes, thus the per capita violent crime rate would go down if illegal immigrants flock to sanctuary cities.

http://criminology.oxfordre.com/view...190264079-e-93

For violent crime in the US, you are far safer in Seattle than you are in Detroit, St. Louis, and Memphis. Hell, I know quite a few people that have had really bad experiences with robberies in New Orleans.

Where were you in Seattle when it happened? I go there from time to time and would like to make sure I don’t go someplace that is not safe.

[Guisslapp]

I never bitched about Obama’s use of the bully pulpit? Lol. Go back and read the threads.

But as far as I can remember, Obama didn’t target a specific businesses for criticism, particularly for expressing their first amendment rights. Any president that does that is being highly inappropriate, because the office of the President carries significant power and government power should never be wielded to deprive people of their property without due process.

[dawg80]

"target a specific business for criticism"

Would it be acceptable if a POTUS were to thank a company for doing something great? Let's say, for instance, after a natural disaster Walmart opened its local stores to people affected by a storm and allowed them to get food, clothes, other items for FREE! Would it be okay for a POTUS to publically acknowledge that and thank them. If for no other reason then it might encourage other businesses to do the same? I think most sensible people would thank Walmart and would appreciate a POTUS also acknowledging them.

Well....if it's okay to cite a specific business for doing something good, then isn't fair game to offer criticism?

Ya know....early on I often cringed when Trump said, or Tweeted, something deemed "unpresidential." Then I began to realize I had fallen into the trap set by the DC Establishment. They want to set the tone so we sheep behave ourselves and leave them in unfettered power. Trump is NOT playing their game. More and more people are getting on the Trump Train. Even left-leaning folks....friends and acquaintances...who were staunch anti-Trumpers, some of whom admitted they only voted for Krooked Killary to keep Trump out, are now reevaluating him and his approach. (They don't like Killary and didn't really want her as POTUS.)


Texas is first up....today. And we'll see come November, just how well Trump's approach is resonating.

[Guisslapp]

I don’t know that I agree that it is okay for a president to target a specific business for praise either. It is probably a little better than criticizing for the same rationale behind due process and the unconstitutionality of bills of attainder.

Why is Texas “first” when we have already had a number of special elections that cut against Trump?

[PawDawg]

Why is Texas “first” when we have already had a number of special elections that cut against Trump?

"a number"? We had one.

[dawg80]

I don’t know that I agree that it is okay for a president to target a specific business for praise either. It is probably a little better than criticizing for the same rationale behind due process and the unconstitutionality of bills of attainder.

Why is Texas “first” when we have already had a number of special elections that cut against Trump?

If we want to make every election a referendum on Trump, he started 5-0 after his inauguration. Since then, such as the Alabama fill-in Senate seat, such elections have not gone Trump's way.

There's an old saying which holds plenty of water: all politics is local. So, how much of ANY election, win or lose, is because of the POTUS? That's up for debate.

That said, I do believe that Congressional races are closely tied to who the POTUS is. Maybe even some governorships. Usually, historically, the party "not in power" which is defined by who holds the WH, gains seats in mid-term elections. And the reason I said Texas is up first is because these elections today are not special elections to fill suddenly vacated seats. This is the real McCoy toward what Congress will look like come January, 2019.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

I never bitched about Obama’s use of the bully pulpit? Lol. Go back and read the threads.

But as far as I can remember, Obama didn’t target a specific businesses for criticism, particularly for expressing their first amendment rights. Any president that does that is being highly inappropriate, because the office of the President carries significant power and government power should never be wielded to deprive people of their property without due process.

BS! Socialist Obama to all businesses and business owners in America, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that! Somebody else made that happen".

[dawg80]

And, all that said, let me add, I think the (R) are in deep chit come November, 2018. I would not be surprised to see them lose the House. And, heretofore, the Senate appeared safe to remain in (R) hands, albeit only slightly. But with recent announcements of retirements, and some other changes on the landscape, the Senate is very much in play. That seemed ridiculous after the 2016 prez election given what states Trump carried and that the 'craps have to defend 24 seats, half in states Trump carried, while the Repubs started off having to defend 10 seats, only 2 of those in traditional dem states.

But now, with these retirement announcements and other factors, it is certainly possible the (D) will hold both sides of Congress. No, they won't have a super-majority so they will still have to deal with Trump....provided they want to get anything done. But we all know that answer, don't we! They DON'T want to get anything done. They will hurt the country and do NOTHING for two years and then blame Trump in hopes of derailing his re-election bid.

Why is Congress in play? It's not Trump's fault. It's the Swamp-loving spineless (R)s that has jeopardized their hold on Congress. It's ironic because "playing it safe" is the strategy they say they need to assure holding Congress. But not supporting the POTUS has only isolated them from Trumpsters (who cross political boundaries) and hasn't won them any favor with the left. In other words, they have separated themselves from their base. Not a winning formula in elections.

[Guisslapp]

And another one bites the dust...

[Guisslapp]

The parallels between the story of O’Doyle and Trump. Thoughts? Parable or prediction?

For those that don’t remember the story of O’Doyle...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CsNgRmsx-14