Trump blamed for gov shutdown

[RAyMO]

6 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, the Trump detractors would say that the two are synonymou

detractors lol - I give Trump full credit for everything he does.

Not my fault his supporters see giving him credit for his actions as detracting.

But if you are saying I see no good good in the Donald - yes you are quite right - long before he became president, long before he became a TV celeb, I was disinclined to believe a word he said or trust him.

Edited December 30, 2018 by RAyMO

[Unusual Tournament]

15 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

Standing up for his beliefs or being led by Fox News?

FOX has turned on Trump. thats telling and an ominous sign for any re-election in 2 years. 

[RAyMO]

2 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

FOX has turned on Trump. thats telling and an ominous sign for any re-election in 2 years. 

If only Captain, if only!

[Lord Harry]

9 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Oh well hell I wouldnt have ever bothered to correspond with you if you would have just opened with this. You should start every conversation with this statement. It'd be like a warning label for the rest of us.

Well it's true. Think about it. Democracy is what led to the current political deadlock this country is in. If the American president had the executive authority of the Russian president or the Chinese premier, illegal immigration would have been solved with a single stroke of the pen.

Even Great Britain's parliamentary system is more conductive for enacting common sense public policy. There is less room for political deadlock because parties on the far right can build coalitions and gain power above their numbers. I'm not saying the system doesn't have its flaws, it certainly does. But a parliamentary system permits more then two deeply entrenched political parties, which for the most part are two sides of the same coin, from monopolizing power. Think of the Brexit vote for example. Do you honestly think a similar motion to withdraw from say NAFTA, would be able to pass through the politically deadlocked American Congress? Unlike in Great Britain, American politicians are inordinately influenced by corrupt special interests. Senators or Congressmen would have to contend with bribery, even if they were initially inclined to support such a motion.

Donald Trump ran as a Republican, because in this nation's two party system ( a system which was never intended by the Founding Fathers) one must run as either a Republican or a Democrat in order to have any chance of being elected to a federal office.

Donald Trump is really more of a nationalist, who likely would have preferred to run on a third party ticket. But unfortunately, the Democrats and Republicans hold a monopoly on political power in our "great" oligarchic democracy. A purely nationalist party would be unable to make any headway. And neither would a purely socialist party for that matter.

Before making comments regarding "warning labels" and such, at least consider the context of my quote and especially the current political climate in this country before making such rash judgments. 

 

Edited December 30, 2018 by Lord Harry

[Tatetopa]

On 12/29/2018 at 8:59 AM, Lord Harry said:

This is just one of many reasons why a stronger chief executive is needed. One who can break the political deadlock and enact common sense public policy in full accordance with the national self interest.

When does the national self interest  get replaced by the personal self interest of the glorious leader?  Maybe you should study up on North Korea.  They already have the type of strong chief executive you are hoping to get here in the US. 

[Lord Harry]

31 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

When does the national self interest  get replaced by the personal self interest of the glorious leader?  Maybe you should study up on North Korea.  They already have the type of strong chief executive you are hoping to get here in the US. 

The enforcement of immigration laws is certainly in the national self interest. The only interests you and your kind are promoting are those of corrupt multinational corporations who benefit for a borderless world order. 

A people without a nation state will soon become a nation of slaves.

[Blizno]

On 12/28/2018 at 8:06 AM, aztek said:

idk, you tell me.

i know for a fact that if dems worked with reps, not against them, and especially against president, no matter what he does, none of it would happen.

so yea, he is responsible, but i do not blame him at all,

Were you asleep during the Obama administration when Republicans did everything they could to block everything Obama tried to do? Some Republicans said publicly that they didn't care if Obama's attempts were good for the country or not; they just wanted to cripple the Democrat president. 

 

"...worked with reps, not against them, and especially against president, no matter what he does...".

Did you read what you wrote? So, Democrats are expected to be lackeys of Republicans and do whatever they're ordered to do? When Trump is voted out after one term and Democrats control two of the three branches of the Federal government, I demand that you order Republicans to work with Democrats, not against them, and especially not against the Democrat president, no matter what he does.

[Lord Harry]

On 12/28/2018 at 9:35 PM, Golden Duck said:

I wasn't sure how to describe his quote...

I'll settle for Bizarro Russel Brand.

Not as bizarre as the destructive post 1960s trend of suicidal, non self interest altruism prevalent in western politics.

Wouldn't you agree Mr. Golden Cuck?

Edited December 30, 2018 by Lord Harry

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Im reminded of the Roman Republic. Utterly appalled st the idea of someone coming along and making themselves king, they very carefully structured their government to prevent it. Even in extremis, when there needed to be a single voice in charge of everything, times of war or famine, thst person was only in charge for a year. They elected their tyrant, and he ruled for a year before retiring fro, politics altogether.

that worked well for decades. Until someone decided that they could make themselves tyrant for life. 

At least in an American democracy you’re leader is there only for a maximum of eight years, and has to have the support of the government to govern.

[Golden Duck]

3 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

Not as bizarre as the post 1960s trend of suicidal, non self interest altruism.

Wouldn't you agree Mr. Golden Cuck?

It's hard to agree with you about anything.

You're trying be number one on the dam the left hit parade while promoting interventionism and authoritarianism.

You're peddling the same nonsense as Russel Brand. Neither, you have a better system than democracy.

When are you going to provide an answer on the economic repercussions of making iPhones and Nike I'm USA?

That's  how you challenge the message without trying to project your fetishes onto an already self-deprecating user name.

 

[Lord Harry]

22 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

It's hard to agree with you about anything.

You're trying be number one on the dam the left hit parade while promoting interventionism and authoritarianism.

You're peddling the same nonsense as Russel Brand. Neither, you have a better system than democracy.

When are you going to provide an answer on the economic repercussions of making iPhones and Nike I'm USA?

That's  how you challenge the message without trying to project your fetishes onto an already self-deprecating user name.

 

First of all, I've never promoted military interventionism. On the contrary, I happen to be an ardent nationalist who supports an isolationist America First foreign policy. America's military should be used for defending our borders and national sovereignty only. I support a closure of America''s overseas military bases and the soldiers redeployment along American borders.

While I would be in favor of a punitive campaign against Mexico, and an annexation of the Panama Canal ( wrongfully given up in my opinion) this is in full accordance with an America First foreign policy. A fortress America military policy with a mercantilist economic system would be a true nationalist agenda.

Secondly, higher prices are a small price to pay for a stronger economy , a strong manufacturing base, and American workers being employed.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Lord Harry

[Lord Harry]

And the "Golden Cuck" comment was an unfortunate typo.

The D and C are after all very close on the keyboard. So allow me to apologize for that. Though in light of my many nationalistic comments, I can fully understand how someone could believe my "Cuck" comment was intentional. 

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

The enforcement of immigration laws is certainly in the national self interest. The only interests you and your kind are promoting are those of corrupt multinational corporations who benefit for a borderless world order. 

Me and my kind want  secure borders, controlled immigration and personal freedom to keep the government at bay.  What we don't want is 40 foot walls and 150,000 troops at our border  doing what 5,000 border patrol agents could handle without a fuss.  My kind doesn't want to live in a communist country.

Since I don't know you Lord Harry, I will not presume to guess what  your kind is or wants.  

Here is what I want: freedom to live and make as many personal choices as I can to better my life and increase my family's prosperity.  I want to make decisions and if they are wrong, learn by my mistakes.  In order to keep the most freedom I can, I will let others make their own choices even if they are not the ones I would make.  I want to travel where I want, think what I want, buy what I want, live where I want, and believe what I want.

What I don't want is someone imposing their own personal will on me because they think they are "right".  and it is for my own good.  I don't want that from a neighbor or a government.  I don't want a government telling me what color socks to wear, how to cut my hair, where to worship, or what to believe.  In a nutshell, that is my kind.

[Lord Harry]

And regarding my proposed American seizure of the Panama Canal. I realize it is a highly strategic location with many competing claims among the great powers.

However, I am sure the Russians and Chinese could be made to officially support such a geopolitical maneuver through an American gesture of goodwill.

Say American recognition of Russia's annexation of Crimea and its territorial claims in Eastern Ukraine. And American recognition of Chinese claims in the South China Sea and Taiwan.

That sort of Macheavellian foreign policy that I embrace would guarantee Russian and Chinese recognition of an American annexation of the Panama Canal very quickly.

[RoofGardener]

3 hours ago, Blizno said:

Were you asleep during the Obama administration when Republicans did everything they could to block everything Obama tried to do? Some Republicans said publicly that they didn't care if Obama's attempts were good for the country or not; they just wanted to cripple the Democrat president. 

"...worked with reps, not against them, and especially against president, no matter what he does...".

Can  you give any citations for that, Blizno ? 

[Golden Duck]

46 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

First of all, I've never promoted military interventionism. On the contrary, I happen to be an ardent nationalist who supports an isolationist America First foreign policy. America's military should be used for defending our borders and national sovereignty only. I support a closure of America''s overseas military bases and the soldiers redeployment along American borders.

While I would be in favor of a punitive campaign against Mexico, and an annexation of the Panama Canal ( wrongfully given up in my opinion) this is in full accordance with an America First foreign policy. A fortress America military policy with a mercantilist economic system would be a true nationalist agenda.

Secondly, higher prices are a small price to pay for a stronger economy , a strong manufacturing base, and American workers being employed.

And... I never mentioned military interventionism.

You're advocating protecting uncompetitive industries, increased manufacturing costs, increased top line pressure, higher prices and taking the wealth out of the people's pockets.  That doesn't sound like America anymore.

Then to make US exports attractive the Dollar would need to lose value. 

How does that make a stronger economy?

[+and-then]

On 12/28/2018 at 1:41 PM, AstralHorus said:

Cant all sides agree this presidency has been a poop show. I feel we’re the laughing stock of the world. 

Yet half the population still supports him.   Go figure...

[+and-then]

On 12/28/2018 at 6:39 PM, susieice said:

I hear he isn't budging.

That's the downside for the Left.  When they never find a single thing that's positive about his leadership, why bother worrying about the opinion of the media?  The D's can't let this shutdown go on indefinitely.  It will become too obvious how little we miss the gobment  ;  

[Farmer77]

 

4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Can  you give any citations for that, Blizno ? 

Heres a rather famous one Did Mitch McConnell Say One of His Proudest Moments Was Telling Obama ‘You Will Not Fill This Supreme Court Vacancy’?

 

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

 

Heres a rather famous one Did Mitch McConnell Say One of His Proudest Moments Was Telling Obama ‘You Will Not Fill This Supreme Court Vacancy’?

 

Interesting, but it does not back Blizno's "quotation" ? 

[Mick Lethal]

Everyone please stay calm and watch Iron Trump! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvDPuryeT7c

[Black Red Devil]

10 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

First of all, I've never promoted military interventionism. On the contrary, I happen to be an ardent nationalist who supports an isolationist America First foreign policy. America's military should be used for defending our borders and national sovereignty only. I support a closure of America''s overseas military bases and the soldiers redeployment along American borders.

While I would be in favor of a punitive campaign against Mexico, and an annexation of the Panama Canal ( wrongfully given up in my opinion) this is in full accordance with an America First foreign policy. A fortress America military policy with a mercantilist economic system would be a true nationalist agenda.

Secondly, higher prices are a small price to pay for a stronger economy , a strong manufacturing base, and American workers being employed.

Similar to China.

[bee]

 

this is quite amusing....

 

[Farmer77]

7 minutes ago, bee said:

 

this is quite amusing....

 

It really is amusing that Trump and his supporters cant grasp the difference between an acre lot and 2k miles of desert.

 

[RAyMO]

1 hour ago, bee said:

 

this is quite amusing....

 

Bee if Trump was aspiring to be a 2bit comedian this would be slightly amusing.

But he is aspiring to be the President, and this shows just how out of his league he really is.