4463 replies to this topic

[artcinco]

IS DONALD TRUMP MODELING HIS CAMPAIGN AFTER VERMIN SUPREME, THE ONLY CANDIDATE TO HAVE A ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE PLAN?


#iThing #word

[Mr. Roboto]

[Adolf Hitler]

So will the tragedy in Belgium add credence to Trump?

Yes. In January, Trump was talking about how Brussels was beautiful 20 years ago and now its a hellhole with how all these immigrants refuse to assimilate. He can now say he warned them something like this would happen.

 

Evo member TheMole had been standing at that spot 90 minutes before the explosion. On his way from Brussels to Frisco. Was landing in Frankfurt when he heard the news. Scary shit.

[freedom78]

The democrats showed their ability to remove the filibuster, the GOP hasn't reciprocated. You can't call them obstructionist when Reid refused to even let their bills reach the Senate floor. Obama and the DNC shut the GOP entirely out during the Obamacare debate and only passed it with a sleaze tactic because they lacked the ability to get a supermajority vote among their own people.

 

I believe it was Mitch McConnell who said that the main purpose of Senate Republicans was to defeat everything the President wanted to accomplish.  I'm paraphrasing, but you get the drift. Blocking bills from the minority is common, and hardly a hallmark of the Obama era only.  In fact, in the House it's pretty much standard practice.  I don't necessarily agree with it, as it's undemocratic.  Same for the Hastert rule. 

 

I'd be interested in knowing what you think should have been done to include Republicans in the healthcare process.  Most of them are too radical to come on board, no matter what.  If creating a market based reform that maintains employer sponsored coverage and the private insurance market isn't enough to win over a single Republican, given that this was close to their own plan in the 90s (back when they were somewhat more sensible), then it can't be done.  The most moderate Republicans in the Senate couldn't bring themselves to vote for cloture, let alone vote for the plan.  I realize you're one of a small handful who thinks this decade of gridlock is all Obama's fault, but the primary culprit is a GOP enforced too much ideological purity.  You always come back to the inability of Democrats to invoke cloture despite their supermajority, which is only thus if you count two independents.  Personally, I would prefer legislators who can think for themselves instead of toeing the party line on every issue.  Were Kennedy to write a book about the last eight years of Senate Republicans it's be called Profiles in Ideology and Party Hackery and that Weirdo Rand Paul. 

 

 

It's like the mouth breathers who try to say Obama hasn't expanded the power of the executive branch by citing the number of executive orders passed. It's not the amount but what they individually do.

 

Obama has absolutely expanded the power of the presidency, as have most before him.  It's probably the biggest area of disagreement I have with this administration.  If your point is that numbers aren't everything then I agree.  But they are something, and there have been more cloture motions in this presidency than any other.

 

Yes, Obama was elected twice. But fortunately we have three branches of government and not just one. The American people also voted in 2010 and 2014 and put Republicans in control of the legislature. Obama's unwillingness to include them or compromise on any significant policy is the root cause behind this. So he tried to legislate through executive order and has had his hand slapped. Even if SCOTUS goes 4-4 on his immigration act, the lower ruling stands. Maybe he should have seriously tried to meet in the middle and not lead from behind as he'll famously be remembered for. Than and winning the noble prize before he even took office.

 

What flavor of Kool Aid is that?  You're suggesting, after an incoming President with a clear mandate and large majorities in both houses of Congress, was nearly blocked from guiding a policy agenda, that he should spend the next six years trying to play nice with a group that has become even MORE extreme?  And what would the results be?  I know the right thinks Obama is a borderline Marxist,  but he's about as moderate as Clinton was, certainly more so than Sanders would be.  Now, show me the group of Republicans, including a "majority of the majority" in the House, that is willing to meet in the middle on ANY issue.  It doesn't exist.  If your belief about the middle is to be so ideologically extreme that the middle is par for the mainstream Republican course, then there really isn't a middle anymore.    

[PERM BANNED]

I'm not saying Obama is a marxist and shoulders all or the majority of the blame for the lack of activity in Washington.  What I'm saying is simply labeling the GOP "obstructionist" and failing to consider the actions of the DNC, is only seeing half the picture.  The GOP is doing a lot of stupid things, refusing to set a hearing for Obama's nominee is chief among them currently.  But i disagree that an article from Heritage in 93 is somehow indicative of GOP policy.  Segregation and Jim Crow were entirely Democratic policies, yet I'd be a bloody fool to say that the DNC should get on board if David Duke won the presidency.  

 

I loathe the Tea Party more than you because I have to listen to these idiots in my personal life and get the moronic and often racist memes.  But Obama shoulders some of the blame for the current division in Congress because until January 2015, Obama and Senate Democrats didn't give two shits what the GOP had to offer.  The President isn't a dictator, and congress is under no obligation to rubber stamp his policies.  There's no point in arguing over what policies are good or bad, because we'll obviously disagree.  I'm just saying the narrative of an obstructionist GOP is misleading and completely ignores all the actions and behaviors of the DNC and Obama.

[artcinco]

PIERS MORGAN: When it comes to terror, isn’t it time we started listening seriously to Trump?

[artcinco]

Poll: Majority of Republicans want the party to unite behind Trump

[Mr. Roboto]

PIERS MORGAN: When it comes to terror, isn’t it time we started listening seriously to Trump?

 

Who on this forum would support a ban of Muslims coming into the country? (just curious)

 

And..how do we stop ISIS from doing these things in Europe and here in America? Trump wants to "Hit them hard." Well so did W...didn't work out so well. I'd love to exterminate these sick fucks out of existence,  certainly no disagreement with me there, but I don't see how it can be done. This is an idea that is spread like a disease, slowly infecting gullible brains around the globe. How is Trump (or anybody else) going to address that with brute force?

[artcinco]

I don't think we are leveling their safe havens.


#iThing #word

[PERM BANNED]

Ban Muslims? No that's stupid. But we should create new visa requirements that incredibly scrutinize applicants. And yes I'd support putting a temporary halt on admitting anyone who has been in suspect nations until we completely develop and deploy a system capable of screening them. Install biometric readers at every custom station and require entering internationals to enter information into it. We already do this with Americans coming home. I do it all the time and it takes 10 seconds. Most allied nations already have this embedded in their passports.

We're under no obligation to let anyone in who isn't a citizen or granted temporary residence. As long as some jihadist can be born in France and hop back and forth to Syria and not be hindered from entering America, we have to vigorously monitor who comes in and if they leave on time. Europe is living proof that the lovey dovey feel good, leftist policies on immigration result in a very violent threat to its citizens.

[freedom78]

Who on this forum would support a ban of Muslims coming into the country? (just curious)

 

And..how do we stop ISIS from doing these things in Europe and here in America? Trump wants to "Hit them hard." Well so did W...didn't work out so well. I'd love to exterminate these sick fucks out of existence,  certainly no disagreement with me there, but I don't see how it can be done. This is an idea that is spread like a disease, slowly infecting gullible brains around the globe. How is Trump (or anybody else) going to address that with brute force?

 

The longer I think on global terrorism, the more I find myself believing that we need to take a different stance with the Saudis.  Will Saudi Arabia lead in a war on terror?  Sure!  That is, so long as it's Shia and connected to Iran.  In other words, they'll happily go to war to keep Iran from expanding its power in Yemen, but won't do dick against ISIS.  Why?  Because ISIS follows the same set of beliefs that are held by a core group of nut cases who bolster the Saudi regime.  In the 20th century, when Arabia was moving from Ottoman/British colonial holding to become a state of its own, it was largely made up of conflicting tribes and nomads.  For a group to seize power and hold it, it had to band with other groups, so the Saud family joined with those nutty Wahhabi Muslims.  They won, Saudi Arabia is a stable state, domestically, but a massive breeding ground for terrorism.

 

Can't do dick about it, thanks to our oil thirst. 

 

Anyway, I'm not sure you can bomb an idea, so "hit em hard" won't be enough. 

[Mr. Roboto]

Trump keeps it classy. 

 

'The images are worth a thousand words': Trump shares an unflattering photo of Ted Cruz's wife

[freedom78]

Pres has to have a hot wife.  Barbara Bush was a stone cold fox.

[Mr. Roboto]

Pres has to have a hot wife.  Barbara Bush was a stone cold fox.

 

Hillary had moments of hawtness in the 90's. But I've always had a thing for older women too. 

 

Edit: Not Barbara Bush old....not yet. 

[artcinco]

Pres has to have a hot wife.  Barbara Bush was a stone cold fox.