Q for the Republicans

The Ginger Beard Man · Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:16 pm

nafod wrote:I have to say that my mom refers to Trump as "her boy". We don't discuss politics any more.

Tell her Milo calls him "Daddy".

The Ginger Beard Man · Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:17 pm

The GOP has no coherent message. None. Hence the need for Trump to burn it down.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:42 pm

The GOP has a coherent message that isn't accepted by a semi-organized minority (Tea Party types). The minority's semi-organized in the sense that it isn't organized enough to keep fringe elements on the sidelines (Alex Jones, et al..) or win general elections, with Trump as candidate the fringes are getting to sit at the adult table. Democrats are generally better at managing a disparate coalition (ex. the FDR coalition)-- Republicans aren't used to such ideological divisions. JMO.

JohnDoe · Post by **JohnDoe** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:09 pm

DrDonkeyLove wrote:I'm voting for Trump despite the plethora of things about him that make me concerned. Why?

[1]I was recently driving down the Westside Hwy in NYC and looked at some magnificent Trump buildings overlooking the Hudson River and thought about how astoundingly difficult that must be in a difficult environment like NYC, yet he did it.

[3]He's accomplished a lot as a developer and as a personality over decades. Consistent success (despite some failures)

The West Side Highway development at the old rail yards is a great example of Trump. Sure, he was involved, but he was in staggering debt and couldn't complete the project, so he sold 70% of it off with the stipulation that his name would be on the buildings. He sold out to Hong Kong and Chinese investors before construction started. If anyone of us invested in the stock market with his father's loan, we'd be just as rich.

davidc · Post by **davidc** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:16 pm

"Instead of Donald Trump honoring the painting contract he signed and paying this local Miami business the remaining $34,863 balance he owed them, his company just took it upon itself to say that they had been "paid enough"."

The company slapped a lien on his Doral resort and that woke the old Trumpster up. Judge awards attorney’s fees totaling nearly $300,000. Trump still hasn't paid the local painting business the remaining balance.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/22/1 ... contractor

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:26 pm

Ivanka Trump Makes America Great Again in an Imported Dress

made in china. for her speech at the convention.

from the ivanka trump line, sold at macy's.

ivanka makes money.

union stooges and other working class mopes can go fuck their selves.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:33 pm

Tim Kaine is Hillary's running mate-- didn't see that coming.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e ... SKCN103012
The race got a lot more interesting.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:13 pm

with today's update, nate silver's model has the election closer than earlier forecasts

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -forecast/

The Ginger Beard Man · Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:21 pm

Turdacious wrote:The GOP has a coherent message that isn't accepted by a semi-organized minority (Tea Party types). The minority's semi-organized in the sense that it isn't organized enough to keep fringe elements on the sidelines (Alex Jones, et al..) or win general elections, with Trump as candidate the fringes are getting to sit at the adult table. Democrats are generally better at managing a disparate coalition (ex. the FDR coalition)-- Republicans aren't used to such ideological divisions. JMO.

And that message is?

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Sun Jul 24, 2016 1:13 am

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:
Turdacious wrote:The GOP has a coherent message that isn't accepted by a semi-organized minority (Tea Party types). The minority's semi-organized in the sense that it isn't organized enough to keep fringe elements on the sidelines (Alex Jones, et al..) or win general elections, with Trump as candidate the fringes are getting to sit at the adult table. Democrats are generally better at managing a disparate coalition (ex. the FDR coalition)-- Republicans aren't used to such ideological divisions. JMO.
And that message is?

The GOP generally prefer a scalpel to reducing the size of government, while Tea Party types prefer a wrecking ball.

Blaidd Drwg · Post by **Blaidd Drwg** » Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:18 am

Neither party is particularly consistent or idealistically coherent in getting their message out. They pander and not much more. The libertarian one is... And also completely unrealistic.

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Sun Jul 24, 2016 5:17 am

Almost 60 million people cast votes in the primaries that give us Trump & Hillary. Pick the freedoms you are most willing to lose and vote accordingly. A vote for anyone other than Trump is a de facto vote for Hillary so the choice is binary.

We're getting one or the other and that's what we deserve. The slope of decline steepens.

DikTracy6000 · Post by **DikTracy6000** » Sun Jul 24, 2016 1:25 pm

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Neither party is particularly consistent or idealistically coherent in getting their message out. They pander and not much more. The libertarian one is... And also completely unrealistic.

This is exactly correct. I think both parties and most politicians are incoherent by design. If by some upset of all the polls Trump wins, he will become even more vague with each passing week in office.

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Sun Jul 24, 2016 1:35 pm

JohnDoe wrote: The West Side Highway development at the old rail yards is a great example of Trump. Sure, he was involved, but he was in staggering debt and couldn't complete the project, so he sold 70% of it off with the stipulation that his name would be on the buildings. He sold out to Hong Kong and Chinese investors before construction started. If anyone of us invested in the stock market with his father's loan, we'd be just as rich.

hahaha! Trump has achieved more, wagered more, won more, built more, fought more, in one year than you will your whole life.

Take a million bucks. Go to NYC. Report back in 40 years and let us know how many billions you and your international real estate portfolio are worth.

It's like a high school quarterback talking shit about Manning on espn.com

Yes, I'm drunk · Post by **Yes, I'm drunk** » Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:06 pm

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Almost 60 million people cast votes in the primaries that give us Trump & Hillary. Pick the freedoms you are most willing to lose and vote accordingly. A vote for anyone other than Trump is a de facto vote for Hillary so the choice is binary.

We're getting one or the other and that's what we deserve. The slope of decline steepens.

If Hillary gets to nominate Scalia's replacement, do you think the Second Amendment will still mean in "X" number of years what it means to American citizens today?

I'd wager it wont.

The Ginger Beard Man · Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:18 pm

Turdacious wrote:
The Ginger Beard Man wrote:
Turdacious wrote:The GOP has a coherent message that isn't accepted by a semi-organized minority (Tea Party types). The minority's semi-organized in the sense that it isn't organized enough to keep fringe elements on the sidelines (Alex Jones, et al..) or win general elections, with Trump as candidate the fringes are getting to sit at the adult table. Democrats are generally better at managing a disparate coalition (ex. the FDR coalition)-- Republicans aren't used to such ideological divisions. JMO.
And that message is?
The GOP generally prefer a scalpel to reducing the size of government, while Tea Party types prefer a wrecking ball.

2001-2007 called. They said you're fucking high.

The Ginger Beard Man · Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:21 pm

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Neither party is particularly consistent or idealistically coherent in getting their message out. They pander and not much more. The libertarian one is... And also completely unrealistic.

Not that long ago, you could say with a straight face that the republicans were for less government and more individual freedom. And the democrats used the government to give the working man a fair chance. Both notions are laughable now.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:29 pm

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:
Turdacious wrote:
The Ginger Beard Man wrote:
Turdacious wrote:The GOP has a coherent message that isn't accepted by a semi-organized minority (Tea Party types). The minority's semi-organized in the sense that it isn't organized enough to keep fringe elements on the sidelines (Alex Jones, et al..) or win general elections, with Trump as candidate the fringes are getting to sit at the adult table. Democrats are generally better at managing a disparate coalition (ex. the FDR coalition)-- Republicans aren't used to such ideological divisions. JMO.
And that message is?
The GOP generally prefer a scalpel to reducing the size of government, while Tea Party types prefer a wrecking ball.
2001-2007 called. They said you're fucking high.

Hardly fair-- temporary spending increases (like those for military conflict) really shouldn't be included when discussing long term trends. I'd say case and point during the W era would be Medicare Part D, social security reform, and school vouchers. Both introduce private market forces into historically government dominated areas.

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Sun Jul 24, 2016 10:29 pm

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:Not that long ago, you could say with a straight face that the republicans were for less government and more individual freedom. And the democrats used the government to give the working man a fair chance. Both notions are laughable now.

*sheds single tear*

Blaidd Drwg · Post by **Blaidd Drwg** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:02 am

Turdacious wrote:
The Ginger Beard Man wrote:
Turdacious wrote:
The Ginger Beard Man wrote:
Turdacious wrote:The GOP has a coherent message that isn't accepted by a semi-organized minority (Tea Party types). The minority's semi-organized in the sense that it isn't organized enough to keep fringe elements on the sidelines (Alex Jones, et al..) or win general elections, with Trump as candidate the fringes are getting to sit at the adult table. Democrats are generally better at managing a disparate coalition (ex. the FDR coalition)-- Republicans aren't used to such ideological divisions. JMO.
And that message is?
The GOP generally prefer a scalpel to reducing the size of government, while Tea Party types prefer a wrecking ball.
2001-2007 called. They said you're fucking high.
Hardly fair-- temporary spending increases (like those for military conflict) really shouldn't be included when discussing long term trends. I'd say case and point during the W era would be Medicare Part D, social security reform, and school vouchers. Both introduce private market forces into historically government dominated areas.

When both parties are happy to pour enormous amounts of national treasure into a permanent war machine, "temporary increases" for conflict are not remotely temporary, they are episodic peaks in a permanent war.

Whether you agree or disagree with permanent war.. (I personally think there's an argument to made in favor) it's not a question whether that is relAted to frugality or the notion of small and local governance.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:14 am

Blaidd Drwg wrote:When both parties are happy to pour enormous amounts of national treasure into a permanent war machine, "temporary increases" for conflict are not remotely temporary, they are episodic peaks in a permanent war.

Whether you agree or disagree with permanent war.. (I personally think there's an argument to made in favor) it's not a question whether that is relAted to frugality or the notion of small and local governance.

You know as well as I do that when someone from DC talks about small and local governance, an unfunded mandate is going to follow.

Blaidd Drwg · Post by **Blaidd Drwg** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:35 am

Turdacious wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:When both parties are happy to pour enormous amounts of national treasure into a permanent war machine, "temporary increases" for conflict are not remotely temporary, they are episodic peaks in a permanent war.

Whether you agree or disagree with permanent war.. (I personally think there's an argument to made in favor) it's not a question whether that is relAted to frugality or the notion of small and local governance.
You know as well as I do that when someone from DC talks about small and local governance, an unfunded mandate is going to follow.

I don't disagree at all. The Republicans have probably done slightly less of this than the Dems. This changes nothing WRT, the idea that you should somehow segregate the massive spending boluses for conflicts when both parties are all too willing to binge hard about once a decade on said "conflict."

Either call it a "bi partisan episodic stimulus package" or chalk it up to both party's regular contribution to the shared value of being world police, the US spends money like water on Defense. Until we start closing bases and shutting down actual programs, neither side has any ground to stand on when it comes to frugality with national treasure.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:08 am

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Turdacious wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:When both parties are happy to pour enormous amounts of national treasure into a permanent war machine, "temporary increases" for conflict are not remotely temporary, they are episodic peaks in a permanent war.

Whether you agree or disagree with permanent war.. (I personally think there's an argument to made in favor) it's not a question whether that is relAted to frugality or the notion of small and local governance.
You know as well as I do that when someone from DC talks about small and local governance, an unfunded mandate is going to follow.

I don't disagree at all. The Republicans have probably done slightly less of this than the Dems. This changes nothing WRT, the idea that you should somehow segregate the massive spending boluses for conflicts when both parties are all too willing to binge hard about once a decade on said "conflict."

Either call it a "bi partisan episodic stimulus package" or chalk it up to both party's regular contribution to the shared value of being world police, the US spends money like water on Defense. Until we start closing bases and shutting down actual programs, neither side has any ground to stand on when it comes to frugality with national treasure.

Pretending that entitlement reform (especially Social Security and Medicare) is not a big deal seems a little simplistic. I'm not trying to argue the merits of the W reforms here-- simply stating they were serious efforts in some big dollar areas.

Blaidd Drwg · Post by **Blaidd Drwg** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:15 am

Turdacious wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Turdacious wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:When both parties are happy to pour enormous amounts of national treasure into a permanent war machine, "temporary increases" for conflict are not remotely temporary, they are episodic peaks in a permanent war.

Whether you agree or disagree with permanent war.. (I personally think there's an argument to made in favor) it's not a question whether that is relAted to frugality or the notion of small and local governance.
You know as well as I do that when someone from DC talks about small and local governance, an unfunded mandate is going to follow.

I don't disagree at all. The Republicans have probably done slightly less of this than the Dems. This changes nothing WRT, the idea that you should somehow segregate the massive spending boluses for conflicts when both parties are all too willing to binge hard about once a decade on said "conflict."

Either call it a "bi partisan episodic stimulus package" or chalk it up to both party's regular contribution to the shared value of being world police, the US spends money like water on Defense. Until we start closing bases and shutting down actual programs, neither side has any ground to stand on when it comes to frugality with national treasure.
Pretending that entitlement reform (especially Social Security and Medicare) is not a big deal seems a little simplistic. I'm not trying to argue the merits of the W reforms here-- simply stating they were serious efforts in some big dollar areas.

That's a ridiculous leap even for you.

Wherein did I ignore entitlements? I said zip about it related to either party. I simply pointed out that "temp" defense/mil spending boluses are not temp at all. You cannot logically or reasonably construe anything beyond that re: my take on other budget items of substantial weight.

Herv100 · Post by **Herv100** » Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:30 pm

nafod wrote:I've voted Republican in every presidential election since I could vote. I am voting for Hilary this time.

Trump is a con artist, pure and simple. He also a divisive racist, which is likely his secret appeal, I.e. He is not politically correct.

Hilary actually works hard and does a good job in office, both Senate and State. Is on the inside in state, and she busted her ass. Benghazi was a fuck up, but there is a reason the Republicans can't make any real shit stick after four years of endless investigation.

The emails were stupid, but the screw up was in how she communicated, not in who she communicated with. All recipients had a clearance and need to know. These weren't leaks to Russia or the new York times. If you want to read secret and top secret classified Hilary emails sent properly, by the way, go to wiki leaks. Hundreds of them, if not thousands. Talk about hacked servers.

Trump is the candidate the Republicans deserve, and i look forward to the introspection generated by a 45+ state win for the evil Clinton.

So in other words, you always vote for the biggest perceived warmonger, and this year it happens to be a Democrat. Good to know. That national debt from all the wars and "military actions" since 2000 is really looking nice. But hey, you won't have to pay it back cause you're old.

IGX

Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans

Re: Q for the Republicans