Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Muda69

New Donald Trump thread

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I think there are lots of people in politics who are interested in fixing this problem, but just like you see in this forum, they have deep disagreements about what is the "right" way to do that.  And as you also see from the discussions on this topic in this forum, those disagreements are often based on people's  feelings about gut level stuff like "fairness" or "following the rules", so it is very hard to change minds or to get people to compromise (because who would compromise on "fairness"?) 

So just like on this forum, the arguments go round and round and get pretty  passionate sometimes, but no faction has the ability to impose its position on the other factions.

I agree there are some genuine folks, but they are the exception rather than the rule. And honestly I don't know how anyone who's in Washington for any length of time doesn't become corrupt. 

Share this post


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

Bernie has it covered. Not only is he going to solve all of our problems, he's going to fix central America's problems as well. 

Shame he doesn't have a better track record during his time in the Senate....but now, I guess he's getting serious.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

Maybe I misunderstood your original post, but I thought you were suggesting (based on the one example of the guy who drowned with his daughter) that the increased numbers of folks coming to the border from the Northern Triangle countries are not mostly legitimate refugees, fleeing violence, but are instead folks trying to immigrate here for economic reasons.  Obviously, if people are legitimate refugees, our laws (and international law under treaties we have signed) require that they be treated differently -- stand in a different line -- than immigrants motivated solely by economics. 

Whether we keep them on our side of the border or the Mexican side while we consider their asylum claims, we are cutting our own nose off to spite our face when we pullback on foreign aid to those countries, which could be used to improve the conditions there that have, in the last two years, caused so many more people to flee from them to the U.S.  

You were right W, I was asserting that opinion.  But I'm sure you will agree there are so many that are now coming across the border illegally or legally that are using the asylum reason as a way to gain entry then disappear into the country.  (Again - IMHO)  AND - if a migrant crosses the border illegally - Deport them...

The second point of your post I can empathize with, but how long do you continue foreign aid to those countries when that aid isn't reaching the intended targets.  Yes, aid COULD be used to improve the conditions, but who is going to do what is needed to be done to actually improve the conditions?

Edited by swordfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2019 at 8:31 AM, gonzoron said:

Only a small disclaimer at the bottom of the site reveals its purpose as a form of "entertainment and political commentary."

"It is not paid for by any candidate, committee, organization, or PAC," the disclaimer reads. "It is a project BY AN American citizen FOR American citizens. Self-Funded."

"It's very telling that The New York Times calls quoting Joe Biden 'disinformation,'" he said. "All quotes, policy positions, and GIFs in the site are 100 percent real and are sourced from reputable sources."

Didn't know it existed......Thanks for the head's up.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy Fourth of July to President Trump:

 

mmh9yojkga831.jpg?width=640&height=813&c

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gonzoron said:

GW airports.jpg

Once again, the internets do not fail. Check this hashtag out on twitter.

#RevolutionaryWarAirportStories

Share this post


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

Once again, the internets do not fail. Check this hashtag out on twitter.

#RevolutionaryWarAirportStories

 

Paul Revere.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Irishman said:

Once again, the internets do not fail. Check this hashtag out on twitter.

#RevolutionaryWarAirportStories

I choose not to have a twitter account.  Never understood the need or usefulness of it, frankly.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

I choose not to have a twitter account.  Never understood the need or usefulness of it, frankly.

 

It's a good resource for sports fans. Especially during Indiana High School Football season, which is the reason I joined. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

It's a good resource for sports fans. Especially during Indiana High School Football season, which is the reason I joined. 

I'm not so egotistical to think anyone would care what I have to say about anything. But frankly when I was coaching, it's a GREAT tool to get information to a lot of people. Rainouts, cancellations, postponements, etc., I texted the team, then posted on Twitter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

....Dems too far left.....

Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Administration Threatens Veto Over Defense Bill That Only Spends $733 Billion: https://reason.com/2019/07/10/trump-administration-threatens-veto-over-defense-bill-that-only-spends-733-billion/

Quote

President Donald Trump is threatening to veto a massive defense spending increase for not being quite spendy enough.

On Tuesday, the White House issued a policy statement regarding House Democrats' 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which sets defense spending levels for the coming fiscal year. Democrats in the House are proposing a $733 billion defense budget, an increase of $17 billion over last year's NDAA.

That spending boost is nevertheless $17 billion shy of what the Trump administration is requesting. Anything less than $750 billion, the administration argues, will leave America's military unprepared for the security challenges it faces.

"The level of funding that would be authorized by the bill," reads Tuesday's policy statement "would not fully support critical national security priorities." If the bill "were presented to the President in its current form, his advisors would recommend that he veto it," it adds.

....

This back and forth between the White House and House Democrats obscures just how marginal the debate over this latest defense spending bill really is. Regardless of whether we settle on a $733 billion or a $750 billion NDAA, we will still be spending far too much on a bloated and overextended military that is tasked with doing much more than just protecting the U.S. homeland.

"It's absurd that the U.S. thinks the only way we can be secure is if we spend $750 billion or $733 billion," the Cato Institute's Christopher Preble, a defense policy scholar, told Reason back in June when was first surfacing. "The problem is we have defined our grand strategy very broad so that the only way we can be secure is if the whole planet is secure."

The United States of America cannot be the world's cop.  We cannot afford it.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Yep, children on both sides of the uni-party isle.

 

Except in the case of the Democratic Congresswomen, it's Fake News. Borowitz Report. It's satire, in case you weren't aware. Trump's racist tirade, unfortunately, was not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...