View Full Version : Post Election Stress Disorder


Raven
02-20-2017, 08:07 AM
i believe it's running rampant (even here) :hidin:

PaulS
02-20-2017, 09:43 AM
Well it seems like the world is falling apart. I heard of a devastating attack in Sweden. One thing that has given me comfort is that President Trump promised to replace the Affordable Care Act with something that is better, cheaper and covers more people.

scottw
02-20-2017, 09:48 AM
Well it seems like the world is falling apart. I heard of a devastating attack in Sweden. One thing that has given me comfort is that President Trump promised to replace the Affordable Care Act with something that is better, cheaper and covers more people.

that was pretty snarky :rotf2:

PaulS
02-20-2017, 10:12 AM
Yes, a little bit.

We all will enjoy the 3 - 3.5% growth rate though.

detbuch
02-20-2017, 11:26 AM
Well it seems like the world is falling apart. I heard of a devastating attack in Sweden.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9603/sweden-islamists
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9901/sweden-migrants-costs
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7363/sweden-death-by-immigration

Just a very few articles on the Swedish asylum situation. There are many more articles on the effects of large numbers of Muslim asylum seekers into Europe (these four are just from Sweden and there are many more of them) rather than smaller numbers who assimilate before more are let in.

The "attack" (Trumpism) has been going on for a few years. And, of course, it is understood that many or most, of the migrants are peaceful people, for now, though most don't assimilate well, if at all. .

PaulS
02-20-2017, 11:35 AM
No, President Trump was specifically talking about an incident in Sweden the night before.

"We've got to keep our country safe. You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden," Trump told the crowd at his campaign-like rally in Florida on Saturday, critiquing Europe's refugee policies and complaining that his travel ban had been temporarily blocked by the courts. "Sweden, who would believe this?"

Sea Dangles
02-20-2017, 12:20 PM
Imagine what you want Paul. The situation in Sweden is beyond terrible because of a policy on immigration that has essentially taken away the identity of the country itself. The situation is something they did not envision when they decided to open their doors to these disgusting rapists and thieves who could care less about their hosts and especially their values. Every day is a new tragedy for the people of Sweden and their courts are not equipped to handle their guests outbursts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS
02-20-2017, 12:47 PM
Imagine what you want Paul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What am I imagining? Our President made a statement that was 100% false. Isn't his statement a lie?

JohnR
02-20-2017, 01:17 PM
Interesting when things are muddied enough, differing perspective people with a purpose to prove can go into the same large pie issues and find pieces to argue their points...

I have been too busy to dig in on the he said she said but I though this was funny wrt Sweden:

scottw
02-20-2017, 01:37 PM
What am I imagining? Our President made a statement that was 100% false. Isn't his statement a lie?


"We've got to keep our country safe. 100% true You look at what's happening in Germany 100% true, you look at what's happening.... last night in Sweden," debatable...according to his defenders this was in reference to an expose' that he saw the night before regarding Sweden...which actually follows his frequent disjointed speech manner where he has something in his head and it comes out in bits not necessarily completing the thought "Sweden, who would believe this?" 100% true

PaulS
02-20-2017, 01:53 PM
The subject is what he said about Sweden so the rest of the statement doesn't matter.

So now we have to use a President Trump Understand O Meter

1) Try to determine what President Trump actually means by decipher all the miss-statements, incorrect verbiage, bad grammar, disjointed sentences and random thoughts etc.
2) Determine if statement is an Alternative Fact or just a lie
3) Ignore what he actually said and try to understand what is in his heart.

scottw
02-20-2017, 02:10 PM
The subject is what he said about Sweden so the rest of the statement doesn't matter. moving the goal post...nice!! 100% doesn't actually mean 100%

So now we have to use a President Understand O Meter

1) Try to determine what the President actually means by decipher all the miss-statements, incorrect verbiage, bad grammar, disjointed sentences and random thoughts etc.
2) Determine if statement is an Alternative Fact or just a lie
3) Ignore what he actually said and try to understand what is in his heart.

yes...in accordance with the Clinton(pl) and Obama years :rolleyes:

PaulS
02-20-2017, 02:20 PM
yes...in accordance with the Clinton(pl) and Obama years :rolleyes:

moving the goal post...nice!! 100% doesn't actually mean 100%

No, Pls. go back and reread my very 1st statement. I think you must have missed it.

scottw
02-20-2017, 02:39 PM
moving the goal post...nice!! 100% doesn't actually mean 100%

No, Pls. go back and reread my very 1st statement. I think you must have missed it.


"Our President made a "statement" that was 100% false."

"The subject is what he said about Sweden so the rest of the "statement" doesn't matter."

3) Ignore what Paul actually said and try to understand what is in his heart.

you are starting to sound like Trump...or Clintons...or Obama

PaulS
02-20-2017, 02:55 PM
"Our President made a "statement" that was 100% false."

"The subject is what he said about Sweden so the rest of the "statement" doesn't matter."

3) Ignore what Paul actually said and try to understand what is in his heart.

you are starting to sound like Trump...or Clintons...or Obama

No, my statement in the 2nd post cleary stated an attack in Sweden and nothing else re his statement the day before. You didn't actually read it - right? Maybe you should go back and read it so you know what you are discussing.

scottw
02-20-2017, 03:12 PM
No, my statement in the 2nd post cleary stated an attack in Sweden and nothing else re his statement the day before. You didn't actually read it - right? Maybe you should go back and read it so you know what you are discussing.

there was no attack in Sweden .....did Trump use the word "attack" ?....but there was an expose on tv the night before with Tucker Carlson regarding "what's going on in Sweden" apparently...so who is making stuff up?

PaulS
02-20-2017, 03:19 PM
there was no attack in Sweden .....did Trump us the word "attack" ?....but there was an expose on tv the night before with Tucker Carlson regarding "what's going on in Sweden" apparently...so who is making stuff up?

So now you finally read what I wrote after 16 posts. I guess you think Tucker did the broadcast from Sweden Friday night..

Obviously Trump continues to make things up (ie lie) Nothing happened the night before in Sweden.

In fact, the 2 police officers even questioned Fox's use of their statements.



Those disputing Horowitz’s conclusions include two Stockholm-based police officers who were featured in Horowitz's film talking about crime and the accessibility of weapons.

"I don't understand why we are part of the segment,” one of the police officers, Anders Göranzon, told the Dagens Nyheter newspaper on Monday. “The interview was about something completely different to what Fox News and Horowitz were talking about. It was supposed to be about crime in high-risk areas. Areas with high crime rates. There wasn't any focus on migration or immigration."

detbuch
02-20-2017, 03:46 PM
The subject is what he said about Sweden so the rest of the statement doesn't matter.

No, the subject of the thread is "post election stress disorder." Now, unless you mean to say that Trump misspoke because of post election stress disorder, in which case that would be perfectly understandable and forgivable, unless you mean that, you changed the subject (moved the goalpost?) in order to give a jab at the President. Of course, you may believe, as the thousands "protesting" across the country do, that he is not your President. Then again, that may all be due to post election stress disorder, therefor quite understandable.

So now we have to use a President Trump Understand O Meter

1) Try to determine what President Trump actually means by decipher all the miss-statements, incorrect verbiage, bad grammar, disjointed sentences and random thoughts etc.
2) Determine if statement is an Alternative Fact or just a lie
3) Ignore what he actually said and try to understand what is in his heart.

A simple grammatical parsing of the President's words should have given you the clue that yes, your numbers 1) and 3) must be applied to what he said: "you look at what's happening . . . last night in Sweden,"--there is an obvious mixing of present and past tense. The time confusion creates an obvious indeterminacy. To what time does his "what's" actually refer? " What IS (what's) happening is speaking in the present progressive tense--what is happening NOW. But "last night" refers to the past. So how definite, what is the actual span, of the present in his statement? And, so, co-relative to that stretching of time, what is the time span of last "night"?

There appears to be a Trumpistic stretching of time to span the past and present together--"last night" could stretch back into a past-present "what's" and all can refer to "what has been happening." That's why I put "attack" in quotes and labeled it a (Trumpism). Simply applying your 1) and 3) solves the anomaly and makes clear, sort of, what he means, meant, or is going to mean.

And, anyway, putting nonsense aside, the subject of my reply to your post is not what the President said. The substance of my reply was a fleshing out and expansion of your "I heard of a devastating attack in Sweden." Oh, wait, Scott pointed out that Trump did not actually say attack. Oh well. Fake news. Anyway, avoiding what was said in those articles--(just a sample of many such by Swedish and European, on the ground observers of what is happening in Sweden and Europe instead of the politically correct cover up so as not to disturb the Euro-Zone edict that the asylum seekers must be accepted by all Euro-Zone countries regardless of cost, inconvenience, or danger.)--avoiding what was said in those articles and, instead, focusing on Trump's bumble mouth, brain farts, mistakes or "lies" is submitting to the greater danger in order to delegitimize who you don't like or don't agree with.

Criticize Trump for policies gone astray (and they haven't had time yet to do that), but the hysteria now occurring is uncalled for. And it could lead to the danger of not paying attention to real threats in order to score points, or get rid of, Trump.

scottw
02-20-2017, 05:13 PM
Oh, wait, Scott pointed out that Trump did not actually say attack. Oh well. Fake news.

right....pointing out that he was wrong...if fact..makes him right in his mind...somehow....very Trumpian :huh:

I think Trump does this purposefully knowing the panties will get immediately bunched they are so tightly strung....

his next bit of brilliance should be to offhandedly refer to a male appendage and/or the adjacent orifice so that we can be treated to millions of offended libs streaming to Washington in Greyhound busses wearing penis and butthole hats anxious to protest the offensive remarks......

detbuch
02-20-2017, 05:54 PM
With apologies to Raven--hope this video falls into the category of post election stress disorder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1_viPSD-bY

Sea Dangles
02-20-2017, 06:09 PM
What am I imagining? Our President made a statement that was 100% false. Isn't his statement a lie?

So you are saying that there were no attacks in Sweden? Regardless, I would personally like to thank you for being part of the solution. Your efforts are to be recognized.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers
02-20-2017, 06:10 PM
It wasn't an attack, it was a major theft of staggering proportions! If you like Swedish meatballs you better hit BJ's soon, as most were stollen and subsequently eating by refuges.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS
02-20-2017, 06:13 PM
right....pointing out that he was wrong...if fact..makes him right in his mind...somehow....very Trumpian :huh:
....

No I wasn't wrong. The problem is there is a lack of critical thinking. Just because he didn't use the word attack doesn't mean that's what he was referencing. Cuz that's clearly what he was referencing. It's like searching for the word ban in his previous executive order and not finding it and claiming it's not a ban. It is hilarious watching people try to come up with various alternatives to what he means and says.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS
02-20-2017, 06:15 PM
So you are saying that there were no attacks in Sweden? Regardless, I would personally like to thank you for being part of the solution. Your efforts are to be recognized.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On Friday night apparently there were no attacks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
02-20-2017, 06:33 PM
No I wasn't wrong. The problem is there is a lack of critical thinking. Just because he didn't use the word attack doesn't mean that's what he was referencing. Cuz that's clearly what he was referencing. It's like searching for the word ban in his previous executive order and not finding it and claiming it's not a ban.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sigh . . . you're obviously never going to understand Trump if you're going to focus on one of his words (and its definition???--this is Trump were talking about, not Merriam Webster) rather than his context . . . Come to think of it, even his context can be jumbled a bit . . . or so. Try applying one or more of the 3 bullet points you provided a few posts ago.

Anyway, as explained by Trumpers, the context of his "what's" and "last night" was not about AN attack but the violence that the Horowitz fellow talked about on Fox "last night."

But that's OK. Keep up the good work on pointing out Trump's imprecise use of a word. And don't bother with the larger picture--that might be too disturbing. We need more humor here, especially with our post election stress disorder.

ban ban ban ban :deadhorse: attack attack attack :wall:

scottw
02-20-2017, 06:37 PM
No I wasn't wrong. The problem is there is a lack of critical thinking. Just because he didn't use the word attack doesn't mean that's what he was referencing. Cuz that's clearly what he was referencing. It's like searching for the word ban in his previous executive order and not finding it and claiming it's not a ban. It is hilarious watching people try to come up with various alternatives to what he means and says.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so "critical thinking" as you describe it, I guess means putting words into the mouth of another in order to then attack that person for saying something they never said...I get it :bl:

PaulS
02-20-2017, 06:50 PM
so "critical thinking" as you describe it, I guess means putting words into the mouth of another in order to then attack that person for saying something they never said...I get it :bl:

No it is trying to determine exactly what someone means when they say something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
02-20-2017, 07:06 PM
No it is trying to determine exactly what someone means when they say something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, if you don't accept someone's explanation of exactly what he meant, how do you have confidence that he meant anything else . . . or anything at all? Oh . . . that's right . . . Trump is a liar . . . so his explanation must be a lie. But, then, in that case, how can you have confidence that he even meant exactly what he said in the first place when he said what he said?

Sea Dangles
02-20-2017, 08:30 PM
On Friday night apparently there were no attacks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Source?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
02-20-2017, 09:31 PM
So now you finally read what I wrote after 16 posts. I guess you think Tucker did the broadcast from Sweden Friday night..

Obviously Trump continues to make things up (ie lie) Nothing happened the night before in Sweden.

Wait, you said that he said an "attack" occurred the night before. He didn't use the word "attack" but you said he meant that word. You claim that he "clearly" meant an attack occurred in Sweden the previous night.

Actually, his entire statement was not precisely clear. That's sort of a hallmark of his . . . haven't you noticed? There have been many times when one has had to connect the dots of the words coming out of his mouth to some reality to which he was trying to refer. And if you honestly examined what he said in light of his later explanation of what he said, it made sense. But then you would have to believe him. If you don't believe him, then a lot of what he says is not clear and cannot be made clear, therefor, for you, it is a "lie." That's why I put "lie" in quotes when he is accused of it.

And I believe that most times those who want to claim he "lied" can see the logic of his explanation, but don't want to believe it because it harms the narrative that he lied. I think that is the case here. You will have none of his explanation. It is very plausible, considering how he speaks, that he indeed was referring to the Carlson report the previous night which was about what was happening in Sweden not the night before, but for some time since they were being flooded with immigrants.

But since he didn't, in the stream of conscious way that he usually spouts phrases which often leave out significant details (to be explained later), in his mind he was referring to the Fox interview but left out that clarifying verbal "trifle". That makes sense. Otherwise, what the heck did he mean by "last night"? Making up something so non-existent as an attack in Sweden the previous night makes no sense whatsoever. And he didn't even use the word attack. To say that he clearly meant to say an attack had occurred in Sweden the previous night when that can so easily be discredited is, to me, confirmation bias in support of your narrative rather than creating clarity.


In fact, the 2 police officers even questioned Fox's use of their statements.

If they hadn't, they could have been in serious trouble for inciting racial hatred.

Those disputing Horowitz’s conclusions include two Stockholm-based police officers who were featured in Horowitz's film talking about crime and the accessibility of weapons.

"I don't understand why we are part of the segment,” one of the police officers, Anders Göranzon, told the Dagens Nyheter newspaper on Monday. “The interview was about something completely different to what Fox News and Horowitz were talking about. It was supposed to be about crime in high-risk areas. Areas with high crime rates. There wasn't any focus on migration or immigration."

That was very likely a CYA response. It is Swedish policy not to mention the race or religion of perps. They are very careful not to offend others, or to in any way possibly stir up anti-immigrant resentment among the Swedish people. It is strict and enforced policy not to say anything, including race or religion that could make Sweden appear racist. The Swedes have even stopped recording race or religion in reports or records of committed crimes. If ethnicity is referred to at all, the perps will be referred to as Swedish. Everyone is to be Swedish, not Somali, or Iraqi, or Muslim, etc. Referring to "high risk areas" is often code for refugee enclaves.

Here is an article about a current reaction against that policy by a Swedish policeman tired of it which has started a "Swedish Spring" type of reaction in the populace who have the courage to support him. Tired (actually the Swedish translation was something like "effen tired")of the politically correct policy which hides the truth, the policeman cited on facebook the actual ethnicities of the accused perps in his last and several arrests, and all but one were from the Middle East or Somalia. Because of that, he "is under investigation for the criminal charge of inciting racial hatred."

https://bluelivesmatter.blue/officer-peter-springare-sweden-migrant-crime/

Ian
02-20-2017, 09:34 PM
Well, if you don't accept someone's explanation of exactly what he meant, how do you have confidence that he meant anything else . . . or anything at all? Oh . . . that's right . . . Trump is a liar . . . so his explanation must be a lie. But, then, in that case, how can you have confidence that he even meant exactly what he said in the first place when he said what he said?

Just out of curiosity, are you defending Trump's statements here or just picking apart Paul's?

Because I'll let you guys duke it out if we can all agree that he is an idiot and shouldn't have lumped in a Fox News story while talking about refugee related violence.

Otherwise, I think we need to stop giving this clown a break for being ambiguous on such serious topics.

On one hand, politicians are famous for being general in their responses and full of crap, but typically they skillfully dodge questions or just give remarks that neither incriminate or say anything (see Devos's confirmation hearings.)

What Trump is doing is combining a lingering distrust of the media with lies and inciting false fear.

Let's be clear: his statement which included the reference to Sweden was covering violence and attacks by immigrants, he wasn't mincing words. To say that he innocently injected an op-ed from a Fox News story mentioning the fact that Sweden has a bunch of refugees is preposterous...

He either:
a) Knew what he was doing and was following the pattern of false references to attacks by his cabinet. (Which by the way is only working because the public has gotten so used to attacks now that when someone say "Sweden, can you believe it) half of us just assume someone attacked Sweden. A point the Trump administration is simultaneously using to their advantage and berating the media for...)

Or b) He didn't know that the Fox News story wasn't about an attack, and was only half paying attention... and as a citizen of this country I hope to effing god it was the former, because if this one is true, it means that not only does he not prepare for anything, but he also draws his own quick assumptions on topics he is ill informed about in a very power hungry way. And that's not a guy I want orchestrating American foreign policy.

He's already the laughing stock of the world... "From this point forward, it will be only America first"

"We stand behind Japan 100%"

"NATO, you have our 100% commitment"

World leaders know he doesn't know what he's doing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ian
02-20-2017, 10:09 PM
To be clear, the "he's an idiot" and "this clown" are references to president Trump, not Paul... it might read that way without proper clarification
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
02-20-2017, 10:24 PM
Just out of curiosity, are you defending Trump's statements here or just picking apart Paul's?

Explaining his statement. I don't see that as defending it. Don't think it needs to be defended. If it does, then I'm defending it. (see my post just before yours here).

Because I'll let you guys duke it out if we can all agree that he is an idiot and shouldn't have lumped in a Fox News story while talking about refugee related violence.

I don't think he is an idiot. And I think the Fox news story is relevant to refugee related violence, and pointedly so in Sweden. (see my post just before yours here).

Otherwise, I think we need to stop giving this clown a break for being ambiguous on such serious topics.

I don't think he is a clown. I agree that he could do much better in how he speaks. But, his unpolished, sometimes unclear (not so much ambiguous) speechifying may be part of his charm to his base, most of whom are probably disillusioned with truly evasive politicians and prefer a get it done manager to a mesmerizing smooth talker. (I don't think Trump is that evasive, that's why he gets into so much trouble about what he says.)

On one hand, politicians are famous for being general in their responses and full of crap, but typically they skillfully dodge questions or just give remarks that neither incriminate or say anything (see Devos's confirmation hearings.)

What Trump is doing is combining a lingering distrust of the media with lies and inciting false fear.

I don't think he tries to incite fear, false or real, so much as bluntly pointing out what he sees as dangerous, wrong, or incompetent. And I think there is a lot of incitement of false fear about Trump.

Let's be clear: his statement which included the reference to Sweden was covering violence and attacks by immigrants, he wasn't mincing words. To say that he innocently injected an op-ed from a Fox News story mentioning the fact that Sweden has a bunch of refugees is preposterous...

Actually, it was not preposterous. It was on point. (See my post just before yours here, and the ones before that.)

He either:
a) Knew what he was doing and was following the pattern of false references to attacks by his cabinet. (Which by the way is only working because the public has gotten so used to attacks now that when someone say "Sweden, can you believe it) half of us just assume someone attacked Sweden. A point the Trump administration is simultaneously using to their advantage and berating the media for...)

I don't know that the Fox interview was a false reference. There has been a lot of falseness in trying to deny what has been happening in Sweden and Europe re the immigrants. (See my post just before yours here.)

Or b) He didn't know that the Fox News story wasn't about an attack, and was only half paying attention... and as a citizen of this country I hope to effing god it was the former, because if this one is true, it means that not only does he not prepare for anything, but he also draws his own quick assumptions on topics he is ill informed about in a very power hungry way. And that's not a guy I want orchestrating American foreign policy.

He didn't say it was about an attack. Paul said he meant that it was about an attack. (See my post just before yours here)

He's already the laughing stock of the world...

That was also said about Obama. And about Bush. And about several other Presidents. Seems to be standard fare for opponents to say.

"From this point forward, it will be only America first"

"We stand behind Japan 100%"

"NATO, you have our 100% commitment"

World leaders know he doesn't know what he's doing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What on earth makes you think that "world leaders" know what they're doing? Is the world, politically in that great a shape? Some of us are tired of caring so much about the world that we short shrift ourselves. Heck, most of OUR politicians think more of themselves than us.

And do please see my post just before yours here.

Ian
02-20-2017, 11:51 PM
What he's doing isn't managing though... the fact that we're defending statements he's making a rallies 5 weeks into his presidency is crazy

He needs to stop the talk and start doing, and doing means more than a bunch of executive orders repealing stuff other people have done.

Just shut the f up and start doing some stuff.

Edit: And before anyone tries to say this stupid immigration executive order was him "doing something" it wasn't... it was just another "I'm gonna get rid of something" tactic.

We haven't seen one new Trump idea come out of this White House yet... and I think that's the way they like it... they get to defend being attacked by the media while they neglect actually doing anything.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
02-21-2017, 01:46 AM
What he's doing isn't managing though... the fact that we're defending statements he's making a rallies 5 weeks into his presidency is crazy

His statements wouldn't have to be explained or defended if they weren't criticized almost every day of that 5 weeks. It might not seem so to you, but it is apparent to others that there is an intensive and continuous assault either on him, his family, his ideas, the way he speaks--there is nothing good said about him, so he and his staff have to constantly remind us that he got elected in an electoral landslide, etc., etc. just so he isn't successfully defined as an irrelevant "idiot" or a "clown."

He needs to stop the talk and start doing, and doing means more than a bunch of executive orders repealing stuff other people have done.

Just shut the f up and start doing some stuff.

That's the problem with how Progressives have transformed our understanding of what a President is legally, constitutionally, supposed to do. Mostly the President is not supposed to "do" much on his own volition other than foreign relations and treaties (with consent of the Senate), and oversee military matters, even start some wars that officially are not called war but foreign police actions. (Congress has the power to declare "war," not the President.)

The main duty of the President other than those few items, is to execute what Congress "does." We have made the President into some imperial autocrat who is constantly supposed to be "doing" stuff. Appointing and overseeing his cabinet and agency heads is one of the few things he is supposed to "do." And that has been stalled to a painful snails pace by the opposition. He is supposed to nominate judges to the SC, which he has done. But he better get busy and nominate about 100 inferior court judges. OMG. How long will the opposition stall all of his judges?

But we have this notion of the President taking care of the environment, the economy, our health and welfare, and all manner of things that we should be doing ourselves.

We the People should be doing most of those essential things. What is left to do, after that, should be done by our elected local and state representatives, then by our federal elected representatives--in that order. The more that government does those things, the more power it has over us. And the more that the President "does," the more he becomes the king.

Another thing the President can do is use the so-called bully pulpit. Seems that he has been doing a fair amount of that. He certainly has done some bullying of corporations with seeming good effect.

What is it that you think he should be "doing."

Edit: And before anyone tries to say this stupid immigration executive order was him "doing something" it wasn't... it was just another "I'm gonna get rid of something" tactic.

It is important for a "good" President to "get rid" of detrimental stuff that he is in charge of. It is in good faith to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution that he eliminates excessive executive power.

In that vein, executive orders are also some of his limited powers. Unfortunately, the President-as-king monster we have created treats executive orders as expansive imperial powers which can stretch well beyond the limited directives he is authorized to give within the small scope of power enumerated in the Constitution. Trump would do well to limit his use of EO's, keep them within the scope of his actual constitutional powers, not those imagined imperial ones. Certainly, getting rid of past executive orders which overreach is a Presidential duty to the people and to our Constitution. It seems that he is busy doing that.

We haven't seen one new Trump idea come out of this White House yet... and I think that's the way they like it... they get to defend being attacked by the media while they neglect actually doing anything.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is it about government continuously "doing new things" that you like. Your not a fan of "government which governs best governs least"? I don't mind if Trump, or Congress for that matter, doesn't keep coming up with new ideas. I mind when they don't properly take care of tried and true old ideas, especially the idea that they are limited in the scope of ideas that they are constitutionally allowed to implement.

I like that Trump seems to want to return a lot of the "idea" thing back to the people instead of leaving it in the unlimited hands of government bureaucrats and regulators. But we probably have an irreconcilable "idea" of what the government is supposed to do, and what the People are supposed to do.

wdmso
02-21-2017, 05:21 AM
His statements wouldn't have to be explained or defended if they weren't criticized almost every day of that 5 weeks. It might not seem so to you, but it is apparent to others that there is an intensive and continuous assault either on him, his family, his ideas, the way he speaks--there is nothing good said about him, so he and his staff have to constantly remind us that he got elected in an electoral landslide, etc., etc. just so he isn't successfully defined as an irrelevant "idiot" or a "clown."


No one on your sided minded when this was happening to Obama for 8 years Just because it was Obama

Also if you don't say things that are not factual there is no need for them to be explained ... this happened all through the Campaign

he would make a statement and his staff and supports like yourself would then go on to tell us what he really ment to say....

I guess its to much for the America people to expect their POTUS to convey things clearly and concisely when asked a question or presents a policy

Raven
02-21-2017, 06:07 AM
my doctor told me when i am experiencing p.e.s.d.

to roll a hefty chunky fatty and chill

scottw
02-21-2017, 07:00 AM
can't wait to see which word the left freaks out about today :screwy:

maybe they should put him on a teleprompter 24/7 like Obama, someone else could write everything out for him, a team could vet it and he could read it like a robot...then we'd have a real authentic president

scottw
02-21-2017, 07:35 AM
I guess its to much for the America people to expect their POTUS to convey things clearly and concisely when asked a question or presents a policy

yeah, because there was never any lack of clarity when Obama, Bush and Clinton answered questions or presented policies....good grief...

Got Stripers
02-21-2017, 08:41 AM
Is there an assault on him by the news as was suggested above, sure there is and there should be if any president elect is so careless about the words he uses or the complete lack of fact checking before he uses them. Some of the very disturbing (to me and I'm sure much of the media too) things I've heard recently is a suggestion he should or could blow the soviet spy ship out of the water, that we should have taken the oil before pulling out of Iraq and that we may have another chance. Regardless of how he follows up those statements and no matter how he tries to make light of them, he just doesn't think first of how our allies or our enemies will take this comments. What do you think the VP is doing overseas, he is there to assure our allies that some of the statements made by our newly elected leader aren't to be taken verbatim. He is there to get the alliance to pay equal share which I like, but the flip side of the coin, is he is there to do damage control; he might have to stop in Sweden before coming home.

As my mother used to say, it takes two to tango and if the media has it in for Trump; he is in full vendetta mode when it comes to the media. What is ironic is his constant fake news comments, yet he and his blond adviser are constantly spouting news that has no basis in fact, no proof and nothing to substantiate their assertions.

I feel sorry for the world wide scientific community, who as a whole are probably at this point 100% certain global warming is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed, yet we have now elected someone who believes this is fake news. Clean oil my arse, just look around at the extremes in weather and warmer temperatures year after year, so glad we have a team in place that doesn't believe its even happening.

Clown, I guess time will tell?

detbuch
02-21-2017, 11:24 AM
No one on your sided minded when this was happening to Obama for 8 years Just because it was Obama

Did you mind when it was happening to Obama? Did your side defend Obama when it was happening?

And you don't really know what side I'm on. Let me clarify, if I haven't conveyed things clearly and concisely. I am on the side of the U.S. as constitutionally founded. I am on the side of that Constitution as the basis of government, and am opposed to the side which considers that Constitution irrelevant, outdated, and an impediment to government.

That is the side I'm on whether, on the political forum, I discuss Islam, or Obama, or Obamacare, or the EPA, or anything concerning political policies.

And I do have concerns about Trump in that regard. Not so much about his personal foibles or the way he speaks.

Also if you don't say things that are not factual there is no need for them to be explained ... this happened all through the Campaign

What the hullabaloo is about in this thread is his statement re Sweden. The statement was not unfactual. It had to be explained because, as he is prone to, he wasn't "clear." It needed to be explained because of the supposed shock it created and because it was unfactually misrepresented and overplayed. It was, in essence, lied about. He didn't mention an attack. (I take it that it is OK to add words, make things up, be unclear, when ridiculing Trump.) Even the government in Sweden knew that what was later explained by Trump was essentially true. The Swedish government and the Swedish people knew exactly the immigrant problem to which Trump referred existed. Watch the video in post #20 and read post #30 in this thread--for "clarification" regarding Sweden and its government.

As for what happened throughout the campaign, a lot of that was the same kind of stuff. When and if he outright lied rather than just misspeaking or not knowing the facts, he deserved to be criticized

he would make a statement and his staff and supports like yourself would then go on to tell us what he really ment to say....

And that was never good enough for his detractors, like yourself. Y'all still carried on about how he "lied."

I guess its to much for the America people to expect their POTUS to convey things clearly and concisely when asked a question or presents a policy

At this point, after experiencing the lies, plagiarism, evasions, and muddled parsing by the nine presidents during my voting lifetime, I don't know what to expect from our POTUS. In respect to how and what they did in terms of their constitutional duty and sticking more closely to the executive limitations in that Constitution, of them all I only had a modicum of respect for one. And as for how they spoke, only one or maybe two, nah, in retrospect, only one, the same one to whom I referred in my previous sentence, only one, in my opinion, spoke honestly, with precision, and with eloquence.

I think, in general, we expect too much from a President. Again, the side I'm on, constrains a President to far less doing than what we seem to want the President to do. And we want that because Progressive era Presidents have created that model. That's the side that I'm against. And from the way you clearly and concisely speak, it's the side you're on.

Well, if Trump succeeds, he may well turn out to be on your "side" of presidential power. But you probably won't like the results. That, however, is the result of the way your side governs.

scottw
02-21-2017, 11:37 AM
Well, if Trump succeeds, he may well turn out to be on your "side" of presidential power. But you probably won't like the results. That, however, is the result of the way your side governs.

Trump has an odd affinity for succeeding against great odds and.... winning bigley...


there is a pattern to the narrative

Regan= idiot and clown
Clinton= brilliant
Bush= idiot and clown
Obama= brilliant
Trump= idiot and clown

the left tends to want their presidents to be gods...remember the greek columns and Obama looking down on the masses watching them adore him?

I'm still trying to figure out of Trump is brilliant and playing the press and masses masterfully as he destroys the universe while they are distracted or if he's and idiot who's buffoonery renders him incapable of completing simple tasks like destroying the universe :hihi:

detbuch
02-21-2017, 11:59 AM
Trump has an odd affinity for succeeding against great odds and.... winning bigley...


there is a pattern to the narrative

Regan= idiot and clown
Clinton= brilliant
Bush= idiot and clown
Obama= brilliant
Trump= idiot and clown

the left tends to want their presidents to be gods...remember the greek columns and Obama looking down on the masses watching them adore him?

I'm still trying to figure out of Trump is brilliant and playing the press and masses masterfully as he destroys the universe while they are distracted or if he's and idiot who's buffoonery renders him incapable of completing simple tasks like destroying the universe :hihi:

That "idiot and clown/brilliant" pattern gives insight on how clearly, precisely, and truthfully the left speaks. I think Trump being a bit of the Progressive authoritarian has learned from them that messaging technique. It's just that he's not as eloquent about it.

But I think that Trump is more honest about his intentions than the left is.

scottw
02-21-2017, 12:40 PM
That "idiot and clown/brilliant" pattern gives insight on how clearly, precisely, and truthfully the left speaks. I think Trump being a bit of the Progressive authoritarian has learned from them that messaging technique. It's just that he's not as eloquent about it.

But I think that Trump is more honest about his intentions than the left is.

pretty good assessment below...the critics are far nuttier that the nut they are critiquing and seem determined to prove it on a daily basis

Compared with Obama in 2009, at the same point in his young administration, Trump has issued about the same number of executive orders. For all his war on the press, Trump has so far not ordered wiretaps on any reporter on the grounds that he is a “criminal co-conspirator,” nor has he gone after the phone records of the Associated Press — Barack Obama’s Justice Department did both, to little notice in the media.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445091/never-trumpers-subvert-presidency-talk-coup-impeachment-assassination

detbuch
02-21-2017, 01:35 PM
pretty good assessment below...the critics are far nuttier that the nut they are critiquing and seem determined to prove it on a daily basis

Compared with Obama in 2009, at the same point in his young administration, Trump has issued about the same number of executive orders. For all his war on the press, Trump has so far not ordered wiretaps on any reporter on the grounds that he is a “criminal co-conspirator,” nor has he gone after the phone records of the Associated Press — Barack Obama’s Justice Department did both, to little notice in the media.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445091/never-trumpers-subvert-presidency-talk-coup-impeachment-assassination

As usual, a great essay by a brilliant conservative which establishes the context in which all the ad hominem remarks against Trump on this forum should be compared.

No doubt that those anti-Trumpers here who actually do read the article wont find anything convincing in it, and will continue their idiotic and clownish remarks against Trump.

PaulS
02-21-2017, 03:47 PM
No doubt that those anti-Trumpers here who actually do read the article wont find anything convincing in it, and will continue their idiotic and clownish remarks against Trump.

Wow, I missed so much.

And you say you don't have an anger problem.

detbuch
02-21-2017, 04:05 PM
Swedish politicians don't know what Trump was talking about. Right . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y89-8cNj7PM

And this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-20/meanwhile-rioting-breaks-out-sweden

PaulS
02-21-2017, 04:14 PM
Was that Friday night?

Sea Dangles
02-21-2017, 04:25 PM
Paul, no offense but you really sound dopey here and I am sure you are bluffing. Look at the big picture and get a command on what it is that you are trying to accomplish. It's not exactly a lie when he referred to trouble in Sweden. This is not Hillary claiming sniper fire that Hillary had to brave. Does Trump have trouble articulating his thoughts on occasion? Guilty
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
02-21-2017, 04:31 PM
Was that Friday night?

Your stuck on your narrative that Trump lied. There is no pretense here that this was Friday night. The narrator said when it happened. It happened soon AFTER Trump referred to what was going on in Sweden. As the narrator said. Trump was right. This has been going on in Sweden. If you want to hang on to your thin thread that Trump actually meant that there was an "attack" in Sweden the night before his address, I have no wish to dissuade you from that opinion.

But you needn't infuse that opinion in this post. It is obviously about the ongoing situation in Sweden as a result of their immigration policy. Go ahead and continue to disregard that. Like the Swedish politicians you can convince yourself that everything is just fine in Sweden. Or lie about it, as the narrator said, to protect their image of Sweden as an untroubled multi-cultural society, open to everyone, with no need to be concerned about their supposedly humanitarian policies.

PaulS
02-21-2017, 04:36 PM
Trump is the most inarticulate President we have ever had. He lies more than any other politician ever. It is hilarious watching the apologists trying to explain his thought process or cover for his lies.

His statement was either extremely inarticulate or an out and out lie. Either way it just shows what type of person he is.

Chris - how many times was it brought up that Obama said he visited 57 states or the constant crying like little girls about Obama's executive orders? Now when it is pointed out he lied, the response is who cares or what different does it make. The hypocrisy here is amazing.

Sea Dangles
02-21-2017, 05:29 PM
Trump is the most inarticulate President we have ever had. He lies more than any other politician ever. It is hilarious watching the apologists trying to explain his thought process or cover for his lies.

His statement was either extremely inarticulate or an out and out lie. Either way it just shows what type of person he is.

Chris - how many times was it brought up that Obama said he visited 57 states or the constant crying like little girls about Obama's executive orders? Now when it is pointed out he lied, the response is who cares or what different does it make. The hypocrisy here is amazing.

If you find a single reference I made to prove your point I will be shocked. Sorry,but I only speak for myself. Search is your friend here
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw
02-21-2017, 05:37 PM
Chris - how many times was it brought up that Obama said he visited 57 states The hypocrisy here is amazing.

it's usually brought up in response to a republican being called an idiot for something they may have said...he did improve immensely once he was on full time teleprompter

my all time favorite by the way...was when he wanted to give a kid with asthma.. a breathalyzer...that was great...

detbuch
02-21-2017, 05:49 PM
Trump is the most inarticulate President we have ever had.

If they are going to be rated, one of them has to be the most whatever. But the "ever had" is not verified. And it is very small and angry of you to make such a statement.

He lies more than any other politician ever.

Again, another small minded, angry thing to say. And certainly not verified. Is there an official, verifiable, objective count of the number of lies ever told by every President. Oh, wait, that would be impossible to do. Not nice of you to tell such a lie when you know that it can't be verified. And, very, very, angry. And resorting to unverified extremes such as "we have ever had" and "more than any other" is a sign of some sort of unbalance.

It is hilarious watching the apologists trying to explain his thought process or cover for his lies.

Causing people to laugh is better than making them angry, right? Well, maybe not when an anger-ridden person laughs, it's usually an evil, angry laugh. It's not nice of you to laugh at anyone with such anger. You should get that taken care of.

His statement was either extremely inarticulate or an out and out lie. Either way it just shows what type of person he is.

OOOOhhh . . . out and out lie! Such anger. Settle down, you might burst some organ or other. Not healthy. And casting aspersions on the type of person someone is. . . my, my . . . very rude and angry. Not healthy. Really . . . get it checked.

Chris - how many times was it brought up that Obama said he visited 57 states or the constant crying like little girls about Obama's executive orders? Now when it is pointed out he lied, the response is who cares or what different does it make. The hypocrisy here is amazing.

I don't remember him being accused of actually lying about that. It seemed everyone understood that he misspoke, but folks just threw a counterpunch toward those who made fun of GW's verbal faux pas. That you take that fun return jab as some serious accusation of lying probably exposes the deep anger that you harbor. And topping it off by accusing folks of being hypocrites, and worse, with a sexist, nasty remark like "crying like little girls" just shows how your anger seethes so virulently within you that you can't contain it. I fear your anger has built up to a critical level. Not only do you constantly have to strike out with personal attacks, but you have lost the ability to see how foolish it is to cling to the absurd notion that someone would claim something to the ears of the world that was immediately and demonstrably false, and not see that it was obviously a slip, similar to Obama's 57 states. Especially when he who makes the claim is constantly accused of lying--one would think he wouldn't so obviously tell a whopper. That you must see that as a lie rather than a slip, and to insist, angrily over and over again, even after the slip is explained, makes it evident that your anger leads to apparent delusions. Something that should have been put to bed still haunts you. Get over it. Your anger will consume you.

PaulS
02-21-2017, 06:09 PM
Seriously why do you think I have anger? Are you using that totry getting back at me? You're the one who says people's comments are idiotic and clownish. the anger to do that must be eating you up inside. Would you do that to their face? Or are you one of those internet tough guys? Are you going to send me another apology?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS
02-21-2017, 06:12 PM
If you find a single reference I made to prove your point I will be shocked. Sorry,but I only speak for myself. Search is your friend here
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did not say you nor was I referencing you. You and I have had very few interactions. Who is my friend? You can p.m. me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
02-21-2017, 06:35 PM
Seriously why do you think I have anger? Are you using that totry getting back at me? You're the one who says people's comments are idiotic and clownish. the anger to do that must be eating you up inside. Would you do that to their face? Or are you one of those internet tough guys? Are you going to send me another apology?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, oh . . . it's starting to boil over. Get a grip.

PaulS
02-21-2017, 06:36 PM
So are you going to p.m. me your apology?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
02-21-2017, 06:39 PM
So are you going to p.m. me your apology?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is there an or else? Sounds threatening. And confused. I try to help you deal with your condition and you ask me for an apology?

PaulS
02-21-2017, 06:41 PM
Yes, threatening. LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
02-21-2017, 06:52 PM
Yes, threatening. LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's better. I was worried about you.

PaulS
02-21-2017, 06:53 PM
Thanks, appreciate the thoughts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sea Dangles
02-21-2017, 07:14 PM
Get some fresh air
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS
02-21-2017, 07:26 PM
We have winter over stripers down here. Easy to catch if you know where to go.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT
02-26-2017, 08:19 PM
What he's doing isn't managing though... the fact that we're defending statements he's making a rallies 5 weeks into his presidency is crazy

He needs to stop the talk and start doing, and doing means more than a bunch of executive orders repealing stuff other people have done.

Just shut the f up and start doing some stuff.

Edit: And before anyone tries to say this stupid immigration executive order was him "doing something" it wasn't... it was just another "I'm gonna get rid of something" tactic.

We haven't seen one new Trump idea come out of this White House yet... and I think that's the way they like it... they get to defend being attacked by the media while they neglect actually doing anything.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"We haven't seen one new Trump idea come out of this White House yet."

Tell that to the Carrier workers whose jibs were saved. Jobs that Obama specifically said could not be saved.

He also picked a SCOTUS nominee that has conservatives thrilled.

And he has promised a new health care plan and a tax overhaul.

I don't like Trump at all. But he has done a lot in a few weeks.

Ian
02-26-2017, 11:08 PM
"We haven't seen one new Trump idea come out of this White House yet."

Tell that to the Carrier workers whose jibs were saved. Jobs that Obama specifically said could not be saved.

He also picked a SCOTUS nominee that has conservatives thrilled.

And he has promised a new health care plan and a tax overhaul.

I don't like Trump at all. But he has done a lot in a few weeks.

Promise in your left, take a #^&#^&#^&#^& your right... tell me which one has stuff in it in the morning
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT
02-27-2017, 09:31 AM
Promise in your left, take a #^&#^&#^&#^& your right... tell me which one has stuff in it in the morning
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fortunately for me, I don't know what that means. But I disagree that he has no new ideas. Obama specifically said that the carrier jobs could not be saved, Trump did it. He is cutting regulations, instituting a hiring freeze. The wall, a healthcare overhaul, and a tax overhaul, may be coming soon.

You don't have to like the guy obviously. But to say that he isn't implementing any new ideas? I don't think that's accurate. You can fill the Pacific Ocean with legitimate criticisms of the guy. But I wouldn't say he isn't doing anything.

detbuch
02-27-2017, 09:34 AM
Fortunately for me, I don't know what that means. But I disagree that he has no new ideas. Obama specifically said that the carrier jobs could not be saved, Trump did it. He is cutting regulations, instituting a hiring freeze. The wall, a healthcare overhaul, and a tax overhaul, may be coming soon.

You don't have to like the guy obviously. But to say that he isn't implementing any new ideas? I don't think that's accurate. You can fill the Pacific Ocean with legitimate criticisms of the guy. But I wouldn't say he isn't doing anything.

Maybe it's like--if I don't like an idea, it's not an idea.

Ian
02-27-2017, 01:23 PM
Fortunately for me, I don't know what that means. But I disagree that he has no new ideas. Obama specifically said that the carrier jobs could not be saved, Trump did it. He is cutting regulations, instituting a hiring freeze. The wall, a healthcare overhaul, and a tax overhaul, may be coming soon.

You don't have to like the guy obviously. But to say that he isn't implementing any new ideas? I don't think that's accurate. You can fill the Pacific Ocean with legitimate criticisms of the guy. But I wouldn't say he isn't doing anything.

I don't want to pick at this, because the Carrier thing is "something", but didn't that happen before he was president?

Jim in CT
02-27-2017, 04:36 PM
I don't want to pick at this, because the Carrier thing is "something", but didn't that happen before he was president?

Yes, it did. But Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it, and Trump/Pence did. But if you are willing to give Trump some credit for that, then I think you are more honest than the vast majority of folks who are deranged with hatred for the man. Trump brings a lot of that on himself, no doubt. My point was we can't judge him by ignoring the good things and only considering the bad things, and that's what a lot of people are doing. Not you at all, but many people.

Ian
02-27-2017, 07:09 PM
Yes, it did. But Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it, and Trump/Pence did. But if you are willing to give Trump some credit for that, then I think you are more honest than the vast majority of folks who are deranged with hatred for the man. Trump brings a lot of that on himself, no doubt. My point was we can't judge him by ignoring the good things and only considering the bad things, and that's what a lot of people are doing. Not you at all, but many people.

(I'm not trying to call anyone out with this statement)

What other "good" ideas has he come up with? Mind you the comment re:promises was that until some real plan is put forward, promising is as good as farting... it sticks around for 30-45 seconds and then dissipates. At least #^&#^&#^&#^& sticks to your fingers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
02-27-2017, 07:50 PM
(I'm not trying to call anyone out with this statement)

What other "good" ideas has he come up with? Mind you the comment re:promises was that until some real plan is put forward, promising is as good as farting... it sticks around for 30-45 seconds and then dissipates. At least #^&#^&#^&#^& sticks to your fingers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Presidents coming up with ideas usually leads to bad consequences for our liberties and our wallets. They're not really supposed to come up with ideas so much as they are supposed to execute the ideas of Congress (unless those ideas are harmful to the people and the Constitution). They're at their best (for us as a nation) when they see to it that we are defended against enemies foreign or domestic. When they preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And when they nominate judges who will do the same rather than "interpreting" it to reflect their personal notion of justice.

Sure, they can make suggestions. Anyone can. Most politicians get ideas from the populace at large. Which is how it should be. The proper places for the creation of and demand for implementation of ideas on how to make our country "healthy, wealthy, and wise," are in the public forums, marketplaces, and minds of the people.

It is the duty of government to make it safe enough and free enough for the people to make the country work, and to create the ideas to make it so.

Ian
02-27-2017, 08:14 PM
Presidents coming up with ideas usually leads to bad consequences for our liberties and our wallets. They're not really supposed to come up with ideas so much as they are supposed to execute the ideas of Congress (unless those ideas are harmful to the people and the Constitution). They're at their best (for us as a nation) when they see to it that we are defended against enemies foreign or domestic. When they preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And when they nominate judges who will do the same rather than "interpreting" it to reflect their personal notion of justice.

Sure, they can make suggestions. Anyone can. Most politicians get ideas from the populace at large. Which is how it should be. The proper places for the creation of and demand for implementation of ideas on how to make our country "healthy, wealthy, and wise," are in the public forums, marketplaces, and minds of the people.

It is the duty of government to make it safe enough and free enough for the people to make the country work, and to create the ideas to make it so.

I think I'm comfortable accepting that, but that's not the platform he ran on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
02-27-2017, 08:51 PM
I think I'm comfortable accepting that, but that's not the platform he ran on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think his platform, if it is possible to translate Trumpist rhetoric, can be summed up in one of his sentences: "We will make America great again." I think it was clear, as clear as a Trump locution can be, and if you actually heard or saw him speak at his rallies, by "We" he actually did mean the people not the bureaucrats in Washington.

His nomination for the Supreme Court is Constitution centered not judge whim centered so reflects what a good President would do.

His directly speaking to the people through social media reflects that it is the people who he depends on not the bureaucracy.

His direct appeal to business leaders and corporations is acknowledging their role in the economy not reliance on the central bureaucrats and politicians.

His repealing as many of the repressive, bureaucratic executive orders as possible is a transfer of power back from the bureaucracy to the people.

His appointments and decisions generally indicate a direction of having the states more involved in regulation and in matters that really should be governed at state and local levels rather than the federal.

His plans for security from the current Islamic threat, the destruction of ISIS and a slowing of immigration from those areas along with strict vetting certainly is proper "doing" of Constitutional Executive power and duty to defend us.

In general, to me, he sees the role of making the country "healthy wealthy and wise" lies in the hands of the people, not the political ruling class.

scottw
02-28-2017, 05:23 AM
You don't have to like the guy obviously. But to say that he isn't implementing any new ideas? I don't think that's accurate. You can fill the Pacific Ocean with legitimate criticisms of the guy. But I wouldn't say he isn't doing anything.

great article pondering Donaldness

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445294/donald-trump-metaphysics-bad-man-good-deeds

scottw
02-28-2017, 05:30 AM
In general, to me, he sees the role of making the country "healthy wealthy and wise" lies in the hands of the people, not the political ruling class.

seems like the left(as is usually the case)....and some others, can't decide whether they want balance of powers and co-equal branches... or at times(when their guy wins) an all powerful President, activist Judiciary, conniving Congress(Obamacare)....as the left tends to do, they want things their way when they want something "achieved" or when they maintain control of a branch of government but when they lose an election or the numbers tip the scales out of their favor power they want a completely different set of rules followed but those that assume control......you couldn't play a game with a sports team that plays like that( "holding, spitballs, hitting below the belt and traveling are fine as long as we're doing it") and I don't think you can co-exist in a society for very long with this kind of collective psychosis

wdmso
02-28-2017, 07:04 AM
The biggest winners were shares in energy, financial and healthcare

This says it all ^^^^^^

scottw
02-28-2017, 07:27 AM
The biggest winners were shares in energy, financial and healthcare

This says it all ^^^^^^

why do you hate healthcare?

Jim in CT
02-28-2017, 09:53 AM
The biggest winners were shares in energy, financial and healthcare

This says it all ^^^^^^

Please tell us why this is bad? We can't all work in the public sector, some of us have to produce wealth, to generate tax revenue, to pay your salary.

The fact that some sectors won, doesn't mean that other sectors had to lose. Some just outperformed others.

The stock market went way up during Obama's 8 years. I heard lots of liberals giving him credit for that.

Not everything to do with "business" is bad, WDMSO. Lots of good, middle class Americans depend upon business for a livelihood.

Your comment is what says it all. You'd be happier if businesses all failed?

Jim in CT
02-28-2017, 10:09 AM
great article pondering Donaldness

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445294/donald-trump-metaphysics-bad-man-good-deeds

It was interesting, and from an outlet that has not been a fan of the guy.

I like most of what Trump is doing. I can't get over how bad the things he says are, and how petty and thin skinned he is.

But I'd rather have a jerk that does a good job, than a nice guy who is incompetent. That last line isn't a dig at Obama, as I consider him to be both a jerk and incompetent.

scottw
02-28-2017, 10:49 AM
it's pretty amusing that his critics end up sounding and acting worse then him .....

Jim in CT
02-28-2017, 11:24 AM
it's pretty amusing that his critics end up sounding and acting worse then him .....

When you conclude that it's necessarily bad that the stock market had a big run up, and that energy, finance and healthcare did well (HUGE sectors of the economy)...

And the liberal mindset that people who struggle, are only struggling because someone else screwed them (preferably a white guy in a suit), it's something. It's really, really something.

My next door neighbor has a really nice daughter, she has lived next door to me for 10+ years, she used to babysit my kids. Se got a degree in nursing from UCONN. While there, she heard about a great, lucrative profession, called nurse anaesthetist (forgive my spelling). She told me about it years ago, she said that if you work as an RN in an ICU for 2 years, then go back to school for 2 years full time to get that designation, you can start at something like 135k. So she did exactly that. She is 26-27 years years old, and making something like 140k at the UCONN Health Center.

She wasn't born with a trust fund, she didn't go to elite private schools like Miss Porters or Phillips Exeter Academy, she didn't get 1600 on her SATs, she isn't a genius, she went to public schools her whole life. Why is she where she is? She took the time to do some research, found a great goal, and did exactly what the experts told her she needed to do, and now she will enjoy the payoff for the rest of her life.

Not everyone can get a nursing degree. But a lot of people can. And there are many other paths to success. It's not a perfect system. One person falling through the cracks is too many, and we have a lot of cracks to fix. But this notion that the rich have rigged the system so that only they can succeed, is demonstrably false horsesh*t.

I love the story of my neighbor's kid. A totally normal kid, who only stands out because she took the time to formulate a plan, and she stuck to it, when lots of kids her age were more interested in going out to clubs.

Actuaries at my company start, right out of college, with salaries of 65k. Pass all the exams (which many kids do before age 30), and you will never make less than 150k for the rest of your life. But the exams are brutal, you will be studying when most 25 year olds are out partying.

The system is a lot more fair than liberals would have you believe it is. I will push all 3 of my boys, as hard as I can, into healthcare (physical therapy, pharmacy, nursing, physicians assistant, things like that). Zillions of jobs. Good, non-out-sourceable jobs, that will allow you to be self sufficient for life.

If you want to have a yacht and a mansion on Nantucket, best to be born into money. If you are satisfied with being comfortable and not having to worry about money all the time, there are all kinds of ways to get there.