Other Resources The Political Joe » Trump Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 40
 
 
2016-03-31 9:57 AM
in reply to: Hook'em

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Trump

All I know is that being a cop in Cleveland is going to suck.....except for the huge OT checks they will get once the rioting ensues.  I don't know who is going to get the nomination.....but I predict carnage.



2016-03-31 10:08 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by Left Brain

All I know is that being a cop in Cleveland is going to suck.....except for the huge OT checks they will get once the rioting ensues.  I don't know who is going to get the nomination.....but I predict carnage.

Only if the Bernie and Hillary supporters show up.  

2016-03-31 10:25 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Champion
15211
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Left Brain

All I know is that being a cop in Cleveland is going to suck.....except for the huge OT checks they will get once the rioting ensues.  I don't know who is going to get the nomination.....but I predict carnage.

Only if the Bernie and Hillary supporters show up.  

Or Clive Bundy.



Edited by crowny2 2016-03-31 10:26 AM
2016-03-31 10:43 AM
in reply to: crowny2

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by crowny2

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Left Brain

All I know is that being a cop in Cleveland is going to suck.....except for the huge OT checks they will get once the rioting ensues.  I don't know who is going to get the nomination.....but I predict carnage.

Only if the Bernie and Hillary supporters show up.  

Or Clive Bundy.

lol, that is one interesting dude.  I am somewhat sympathetic to his cause, but have little sympathy for his methods. 

2016-03-31 12:40 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

I always enjoy these videos no matter whose side they're supporting.

https://www.facebook.com/foxandfriends/videos/1045728428848086/

That Union dude was lit up.

2016-03-31 1:46 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by tuwood

I always enjoy these videos no matter whose side they're supporting.

https://www.facebook.com/foxandfriends/videos/1045728428848086/

That Union dude was lit up.

Protesting is much more enjoyable if you tailgate beforehand.



2016-03-31 5:45 PM
in reply to: Hook'em

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Trump
I read today that Trump has withdrawn his pledge to support the GOP nominee. The article also said that both Cruz and Kasich were either noncommittal about keeping their pledge or, in the case of Cruz said outright that he wouldn't support Trump.
2016-03-31 8:03 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I read today that Trump has withdrawn his pledge to support the GOP nominee. The article also said that both Cruz and Kasich were either noncommittal about keeping their pledge or, in the case of Cruz said outright that he wouldn't support Trump.

Yeah, they're all pretty angry with each other and throwing a hissy fit.  lol

2016-04-01 8:36 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I read today that Trump has withdrawn his pledge to support the GOP nominee. The article also said that both Cruz and Kasich were either noncommittal about keeping their pledge or, in the case of Cruz said outright that he wouldn't support Trump.

Yeah, they're all pretty angry with each other and throwing a hissy fit.  lol




It's been interesting to watch Hillary and Bernie and how they've been towards each other. When they were far apart, back in 2015, they were super-supportive and genial with each other. As the race has tightened, they've become much less complimentary towards each other and, while there hasn't been anything remotely like the kind of vitriol that we've seen on the GOP side, things have definitely gone from the fridge to the freezer between them.
2016-04-01 8:39 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Master
2802
2000500100100100
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Trump
Been kind of a rough week or so for the Donald:

Behind in the recent polls in Wisconsin...
Campaign Manager charged with assault...
Abortion gaff...
Foreign policy/nuclear proliferation kerfluffle...
Latest polling showing even larger unfavorables, this time even among white men...
Surprise meeting with the RNC trying to make nice. First time sucking up to the establishment?

Is this just a rough patch or more of a general unraveling?
2016-04-01 9:16 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I read today that Trump has withdrawn his pledge to support the GOP nominee. The article also said that both Cruz and Kasich were either noncommittal about keeping their pledge or, in the case of Cruz said outright that he wouldn't support Trump.

Yeah, they're all pretty angry with each other and throwing a hissy fit.  lol

It's been interesting to watch Hillary and Bernie and how they've been towards each other. When they were far apart, back in 2015, they were super-supportive and genial with each other. As the race has tightened, they've become much less complimentary towards each other and, while there hasn't been anything remotely like the kind of vitriol that we've seen on the GOP side, things have definitely gone from the fridge to the freezer between them.

As much as I'm not a fan of Hillary, they have been doing a much better job of playing nice.  Yes, it's thawing but I don't think I've seen Bernie throwing Bill's escapades out there yet.  Can you imagine if one of the Republican spouses was out there messing around, lol.

I do suspect that if Bernie continues racking up the wins as he has been of late, things might continue to derail, because Hillary is not going to go down without a fight.



2016-04-01 9:20 AM
in reply to: ejshowers

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by ejshowers Been kind of a rough week or so for the Donald: Behind in the recent polls in Wisconsin... Campaign Manager charged with assault... Abortion gaff... Foreign policy/nuclear proliferation kerfluffle... Latest polling showing even larger unfavorables, this time even among white men... Surprise meeting with the RNC trying to make nice. First time sucking up to the establishment? Is this just a rough patch or more of a general unraveling?

Yeah, he has stepped in a few things.  The Campaign manager thing seems to be a hack job trying to make something out of nothing, but it doesn't help Trump that's for sure.
The steady drip of attacking Trumps supporters as racists and violent has had some effect on the polls.  The media has finally found a tactic that's getting a little traction.  The problem is that it may be too little too late.
I still like Trump overall because the things that attract me to him are unchanged.  I don't care if he's pro abortion or against it because it's not going to change under the law either way.

I could live with either Trump or Cruz ultimately, but if neither of the two people who get 90% of the primary delegates don't get the nomination then I'll write in LB in the general.

2016-04-01 10:06 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Trump
Did I miss something with abortion thing? Didn't he said if it was illegal then there should be a plenty for breaking the law? To me that seems pretty understandable to me.
2016-04-01 10:11 AM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by chirunner134 Did I miss something with abortion thing? Didn't he said if it was illegal then there should be a plenty for breaking the law? To me that seems pretty understandable to me.

The only thing he got wrong when given a hypothetical scenario was he said women should be charged if abortion were to be made illegal, but the way the law works is that it would be illegal to provide abortions so the provider would be the ones being charged.  He corrected himself shortly after the interview, but the media ignores that.

It's really nothing, but the media is trying to make it into the largest scandal ever.  

2016-04-01 3:30 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by chirunner134 Did I miss something with abortion thing? Didn't he said if it was illegal then there should be a plenty for breaking the law? To me that seems pretty understandable to me.

The only thing he got wrong when given a hypothetical scenario was he said women should be charged if abortion were to be made illegal, but the way the law works is that it would be illegal to provide abortions so the provider would be the ones being charged.  He corrected himself shortly after the interview, but the media ignores that.

It's really nothing, but the media is trying to make it into the largest scandal ever.  




The thing is, Tony, Trump continually gives the impression of a guy who hasn't really spent much time thinking about a lot of these major issues.

This line of questions related to the criminalization of abortion is not an obscure topic. If a candidate is prepared to say, as Trump is that he's "strongly pro-life", he should be prepared to explain what "strongly pro-life" means because it means different things to different people. Does it mean, "I don't want people to have abortions, but I don't intend to change the law of the land"? Or does it mean, "I oppose abortion in all cases, and I'm prepared to criminalize it in order to ban it altogether, even if it means jailing doctors."

A journalist asked him a question that should have been easy to answer. If I asked you that question, you'd be able to answer it in a second. Trump, on the other hand, if you believe him, "accidentally" said the exact opposite of what he believes. Really? Come on...

And it's hypocritical, in my opinion, to be ok with Trump saying one thing in an interview, and then, the next day, after the backlash, saying, "What I meant was the exact opposite of what I said". In a million years, you'd never let Clinton or Sanders get away with that. Imagine if Hillary said in an interview that she was for banning all guns , and then, after the press jumped all over it, the next day, said, "I meant I only want to ban illegally-owned guns." You would lose your mind.

If you're looking at it objectively, it's pretty obvious that he said what he thought would get the best reaction, because, you know, he's such a tough guy and he's so pro-life, and he wants to show that he's just as tough on women who get illegal abortions, as he is on ISIS, and then when the public opinion went south, he asked for a do-over.
2016-04-01 3:55 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Veteran
276
100100252525
Subject: RE: Trump
I mostly lurk here, but what he said was not the exact opposite of what he believes. He is pro-life, and what he said was still a pro-life statement. Similarly in your example, Hillary's believes in gun control and the hypothetical statement was still pro- gun control, but just a different level of enforcement.


2016-04-01 3:59 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by chirunner134 Did I miss something with abortion thing? Didn't he said if it was illegal then there should be a plenty for breaking the law? To me that seems pretty understandable to me.

The only thing he got wrong when given a hypothetical scenario was he said women should be charged if abortion were to be made illegal, but the way the law works is that it would be illegal to provide abortions so the provider would be the ones being charged.  He corrected himself shortly after the interview, but the media ignores that.

It's really nothing, but the media is trying to make it into the largest scandal ever.  

The thing is, Tony, Trump continually gives the impression of a guy who hasn't really spent much time thinking about a lot of these major issues. This line of questions related to the criminalization of abortion is not an obscure topic. If a candidate is prepared to say, as Trump is that he's "strongly pro-life", he should be prepared to explain what "strongly pro-life" means because it means different things to different people. Does it mean, "I don't want people to have abortions, but I don't intend to change the law of the land"? Or does it mean, "I oppose abortion in all cases, and I'm prepared to criminalize it in order to ban it altogether, even if it means jailing doctors." A journalist asked him a question that should have been easy to answer. If I asked you that question, you'd be able to answer it in a second. Trump, on the other hand, if you believe him, "accidentally" said the exact opposite of what he believes. Really? Come on... And it's hypocritical, in my opinion, to be ok with Trump saying one thing in an interview, and then, the next day, after the backlash, saying, "What I meant was the exact opposite of what I said". In a million years, you'd never let Clinton or Sanders get away with that. Imagine if Hillary said in an interview that she was for banning all guns , and then, after the press jumped all over it, the next day, said, "I meant I only want to ban illegally-owned guns." You would lose your mind. If you're looking at it objectively, it's pretty obvious that he said what he thought would get the best reaction, because, you know, he's such a tough guy and he's so pro-life, and he wants to show that he's just as tough on women who get illegal abortions, as he is on ISIS, and then when the public opinion went south, he asked for a do-over.

I get it, and in the political world you're correct that he probably wasn't very prepared for what should have been a pretty easy answer.

In another sense I think this plays into his appeal a little because he truly isn't a politician.  He hasn't spent decades memorizing positions that are lock step with the party, he simply says whatever is on the top of his mind.  I don't necessarily think he plans things like this to get the most reaction but I do think he says whatever is on his mind, often without a filter.  There are certainly situations on a global scale where we can both agree that this is not a good thing, but compared to the global train wreck we have from the last 16 years of people who did "say the right things" I'm not too worried.

 

2016-04-01 6:22 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by chirunner134 Did I miss something with abortion thing? Didn't he said if it was illegal then there should be a plenty for breaking the law? To me that seems pretty understandable to me.

The only thing he got wrong when given a hypothetical scenario was he said women should be charged if abortion were to be made illegal, but the way the law works is that it would be illegal to provide abortions so the provider would be the ones being charged.  He corrected himself shortly after the interview, but the media ignores that.

It's really nothing, but the media is trying to make it into the largest scandal ever.  

The thing is, Tony, Trump continually gives the impression of a guy who hasn't really spent much time thinking about a lot of these major issues. This line of questions related to the criminalization of abortion is not an obscure topic. If a candidate is prepared to say, as Trump is that he's "strongly pro-life", he should be prepared to explain what "strongly pro-life" means because it means different things to different people. Does it mean, "I don't want people to have abortions, but I don't intend to change the law of the land"? Or does it mean, "I oppose abortion in all cases, and I'm prepared to criminalize it in order to ban it altogether, even if it means jailing doctors." A journalist asked him a question that should have been easy to answer. If I asked you that question, you'd be able to answer it in a second. Trump, on the other hand, if you believe him, "accidentally" said the exact opposite of what he believes. Really? Come on... And it's hypocritical, in my opinion, to be ok with Trump saying one thing in an interview, and then, the next day, after the backlash, saying, "What I meant was the exact opposite of what I said". In a million years, you'd never let Clinton or Sanders get away with that. Imagine if Hillary said in an interview that she was for banning all guns , and then, after the press jumped all over it, the next day, said, "I meant I only want to ban illegally-owned guns." You would lose your mind. If you're looking at it objectively, it's pretty obvious that he said what he thought would get the best reaction, because, you know, he's such a tough guy and he's so pro-life, and he wants to show that he's just as tough on women who get illegal abortions, as he is on ISIS, and then when the public opinion went south, he asked for a do-over.

I get it, and in the political world you're correct that he probably wasn't very prepared for what should have been a pretty easy answer.

In another sense I think this plays into his appeal a little because he truly isn't a politician.  He hasn't spent decades memorizing positions that are lock step with the party, he simply says whatever is on the top of his mind.  I don't necessarily think he plans things like this to get the most reaction but I do think he says whatever is on his mind, often without a filter.  There are certainly situations on a global scale where we can both agree that this is not a good thing, but compared to the global train wreck we have from the last 16 years of people who did "say the right things" I'm not too worried.

 




(Side note--nice to have you back)

I suppose, although while it's a cute novelty to imagine an "outsider" like Trump "shaking things up" in DC, it's getting pretty close to crunch time. If he wins, he's going to be sworn in as POTUS in a little over 9 months, and it might not be a bad idea if he at least put a LITTLE thought towards what one ought to know if one is going to assume the role of Leader of the Free World. Right now, he continues to give the impression that he intends to just wing it.
2016-04-01 6:27 PM
in reply to: CycloneVM

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by CycloneVM

I mostly lurk here, but what he said was not the exact opposite of what he believes. He is pro-life, and what he said was still a pro-life statement. Similarly in your example, Hillary's believes in gun control and the hypothetical statement was still pro- gun control, but just a different level of enforcement.

No, he said he believes in punishing women who have abortions, and the next day, he said he doesn't believe punishing women who have abortions.
2016-04-01 7:41 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Funniest thing I saw on the internet all day.  haha

 

2016-04-01 10:02 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image


1731
100050010010025
Denver, Colorado
Subject: RE: Trump


2016-04-05 11:11 AM
in reply to: ejshowers

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by ejshowers

Originally posted by jford2309

How much would a wall cost anyways?




No one knows for sure, but estimates range from 15 to 25 billion based on actuals. That is for fencing mind you, not a "wall". A wall would be many, many times more expensive. Maintenance/Operating cost estimates range from .5 to a few billion per year.

And, unless cameras and personnel exits to actually enforce a wall, they are easily defeated with either a shovel, a rope or ladder. Costs for that infrastructure would be maybe 10 times that, so 10ish billion per year?


Trump published a memo outlining how he would get Mexico to pay for the wall.

1: Make it illegal for any alien who can't demonstrate legal residence in the US to wire money to Mexico. He claims that $24 Billion is wired from the US to Mexico "mostly by illegal immigrants". He claims that as soon as we stop the flow of these wire transfers, Mexico will beg to pay an unspecified sum of money (the space on the memo is actually blank) to allow the wire transfers to resume.

2:Enforce existing trade regulations and impose tariffs.

3: Cancelling visas and increasing fees for new visas.

If the real cost is "many many times more than $25B", this isn't going to get him anywhere close, but It's something, I guess. I don't suppose it matters, since the people who support him don't seem to care that everything he says is nonsense-- they're going to vote for him anyway. Because, you know, " outsider".
2016-04-05 11:29 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by ejshowers
Originally posted by jford2309

How much would a wall cost anyways?

No one knows for sure, but estimates range from 15 to 25 billion based on actuals. That is for fencing mind you, not a "wall". A wall would be many, many times more expensive. Maintenance/Operating cost estimates range from .5 to a few billion per year. And, unless cameras and personnel exits to actually enforce a wall, they are easily defeated with either a shovel, a rope or ladder. Costs for that infrastructure would be maybe 10 times that, so 10ish billion per year?
Trump published a memo outlining how he would get Mexico to pay for the wall. 1: Make it illegal for any alien who can't demonstrate legal residence in the US to wire money to Mexico. He claims that $24 Billion is wired from the US to Mexico "mostly by illegal immigrants". He claims that as soon as we stop the flow of these wire transfers, Mexico will beg to pay an unspecified sum of money (the space on the memo is actually blank) to allow the wire transfers to resume. 2:Enforce existing trade regulations and impose tariffs. 3: Cancelling visas and increasing fees for new visas. If the real cost is "many many times more than $25B", this isn't going to get him anywhere close, but It's something, I guess. I don't suppose it matters, since the people who support him don't seem to care that everything he says is nonsense-- they're going to vote for him anyway. Because, you know, " outsider".

I hadn't seen anything on this specific memo, but I always assumed he would add a tariff of some sort to "make them pay".  I don't envision Mexico writing a check to the US to fund the wall, but I can certainly see their citizens indirectly paying for it.

I'm not sure I agree with making wire transfers illegal and I'm also not sure it would stand up in court, but I could see a tax on said wires abroad. 

2016-04-05 11:52 AM
in reply to: 0

User image


1731
100050010010025
Denver, Colorado
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by ejshowers
Originally posted by jford2309

How much would a wall cost anyways?

No one knows for sure, but estimates range from 15 to 25 billion based on actuals. That is for fencing mind you, not a "wall". A wall would be many, many times more expensive. Maintenance/Operating cost estimates range from .5 to a few billion per year. And, unless cameras and personnel exits to actually enforce a wall, they are easily defeated with either a shovel, a rope or ladder. Costs for that infrastructure would be maybe 10 times that, so 10ish billion per year?
Trump published a memo outlining how he would get Mexico to pay for the wall. 1: Make it illegal for any alien who can't demonstrate legal residence in the US to wire money to Mexico. He claims that $24 Billion is wired from the US to Mexico "mostly by illegal immigrants". He claims that as soon as we stop the flow of these wire transfers, Mexico will beg to pay an unspecified sum of money (the space on the memo is actually blank) to allow the wire transfers to resume. 2:Enforce existing trade regulations and impose tariffs. 3: Cancelling visas and increasing fees for new visas. If the real cost is "many many times more than $25B", this isn't going to get him anywhere close, but It's something, I guess. I don't suppose it matters, since the people who support him don't seem to care that everything he says is nonsense-- they're going to vote for him anyway. Because, you know, " outsider".

I hadn't seen anything on this specific memo, but I always assumed he would add a tariff of some sort to "make them pay".  I don't envision Mexico writing a check to the US to fund the wall, but I can certainly see their citizens indirectly paying for it.

I'm not sure I agree with making wire transfers illegal and I'm also not sure it would stand up in court, but I could see a tax on said wires abroad. 




But how can you justify legal vs illegal wire transfers? What if there is a "legal" family, who has been in US for generations and is sending money to their family in Mexico? What if I am sending money to Mexico (for whatever reason)? And even if they do something with those transfers, illegal people will find their ways, because they can always ask their legal friends to wire the money on their behalf. Therefore, I don't see that working.

Edited by marysia83 2016-04-05 11:53 AM
2016-04-05 2:17 PM
in reply to: marysia83

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by marysia83
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by ejshowers
Originally posted by jford2309

How much would a wall cost anyways?

No one knows for sure, but estimates range from 15 to 25 billion based on actuals. That is for fencing mind you, not a "wall". A wall would be many, many times more expensive. Maintenance/Operating cost estimates range from .5 to a few billion per year. And, unless cameras and personnel exits to actually enforce a wall, they are easily defeated with either a shovel, a rope or ladder. Costs for that infrastructure would be maybe 10 times that, so 10ish billion per year?
Trump published a memo outlining how he would get Mexico to pay for the wall. 1: Make it illegal for any alien who can't demonstrate legal residence in the US to wire money to Mexico. He claims that $24 Billion is wired from the US to Mexico "mostly by illegal immigrants". He claims that as soon as we stop the flow of these wire transfers, Mexico will beg to pay an unspecified sum of money (the space on the memo is actually blank) to allow the wire transfers to resume. 2:Enforce existing trade regulations and impose tariffs. 3: Cancelling visas and increasing fees for new visas. If the real cost is "many many times more than $25B", this isn't going to get him anywhere close, but It's something, I guess. I don't suppose it matters, since the people who support him don't seem to care that everything he says is nonsense-- they're going to vote for him anyway. Because, you know, " outsider".

I hadn't seen anything on this specific memo, but I always assumed he would add a tariff of some sort to "make them pay".  I don't envision Mexico writing a check to the US to fund the wall, but I can certainly see their citizens indirectly paying for it.

I'm not sure I agree with making wire transfers illegal and I'm also not sure it would stand up in court, but I could see a tax on said wires abroad. 

But how can you justify legal vs illegal wire transfers? What if there is a "legal" family, who has been in US for generations and is sending money to their family in Mexico? What if I am sending money to Mexico (for whatever reason)? And even if they do something with those transfers, illegal people will find their ways, because they can always ask their legal friends to wire the money on their behalf. Therefore, I don't see that working.

Enforcing the law would be like anything else.  Sure, anyone can send a wire but if they were challenged they would have to prove they were legal in order to not be charged/prosecuted.  It's not done at the point of the wire, it's done after the fact.

That being said, I completely agree with you that it likely wouldn't work very well.  I think a straight international wire tax or something along those lines would be much better.  

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Trump Rss Feed  
 
 
of 40