login
Election 2016 (Page 74)
-
No new posts
|
 2016-12-05 9:35 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro  9391     Omaha, NE |  Subject: RE: Election 2016Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio It isn't just the media, though, is it? I guess what I'm asking is: Candidate Trump made a bunch of promises, and, as POTUS, he's likely to make many more. If what you're saying is, "I don't take what he says literally", that's fine, but then aren't you in effect saying that he can keep or not keep whatever promises he feels like, and it's all good? Is that acceptable? The GOP has been pretty militant about holding the current president to every promise he's ever made, and parsing his every word as if it was sworn on a stack of bibles. Why shouldn't that be good enough for your guy? If you're ok saying, "Well, sure he said he wanted to get tough with Pakistan, but that was just bluster", are you ok with him, for example, not repealing Obamacare? Or not going after Isis or Iran? Or not getting tough with China? How are you supposed to know what to hold him accountable for if you're willing to give him a pass on everything he says? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I think the media is going to have a hard time with this because I do not think he is going to change. I saw a report on him about how he has not help a press conference since winning the election.....and ALL the previous presidents back to Jimmy Carter all held press conferences within a few days after the election. My thought was, so what!? You cannot control or change the man. He is going to say and do what he wants and dam)n the torpedoes. So yeah, it will be hard to pin him down and say he 'lied' per se. BTW, world leaders all understand politics and know that when you say to Putin, "I will have more flexibility after the election" Putin totally understands the politics. Originally posted by Rogillio I seriously do not take him literally. But I totally understand the sentiment. "We're going to build a wall 20' high" Yes, we might at that for a mile or two in strategic places. Other places the all will be virtual consisting of sensors, satellite surveillance and drones. Other places the geography just doesn't allow you to pass might not have anything. I also totally understand that he does not have the power to do a lot of the things on his agenda such as tax reform, immigration reform and healthcare reform. But I also understand that he, like 60 million other Americans that voted for him, are not satisfied with the status quo and want change. My advice to Trump right now? Write what you are feeling on Tweeter.....and then delete it before sending. When I have a run-in with someone at work or my boss or some idiot, I will write an email and blast them all to h)ell and back......and send it to my wife. It is therapeutic to let someone know how you feel....but never let your enemies know how you feel. That's good advice. I think he's still got a few cabinet positions open-- he should call you. My issue with the "I don't take him literally" thing is, at some point, don't you have to hold the POTUS accountable for what he actually says? If, after the fact, you're willing to write off some of the things he says, as "locker room talk" or bluster or hyperbole or whatever, how are you supposed to know what is an actual promise, or an actual policy statement, or an actual whatever vs just some BS he was spouting in the moment? Aren't you giving him a free pass to, as he's done a few times, go back later, after he can gauge public sentiment and say, "Oh, I didn't mean that-- I was just exaggerating. What I meant was..." A perfect example is the thing with Pakistan. He said, "Pakistan is not our friend." and "Time to get tough". Then, on the phone with the PM, he says, in effect, "we are your friends" and "I promise to do whatever I can to help you." So, were the first comments just bluster and exaggeration, and the second ones are how he really feels? Or were the first ones how he really feels and the second ones were just initial efforts at diplomacy that will be followed up later with a more hard line? Which is it? Obviously he's not POTUS yet, so there's nothing to hold him accountable for (yet). All I can say is if you watch the media you would think he's backtracked on everything, but if you listen to him on his victory tour speeches he has changed nothing. He's building a wall, he's doing a 35% import tax, he's booting all criminal illegal aliens, he's reining in sanctuary cities, he's going to implement massive tax cuts, he's going to keep jobs from going overseas. These are the core of his campaign and his presidency and I don't see him backing down for a second on any of them. Yes, he needs congresses help, but if congress gets in his way I have a sneaking suspicion he will figure out a way to convince them. "you don't want me to tweet about you do you?" Reagan managed to get a lot through a bipartisan congress because he talked to each individual who was against his bill and did take it public as to who was opposing him so the people would know where the resistance was. I can easily see Trump doing his own form of that and when it's Republicans who know the people are with Trump they'll buckle in a heartbeat. |
| 2016-12-05 9:37 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 he already walked back the wall tony |
| 2016-12-05 9:43 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 he already walked back the wall tony No he didn't. The fake news said he walked back the wall. |
| 2016-12-05 9:44 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 he already walked back the wall tony No, believe me, he's building a wall, and it's going to be a great wall, I've been told it will be one of the greatest walls of all time, and nobody will be able to get through it because it's going to be that great, believe me, I've heard that from a lot of people, important people, believe me. Edited by Left Brain 2016-12-05 9:45 AM |
| 2016-12-05 9:46 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio I seriously do not take him literally. But I totally understand the sentiment. "We're going to build a wall 20' high" Yes, we might at that for a mile or two in strategic places. Other places the all will be virtual consisting of sensors, satellite surveillance and drones. Other places the geography just doesn't allow you to pass might not have anything. I also totally understand that he does not have the power to do a lot of the things on his agenda such as tax reform, immigration reform and healthcare reform. But I also understand that he, like 60 million other Americans that voted for him, are not satisfied with the status quo and want change. My advice to Trump right now? Write what you are feeling on Tweeter.....and then delete it before sending. When I have a run-in with someone at work or my boss or some idiot, I will write an email and blast them all to h)ell and back......and send it to my wife. It is therapeutic to let someone know how you feel....but never let your enemies know how you feel. That's good advice. I think he's still got a few cabinet positions open-- he should call you. My issue with the "I don't take him literally" thing is, at some point, don't you have to hold the POTUS accountable for what he actually says? If, after the fact, you're willing to write off some of the things he says, as "locker room talk" or bluster or hyperbole or whatever, how are you supposed to know what is an actual promise, or an actual policy statement, or an actual whatever vs just some BS he was spouting in the moment? Aren't you giving him a free pass to, as he's done a few times, go back later, after he can gauge public sentiment and say, "Oh, I didn't mean that-- I was just exaggerating. What I meant was..." A perfect example is the thing with Pakistan. He said, "Pakistan is not our friend." and "Time to get tough". Then, on the phone with the PM, he says, in effect, "we are your friends" and "I promise to do whatever I can to help you." So, were the first comments just bluster and exaggeration, and the second ones are how he really feels? Or were the first ones how he really feels and the second ones were just initial efforts at diplomacy that will be followed up later with a more hard line? Which is it? I think the media is going to have a hard time with this because I do not think he is going to change. I saw a report on him about how he has not help a press conference since winning the election.....and ALL the previous presidents back to Jimmy Carter all held press conferences within a few days after the election. My thought was, so what!? You cannot control or change the man. He is going to say and do what he wants and dam)n the torpedoes. So yeah, it will be hard to pin him down and say he 'lied' per se. BTW, world leaders all understand politics and know that when you say to Putin, "I will have more flexibility after the election" Putin totally understands the politics. It isn't just the media, though, is it? I guess what I'm asking is: Candidate Trump made a bunch of promises, and, as POTUS, he's likely to make many more. If what you're saying is, "I don't take what he says literally", that's fine, but then aren't you in effect saying that he can keep or not keep whatever promises he feels like, and it's all good? Is that acceptable? The GOP has been pretty militant about holding the current president to every promise he's ever made, and parsing his every word as if it was sworn on a stack of bibles. Why shouldn't that be good enough for your guy? If you're ok saying, "Well, sure he said he wanted to get tough with Pakistan, but that was just bluster", are you ok with him, for example, not repealing Obamacare? Or not going after Isis or Iran? Or not getting tough with China? How are you supposed to know what to hold him accountable for if you're willing to give him a pass on everything he says? What would you rather have: 1. A politician that says "I'm going to reduce your taxes by 40%" 2. A politician that manages to get your taxes reduce by 10% 1. A politician that says we are going to deport all illegal aliens and build a 40 foot wall. 2. A politician that enforces all existing laws and works with Congress to reduce illegal aliens immigration 1. A politician who promises to eliminate the 40 billion trade deficit 2. A politician who reduces the trade deficit 10 20 billion? People will judge Trump just like they judge every politician - was he effective? Did he do as much as he could do to keep his promises. Am I better off, is the country better off, are we heading in the right directions.....or do I feel betrayed by yet another politician who promised hope and changed and delivered nothing? I'm am continually shaking my head at the media already claiming he is going back on his word.....he is not even president yet! Give him a chance and see if things change. He appoints one guy to his cabinet that has Wall Street ties and suddenly he is no longing going to drain the swamp....now he is part of the swamp. Give me a break! |
| 2016-12-05 9:53 AM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio I seriously do not take him literally. But I totally understand the sentiment. "We're going to build a wall 20' high" Yes, we might at that for a mile or two in strategic places. Other places the all will be virtual consisting of sensors, satellite surveillance and drones. Other places the geography just doesn't allow you to pass might not have anything. I also totally understand that he does not have the power to do a lot of the things on his agenda such as tax reform, immigration reform and healthcare reform. But I also understand that he, like 60 million other Americans that voted for him, are not satisfied with the status quo and want change. My advice to Trump right now? Write what you are feeling on Tweeter.....and then delete it before sending. When I have a run-in with someone at work or my boss or some idiot, I will write an email and blast them all to h)ell and back......and send it to my wife. It is therapeutic to let someone know how you feel....but never let your enemies know how you feel. That's good advice. I think he's still got a few cabinet positions open-- he should call you. My issue with the "I don't take him literally" thing is, at some point, don't you have to hold the POTUS accountable for what he actually says? If, after the fact, you're willing to write off some of the things he says, as "locker room talk" or bluster or hyperbole or whatever, how are you supposed to know what is an actual promise, or an actual policy statement, or an actual whatever vs just some BS he was spouting in the moment? Aren't you giving him a free pass to, as he's done a few times, go back later, after he can gauge public sentiment and say, "Oh, I didn't mean that-- I was just exaggerating. What I meant was..." A perfect example is the thing with Pakistan. He said, "Pakistan is not our friend." and "Time to get tough". Then, on the phone with the PM, he says, in effect, "we are your friends" and "I promise to do whatever I can to help you." So, were the first comments just bluster and exaggeration, and the second ones are how he really feels? Or were the first ones how he really feels and the second ones were just initial efforts at diplomacy that will be followed up later with a more hard line? Which is it? I think the media is going to have a hard time with this because I do not think he is going to change. I saw a report on him about how he has not help a press conference since winning the election.....and ALL the previous presidents back to Jimmy Carter all held press conferences within a few days after the election. My thought was, so what!? You cannot control or change the man. He is going to say and do what he wants and dam)n the torpedoes. So yeah, it will be hard to pin him down and say he 'lied' per se. BTW, world leaders all understand politics and know that when you say to Putin, "I will have more flexibility after the election" Putin totally understands the politics. It isn't just the media, though, is it? I guess what I'm asking is: Candidate Trump made a bunch of promises, and, as POTUS, he's likely to make many more. If what you're saying is, "I don't take what he says literally", that's fine, but then aren't you in effect saying that he can keep or not keep whatever promises he feels like, and it's all good? Is that acceptable? The GOP has been pretty militant about holding the current president to every promise he's ever made, and parsing his every word as if it was sworn on a stack of bibles. Why shouldn't that be good enough for your guy? If you're ok saying, "Well, sure he said he wanted to get tough with Pakistan, but that was just bluster", are you ok with him, for example, not repealing Obamacare? Or not going after Isis or Iran? Or not getting tough with China? How are you supposed to know what to hold him accountable for if you're willing to give him a pass on everything he says? What would you rather have: 1. A politician that says "I'm going to reduce your taxes by 40%" 2. A politician that manages to get your taxes reduce by 10% 1. A politician who promises to eliminate the 40 billion trade deficit 2. A politician who reduces the trade deficit 10 20 billion? You're saying, in effect, that you would be fine with a president who accomplished (in the two examples above) 25% of what he promised. That certainly hasn't been the standard that the GOP was willing to apply to Obama. You're saying that, if Obama had said, back in 2007, "I promise to do XYZ" that, eight years later, if he'd only accomplished 1/4 of what he'd promised, you'd consider that a successful presidency? Give me a break!! You'd be holding his feet to the fire for failing to live up to his promises, and rightly so. I fully get that he's not president yet and all of this is just speculation, but I already see a tendency on the part of his supporters to start to manage their expectations of him. As it got closer to election day, and you started to realize that he's 75% full of crap, and that, basically, you can't take anything he says literally, all of a sudden, a 25% return on his promises is sounding pretty good. I think we all know now that the thing about the giant wall that Mexico is paying for is a bunch of hooey and always was. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2016-12-05 10:04 AM |
| 2016-12-05 10:17 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 President's aren't judged on their first year in office, and sometimes not even their first term in office. They are judged on their body of work during their time in the White House. For Trump to be judged before he even takes office is the work of embiciles. |
| 2016-12-05 10:27 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio I seriously do not take him literally. But I totally understand the sentiment. "We're going to build a wall 20' high" Yes, we might at that for a mile or two in strategic places. Other places the all will be virtual consisting of sensors, satellite surveillance and drones. Other places the geography just doesn't allow you to pass might not have anything. I also totally understand that he does not have the power to do a lot of the things on his agenda such as tax reform, immigration reform and healthcare reform. But I also understand that he, like 60 million other Americans that voted for him, are not satisfied with the status quo and want change. My advice to Trump right now? Write what you are feeling on Tweeter.....and then delete it before sending. When I have a run-in with someone at work or my boss or some idiot, I will write an email and blast them all to h)ell and back......and send it to my wife. It is therapeutic to let someone know how you feel....but never let your enemies know how you feel. That's good advice. I think he's still got a few cabinet positions open-- he should call you. My issue with the "I don't take him literally" thing is, at some point, don't you have to hold the POTUS accountable for what he actually says? If, after the fact, you're willing to write off some of the things he says, as "locker room talk" or bluster or hyperbole or whatever, how are you supposed to know what is an actual promise, or an actual policy statement, or an actual whatever vs just some BS he was spouting in the moment? Aren't you giving him a free pass to, as he's done a few times, go back later, after he can gauge public sentiment and say, "Oh, I didn't mean that-- I was just exaggerating. What I meant was..." A perfect example is the thing with Pakistan. He said, "Pakistan is not our friend." and "Time to get tough". Then, on the phone with the PM, he says, in effect, "we are your friends" and "I promise to do whatever I can to help you." So, were the first comments just bluster and exaggeration, and the second ones are how he really feels? Or were the first ones how he really feels and the second ones were just initial efforts at diplomacy that will be followed up later with a more hard line? Which is it? I think the media is going to have a hard time with this because I do not think he is going to change. I saw a report on him about how he has not help a press conference since winning the election.....and ALL the previous presidents back to Jimmy Carter all held press conferences within a few days after the election. My thought was, so what!? You cannot control or change the man. He is going to say and do what he wants and dam)n the torpedoes. So yeah, it will be hard to pin him down and say he 'lied' per se. BTW, world leaders all understand politics and know that when you say to Putin, "I will have more flexibility after the election" Putin totally understands the politics. It isn't just the media, though, is it? I guess what I'm asking is: Candidate Trump made a bunch of promises, and, as POTUS, he's likely to make many more. If what you're saying is, "I don't take what he says literally", that's fine, but then aren't you in effect saying that he can keep or not keep whatever promises he feels like, and it's all good? Is that acceptable? The GOP has been pretty militant about holding the current president to every promise he's ever made, and parsing his every word as if it was sworn on a stack of bibles. Why shouldn't that be good enough for your guy? If you're ok saying, "Well, sure he said he wanted to get tough with Pakistan, but that was just bluster", are you ok with him, for example, not repealing Obamacare? Or not going after Isis or Iran? Or not getting tough with China? How are you supposed to know what to hold him accountable for if you're willing to give him a pass on everything he says? What would you rather have: 1. A politician that says "I'm going to reduce your taxes by 40%" 2. A politician that manages to get your taxes reduce by 10% 1. A politician who promises to eliminate the 40 billion trade deficit 2. A politician who reduces the trade deficit 10 20 billion? You're saying, in effect, that you would be fine with a president who accomplished (in the two examples above) 25% of what he promised. That certainly hasn't been the standard that the GOP was willing to apply to Obama. You're saying that, if Obama had said, back in 2007, "I promise to do XYZ" that, eight years later, if he'd only accomplished 1/4 of what he'd promised, you'd consider that a successful presidency? Give me a break!! You'd be holding his feet to the fire for failing to live up to his promises, and rightly so. I fully get that he's not president yet and all of this is just speculation, but I already see a tendency on the part of his supporters to start to manage their expectations of him. As it got closer to election day, and you started to realize that he's 75% full of crap, and that, basically, you can't take anything he says literally, all of a sudden, a 25% return on his promises is sounding pretty good. I think we all know now that the thing about the giant wall that Mexico is paying for is a bunch of hooey and always was. I think the wall and getting Mexico to pay for it are the two promises he is mostly likely to keep. The US spent billions on the Secure Border Initiative that build miles and miles of wall, fence and virtual walls. Obama cancelled the program. I can almost guarantee there will be some sort of fence or border funding in the first budget the WH sends to Congress. By re-negotiating NAFTA he can absolutely make Mexico pay for it! Now, are they going to send us a check with "for the border fence" written in the "For" field of the check? No. But a 1% tariff on goods and services could easily pay for a 10 billion dollar wall over the next xx years. Border is about 2,000 miles. Natural terrain make a fence unnecessary for about 1000 miles. So 1000 miles of wall/fence/virtual wall. If you set the timeline of 5 years you need 200 miles a year. If you had 20 companies each tasked with 10 miles.....anyway, very doable. It's a wall not a space ship. |
| 2016-12-05 10:34 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I think the wall and getting Mexico to pay for it are the two promises he is mostly likely to keep. The US spent billions on the Secure Border Initiative that build miles and miles of wall, fence and virtual walls. Obama cancelled the program. I can almost guarantee there will be some sort of fence or border funding in the first budget the WH sends to Congress. By re-negotiating NAFTA he can absolutely make Mexico pay for it! Now, are they going to send us a check with "for the border fence" written in the "For" field of the check? No. But a 1% tariff on goods and services could easily pay for a 10 billion dollar wall over the next xx years. Border is about 2,000 miles. Natural terrain make a fence unnecessary for about 1000 miles. So 1000 miles of wall/fence/virtual wall. If you set the timeline of 5 years you need 200 miles a year. If you had 20 companies each tasked with 10 miles.....anyway, very doable. It's a wall not a space ship. Originally posted by Rogillio You're saying, in effect, that you would be fine with a president who accomplished (in the two examples above) 25% of what he promised. That certainly hasn't been the standard that the GOP was willing to apply to Obama. You're saying that, if Obama had said, back in 2007, "I promise to do XYZ" that, eight years later, if he'd only accomplished 1/4 of what he'd promised, you'd consider that a successful presidency? Give me a break!! You'd be holding his feet to the fire for failing to live up to his promises, and rightly so. I fully get that he's not president yet and all of this is just speculation, but I already see a tendency on the part of his supporters to start to manage their expectations of him. As it got closer to election day, and you started to realize that he's 75% full of crap, and that, basically, you can't take anything he says literally, all of a sudden, a 25% return on his promises is sounding pretty good. I think we all know now that the thing about the giant wall that Mexico is paying for is a bunch of hooey and always was. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn What would you rather have: 1. A politician that says "I'm going to reduce your taxes by 40%" 2. A politician that manages to get your taxes reduce by 10% 1. A politician who promises to eliminate the 40 billion trade deficit 2. A politician who reduces the trade deficit 10 20 billion? Originally posted by Rogillio It isn't just the media, though, is it? I guess what I'm asking is: Candidate Trump made a bunch of promises, and, as POTUS, he's likely to make many more. If what you're saying is, "I don't take what he says literally", that's fine, but then aren't you in effect saying that he can keep or not keep whatever promises he feels like, and it's all good? Is that acceptable? The GOP has been pretty militant about holding the current president to every promise he's ever made, and parsing his every word as if it was sworn on a stack of bibles. Why shouldn't that be good enough for your guy? If you're ok saying, "Well, sure he said he wanted to get tough with Pakistan, but that was just bluster", are you ok with him, for example, not repealing Obamacare? Or not going after Isis or Iran? Or not getting tough with China? How are you supposed to know what to hold him accountable for if you're willing to give him a pass on everything he says? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I think the media is going to have a hard time with this because I do not think he is going to change. I saw a report on him about how he has not help a press conference since winning the election.....and ALL the previous presidents back to Jimmy Carter all held press conferences within a few days after the election. My thought was, so what!? You cannot control or change the man. He is going to say and do what he wants and dam)n the torpedoes. So yeah, it will be hard to pin him down and say he 'lied' per se. BTW, world leaders all understand politics and know that when you say to Putin, "I will have more flexibility after the election" Putin totally understands the politics. Originally posted by Rogillio I seriously do not take him literally. But I totally understand the sentiment. "We're going to build a wall 20' high" Yes, we might at that for a mile or two in strategic places. Other places the all will be virtual consisting of sensors, satellite surveillance and drones. Other places the geography just doesn't allow you to pass might not have anything. I also totally understand that he does not have the power to do a lot of the things on his agenda such as tax reform, immigration reform and healthcare reform. But I also understand that he, like 60 million other Americans that voted for him, are not satisfied with the status quo and want change. My advice to Trump right now? Write what you are feeling on Tweeter.....and then delete it before sending. When I have a run-in with someone at work or my boss or some idiot, I will write an email and blast them all to h)ell and back......and send it to my wife. It is therapeutic to let someone know how you feel....but never let your enemies know how you feel. That's good advice. I think he's still got a few cabinet positions open-- he should call you. My issue with the "I don't take him literally" thing is, at some point, don't you have to hold the POTUS accountable for what he actually says? If, after the fact, you're willing to write off some of the things he says, as "locker room talk" or bluster or hyperbole or whatever, how are you supposed to know what is an actual promise, or an actual policy statement, or an actual whatever vs just some BS he was spouting in the moment? Aren't you giving him a free pass to, as he's done a few times, go back later, after he can gauge public sentiment and say, "Oh, I didn't mean that-- I was just exaggerating. What I meant was..." A perfect example is the thing with Pakistan. He said, "Pakistan is not our friend." and "Time to get tough". Then, on the phone with the PM, he says, in effect, "we are your friends" and "I promise to do whatever I can to help you." So, were the first comments just bluster and exaggeration, and the second ones are how he really feels? Or were the first ones how he really feels and the second ones were just initial efforts at diplomacy that will be followed up later with a more hard line? Which is it? One interesting (and almost funny) part of Trumps suggestion is to have corporations pay for bridges and roads because they do it all the time. Basically give them extra tax breaks for investing in infrastructure. |
| 2016-12-05 10:35 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I think the wall and getting Mexico to pay for it are the two promises he is mostly likely to keep. The US spent billions on the Secure Border Initiative that build miles and miles of wall, fence and virtual walls. Obama cancelled the program. I can almost guarantee there will be some sort of fence or border funding in the first budget the WH sends to Congress. By re-negotiating NAFTA he can absolutely make Mexico pay for it! Now, are they going to send us a check with "for the border fence" written in the "For" field of the check? No. But a 1% tariff on goods and services could easily pay for a 10 billion dollar wall over the next xx years. Border is about 2,000 miles. Natural terrain make a fence unnecessary for about 1000 miles. So 1000 miles of wall/fence/virtual wall. If you set the timeline of 5 years you need 200 miles a year. If you had 20 companies each tasked with 10 miles.....anyway, very doable. It's a wall not a space ship. Originally posted by Rogillio You're saying, in effect, that you would be fine with a president who accomplished (in the two examples above) 25% of what he promised. That certainly hasn't been the standard that the GOP was willing to apply to Obama. You're saying that, if Obama had said, back in 2007, "I promise to do XYZ" that, eight years later, if he'd only accomplished 1/4 of what he'd promised, you'd consider that a successful presidency? Give me a break!! You'd be holding his feet to the fire for failing to live up to his promises, and rightly so. I fully get that he's not president yet and all of this is just speculation, but I already see a tendency on the part of his supporters to start to manage their expectations of him. As it got closer to election day, and you started to realize that he's 75% full of crap, and that, basically, you can't take anything he says literally, all of a sudden, a 25% return on his promises is sounding pretty good. I think we all know now that the thing about the giant wall that Mexico is paying for is a bunch of hooey and always was. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn What would you rather have: 1. A politician that says "I'm going to reduce your taxes by 40%" 2. A politician that manages to get your taxes reduce by 10% 1. A politician who promises to eliminate the 40 billion trade deficit 2. A politician who reduces the trade deficit 10 20 billion? Originally posted by Rogillio It isn't just the media, though, is it? I guess what I'm asking is: Candidate Trump made a bunch of promises, and, as POTUS, he's likely to make many more. If what you're saying is, "I don't take what he says literally", that's fine, but then aren't you in effect saying that he can keep or not keep whatever promises he feels like, and it's all good? Is that acceptable? The GOP has been pretty militant about holding the current president to every promise he's ever made, and parsing his every word as if it was sworn on a stack of bibles. Why shouldn't that be good enough for your guy? If you're ok saying, "Well, sure he said he wanted to get tough with Pakistan, but that was just bluster", are you ok with him, for example, not repealing Obamacare? Or not going after Isis or Iran? Or not getting tough with China? How are you supposed to know what to hold him accountable for if you're willing to give him a pass on everything he says? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I think the media is going to have a hard time with this because I do not think he is going to change. I saw a report on him about how he has not help a press conference since winning the election.....and ALL the previous presidents back to Jimmy Carter all held press conferences within a few days after the election. My thought was, so what!? You cannot control or change the man. He is going to say and do what he wants and dam)n the torpedoes. So yeah, it will be hard to pin him down and say he 'lied' per se. BTW, world leaders all understand politics and know that when you say to Putin, "I will have more flexibility after the election" Putin totally understands the politics. Originally posted by Rogillio I seriously do not take him literally. But I totally understand the sentiment. "We're going to build a wall 20' high" Yes, we might at that for a mile or two in strategic places. Other places the all will be virtual consisting of sensors, satellite surveillance and drones. Other places the geography just doesn't allow you to pass might not have anything. I also totally understand that he does not have the power to do a lot of the things on his agenda such as tax reform, immigration reform and healthcare reform. But I also understand that he, like 60 million other Americans that voted for him, are not satisfied with the status quo and want change. My advice to Trump right now? Write what you are feeling on Tweeter.....and then delete it before sending. When I have a run-in with someone at work or my boss or some idiot, I will write an email and blast them all to h)ell and back......and send it to my wife. It is therapeutic to let someone know how you feel....but never let your enemies know how you feel. That's good advice. I think he's still got a few cabinet positions open-- he should call you. My issue with the "I don't take him literally" thing is, at some point, don't you have to hold the POTUS accountable for what he actually says? If, after the fact, you're willing to write off some of the things he says, as "locker room talk" or bluster or hyperbole or whatever, how are you supposed to know what is an actual promise, or an actual policy statement, or an actual whatever vs just some BS he was spouting in the moment? Aren't you giving him a free pass to, as he's done a few times, go back later, after he can gauge public sentiment and say, "Oh, I didn't mean that-- I was just exaggerating. What I meant was..." A perfect example is the thing with Pakistan. He said, "Pakistan is not our friend." and "Time to get tough". Then, on the phone with the PM, he says, in effect, "we are your friends" and "I promise to do whatever I can to help you." So, were the first comments just bluster and exaggeration, and the second ones are how he really feels? Or were the first ones how he really feels and the second ones were just initial efforts at diplomacy that will be followed up later with a more hard line? Which is it? Now you're just talking over the heads of folks who got degrees in "women's studies", "african american art", etc. and can't figure out why they are having a nearly impossible time paying off their student loans. LOL |
| 2016-12-05 11:46 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I think the wall and getting Mexico to pay for it are the two promises he is mostly likely to keep. The US spent billions on the Secure Border Initiative that build miles and miles of wall, fence and virtual walls. Obama cancelled the program. I can almost guarantee there will be some sort of fence or border funding in the first budget the WH sends to Congress. By re-negotiating NAFTA he can absolutely make Mexico pay for it! Now, are they going to send us a check with "for the border fence" written in the "For" field of the check? No. But a 1% tariff on goods and services could easily pay for a 10 billion dollar wall over the next xx years. Border is about 2,000 miles. Natural terrain make a fence unnecessary for about 1000 miles. So 1000 miles of wall/fence/virtual wall. If you set the timeline of 5 years you need 200 miles a year. If you had 20 companies each tasked with 10 miles.....anyway, very doable. It's a wall not a space ship. Originally posted by Rogillio You're saying, in effect, that you would be fine with a president who accomplished (in the two examples above) 25% of what he promised. That certainly hasn't been the standard that the GOP was willing to apply to Obama. You're saying that, if Obama had said, back in 2007, "I promise to do XYZ" that, eight years later, if he'd only accomplished 1/4 of what he'd promised, you'd consider that a successful presidency? Give me a break!! You'd be holding his feet to the fire for failing to live up to his promises, and rightly so. I fully get that he's not president yet and all of this is just speculation, but I already see a tendency on the part of his supporters to start to manage their expectations of him. As it got closer to election day, and you started to realize that he's 75% full of crap, and that, basically, you can't take anything he says literally, all of a sudden, a 25% return on his promises is sounding pretty good. I think we all know now that the thing about the giant wall that Mexico is paying for is a bunch of hooey and always was. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn What would you rather have: 1. A politician that says "I'm going to reduce your taxes by 40%" 2. A politician that manages to get your taxes reduce by 10% 1. A politician who promises to eliminate the 40 billion trade deficit 2. A politician who reduces the trade deficit 10 20 billion? Originally posted by Rogillio It isn't just the media, though, is it? I guess what I'm asking is: Candidate Trump made a bunch of promises, and, as POTUS, he's likely to make many more. If what you're saying is, "I don't take what he says literally", that's fine, but then aren't you in effect saying that he can keep or not keep whatever promises he feels like, and it's all good? Is that acceptable? The GOP has been pretty militant about holding the current president to every promise he's ever made, and parsing his every word as if it was sworn on a stack of bibles. Why shouldn't that be good enough for your guy? If you're ok saying, "Well, sure he said he wanted to get tough with Pakistan, but that was just bluster", are you ok with him, for example, not repealing Obamacare? Or not going after Isis or Iran? Or not getting tough with China? How are you supposed to know what to hold him accountable for if you're willing to give him a pass on everything he says? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I think the media is going to have a hard time with this because I do not think he is going to change. I saw a report on him about how he has not help a press conference since winning the election.....and ALL the previous presidents back to Jimmy Carter all held press conferences within a few days after the election. My thought was, so what!? You cannot control or change the man. He is going to say and do what he wants and dam)n the torpedoes. So yeah, it will be hard to pin him down and say he 'lied' per se. BTW, world leaders all understand politics and know that when you say to Putin, "I will have more flexibility after the election" Putin totally understands the politics. Originally posted by Rogillio I seriously do not take him literally. But I totally understand the sentiment. "We're going to build a wall 20' high" Yes, we might at that for a mile or two in strategic places. Other places the all will be virtual consisting of sensors, satellite surveillance and drones. Other places the geography just doesn't allow you to pass might not have anything. I also totally understand that he does not have the power to do a lot of the things on his agenda such as tax reform, immigration reform and healthcare reform. But I also understand that he, like 60 million other Americans that voted for him, are not satisfied with the status quo and want change. My advice to Trump right now? Write what you are feeling on Tweeter.....and then delete it before sending. When I have a run-in with someone at work or my boss or some idiot, I will write an email and blast them all to h)ell and back......and send it to my wife. It is therapeutic to let someone know how you feel....but never let your enemies know how you feel. That's good advice. I think he's still got a few cabinet positions open-- he should call you. My issue with the "I don't take him literally" thing is, at some point, don't you have to hold the POTUS accountable for what he actually says? If, after the fact, you're willing to write off some of the things he says, as "locker room talk" or bluster or hyperbole or whatever, how are you supposed to know what is an actual promise, or an actual policy statement, or an actual whatever vs just some BS he was spouting in the moment? Aren't you giving him a free pass to, as he's done a few times, go back later, after he can gauge public sentiment and say, "Oh, I didn't mean that-- I was just exaggerating. What I meant was..." A perfect example is the thing with Pakistan. He said, "Pakistan is not our friend." and "Time to get tough". Then, on the phone with the PM, he says, in effect, "we are your friends" and "I promise to do whatever I can to help you." So, were the first comments just bluster and exaggeration, and the second ones are how he really feels? Or were the first ones how he really feels and the second ones were just initial efforts at diplomacy that will be followed up later with a more hard line? Which is it? One interesting (and almost funny) part of Trumps suggestion is to have corporations pay for bridges and roads because they do it all the time. Basically give them extra tax breaks for investing in infrastructure. If they would solicit ideas from all American they could come up with some great ideas. I'm thinking that can make mine-fields that trigger alarms. You have no idea you even triggered the sensors until the boarder patrol shows up to pick you up. It's be like a giant Wack-a-Mole game. |
| 2016-12-05 2:22 PM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood One interesting (and almost funny) part of Trumps suggestion is to have corporations pay for bridges and roads because they do it all the time. Basically give them extra tax breaks for investing in infrastructure. I'm sure that if, for example, Target wanted to pay to upgrade a road or bridge, they'd probably insist that the road or bridge be one that leads up to their corporate HQ or distribution centers, and, if upgrading the road/bridge is going to benefit them, then why do we have to give them a tax break to do it? Let them build it on their own dime, then. Why should we give Home Depot a tax break for building a new highway off-ramp to the Home Depot Superstore? If you're suggesting that they "invest in infrastructure" based on the needs of the community (as defined by the community), rather than their own bottom line, then fine. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2016-12-05 2:23 PM |
| 2016-12-05 3:42 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I'm sure that if, for example, Target wanted to pay to upgrade a road or bridge, they'd probably insist that the road or bridge be one that leads up to their corporate HQ or distribution centers, and, if upgrading the road/bridge is going to benefit them, then why do we have to give them a tax break to do it? Let them build it on their own dime, then. Why should we give Home Depot a tax break for building a new highway off-ramp to the Home Depot Superstore? If you're suggesting that they "invest in infrastructure" based on the needs of the community (as defined by the community), rather than their own bottom line, then fine. One interesting (and almost funny) part of Trumps suggestion is to have corporations pay for bridges and roads because they do it all the time. Basically give them extra tax breaks for investing in infrastructure. To be honest I have absolutely no idea if it would work or even what the specifics were. If I recall the context was Trump talking about several road and bridge upgrades he did near his properties and suggesting it would be a good idea to get businesses to invest in infrastructure. I was waiting for you to invoke the "you didn't build that" language. |
| 2016-12-05 4:10 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I'm sure that if, for example, Target wanted to pay to upgrade a road or bridge, they'd probably insist that the road or bridge be one that leads up to their corporate HQ or distribution centers, and, if upgrading the road/bridge is going to benefit them, then why do we have to give them a tax break to do it? Let them build it on their own dime, then. Why should we give Home Depot a tax break for building a new highway off-ramp to the Home Depot Superstore? If you're suggesting that they "invest in infrastructure" based on the needs of the community (as defined by the community), rather than their own bottom line, then fine. One interesting (and almost funny) part of Trumps suggestion is to have corporations pay for bridges and roads because they do it all the time. Basically give them extra tax breaks for investing in infrastructure. To be honest I have absolutely no idea if it would work or even what the specifics were. If I recall the context was Trump talking about several road and bridge upgrades he did near his properties and suggesting it would be a good idea to get businesses to invest in infrastructure. I was waiting for you to invoke the "you didn't build that" language. Apparently the specifics is letting corporations build and operate toll roads. At least, according to the Washington Post analysis of the Trump plan. WP link |
| 2016-12-05 4:12 PM in reply to: Bob Loblaw |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I'm sure that if, for example, Target wanted to pay to upgrade a road or bridge, they'd probably insist that the road or bridge be one that leads up to their corporate HQ or distribution centers, and, if upgrading the road/bridge is going to benefit them, then why do we have to give them a tax break to do it? Let them build it on their own dime, then. Why should we give Home Depot a tax break for building a new highway off-ramp to the Home Depot Superstore? If you're suggesting that they "invest in infrastructure" based on the needs of the community (as defined by the community), rather than their own bottom line, then fine. One interesting (and almost funny) part of Trumps suggestion is to have corporations pay for bridges and roads because they do it all the time. Basically give them extra tax breaks for investing in infrastructure. To be honest I have absolutely no idea if it would work or even what the specifics were. If I recall the context was Trump talking about several road and bridge upgrades he did near his properties and suggesting it would be a good idea to get businesses to invest in infrastructure. I was waiting for you to invoke the "you didn't build that" language. Apparently the specifics is letting corporations build and operate toll roads. At least, according to the Washington Post analysis of the Trump plan. WP link Yay, we totally need more toll roads (said no one ever) |
| 2016-12-05 7:44 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I'm sure that if, for example, Target wanted to pay to upgrade a road or bridge, they'd probably insist that the road or bridge be one that leads up to their corporate HQ or distribution centers, and, if upgrading the road/bridge is going to benefit them, then why do we have to give them a tax break to do it? Let them build it on their own dime, then. Why should we give Home Depot a tax break for building a new highway off-ramp to the Home Depot Superstore? If you're suggesting that they "invest in infrastructure" based on the needs of the community (as defined by the community), rather than their own bottom line, then fine. One interesting (and almost funny) part of Trumps suggestion is to have corporations pay for bridges and roads because they do it all the time. Basically give them extra tax breaks for investing in infrastructure. To be honest I have absolutely no idea if it would work or even what the specifics were. If I recall the context was Trump talking about several road and bridge upgrades he did near his properties and suggesting it would be a good idea to get businesses to invest in infrastructure. I was waiting for you to invoke the "you didn't build that" language. I didn't, but since you brought it up, that's a pretty good example of the GOP taking literally everything Obama said, even, in this case, an excerpt taken largely out of context, while, when Trump says something blatantly false or inflammatory or just silly, they go, "Oh, he didn't mean it. He's just talkin'." I don't know the story you're referring to, but I'll bet you a beer that the "road and bridge upgrades he did near his properties" weren't so the kids at the Little Sister of the Poor Orphanage could have a safer road to the hospital. Chances are pretty good it was so his customers could get to his hotels and golf courses more easily. I can see why Trump-the-businessman would think it was a great idea to get the government to pay for those upgrades. Don't get me wrong-I'm all for enabling commerce, but let's make sure the government has enough to pay for the roads and bridges everyone needs before we start giving away money by handing out tax breaks to exclusive golf courses and luxury hotels that will only benefit a few. |
| 2016-12-06 2:52 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
| Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Election 2016 For a guy who wants to keep jobs in America, he sure isn't showing a lot of love for Boeing right now... |
| 2016-12-06 2:58 PM in reply to: spudone |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by spudone For a guy who wants to keep jobs in America, he sure isn't showing a lot of love for Boeing right now... There's always a balance to be had. With the Boeing deal (and defense contractors in general) the fraud and waste is off the charts. Companies have learned that they can have "delays" and the government just keeps funneling them billions and billions of dollars for their incompetence. I'd even go so far as to say the majority of the "excess" isn't even going to jobs because nobody's doing anything for the money. |
| 2016-12-06 3:10 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by spudone For a guy who wants to keep jobs in America, he sure isn't showing a lot of love for Boeing right now... There's always a balance to be had. With the Boeing deal (and defense contractors in general) the fraud and waste is off the charts. Companies have learned that they can have "delays" and the government just keeps funneling them billions and billions of dollars for their incompetence. I'd even go so far as to say the majority of the "excess" isn't even going to jobs because nobody's doing anything for the money. Boeing has been pretty good about hitting its targets over the years. Now who's correct on the actual price of that project - I don't know. Trump says 4 billion, Boeing says 170 million. I'd like to hear it from one of the generals who's in charge of Air Force One before I decide how wasteful that project is or is not. But in any case Boeing does provide a lot of good solid jobs - engineers, machinists, etc. |
| 2016-12-06 3:23 PM in reply to: spudone |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by spudone For a guy who wants to keep jobs in America, he sure isn't showing a lot of love for Boeing right now... Why should he? Boeing does billions in defense work and has already moved much production work to Japan and China. In the 1980s when they were going to replace the aging AF fleet they had proposals from Lockheed's L1011, McDonnel-Douglass's MD-10 (I think) and Boeing's 747. The story (urban legend) was that Lockheed and MD both gave their cost proposals and Boeing's CEO slide an manila folder across the table with a single piece of paper that had Boeing's cost proposal. The CEO said, "Boeing will build the 2 AF-1 jets from a 747 for $1. Air Force One WILL BE a Boeing jet!" It wasn't true but it was started because Boeing lost a boat load on money on the contract....so much so that people said they basically bought the contract to make sure it was a Boeing jet. Fast forward 30 years.....the only competition Boeing has is Airbus....and no way in hail is the POTUS gonna be flying around in a European jet. As far as cost.....most of that is drive by the technology on the plane....anti-missile, nuke hardening, etc. It's an awesome plane. My guess is Boeing probably got a cost-plus contract. That is, the actual cost but award fee.....as opposed to a fixed-firm contract. And usually what drive up cost in cost-plus contract is the government continually coming back and changing things. The International Space Station program was supposed to cost 8 billion dollars....but it was cost plus. And NASA kept changing requirements....and then Bush left and Clinton came on board the new NASA team totally redesigned the space station....changed the budget.....drug out the schedule......cost went thru the roof. I think it ended up costing the US 56 billion instead of the original 8. But don't blame Boeing. Blame the incompetence of the government. I'm my lame opinion, all government contracts ought to be fixed-firm. You over run it, you eat it. Ok, in all fairness, they would have a hard time getting companies to buy into the risk of high tech programs. |
| 2016-12-06 3:44 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 I'm actually enjoying the hell out of Trump so far......is there anyone who thinks this is going to be business as usual? It's good for some companies to wonder if they can keep raping the federal govt. for our tax dollars......this is going to be so much fun. |
| 2016-12-06 5:18 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Left Brain I'm actually enjoying the hell out of Trump so far......is there anyone who thinks this is going to be business as usual? It's good for some companies to wonder if they can keep raping the federal govt. for our tax dollars......this is going to be so much fun. Me too. And not because he is a republican....because he is a Maverick and doesn't seems to going with his instincts. Obama pushed a social agenda. I think Trump is going to focus on business. |
| 2016-12-06 5:26 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Champion 6993 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio I'm my lame opinion, all government contracts ought to be fixed-firm. You over run it, you eat it. Ok, in all fairness, they would have a hard time getting companies to buy into the risk of high tech programs. I think that is how most of my companies state contract are. Then again not 100% sure. I just a worker bee and not a money guy, |
| 2016-12-06 5:47 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by Left Brain Me too. And not because he is a republican....because he is a Maverick and doesn't seems to going with his instincts. Obama pushed a social agenda. I think Trump is going to focus on business. I'm actually enjoying the hell out of Trump so far......is there anyone who thinks this is going to be business as usual? It's good for some companies to wonder if they can keep raping the federal govt. for our tax dollars......this is going to be so much fun. It's almost like he's a successful business guy or something. |
| 2016-12-06 5:55 PM in reply to: chirunner134 |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by chirunner134 Originally posted by Rogillio I'm my lame opinion, all government contracts ought to be fixed-firm. You over run it, you eat it. Ok, in all fairness, they would have a hard time getting companies to buy into the risk of high tech programs. I think that is how most of my companies state contract are. Then again not 100% sure. I just a worker bee and not a money guy, Again, there are good reasons to award a cost plus award fee contract....especially with development programs when requirements are constantly evolving. But seems like too often the government will get someone on contract before they know what they want. |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| 2016 - WTF Pages: 1 2 | ||
| |||
| Election 2014 Pages: 1 2 3 | ||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK