|
Post by schellis on Jan 19, 2017 9:53:39 GMT -5
For the last 8 years the US has had a incompetent running things and its been able to not completely fall on its face.
How exactly was Obama qualified? His political background was basically campaigning and being being a non-voting "present" for most of the senate votes when he was there. Have a issue with him well hey your now a racist. Don't vote for Hilary well you obviously hate women.
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Jan 19, 2017 10:07:35 GMT -5
For the last 8 years the US has had a incompetent running things and its been able to not completely fall on its face. How exactly was Obama qualified? His political background was basically campaigning and being being a non-voting "present" for most of the senate votes when he was there. Have a issue with him well hey your now a racist. Don't vote for Hilary well you obviously hate women. Obama was a constitutional law professor for 12 years, a civil rights attorney, an Illinois state senator for ~8 years, and a U.S. Senator for ~4 years. But, this isn't about Obama and bringing him up doesn't address the post, it's just an attempt to distract from the issue: How can anyone look at Trump and his nominees and feel good about the next 4 years?
|
|
|
Post by schellis on Jan 19, 2017 10:27:33 GMT -5
For the last 8 years the US has had a incompetent running things and its been able to not completely fall on its face. How exactly was Obama qualified? His political background was basically campaigning and being being a non-voting "present" for most of the senate votes when he was there. Have a issue with him well hey your now a racist. Don't vote for Hilary well you obviously hate women. Obama was a constitutional law professor for 12 years, a civil rights attorney, an Illinois state senator for ~8 years, and a U.S. Senator for ~4 years. But, this isn't about Obama and bringing him up doesn't address the post, it's just an attempt to distract from the issue: How can anyone look at Trump and his nominees and feel good about the next 4 years? He was a career campaigner who did nothing but get people to look at him. Easily worst president of my lifetime and his term couldn't end soon enough. I feel great about the next four years because if the country can survive a weak president who did nothing but put in a horrible tax hike medical plan and divide the country it can survive anything. What Trump wants to do will actually improve it a great deal. I'm very tired of double talk politicians who never seem to answer any direct question they are asked, and have done nothing other than being in politics or law, anything that is away from that is great.
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Jan 19, 2017 11:06:32 GMT -5
Obama was a constitutional law professor for 12 years, a civil rights attorney, an Illinois state senator for ~8 years, and a U.S. Senator for ~4 years. But, this isn't about Obama and bringing him up doesn't address the post, it's just an attempt to distract from the issue: How can anyone look at Trump and his nominees and feel good about the next 4 years? He was a career campaigner who did nothing but get people to look at him. Easily worst president of my lifetime and his term couldn't end soon enough. I feel great about the next four years because if the country can survive a weak president who did nothing but put in a horrible tax hike medical plan and divide the country it can survive anything. What Trump wants to do will actually improve it a great deal. I'm very tired of double talk politicians who never seem to answer any direct question they are asked, and have done nothing other than being in politics or law, anything that is away from that is great. But what exactly is it that Trump wants to do? Does anyone know? Make America Great Again and Build a Wall are the only things that leap to my mind. He's pulling together the wealthiest cabinet in history, evidently based on the notion that the super-rich have a strong interest in helping out the enraged poor and middle class that got him elected. There are so many contradictions, logical inconsistencies, and hypocrisies that it would crash the message board to post them all. But, it doesn't matter because his supporters don't care. Regardless, starting tomorrow Trump stands on his own, to be judged on his own merits and accomplishments, not on his opponents or bluster. The election is over; its time to govern. Bluster might win an election, but results are actually going to come into play here.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Jan 20, 2017 11:37:41 GMT -5
In my opinion calling anyone a "career campaigner" demonstrates total ignorance of how our political system works. Whether you're president or governor or senator or anything else, few elected positions are desk jobs... a huge part of each is getting out, campaigning, going on TV, and... perhaps most importantly... FUNDRAISING, both for yourself and your friends and for the political party that supported you to get you there. That's not a sin of Obama, a sin of the Democrats, a sin of the Republicans, it's just how our political system works. Obama did it. Bush did it. Clinton did it. Other Bush did it. Reagan did it. Losers like Hillary, Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore, Dole did it, it's an expected and (until now) required part of being a major party nominee. Romney still did campaigning and fundraisers this cycle to help Republican politicians, despite not being on any ballot.
No, Trump isn't a career campaigner, his unpopularity will probably keep most Republicans from wanting to be associated with him (after the pre-inauguration optimism boost subsides, although his current approval ratings are already the lowest of any incoming president in decades). But he is a career self-promoter, and will certainly continue traveling around hte country and holding rallies to get attention and reinforce notions of his own greatness. His motives won't be the same as Obama's (call attention to issues, raise money for the party), but he'll largely do the same thing. He's not going to quietly sit at a desk in seclusion.
Nobody is ever fully prepared for the presidency. Many presidents are former governors with no foreign relations experience, and no experience working with a less-than-supportive legislature. Many are senators. Aside from Obama's resume, the Democrats did all they could to put him on relevant committees in the Senate and to brief/educate him on important issues (like assigning him a tutor to educate him on all the relevant details in the aftermath of the Great Recession, so he could discuss the matter intelligently like a college professor, rather than an ignorant dimwit).
Something that I think offends many people about Obama is that when asked a question he'll either provide a long winded detailed answer discussing the intricacies of an issue like a professor, at a level poorly educated and ignorant people don't understand (two state solution? But, be pro-Israel!), or he'll seek to learn the answer. That's totally different from Trump, who has no regrets about voicing strong opinions on things he clearly doesn't understand at all. If Trump says something stupid he'll stick by it, and try to get people to agree with him, regardless of what experts on the issue think. Trump recently apparently requested that the lengthy detailed briefings be reduced to 1 or 2 pages of bullet points. I think that's terrifying. Obama offended people by seeking information to make informed decision, while Trump would rather appear 'strong' than be right, and goes with uninformed gut instincts.
If they ran baseball teams, Obama would be consulting sabermetricians and scouts, while Trump would be acquiring big name veterans. And if those acquisitions didn't work out Obama would be explaining the intricacies of the decision to acquire said player, while Trump would be attacking the reporters accusing the team of making a bad move (Failing media says Chapman trade was bad... they lie, it was GREAT! #MakeTheRedsGreatAgain).
Obama had to function in a now-extinct era where 'transparency' and 'honesty' were issues. Where people expected their government to work, and work for them. Where corruption was a concern. Where bad behavior was a problem, or was condemned. Those issues are now behind us, with a new president who's a serial liar, has a history of shredding documents to prevent them from becoming public in lawsuits, where ~6 years of GOP gridlock in congress is rewarded (and now several blocked things, like a infrastructure/jobs bill will now be passed merely because a president of an opposing party is in charge), where the White House Press Pool is apparently being evicted from the White House so they can't cover the administration, where the GOP seeks to eliminate the government ethics watchdogs... where "grabbing them by the FemaleCat" doesn't disqualify people. Where DC insiders and racist publication editors (Bannon) and party executives (Priebus) and Wall Street moneymen can key key and/or cabinet positions, and it's seen as 'draining the swamp', despite each of those moves directly contradicting the notion. An era where even marital infidelity is accepted by evangelical 'family values' people. Because, like, what happens no longer matters. Trump has constructed a new fact-free era and existence for himself.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Jan 20, 2017 11:48:59 GMT -5
He was a career campaigner who did nothing but get people to look at him. Easily worst president of my lifetime and his term couldn't end soon enough. I feel great about the next four years because if the country can survive a weak president who did nothing but put in a horrible tax hike medical plan and divide the country it can survive anything. What Trump wants to do will actually improve it a great deal. I'm very tired of double talk politicians who never seem to answer any direct question they are asked, and have done nothing other than being in politics or law, anything that is away from that is great. But what exactly is it that Trump wants to do? Does anyone know? Make America Great Again and Build a Wall are the only things that leap to my mind. He's pulling together the wealthiest cabinet in history, evidently based on the notion that the super-rich have a strong interest in helping out the enraged poor and middle class that got him elected. There are so many contradictions, logical inconsistencies, and hypocrisies that it would crash the message board to post them all. But, it doesn't matter because his supporters don't care. Regardless, starting tomorrow Trump stands on his own, to be judged on his own merits and accomplishments, not on his opponents or bluster. The election is over; its time to govern. Bluster might win an election, but results are actually going to come into play here. Deport Mexicans, make a database of Muslims, defund obsolete NATO and the UN, stand up to Russia by accepting their conquest of Crimea and eliminating related sanctions, send more people to GITMO for perpetual imprisonment without trial, repeal Obamacare while also giving health insurance to everyone, cut taxes for the struggling wealthiest 1%, withdraw from international agreements (Iran Nuclear Deal, NAFTA, and so on), impose tarriffs on trade with foreign countries. Punish women for having abortions, punish companies for sending jobs overseas. Bomb ISIS, which has in fact been happening daily for many months, but the notion that it has counters the idea that Obama was a 'weak president' who did nothing to stop them, when he really did exactly what and all the GOP pushed for. Trump has already made a nightmare for congress, who hoped he'd sit by and approve their legislation, instead making public promises for the legislation that is totally inconsistent with their plans, without informing them, and in many cases catching them totally off guard. Promising a simultaneous Obamacare Repeal and Replace, for one thing (when congress wanted a repeal followed by a 3 year grace period to formulate a replacement). And then promising that everyone will be covered by that replacement (despite that NOT being a feature of any GOP plans). And then promising that the new plan is almost ready to be unveiled (catching congress by surprise). Obviously these are all popular things to say that average Americans will approve of hearing... but the details of achieving them (congress' job) are extremely complex. Lots of vague promises that no serious President would ever box himself into, and will inevitably only create a chasm between him and his own party. In a few weeks Trump will likely blame Ryan and McConnell for their failure to do the impossible.... because it sounds so darn easy.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Jan 20, 2017 11:55:56 GMT -5
Now Trump attacking John Lewis? This man is human garbage. It absolutely amazes me that *anyone* can listen to Trump and feel good about his Presidency. It absolutely astonishes me that anyone can see his Cabinet nominees and feel good about the direction of the country. His choice for Secretary of Education is unwilling to support gun-free school zones and cited the threat of grizzly bears as a justification for guns in schools. Rick Perry was nominated for Secretary of Department of Energy, which is an agency he previously advocated eliminating and a position of which he had no understanding when accepting it. He was reportedly completely unaware that the position oversaw the country's nuclear weapons and facilities. Rick Perry majored in Animal Husbandry and is now overseeing the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The current Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz, was the chairman of M.I.T. physics department and directed the linear accelerator at M.I.T.'s Laboratory for Nuclear Science. But, hey, animal husbandry. The hypocrisy is stunning. The inexperience bordering on incompetence is staggering. The lack of concern from such a large percentage of the country over putting such unqualified people in positions of tremendous power is completely disorienting. There's some bizarre combination of entitlement, ambivalence, and false sense of invincibility plaguing the populace right now. Evidently, most of the country feels like the United States can maintain its global preeminence with an incompetent in charge. Evidently, most of the country feels like a nuclear exchange is an impossibility despite the fact that person soon to be in charge is a bully with a penchant for picking fights over minor disagreements. Believe it or not, nothing is guaranteed. Not our power. Not our wealth. Not our security. Not our safety. It all stems from the decisions we make, which is scary considering how absurd those decisions have been lately. Hey, at least the new Secretary of Education steered clear of school shootings. Needing guns to fend off grizzly bears is a better justification than needing guns to shoot students who try to shoot other students. Rick Perry has lots of energy, he was on Dancing with the Stars dangit. There you go, calling poorly educated people incompetent. This country has been run for too long by smart people with fancy degrees. What does a PhD scientist know that a fast food worker with a high school degree doesn't? Well, the later doesn't know, so it's probably nothing. I think you're missing a big theme of this election, the uneducated giving the middle finger to the educated, who think they're so much smarter. Well, now the dumb and uneducated people are fighting back! "Maintain global preeminence?" But FoxNews and conservative media says we lost, or are losing, that. Like how America lost its greatness. After 8 years on a constant downward spiral how can we go anywhere but up? 8 years of conditioning paid off. We're safe if we say we're safe. As Jeb Bush said, George W kept us safe (despite 9/11). Obama didn't keep us safe, because Benghazi, and lone wolf attacks. Trump will tell us we're safe, and that's what matters now. Not facts, but lies, telling us what we want to hear.
|
|
|
Post by yorak on Jan 24, 2017 13:34:42 GMT -5
This Spicer guy... nut job
|
|
|
Post by schellis on Jan 24, 2017 14:10:59 GMT -5
Unless schools have metal detectors and TSA scans/pat downs there aren't going to be gun free schools. You can put up signs that say that but if people are willing to do the sort of thing that would make people cry about wanting gun free schools a sign isn't going to stop them.
I laughed when I saw that at the hospital.
Oh I'm so going to shoot up this place......see's sign that says guns aren't allow....dang it guess I can't.
Really the only thing gun restrictions/laws prevent is keep responsible people from having them in areas or getting them. THose that want to commit violent acts with them will still find a way to do it.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Jan 25, 2017 10:13:01 GMT -5
Gun free zones won't deter mass shootings, but they might keep people from entering the place with a gun and deciding to use it later. And you certainly won't have any unplanned gun deaths if no guns are brought in. People get angry and shoot others all the time, but that doesn't happen if there isn't a gun around.
Often times the difference between a bar fight and a mass murder getting someone the death penalty is merely the question of whether or not a gun was present.
Hospitals, schools, government buildings... they're not a war zone where you should be planning to fight off an invading wave of terrorists. We live in the United States, NOT Syria or Iraq. The NRA (and similar groups) seeks to promote the idea that you need to be ready to shoot everyone at all times - it's obviously NOT about promoting comfort or safety, it's all about increasing gun sales. Scaring people so they buy more guns, which in turn they need to buy more guns to keep themselves safe from, in a brilliant exponentially increasing marketing campaign. Many other countries - including Canada and the UK - have strict gun laws, extremely low rates of gun violence, and far more freedom than we'll have under this Trump administration.
The only thing eliminating gun free zones accomplishes is making people more comfortable having guns everywhere, so they turn to gun violence for everything - road rage, getting laid off, a bad sport team outcome, bad date. Being able to shoot people around you doesn't seem likely to increase your safety or those of people around you. Also, if you're responsible and mentally stable, it doesn't mean others around you are too.
The promotion and glorification of gun violence is one of the great tragedies of our country.
|
|
|
Post by schellis on Jan 25, 2017 10:50:54 GMT -5
Those signs won't do crap, I'm sorry. If people are planning that sort of thing they aren't going to stop because a sign tells them so, Just can't see someone bringing in a gun just in case they snap frequently somewhere and then listening to what a sign tells them. If you don't already know that a hospital, school, work place, post office and such isn't a place for firearms then you need more then a sign to help you.
What schools need are at least one or two trained officers that carry non-lethal and lethal deterrents to stop these incidents. The only thing the "this is a gun free zone" does is tell people that likely would never bring a gun to that area that it isn't ok to do so.
I'm not some gun nut, don't own the first don't like them being in my home, feel that there needs to be better documentation/background on sale of firearms...I know that people can skirt the background checks by selling to each other at gun shows and the like.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Jan 25, 2017 11:26:14 GMT -5
They're signs, not... I don't know... a fence or major deterrent. Signs and laws establishing 'gun free zones' cost next to nothing, and have little adverse effect - in baseball we'd call that a low-risk, high reward gamble. It's a message that guns are not welcome, and law abiding people risk... whatever (charges? loss of recess?)... if the break it. As you're well aware most gun owners aren't out to shoot anyone, and many care about abiding by the law. "one or two trained officers that carry non-lethal and lethal deterrents to stop these incidents" in an otherwise 'gun free zone' is, in my opinion, ideal. But, of course, officers cost a lot of money, far more than the signs. I don't think vigilante gunmen (regular people sneaking concealed weapons into the school in case they need to fend off an attack) is an appealing substitute for police/security officers, though. And that's what abolishing gun-free zones promotes, vigilante gunman justice, like the wild west. It's sad that public education schools need to spend money on armed guards to fight off attacks, when that's money that should go to teachers and educating kids. Many schools are strapped for cash and have trouble affording services like school counselors as it is. The laws concerning background checks really do need to change, as you said, as far as background checks and the gun show loophole. Unfortunately it won't happen, not because it's hard or unreasonable, but because that fear is exactly what promotes gun sales. It's all cyclical, and our government is run by corrupt politicians owned by and obliged to the NRA. Congress doesn't care about gun violence or preventing innocent people from getting shot, they care about their reelection chances. If you people cease being scared they'll cease showing up to vote, harming their reelection chances. As more crazy people get guns your need to have your own gun, and have a congressman who keeps permitting you to stockpile weapons for this inevitable heroic showdown of good vs evil (or to keep your family safe, same idea, marketing/branding). Targeting the root of the issue is too complicated, would radically decrease gun sales, and would hurt one vote - politicians. Universal background checks would help victims and hurt politicians, and that's a decision our politicians have no second thoughts about. If you get murdered, fine, but at least Representive whoever keeps their job. The whole abortion debate is kinda similar, with politicians always trying to outlaw abortions while resisting efforts to limit unwanted pregnancy, and ignoring details about actual abortion rates for grandstanding. Opposing abortions is a necessity for politicians in much of the country, but actually taking actions to lower the abortion rates (like increasing access to birth control, and promoting sex ed) are out of the question (abortion rates have declined significantly in the past 6 years with increased access to birth control... despite a pro-choice administration). In the case of both guns and abortions, congress cares exclusively about reelection, and not at all at actually addressing the underlying issues. Guns and abortions are issues they've effectively weaponized, and would much rather keep as they are (despite resulting deaths and (in some cases debatable) murder), rather than seriously address in any way shape or form. They'd rather a rape victim's life be destroyed by the birth of a child from the rape (wait, this kid's father is also his great uncle? Yuck! Or the father is some guy in prison for beating and raping someone 9 months earlier? Yuck! His father is Alfredo Simon) than face a possible reelection challenge. When I hear "drain the swamp", these are the kind of examples of how the swamp needs to be drained. Increasing background checks and reducing the growth of gun ownership (contrary to wishes of the NRA) and decreasing abortion rates through free birth control (contrary to wishes of evangelicals) are two of them. The solutions are so simple and so obvious. Unfortunately "drain the swamp" is only a catch phrase which neither the president, nor his cabinet, nor congress has any interest in following through on. The system exists as it is, and is unlikely to change for the better anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by kinsm on Mar 17, 2017 20:44:57 GMT -5
He was a career campaigner who did nothing but get people to look at him. Easily worst president of my lifetime and his term couldn't end soon enough. I feel great about the next four years because if the country can survive a weak president who did nothing but put in a horrible tax hike medical plan and divide the country it can survive anything. What Trump wants to do will actually improve it a great deal. I'm very tired of double talk politicians who never seem to answer any direct question they are asked, and have done nothing other than being in politics or law, anything that is away from that is great. But what exactly is it that Trump wants to do? Does anyone know? Make America Great Again and Build a Wall are the only things that leap to my mind. He's pulling together the wealthiest cabinet in history, evidently based on the notion that the super-rich have a strong interest in helping out the enraged poor and middle class that got him elected. There are so many contradictions, logical inconsistencies, and hypocrisies that it would crash the message board to post them all. But, it doesn't matter because his supporters don't care. Regardless, starting tomorrow Trump stands on his own, to be judged on his own merits and accomplishments, not on his opponents or bluster. The election is over; its time to govern. Bluster might win an election, but results are actually going to come into play here. This is what he wants to do...
|
|