VonZan wrote: » For someone who is posting in this thread everyday surely you would know that he has cut regulations, however the impact of such a 'cut' is immaterial on the economy and this has been proven by Bloomberg and others.
Christy42 wrote: » Like sanctuary cities (which Trump opposes)? Certainly a level of local control for local issues is important. However states have a lot of power as is. At what point does the united states become a loose federation? Right now they are mainly missing immigration, issues with respect to the US constitution and tariffs. I am sure there is more I am missing, Manic might point something out. Those are tough to change on a state by state basis and still claim to be a country. Certainly the power of the president should be no where near the current levels. I think if the power was in the house you would have local issues looked after more. Now the President has all the power and little reason to speak for specific areas. If the house had the power each rep would have to answer to their communities more instead of just their viewpoint on the president.
Townton wrote: » He has also cut a massive amount of regulation, which from a business perspective particularly small and medium has been far more effective and helpful then the tax reforms/cuts. Both together are really adding to the economy dispite what some said prior to their implementation. Was in the US couple of months ago and a number of small and medium business owners (most of restaurant owners) have said they have never seen it so busy. Food for thought but on the ground thinks certainly seem to be working. Which will be very hard for the Dems to counter unless there is some sort of slow down. As Bill Maher said he is hoping for a recession because without one the Dems could unfortunately be in trouble. But plenty of time to go yet!
Oafley Jones wrote: » I’m still surprised that the politics forum allows new members to post. I’d always thought that a couple months wait (along with a post count of 100 in other areas) would cut down on the sock puppets.
pixelburp wrote: » Constitution experts: can a sitting President replace a VP without approval from any other branch of government? Trump has fired all and sundry from many posts, but I'd presumed Pence is safe in what amounts to a protected role? If Trumps flailing moods swung negatively towards Pence, I wonder if he could be sacked.
RIGOLO wrote: » Did you pinch those ideas from the Trump campaign ? Cos thats pretty much what their strategy as and they have been very open and vocal about that. Thats what the Trump administration did and it played a huge part in them winning the election. More evidence of the adults in that administration pre election making the best decisions. Also your adding to the argument that Russian meddling , whilst helpful, was not the main reason Trump won. Your pointing out the importance of winning swing states and to this point Trump had a better team, better campaign, better social media campaign, visited the states he needed to win , did more press conferences, basically his campaign acted more like adults in their strategy and tactics. Oh and before the Dems ask can they win those states (Penn, Wis, Mich), they need to make a couple of other decisions, they need to decide WILL the Democratic candidate actually make concerted visits to those states during the campaign or will the candidate fly coast to coast fundraising and treat them as flyover states. America made the better choice when choosing a President who could win a campaign, than choose a President who couldnt run a campaign and ultimately managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. HRC spend a billion dollars , oops we forgot to visit the swing states, and lost the election cos of 70,000 in 3 states. The Dems wont represent a real threat in 2020, they got so lost in identity politics , they have lost their own identity and the factions within the party are still vying for control . It will take 10 years for them to figure out who and what they are and for the old guard to give up control to whatever new form the take. The Republicans are locked in for 2020 and even beyond.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Idiots on both sides.https://twitter.com/WiredSources/status/1020877591262236673
Townton wrote: » Was in the US couple of months ago and a number of small and medium business owners (most of restaurant owners) have said they have never seen it so busy.
Captain Obvious wrote: » Did you deliberately use the same words Trump used to excuse the Chrlotsville atrocity?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » That's a weak response.
I'm not sure why people continue to defend him to the hilt when it's becoming more and more obvious that the Russians have significant influence or possibly even control over him.
That you have to pretend to be unaware of Helsinki to try to mount such a defence is quite an impressive set of mental acrobatics.
everlast75 wrote: » "Hilary is a war monger" "Trump for the Nobel Prize" Em......https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021234525626609666?s=19
Outlaw Pete wrote: » A quick Google tells me Trump's comment at the time was that there was blame on both sides. Maybe try using Google yourself before making such a snide suggestion.
Captain Obvious wrote: » I was referring to the "on both sides" part. He actually said a few different variations of the phrase. I wasn't making a snide suggestion, I was asking a direct question. He really needs to push coverage away from his treasonous staffers. Carter Page just admitted to being a Russian advisor on tv.
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » I was browsing through that tweet (some of the replies are hilarious) and found this (excuse the crappy screenshot)
seamus wrote: » "I think" "he probably" So you freely admit that the intent & context of his remarks is unclear, and at best is imprecise and grammatically flawed. Can't you see how that presents an issue when someone is supposed to be a leader? How can someone lead with any level of effectiveness when he cannot express himself in a coherent manner? That doesn't mean they have to be H.G. Wells or anything, but if there's confusion over whether or not you're completely racist, or whether you've just committed treason, then that's a pretty strong indicator that your communication skills are incredibly poor. Intentionally or not, the spirit of his Mexico statement is clear; "Mexicans" are "not us" and the ones here are "bad". That's irrefutable.
seamus wrote: » Intentionally or not, the spirit of his Mexico statement is clear; "Mexicans" are "not us" and the ones here are "bad". That's irrefutable.
ELM327 wrote: » Yes I think that is irrevocably clear from the tone of the message and his campaign as a whole to be honest. And I think he was voted to office based on that stance as part of his ticket. If anyone was surprised by Trump being anti illegal immigration then I would question where they have been for the last 4 years.
ELM327 wrote: » In the myriad of posts since I last posted on this thread this one is worthy of reply and I feel I shouldnt pass it up.
ELM327 wrote: » seamus wrote: » "I think" "he probably" So you freely admit that the intent & context of his remarks is unclear, and at best is imprecise and grammatically flawed. Can't you see how that presents an issue when someone is supposed to be a leader? How can someone lead with any level of effectiveness when he cannot express himself in a coherent manner? That doesn't mean they have to be H.G. Wells or anything, but if there's confusion over whether or not you're completely racist, or whether you've just committed treason, then that's a pretty strong indicator that your communication skills are incredibly poor. Intentionally or not, the spirit of his Mexico statement is clear; "Mexicans" are "not us" and the ones here are "bad". That's irrefutable. In the myriad of posts since I last posted on this thread this one is worthy of reply and I feel I shouldnt pass it up. There's no confusion. I was "playing the liberal" and reading the post in a mindset where the person wants Trump to be "the bad guy" and with that mindset it's possible to take the meaning you want from it. So perhaps he should have a staff to write his twitter posts for him? No wait that's too much like scripted PC politics and Trump was voted in as a backlash to that. FWIW I agree with Trump's stance against illegals. seamus wrote: » Intentionally or not, the spirit of his Mexico statement is clear; "Mexicans" are "not us" and the ones here are "bad". That's irrefutable. Yes I think that is irrevocably clear from the tone of the message and his campaign as a whole to be honest. And I think he was voted to office based on that stance as part of his ticket. If anyone was surprised by Trump being anti illegal immigration then I would question where they have been for the last 4 years.
Christy42 wrote: » Are we again going with he is saying what I want him to have said?
Christy42 wrote: » Seriously are they rapists? Even the majority of illegal immigrants? This is what the claim is. Is this what you agree with?.
Seamus wrote: Intentionally or not, the spirit of his Mexico statement is clear; "Mexicans" are "not us" and the ones here are "bad". That's irrefutable.
Christy42 wrote: » As for Helsinki being a misspeak. I have a bridge I can sell. He got back and was told in no uncertain terms he was a naughty boy by the Republicans and he went out and made a politicians excuse. I mean this is the same man who has repeatedly fought the accusation that Russia meddled, fought sanctions and declared he would have proof (found by " his people") in a matter of weeks (I am still waiting on that). Are we to be shocked he said the same thing again? Especially while next to Putin given he has a tendency to back down face to face.
ELM327 wrote: » In the myriad of posts since I last posted on this thread this one is worthy of reply and I feel I shouldnt pass it up. There's no confusion. I was "playing the liberal" and reading the post in a mindset where the person wants Trump to be "the bad guy" and with that mindset it's possible to take the meaning you want from it. So perhaps he should have a staff to write his twitter posts for him? No wait that's too much like scripted PC politics and Trump was voted in as a backlash to that. FWIW I agree with Trump's stance against illegals. Yes I think that is irrevocably clear from the tone of the message and his campaign as a whole to be honest. And I think he was voted to office based on that stance as part of his ticket. If anyone was surprised by Trump being anti illegal immigration then I would question where they have been for the last 4 years.
kilns wrote: » Is America geniunely damaged beyond repair in that could we see in as early as the next 20 years states like California going it alone, especially if things like Rowe vs Wade are reversed etc I think it is a realistic possibility as if California left the Union it would need the backing of 38 other states. The Republicans would be very much in favour of this as the Democrats would lose 55 electoral college seats plus 2 senators, giving even more control to the Republicans
Townton wrote: » The president was never intended to have such a standing. That was the whole point of federalism and the constitutional make up of the United States. The idea of de centralising power down to the states is actually quite a good one and intended to allow states that felt unrepresented at the federal level to make the majority of their own laws regardless.
