myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Trump
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 809, 810, 811 ... 1351, 1352, 1353  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9118
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
Steve. your post a few days ago stated that the Dems took 26 seats, that is NOT true, please correct the record. The # is 37. As usual, you take fake news to a new level each time you post.


CORRECTION...The # is most likely going to be 40...That's a big number, especially since the prediction markets were at 26....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
nw30 wrote:
boggsman1 wrote:
Very accurate description Mac.. Going progressive on a national level does not win elections ... But the first step in returning to national relevance is to win a branch of Govt... Dems did that.

Returning to national relevance as progressives?
Since when were there any national progressives with national relevance?
You do realize outside of the progressive bubble, progressive is just another word for farther left.
I hope for the sake of this country that never happens, so far in our history, it's been avoided.



Medicare, Social Security, ACA, Headstart....These were "progressive" initiatives.

Anyway. Your definition of Progressive is not, necessarily accurate.

Wikipedia (and my college history course) called this progressive....

Quote:
The Progressive Era is a period of "widespread" social activism and political reform across the United States that spanned from the 1890s to the 1920s. The main objectives of the Progressive movement were eliminating problems caused by industrialization, urbanization, immigration, and political corruption.

Well goodie for Wiki and your college course, which could be questionable in itself, colleges being colleges, generally bastions of liberal thought.
But I see more like this ~
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html
Pushing back harder than before, ie. moving farther left than before.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
coboardhead wrote:
nw30 wrote:
boggsman1 wrote:
Very accurate description Mac.. Going progressive on a national level does not win elections ... But the first step in returning to national relevance is to win a branch of Govt... Dems did that.

Returning to national relevance as progressives?
Since when were there any national progressives with national relevance?
You do realize outside of the progressive bubble, progressive is just another word for farther left.
I hope for the sake of this country that never happens, so far in our history, it's been avoided.



Medicare, Social Security, ACA, Headstart....These were "progressive" initiatives.

Anyway. Your definition of Progressive is not, necessarily accurate.

Wikipedia (and my college history course) called this progressive....

Quote:
The Progressive Era is a period of "widespread" social activism and political reform across the United States that spanned from the 1890s to the 1920s. The main objectives of the Progressive movement were eliminating problems caused by industrialization, urbanization, immigration, and political corruption.

Well goodie for Wiki and your college course, which could be questionable in itself, colleges being colleges, generally bastions of liberal thought.
But I see more like this ~
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html
Pushing back harder than before, ie. moving farther left than before.



I went to an engineering and science school. So not very liberal at all. Didn't even offer a non science or engineering major. In one of the reddest states.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MalibuGuru wrote:
Hahaha. Hope this gets heads spinning

You probably had to bug out, with flames heading your way.
Good luck, hoping for the best.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vientomas



Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
coboardhead wrote:
nw30 wrote:
boggsman1 wrote:
Very accurate description Mac.. Going progressive on a national level does not win elections ... But the first step in returning to national relevance is to win a branch of Govt... Dems did that.

Returning to national relevance as progressives?
Since when were there any national progressives with national relevance?
You do realize outside of the progressive bubble, progressive is just another word for farther left.
I hope for the sake of this country that never happens, so far in our history, it's been avoided.



Medicare, Social Security, ACA, Headstart....These were "progressive" initiatives.

Anyway. Your definition of Progressive is not, necessarily accurate.

Wikipedia (and my college history course) called this progressive....

Quote:
The Progressive Era is a period of "widespread" social activism and political reform across the United States that spanned from the 1890s to the 1920s. The main objectives of the Progressive movement were eliminating problems caused by industrialization, urbanization, immigration, and political corruption.

Well goodie for Wiki and your college course, which could be questionable in itself, colleges being colleges, generally bastions of liberal thought.
But I see more like this ~
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html
Pushing back harder than before, ie. moving farther left than before.


Did you attend any history classes in college?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty wrote:
coboardhead wrote:
nw30 wrote:
coboardhead wrote:
mat-ty wrote:
vientomas wrote:
If knuckle dragger Matty really thinks that the Dem's control of the House is no biggie...Me thinks he has no clue how our bicarmeral government works and the power which the House wields. Not shocking given what I have seen from him here.


Didn't say it was not a big deal shit for brains. I said it was par for the course and was to be HISTORICALLY EXPECTED.

Again Trump held his ground VERY well despite the constant drum beat of BS from the left...Keeping and gaining more seats in the Senate was far more important.


Matty. I'm still waiting for an explanation of why the gains in the Senate are more important than losing the House. It seems that McConnell has re-written all of the Senate rules so the chamber functions as a majority chamber. The only loss Trump has really had in the Senate was the vote on Obamacare. So, what changes?

Just an FYI. The House has the exclusive power to initiate legislative spending. So, any spending has to, really, originate in there. That means that Ocare cannot be repealed by "budget resolution". So, Trump cannot keep this promise. The WALL...ditto.

It used to be that a simple majority in the Senate didn't matter. That's changed. So, even a super majority is not a crucial as it was at one time.

The conservative judges were going to be named regardless unless the Dems took the Senate and no one ever thought that would happen.

Trump lost a good portion of his power this week. There is no sugar coating that. I'm happy for that. I never like a single party in charge. I would rather have it the other way around...senate by dems and house by GOP since I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. But, we don't always get what we want.

A couple of things.
You can thank former Dem. Senator Reid for changing the senate rules to a simple majority vote.
And with an increase of conservative senators, they don't have to be overly concerned anymore with the way Collins and McCaskill votes, they now have them covered.


So, exactly how often did Collins and McCaskill (I think she's a demo) actually thwart Trump?

Reid changed the "rules" for lower court approval because McConnell wouldn't allow ANY appointments. There was not a viable alternative. He didn't change the rules to advance any legislation. He could have done this with Obamacare and didn't.

NO legislation will now make it to the Senate without the Democrat's involvement. So, the majority in the Senate is meaningless. Since the Senate cannot affect the legislation by budget process, it is often more important to own the House than the Senate except in the case of judicial appointments and international policy.



The Senate is way more important for a President. Trump will still have lots of powers and can use it as leverage over the HOR, and having a STRONGER majority only helps. He will continue to appoint judges at a historical pace and pick his AG at his discretion and the HOR can do nothing.


Matty. Tonight it looks like three races are still undecided? So, the make up of the Senate might not change. So, this is still gonna be a victory for Trump? Races that are this close only serve to demonstrate that there is no mandate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17743
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just started reading "The Fifth Risk." This from the prologue illustrates how ignorant, stupid, and ultimately greedy Trump is. The most incompetent man to ever be elected to any signifianct office.

Quote:
… Christie volunteered himself for the job: head of the Donald Trump presidential transition team. “It’s the next best thing to being president,” he told friends. “You get to plan the presidency.” He went to see Trump about it. Trump said he didn’t want a presidential transition team. Why did anyone need to plan anything before he actually became president? It’s legally required, said Christie. Trump asked where the money was going to come from to pay for the transition team. Christie explained that Trump could either pay for it himself or take it out of campaign funds. Trump didn’t want to pay for it himself. He didn’t want to take it out of campaign funds, either, but he agreed, grudgingly, that Christie should go ahead and raise a separate fund to pay for his transition team. “But not too much!” he said.

And so Christie set out to prepare for the unlikely event that Donald Trump would one day be elected president of the United States. Not everyone in Trump’s campaign was happy to see him on the job. In June, Christie received a call from Trump adviser Paul Manafort. “The kid is paranoid about you,” Manafort said. The kid was Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law… The Kushners apparently took their grudges seriously, and Christie sensed that Jared still harboured one against him. On the other hand, Trump, whom Christie considered almost a friend, could not have cared less.

Christie viewed Kushner as one of those people who thinks that, because he is rich, he must also be smart. Still, he had a certain cunning about him. And Christie soon found himself reporting everything he did to prepare for a Trump administration to an “executive committee”. The committee consisted of Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr, Eric Trump, Manafort, Steve Mnuchin and Jeff Sessions. “I’m kind of like the church elder who double-counts the collection plate every Sunday for the pastor,” said Sessions, who appeared uncomfortable with the entire situation. The elder’s job became more complicated in July 2016, when Trump was formally named the Republican nominee. The transition team now moved into an office in downtown Washington DC, and went looking for people to occupy the top 500 jobs in the federal government. They needed to fill all the cabinet positions, of course, but also a whole bunch of others that no one in the Trump campaign even knew existed. It is not obvious how you find the next secretary of state, much less the next secretary of transportation – never mind who should sit on the board of trustees of the Barry Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation…

The first time Trump paid attention to any of this was when he read about it in the newspaper. The story revealed that Trump’s very own transition team had raised several million dollars to pay the staff. The moment he saw it, Trump called Steve Bannon, the chief executive of his campaign, from his office on the 26th floor of Trump Tower, and told him to come immediately to his residence, many floors above. Bannon stepped off the elevator to find Christie seated on a sofa, being hollered at. Trump was apoplectic, yelling: You’re stealing my money! You’re stealing my fucking money! What the fuck is this?

Seeing Bannon, Trump turned on him and screamed: Why are you letting him steal my fucking money? Bannon and Christie together set out to explain to Trump federal law. Months before the election, the law said, the nominees of the two major parties were expected to prepare to take control of the government. The government supplied them with office space in downtown DC, along with computers and rubbish bins and so on, but the campaigns paid their people. To which Trump replied: Fuck the law. I don’t give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money. Bannon and Christie tried to explain that Trump couldn’t have both his money and a transition.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can't quite get enough Trump hate stuff in your head, keep filling it up, more and more, it might take you somewhere unexpected.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17743
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can't you spell incompetent?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7850

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Can't you spell incompetent?



There's only one problem old fool...Trump is doing a great job and getting things done. The more the left screams the better I know he is doing to push conservative and common sense laws and values...

But keep screaming racist and Russia....its about all you have..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 809, 810, 811 ... 1351, 1352, 1353  Next
Page 810 of 1353

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group