# Outside the Box > Philosophy and Debate >  >  US Politics

## Member11

think3.jpg

----------


## Member11

Where things stand:

*Clinton vs Trump*
47.3% — Hillary Clinton
41.6% — Donald Trump

*Sanders vs Trump*
51.8% — Bernie Sanders
38.8% — Donald Trump

*Democratic Delegate Count*
1,657 — Hillary Clinton
1,314 — Bernie Sanders
_1,080 — Available_
_2,383 — To Win_

*Republican Delegate Count*
1,080 — Donald Trump

(source, source)

----------


## Member11

Where things stand now:

*Clinton vs Trump Poll*
45.8% â Hillary Clinton _(down 1.5%)_
42.7% â Donald Trump _(up 1.1%)_

*Sanders vs Trump Poll*
50.7% â Bernie Sanders _(down 1.1%)_
39.1% â Donald Trump _(up 0.3%)_

*Democratic Delegate Count*
1,721 â Hillary Clinton _(up 64)_
1,394 â Bernie Sanders _(up 80)_
_936 â Available_
_2,383 â To Win_

*Republican Delegate Count*
1,098 â Donald Trump _(up 18)_
_1,237 â To Win_

(source, source)

----------


## Member11

Where things stand now:

*Clinton vs Trump Poll*
43.4% â Donald Trump _(up 0.7%)_
43.2% â Hillary Clinton _(down 2.6%)_

*Sanders vs Trump Poll*
50.3% â Bernie Sanders _(down 0.4%)_
39.5% â Donald Trump _(up 0.4%)_

(source)

----------


## Member11

Where things stand now:

*Clinton vs Trump Poll Average*
43.8% â Hillary Clinton _(up 0.6%)_
42.3% â Donald Trump _(down 1.1%)_

*Sanders vs Trump Poll Average*
49.8% â Bernie Sanders _(down 0.9%)_
39.4% â Donald Trump _(up 0.3%)_

*Democratic Delegate Count*
1,721 â Hillary Clinton _(up 1)_
1,399 â Bernie Sanders _(up 5)_
_930 â Available_
_2,383 â To Win_

*Republican Delegate Count*
1,138 â Donald Trump _(up 40)_
_1,237 â To Win_

(source, source)

----------


## Otherside

I'm willing to bet that it's gonna be Clinton vs Trump in the elections. I just can't see Sanders actually managing to get the nomination at this rate. But who knows, maybe he'll have a miracle. 

US Election seems to be being followed over here quite closely. And nobody seems to like Trump that much. Heck, we tried to get Trump banned from entering the country. And the politicians seemed to spend three hours debating whether to do that.

----------


## Member11

> I'm willing to bet that it's gonna be Clinton vs Trump in the elections. I just can't see Sanders actually managing to get the nomination at this rate. But who knows, maybe he'll have a miracle. 
> 
> US Election seems to be being followed over here quite closely. And nobody seems to like Trump that much. Heck, we tried to get Trump banned from entering the country. And the politicians seemed to spend three hours debating whether to do that.



I agree, Clinton vs Trump is likely, but I wouldn't rule out Bernie yet, as it is close and the FBI's investigation in Hillary is still a wild card. But if she does get up, her and her supporters needs to stop calling people who vote against her sexist as it is not helping her chances against Trump.

----------


## Otherside

> I agree, Clinton vs Trump is likely, but I wouldn't rule out Bernie yet, as it is close and the FBI's investigation in Hillary is still a wild card. But if she does get up, her and her supporters needs to stop calling people who vote against her sexist as it is not helping her chances against Trump.



No, it doesn't, and I disagree immesenly because of that. She shouldn't get the vote just because she is a woman, she should get it because her policies were the most popular and she's wanted as President. 

And you're right about the inverstigation. If she did do what she supposedly did do, then she should face the consequences for that. She shouldn't be immune from that simply because she's a presidential candidate.

----------


## Otherside

Clinton got the nomination, it seems. 

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

----------


## Member11

> Clinton got the nomination, it seems.



Not yet, the media is getting ahead of itself. The Democratic party's rules state that the superdelegates count, which is what the media is using to say she won, should not be counted until they vote on 25 July, this is because they have not voted yet, and the current count is based on a survey, and the superdelegates are always changing their positions.

----------


## Member11

Where things stand now:

*Clinton vs Trump Poll Average*
44% â Hillary Clinton _(up 0.2%)_
42% â Donald Trump _(down 0.3%)_

*Sanders vs Trump Poll Average*
49.7% â Bernie Sanders _(down 0.1%)_
39.3% â Donald Trump _(down 0.1%)_

*Democratic Delegate Count*
1,934 â Hillary Clinton _(up 170)_
1,541 â Bernie Sanders _(up 117)_
_576 â Available_
_2,383 â To Win_

*Republican Delegate Count*
1,436 â Donald Trump _(up 298)_
_1,237 â To Win_

(source, source)

----------


## Otherside

Not American so I can hardly vote but- 

Trump will most likely cause some internal incident at some point whilst attempting to "make America great again", and I will honestly be surprised if he manages to gain the respect of the leaders over here. If anything, he's managed to make a mockery of himself with "build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it", "get Bill Gates to shut down the Internet", "Bomb the hell out of Isis" (however that's supposed to be different from normal bombing) and "ban all Muslims until our representatives can work out what the hell is going on." The anti-vax opinions and comments about certain areas of London and police being to scared to monitor them (Brit here. They're bollocks) doesn't help much.

As for Clinton...I don't trust her, and as far as I'm concerned, she is not an inspiration for woman. Her Methods of getting to where she is today are anything but that. 

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

----------


## Member11

> Not American so I can hardly vote but- 
> 
> Trump will most likely cause some internal incident at some point whilst attempting to "make America great again", and I will honestly be surprised if he manages to gain the respect of the leaders over here. If anything, he's managed to make a mockery of himself with "build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it", "get Bill Gates to shut down the Internet", "Bomb the hell out of Isis" (however that's supposed to be different from normal bombing) and "ban all Muslims until our representatives can work out what the hell is going on." The anti-vax opinions and comments about certain areas of London and police being to scared to monitor them (Brit here. They're bollocks) doesn't help much.
> 
> As for Clinton...I don't trust her, and as far as I'm concerned, she is not an inspiration for woman. Her Methods of getting to where she is today are anything but that.



I completely agree with you, I'm an outsider too, I'm Aussie and I don't get it as there was much better candidates on both sides that people in the USA could have gone with, but they pick the two most unpopular and despised candidates in history, it is like they wanted an election that is about choosing the lesser of two evils. And no matter what her supporters say, Hillary is in big trouble. Yes, Trump has no chance of winning the women's vote, but that doesn't mean anything if Hillary loses huge support from both men and women with her "you're sexist if you don't vote for me" message. Just a few months ago, people was saying Trump had no chance of winning the Republican nomination, underestimating him is a very bad idea.

----------


## Member11

I saw this coming, but I hoped that Google wouldn't go down that path and misuse their power.

I was wrong  ::\:

----------


## Member11

Where things stand now:

*Clinton vs Trump Poll Average*
44.1% â Hillary Clinton _(up 0.1%)_
38.3% â Donald Trump _(down 3.7%)_

*Democratic Delegate Count*
2,196 â Hillary Clinton _(up 262)_
1,801 â Bernie Sanders _(up 260)_
_2,383 â To Win_

*Republican Delegate Count*
1,441 â Donald Trump _(up 5)_
_1,237 â To Win_

(source, source)

----------


## Otherside

Sanders might have done better if he went independent at this point. But I don't know.

----------


## Member11

> Sanders might have done better if he went independent at this point. But I don't know.



Do you think the media will tear him apart though if he did?

----------


## Member11

:doh:

----------


## Member11

Bernie is still fighting hard for policies  ::

----------


## Member11

New poll:

*Q: Which of the following statements come closer to your views?*
70.9% — The economic system in the U.S. is rigged in favor of certain groups
25.3% — The economic system in the U.S. is fair to all Americans
3.8% — Don't Know

(source)

----------


## Member11



----------


## Otherside

^I just don't trust politicians in general. Don't like any of them. Vote for the least worst in every single election. I'd damage my ballot paper in some way that means it has to be rejected but that seems akin to not voting as far as I'm concerned.

----------


## Member11

Where things stand now:

*Clinton vs Trump Poll Average*
44.0% â Hillary Clinton _(down 0.1%)_
40.9% â Donald Trump _(up 2.6%)_

(source)

----------


## Member11



----------


## Member11

I miss him!  ::'(:

----------


## Otherside

So Trump got the Republican nomination. At this point, it's hardly surprising, but it's been confirmed.

https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/vid...3773358497217/

----------


## Member11

> So Trump got the Republican nomination. At this point, it's hardly surprising, but it's been confirmed.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/vid...3773358497217/



Not a surprised, but quite depressing.

----------


## Member11

"Wasserman Schultz resigning as party leader" http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/22/po...ileaks-emails/

 ::  :Oh yeah:

----------


## Member11

Where things stand now:

*Trump vs Clinton Poll CNN*
48.0% â Donald Trump _(up 7.1%)_
45.0% â Hillary Clinton _(up 1.0%)_

*Trump vs Clinton Poll Average*
44.3% â Donald Trump _(up 3.4%)_
44.1% â Hillary Clinton _(up 0.1%)_

(source)

----------


## Member11



----------


## Otherside

^I second that. I hear Canada was offering residency for any Americans who didn't want to live under Trump. Or at least or some Island called Cape Breton. I have to admit, the place looks gorgeous. 

Whatever happens come November though, half of America is going to be unhappy. Still not sure why anyone would vote for Trump though (if you are American, and voting for him, please, explain this to me. I'm genuinly interested.) From what I can see he's most likely going to cause an international incident, he's already pissed off a large portion of the world with his "ban all muslims" comment, and he genuinly seems believes that vaccines cause autism.

----------


## Member11

Where things stand now:

*Trump vs Clinton Poll Average*
45.7% — Donald Trump _(ahead 1.1%)_
44.6% — Hillary Clinton

(source)

----------


## Member11

Things are getting serious now, if Clinton continues what she is doing now and don't go after Trump hard, he will win. What she is doing is not working.





> if you are American, and voting for him, please, explain this to me. I'm genuinly interested.



Me too.

----------


## Member11

https://youtu.be/mOlAcYoAuZM?t=12m35s

I thought this poll was interesting...  ::D:

----------


## Member11

::D:

----------


## Otherside

It's the bit with Bill that gets me. All that crushed excitement and hope lol. 

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

----------


## Member11

> It's the bit with Bill that gets me. All that crushed excitement and hope lol.



So true lol  ::D:

----------


## Member11

Yep, that happened...  :O_O:

----------


## Member11

http://fusion.net/story/335661/make-america-brannigan/ Love it  ::D:

----------


## Member11

Where things stand now:

*Clinton vs Trump Poll Average*
47.5% â Hillary Clinton
41.2% â Donald Trump

*Spread:* Clinton +6.3

(source)

----------


## Member11



----------


## Member11

Trump is climbing fast. Where things stand now:

*Clinton vs Trump Poll Average*
45.7% — Hillary Clinton
44.2% — Donald Trump

*Spread:* Clinton +1.5

*4-Way Poll Average*
41.9% — Hillary Clinton
40.8% — Donald Trump
8.3% — Gary Johnson
2.7% — Jill Stein

*Spread:* Clinton +1.1

(source)

----------


## Member11



----------


## Member11



----------


## Member11

Hillary Clinton gets aggressive on taxing extremely wealthy heirs https://thinkprogress.org/clinton-es...x-f06dc9a23208

I honestly did not see this coming, but to give credit where credit is due, this is a good progressive policy, it doesn't go as far as what I would have liked it to go and it doesn't go as far as Bernie's policy. But it is a good move by Hillary to try to win over Bernie's supporters, something that will be welcomed and I hope there is more to come  ::):

----------


## Otherside

In all seriousness, I could sometimes do with one of these.

----------


## Member11

> ...



I sooooo want one  ::D:

----------


## Member11

Trump definitely lost the debate. Where things stand now:

*Clinton vs Trump Poll Average*
47.5% â Hillary Clinton
45.0% â Donald Trump

*Leading:* Clinton +2.5

*4-Way Poll Average*
43.4% â Hillary Clinton
41.1% â Donald Trump
7.0% â Gary Johnson
2.4% â Jill Stein

*Leading:* Clinton +2.3

(source)

----------


## MobileChucko

Go Hillary!!!  LOL!!! :boogie:

----------


## Member11



----------


## Otherside

I swear thats why more people are voting Clinton tbh.

----------


## Member11

> I swear thats why more people are voting Clinton tbh.



No doubt, this election is a textbook example of lesser of two evils, as both Clinton and Trump are equally unpopular (around 60% each), and the only reason both are still in the race is because people don't want to vote for either. If either of these two was racing against anyone else the election would have been called by now. Just imagine the landslide victory Bernie would have had, the Democratics and progressives would have full control over both houses, the whitehouse, and the courts for decades, imagine the change and the jump in progress. Makes me sad to see that missed opportunity  ::(: 

Btw, her self-entitlement and condescending attitude is not helping.

----------


## Otherside

> No doubt, this election is a textbook example of lesser of two evils, as both Clinton and Trump are equally unpopular (around 60% each), and the only reason both are still in the race is because people don't want to vote for either. If either of these two was racing against anyone else the election would have been called by now. Just imagine the landslide victory Bernie would have had, the Democratics and progressives would have full control over both houses, the whitehouse, and the courts for decades, imagine the change and the jump in progress. Makes me sad to see that missed opportunity 
> 
> Btw, her self-entitlement and condescending attitude is not helping.



Isn't any election? Most of time, it involves the least worse. 

At the very least, if Trump gets in he may have problems getting that wall of his built (although I am partially interested in whether or not he does manage to get Mexican payments for said wall). Obama had massive issues pushing through The Affordable Healthcare Act after all. Clinton I worry about - I just see her being able to manipulate things. 

Bernie probably would have been a more desirable option. He's not trying to shut down the Web and blame global warming on the Chinese, and he's not really seem as well, evil and manipulate who possibly committed a crime that may or may not be covered up. 

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

----------


## Member11

This is why the Democrats don't win in landslides and this is why Clinton is tied with Trump.

----------


## Member11



----------


## Otherside

So those sexist remarks? Can Trump still win? 

I mean people seemed capable of ignoring the islamophobic, Mexican-hating, climate-change denying, anti-vaxxer ones.

----------


## Lunaire

IMG_5700.JPG

----------


## Member11

> So those sexist remarks? Can Trump still win? 
> 
> I mean people seemed capable of ignoring the islamophobic, Mexican-hating, climate-change denying, anti-vaxxer ones.



When I first saw the video I wasn't surprised and I thought it won't do anything to him just like every other comment he made, but it seems to be doing a lot of damage so far, his diehard supporters may not care but he can't win with just his diehard supporters.

I saw an interesting tweet from someone who was going to vote for Trump but now changed that because these remarks was done in private that made them real and impossible to dismiss. Since his other comments was made in public it was dismissed as him just being an entertainer and that he doesn't really believe it.

This moment and the debate coming up is important because if Trump doubles down and defends what he said that "just an entertainer" mindset is going to be broken and people will see him as what he truly is for the first time. I could be wrong but I think this is a make-or-break moment for Trump.





> IMG_5700.JPG



Love it  ::D:

----------


## Otherside

> When I first saw the video I wasn't surprised and I thought it won't do anything to him just like every other comment he made, but it seems to be doing a lot of damage so far, his diehard supporters may not care but he can't win with just his diehard supporters.
> 
> I saw an interesting tweet from someone who was going to vote for Trump but now changed that because these remarks was done in private that made them real and impossible to dismiss. Since his other comments was made in public it was dismissed as him just being an entertainer and that he doesn't really believe it.
> 
> This moment and the debate coming up is important because if Trump doubles down and defends what he said that "just an entertainer" mindset is going to be broken and people will see him as what he truly is for the first time. I could be wrong but I think this is a make-or-break moment for Trump.



Nah I'm not surprised either. Although that tweet is interesting. I suppose some of the things he said in public could be too stupid to be seen as reality. I mean, come on, getting Bill Gates to help "shut down the internet"? Even if he somehow does manage to shut down the World Wide Web (which was created in Switzerland, by the way, not the US. Good old CERN), ISIS will find some other way to communicate. They don't need the World Wide Web or even the Internet network itself in order to do that. And that whole thing about global warming being a Chinese invention for...some reason? Yeah, that's hard to believe.  

Of course, some of Clinton's tweets are slightly hypocritical.

----------


## Member11

> ...World Wide Web (which was created in Switzerland, by the way, not the US. Good old CERN)...



That is true, but to be fair the Internet or the interconnected networks that the World Wide Web runs on started out as the US government's ARPANET. You're right though, no one country can claim credit for the Internet or the World Wide Web, a lot of countries had a hand in creating it. Even Australia had a hand in creating WiFi technology.

----------


## Otherside

> That is true, but to be fair the Internet or the interconnected networks that the World Wide Web runs on started out as the US government's ARPANET. You're right though, no one country can claim credit for the Internet or the World Wide Web, a lot of countries had a hand in creating it. Even Australia had a hand in creating WiFi technology.



Very true, ARPANET was the first connected network. But the Internet is not solely an American invention. 

It's not even "managed" by America anymore. Obama gave up America's control a few days back, for better or for worse (Personally I'm not sure what the fuss is about. ICANN in UN control means that ICANN is accountable to the entire UN, not just the US. And current ICANN rules do not allow censorship of the internet.)

----------


## Member11

> It's not even "managed" by America anymore. Obama gave up America's control a few days back, for better or for worse (Personally I'm not sure what the fuss is about. ICANN in UN control means that ICANN is accountable to the entire UN, not just the US. And current ICANN rules do not allow censorship of the internet.)



The USA didn't managed it even before the change, ICANN is just a phone book and the USA oversight was just on the technical stuff for which it has never used. ICANN has no significance control over the Internet and definitely no control over the traffic. ICANN is a not-for-profit, it is not under control of the UN. ICANN is basically accountable to the Internet community, as Google, Mozilla, Wikipedia, EFF, etc has control over it. ICANN can't censor the Internet, even if it wanted to.

----------


## Otherside

> The USA didn't managed it even before the change, ICANN is just a phone book and the USA oversight was just on the technical stuff for which it has never used. ICANN has no significance control over the Internet and definitely no control over the traffic. ICANN is a not-for-profit, it is not under control of the UN. ICANN is basically accountable to the Internet community, as Google, Mozilla, Wikipedia, EFF, etc has control over it. ICANN can't censor the Internet, even if it wanted to.



Oh isn't it? Must have misunderstood what I read then. I'd seen someone that it was possibly going to the UN, but maybe not. Actually, I can't see where it's gone now. 

I knew ICANN was a phone book, not a censor'ing tool. Besides, the technology is already there to censor the internet and block sites on a countrywide level. China has it's Great Firewall to do that.

----------


## Member11

The debate is about to start!  :popcorn: 





> Oh isn't it? Must have misunderstood what I read then. I'd seen someone that it was possibly going to the UN, but maybe not. Actually, I can't see where it's gone now.



If the USA didn't do this change, the UN would have forced to push for control. In the end, the USA did the right thing and ended any claims other countries could have made on the Internet. Which is good  ::):

----------


## Member11

WTF is Trump doing?! Is he really raping the chair?!  ::\:

----------


## Member11

I can't see Trump recovering from this. Where things stand now:

*Clinton vs Trump Poll NBC/Wall St.*
52.0% — Hillary Clinton
38.0% — Donald Trump

*Leading:* Clinton +14

*Clinton vs Trump Poll Average*
48.3% — Hillary Clinton
42.5% — Donald Trump

*Leading:* Clinton +5.8

*4-Way Poll Average*
44.8% — Hillary Clinton
39.6% — Donald Trump
6.8% — Gary Johnson
2.0% — Jill Stein

*Leading:* Clinton +5.2

(source)

----------


## Member11

::D:

----------


## Member11

It's all over, Hillary is going to win imo. Where things stand now:

*Clinton vs Trump Poll Average*
48.9% — Hillary Clinton
42.0% — Donald Trump

*Leading:* Clinton +6.9

*4-Way Poll Average*
45.9% — Hillary Clinton
39.1% — Donald Trump
6.4% — Gary Johnson
2.4% — Jill Stein

*Leading:* Clinton +6.8

(source)

----------


## Member11

This is too funny  ::D:

----------


## MobileChucko

Whelp, the debates are over with...

I have to admit that I watched all three from start to finish, but you could have watched just one, and the other two were like reruns-LOL! :Rofl:   I think they should have gotten Jerry Springer and his bouncers to run the show.  They were right up his alley...

Watching them didn't change my mind as to who to vote for.  Hillary came off being knowledgeable and presidential, and Donald came off as being an only child in his teens, if that old, who is a spoiled bully.

"Cher" said that Mr. Trump was another Adolph Hitler, and the way he talks constantly about being the only person who can changes things sure reminds me of what Hitler promised Germany.  Also the crack Donald made in debate #3, about not necessarily accepting the outcome of the election if he should lose, is something Adolph would understand.

Heaven knows our system needs a major overhaul, but to me Trump is not the person I want to start the cleaning.

Well, that is my $0.02 worth... :;): 

The best to all of you, and don't forget to vote...  Chuck

----------


## sunrise

> 



I can only watch the SNL version of the debates.  I can't stand watching the real Trump

----------


## Member11

> Heaven knows our system needs a major overhaul...



So true. There are other genuine movements, like http://www.wolf-pac.com/, to get money out though  ::): 





> I can only watch the SNL version of the debates.  I can't stand watching the real Trump



You're not missing anything, SNL's Trump is dead on  ::D:

----------


## Member11

Weak Democrats, not willing to fight for the people.

----------


## Member11

> Weak Democrats, not willing to fight for the people.



http://www.salon.com/2016/10/17/john...llary-clinton/

How can you work with someone who has outright refused to do their job and will not work with you? This is silly, the Republicans are bullies and the Democrats are letting them do it and even defend them.

Fight back! Stand up for your supporters! If you won't stand up for your supporters and just do what Republicans want, why would anyone want to vote for you? May as well vote the Republicans in.

----------


## Member11

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/des-moin...er-fraud-case/

Right-wing always using psychological projection...

----------


## Member11

Trump was right, the election is being rigged... by Republicans and his supporters...

----------


## Member11

Where things stand now:

*Clinton vs Trump Poll Average*
47.2% â Hillary Clinton
45.5% â Donald Trump

*Leading:* Clinton +1.7

*4-Way Poll Average*
45.1% â Hillary Clinton
43.1% â Donald Trump
4.6% â Gary Johnson
2.1% â Jill Stein

*Leading:* Clinton +2.0

(source)

----------


## Member11

This election needs to end now, it is sickening and I am losing respect for people I used to respect and look up to. Like the Internet, this election has put a spotlight on the dark evil in the world, after seeing it all, I am not going to forget it for a long time. This nightmare as marked me permanently.

Elect Hillary and end this election now, so the recovery can begin.

----------


## Otherside

> This election needs to end now, it is sickening and I am losing respect for people I used to respect and look up to. Like the Internet, this election has put a spotlight on the dark evil in the world, after seeing it all, I am not going to forget it for a long time. This nightmare as marked me permanently.
> 
> Elect Hillary and end this election now, so the recovery can begin.



We'll be lucky if it ends there. Trumps apparently going to pursue legal action and cry fraud if Clinton wins. This will go on for a while, I think. 

Although I doubt anything serious will come of the "FRAUD" allegations to be honest. At most it will press coverage and a conspiracy theory involving the FBI. And thank god for that. 

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

----------


## Member11

> We'll be lucky if it ends there. Trumps apparently going to pursue legal action and cry fraud if Clinton wins. This will go on for a while, I think.





 





> Although I doubt anything serious will come of the "FRAUD" allegations to be honest. At most it will press coverage and a conspiracy theory involving the FBI. And thank god for that.



But I think most people's interest will die off after the election. Trump could rant all he wants, but not a lot of people will pay much attention.

----------


## Otherside

> But I think most people's interest will die off after the election. Trump could rant all he wants, but not a lot of people will pay much attention.



You're right. A couple of weeks worth of attention maybe...Trump said this. Trump did that, Trump filed a lawsuit perhaps. And that eventually...fewer people will care, other things will happen and make the news Even if he does that probably won't go far. Trump has to prove that there was election fraud, noone has to prove that there wasn't. And I doubt that Trump has anything concrete to prove that. 

As it is noone really believes there is fraud going on in Americas elections. People are trusting of thr democratic system, for better or for worse. And thus the electoral fraud theory will exist only in the minds of his most diehard supporters, and Internet conspiracy theoriests who already think that the FBI is hiding evidence of Aliens like in the X Filesm 

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

----------


## Member11

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...comey-must-go/

This is completely out of control...

----------


## Member11



----------


## Member11



----------


## Otherside

Oh, God help us all today/tomorrow...

----------


## Member11

> Oh, God help us all today/tomorrow...



Yep!  :Hide behind Sofa:

----------


## Otherside

> Yep!




I'm not really a fan of drinking tbh, but I might need it.

----------


## Member11

> I'm not really a fan of drinking tbh, but I might need it.



I could use a drink...

----------


## Total Eclipse

I know several people whom said that they are going to have a drink after voting.

----------


## Otherside

> I know several people whom said that they are going to have a drink after voting.



Don't blame them tbh. 

Good luck over there. 

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

----------


## Member11

> I know several people whom said that they are going to have a drink after voting.







> Don't blame them tbh. 
> 
> Good luck over there.



I'm really glad I'm in Australia. There was a poll yesterday that found Trump only has 19% support here. It is a good feeling to know I live in a country full of sane and reasonable people  ::):

----------


## Otherside

> I'm really glad I'm in Australia. There was a poll yesterday that found Trump only has 19% support here. It is a good feeling to know I live in a country full of sane and reasonable people



I'm glad I'm in the UK. We don't like Trump to the point that we persuaded parliament to debate blocking Trump from entering the UK. There's some brilliant highlights from that debate. 





> We have to be alive to the possibility that this ridiculous individual—that is, Mr Trump—may be elected as President of the United States.







> We may already be in error by giving him far too much attention by way of this petition







> I would urge the alternative of inviting Mr Trump here. I would be delighted if he could show us where the so-called no-go areas for police are in this country—I have never been able to find one.



 (Actually, neither have I.)





> Is my hon. Friend aware that people find that individual repellent because he is not only racist but homophobic and misogynistic?







> “Donald Trump is free to be a fool,” he said. “But he’s not free to be a dangerous fool in Britain.”







> Trump is “the son of a Scottish immigrant. And I apologize for that.”







> This is about bufoonery. And buffoonery must not be met with the blunt instrument of a ban."It must be met with the classic British response of ridicule."

----------


## imnormal

i am the insane and unreasonsable fEARRR meee

my 1st time voting :3  http://i.imgur.com/9FuuAuk.jpg?1

now im watching the results come in after a repair guy came to break down my door (thank u repair guy) so i could get in my room to where my laptop was. my mom tried to put the lock back in my door today while i was at school but she ended up jamming it shut. thanks mom.

----------


## Lunaire

> i am the insane and unreasonsable fEARRR meee
> 
> my 1st time voting :3  http://i.imgur.com/9FuuAuk.jpg?1
> 
> now im watching the results come in after a repair guy came to break down my door (thank u repair guy) so i could get in my room to where my laptop was. my mom tried to put the lock back in my door today while i was at school but she ended up jamming it shut. thanks mom.



Hahaha. Kudos on voting for what you believe in!

Sorry to hear about your door though.... that's a shame!

----------


## sunrise

> I'm glad I'm in the UK. We don't like Trump to the point that we persuaded parliament to debate blocking Trump from entering the UK. There's some brilliant highlights from that debate. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  (Actually, neither have I.)



Those quotes are HILARIOUS. I needed that. I can't believe how close this election is.

----------


## Member11

Just barely one day in, Trump and the Republicans are already walking away from their promises, it is unbelievable, but not surprising because the Republicans do this all the time, and recently the pro-corporate Democrats has started to do this too.

----------


## Member11

2016 Election Results:

*Electoral College*
306 — Donald Trump
232 — Hillary Clinton

*Leading:* Trump +74

*Popular Vote*
47.6% — Hillary Clinton
47.4% — Donald Trump

*Leading:* Clinton +0.2

----------


## Member11

Clear rejection of both...

----------


## Total Eclipse

There is always option to vote 3rd party.

----------


## Member11

Wow, I have a newfound respect for Harry Reid  :: 





> There is always option to vote 3rd party.



Yeah, but it is hard for them to get up in a two-party system.

----------


## Member11

The DNC stole the presidency from Bernie  ::(: 

New poll out today:

*Bernie vs Trump Poll*
56.0% — Bernie Sanders
44.0% — Donald Trump

*Leading:* Bernie +12

(source)

----------


## Otherside

Obamacare u-turn O_o

Trump: Obamacare key provisions to remain - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37953528

Pretty much every politician lies, that's not unique to any of them, or any country. 

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

----------


## Member11

> Obamacare u-turn O_o
> 
> Trump: Obamacare key provisions to remain - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37953528
> 
> Pretty much every politician lies, that's not unique to any of them, or any country.



It's not surprising as he lied throughout the election. But don't think this is now set in stone, as Trump's campaign staff said he isn't a smart guy so he goes with the view of the last person he spoke to. This time it was Obama, but Obama is not going to be around much longer and the corporate donors is going to get Trump to change his mind again and again and again. Mark my words.

----------


## Member11

It seems the DNC has not learnt its lesson yet as they are still trying to put in more pro-corporate fake Democrats, and Chelsea Clinton has put up her hand to run. They don't get it, it's over, they lost. They need to get out of the way and let the real progressives, like Bernie, take over the party, win the next election and save the world from Trump.

----------


## Total Eclipse

What they need to do is due away from the two party system.

I've taken days to soak this in to go OK, Trump is going to run the country for the next 4 years, yes, I have some concerns, and fear, but will have to hope for the best, and maybe (unlikely) he'll bring something good to the country. But for me, it's worthless dwelling on it until he actually does something he claims.

----------


## Member11



----------


## Member11

> But for me, it's worthless dwelling on it until he actually does something he claims.



The progressive take over of the DNC is not about dwelling on what happened, it about what is going to happen in 2020. If nothing changes at the DNC, Trump will win again in 2020, but if progressives take over the DNC, get rid of the corruption and put in charge people who will fight for workers and the left side of politics, the Democrats will win in a landslide in 2020.

----------


## Member11

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...dicare-in-2017

Republicans are planning to dump Obamacare and Medicare (what I've been worried about)  ::(:

----------


## sunrise

Medicare has always been a touchy area for politicians, including Republicans because it could incur the wrath of senior citizens - who do vote.  But there are a lot of Republican voters who rely on social services like welfare, food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid.  It would be interesting to see if people changed how they voted if all these services were taken away.

On another note, it's highly disturbing that Trump has hired Bannon to be his White House aide, a man who headed an overtly racist news organization.

----------


## Member11

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN13B0E2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/ent...b099512f80ee6b

Trump working for the 1%, screwing over workers...





> Medicare has always been a touchy area for politicians, including Republicans because it could incur the wrath of senior citizens - who do vote.  But there are a lot of Republican voters who rely on social services like welfare, food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid.  It would be interesting to see if people changed how they voted if all these services were taken away.



There is an easy way around that for them, as they said, they can just not allow any more people onto Medicare, it kills the system in time and avoids the need to battle the Republicans who are ready on it.

----------


## Member11

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/...786c4a16b4142e

A big wall -> some fencing -> it's a metaphor

omg this is too funny, two weeks in and Trump is flip-flopping like a politician  ::D:

----------


## Member11

If this isn't a basket of deplorables, I don't know what is  :shrug:

----------


## Member11

Bernie would have won with a huge landslide  ::(:

----------


## lethargic nomad

> It seems the DNC has not learnt its lesson yet as they are still trying to put in more pro-corporate fake Democrats, and Chelsea Clinton has put up her hand to run. They don't get it, it's over, they lost. They need to get out of the way and let the real progressives, like Bernie, take over the party, win the next election and save the world from Trump.




Both parties are owned by corporations and rich people, so of course.

----------


## imnormal

> Both parties are owned by corporations and rich people, so of course.



komorikun is owned by big cats and crappy space heaters

----------


## Member11

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/ent...b0b3ddfd8bf408

Trump really has nothing else to do other than this? Give me the Presidency, I know 100 things off the top of my head that I could be doing to improve people's lives.

----------


## fetisha

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/ent...b0b3ddfd8bf408
> 
> Trump really has nothing else to do other than this? Give me the Presidency, I know 100 things off the top of my head that I could be doing to improve people's lives.



People must not know he only cares about himself more than others and hes a power hungry moron lol oh well I'm going to dread the next 2 to 8 years unless something happens and we get lucky.

----------


## Member11

> People must not know he only cares about himself more than others and hes a power hungry moron lol oh well I'm going to dread the next 2 to 8 years unless something happens and we get lucky.



I would be surprised if there is anything left at the end of his term, robbing the place seems to be his goal so far.

----------


## Member11

> Both parties are owned by corporations and rich people, so of course.



True, but at least in the Democrats there is a few people fighting to get rid of the corruption.

----------


## Otherside

Politicians lie. They say they are going to do one thing, they don't do it or they do another. 

Trump will not be any different, despite all the bull people are sprouting about him not being "part of the political elite." Give me a bloody break. 

(Also, out of curiosity, do you American's have anything like the Vote of No Confidence we have here? (Basically, the members of parliament here can vote stating they have "no confidence" in the current Prime Minister/government and this forces the Prime Minister to step down before the term ends, and can at times, end up triggering another election). I highly doubt that would happen to be honest if you do have something like that, but I was just curious.)

----------


## Member11

> (Also, out of curiosity, do you American's have anything like the Vote of No Confidence we have here? (Basically, the members of parliament here can vote stating they have "no confidence" in the current Prime Minister/government and this forces the Prime Minister to step down before the term ends, and can at times, end up triggering another election). I highly doubt that would happen to be honest if you do have something like that, but I was just curious.)



They have impeachment, but since Congress is controlled by Republicans, this is not going to happen.

----------


## Otherside

> They have impeachment, but since Congress is controlled by Republicans, this is not going to happen.



No, I don't think it will either. Was just curious if they had anything like that. 

Impreachment/Vote of no confidences never really happen unless something pretty drastic happens.

----------


## Member11



----------


## Member11



----------


## Member11

2016 Election Final Results:

*Popular Vote*
65,844,954 (48.2%) - Hillary Clinton
62,979,879 (46.1%) - Donald Trump

*Leading:* Clinton +2.1

The final results are in and Clinton won easily with a 2.1% margin, so of course Trump will be the next President of the United States, because the USA is a "democracy".

----------


## Member11

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ng-states.html

Wow, just wow...

----------


## Member11

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...pons-arms-race

Nuclear war, what fun

----------


## fetisha

> 2016 Election Final Results:
> 
> *Popular Vote*
> 65,844,954 (48.2 - Hillary Clinton
> 62,979,879 (46.1 - Donald Trump
> 
> *Leading:* Clinton +2.1
> 
> The final results are in and Clinton won easily with a 2.1% margin, so of course Trump will be the next President of the United States, because the USA is a "democracy".



I heard some where online from a guy from china who told america not to fix our democracy causes its broken ughhhh!

----------


## Member11

> I heard some where online from a guy from china who told america not to fix our democracy causes its broken ughhhh!



It's not surprising as China isn't a democracy either. I don't understand the mindset of people who don't want to live in a real democracy. Why would anyone want to give up their rights and freedoms, and be told what to do by a complete stranger, really?!

----------


## sunrise

I don't consider the US to be a democracy.  It's more like an oligarchy.

----------


## Member11

This just happened. I love this guy  ::D:

----------


## Member11

Thanks Obama?!  :shrugs:

----------


## Member11

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...2fd_story.html

----------


## Member11

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/u...elligence.html
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinge...ties-to-russia

Wow, I have no words...

----------


## Member11

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/what-you-didn-t-see

Trump's approval has dropped 7 points to 37% since the election. Obama's is at 55%.

----------


## HoldTheSea

I am going to be very sorry to see Trump "lead" this country, if you could even call it that.
Makes me wonder what's going to happen to mental health care in the US. I feel like he's going to want people like me to be institutionalized. He stated that he thinks mentally ill people are the problem with guns.
Excuse my French, but for real, [BEEP] Trump. I've heard some religious people refer to him as the Antichrist, and frankly, I don't think they're too far off base.

----------


## sunrise

After this election, I think political polling was proved to be meaningless.  Trump was predicted to lose - I think even he and his people thought he was going to lose.  So, I'm not sure what those low numbers truly signifies.  He's still the same person to me.  The whole Russian link was known way before election night. The problem was the media chose to harp on Clinton's email ad nauseam. His supporters seem to be very forgiving.  Either that, or they just discount any negative news about him.  It's really sad that a lot of the right want to ignore foreign meddling into US Elections.  Politics over patriotism.

----------


## Member11

> After this election, I think political polling was proved to be meaningless.  Trump was predicted to lose - I think even he and his people thought he was going to lose.  So, I'm not sure what those low numbers truly signifies.  He's still the same person to me.  The whole Russian link was known way before election night. The problem was the media chose to harp on Clinton's email ad nauseam. His supporters seem to be very forgiving.  Either that, or they just discount any negative news about him.  It's really sad that a lot of the right want to ignore foreign meddling into US Elections.  Politics over patriotism.



Polling cannot predict who is going to win a US election, it can only predict who is going to win the popular vote which is usually the same person that wins the election, but of course in this case and in 2000 it didn't go that way. Clinton won the popular vote, 48.2% to 46.1%, while polling got it almost right predicting Clinton winning, 46.8% to 43.6%.





> So, I'm not sure what those low numbers truly signifies.  He's still the same person to me.  The whole Russian link was known way before election night. The problem was the media chose to harp on Clinton's email ad nauseam. His supporters seem to be very forgiving.  Either that, or they just discount any negative news about him.  It's really sad that a lot of the right want to ignore foreign meddling into US Elections.  Politics over patriotism.



I think it is his supporters are the ones changing their minds since he has now broken almost all of his promises.

----------


## Member11

> I am going to be very sorry to see Trump "lead" this country, if you could even call it that.
> Makes me wonder what's going to happen to mental health care in the US. I feel like he's going to want people like me to be institutionalized. He stated that he thinks mentally ill people are the problem with guns.
> Excuse my French, but for real, [BEEP] Trump. I've heard some religious people refer to him as the Antichrist, and frankly, I don't think they're too far off base.



And it isn't like mental health care in the USA was great to begin with and now seeing it go backwards, it is so frustrating  ::(:

----------


## Member11

This is a list of Democrats who voted against affordable imported prescription drugs as they take big pharma money.

Below is when they are facing election too:



And this is their phone numbers:



Just in-case anyone here is interested...

----------


## Member11

I think a lot of people is going to quickly realise they made this same mistake when they repeal Obamacare.

----------


## sunrise

> I think a lot of people is going to quickly realise they made this same mistake when they repeal Obamacare.



I can't even...process this level of ignorance. But I shouldn't be surprised.  People were holding up signs like this when Obama was running for prez:

'

What boils my blood is that they want to repeal Obamacare in knee jerk fashion without having ANYTHING to replace it.  Millions will go uninsured like the good old days. Because they care [sarcasm]. But doing nothing has always been their MO when it comes to healthcare.

----------


## Ironman

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/ent...b0b3ddfd8bf408
> 
> Trump really has nothing else to do other than this? Give me the Presidency, I know 100 things off the top of my head that I could be doing to improve people's lives.



That's a slanted site.  Arianna Huffington doesn't even own it anymore, apparently, but it still has her name on it. :lol

We need to unite and give the guy a chance.  I think he has changed quite a bit since being elected.  I think he will take this job seriously.

They needed to put together a plan - they can still start now, but the vote is a bit early.  I would have at least waited until Trump went into office.  Obama can still do stuff.
Medicare is having a lot of strain due to the Baby Boom population. Socialized medicine (like in England and Canada) only works to a point.  After that, it's a mess.

When doctors gave up their practices due to the red tape, that was a scary sign.

----------


## Member11

> That's a slanted site.  Arianna Huffington doesn't even own it anymore, apparently, but it still has her name on it.



I have my own issues with HuffPost after their attacks on Bernie and progressives, but they didn't make up this story as those tweets are still on Trump's twitter, here and here, and I don't think all stories from HuffPost should be dismissed automatically just because it comes from HuffPost.

----------


## sunrise

I really wanted to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. I couldn't watch it, but I heard his victory speech after he was elected was surprisingly "presidential".  Maybe all that buffoonery was just an act?  But no, he resumed his normal boorish behavior.  By comparison, he makes George W. Bush look distinguished and magisterial.   Why can't anyone at least get him to stop tweeting???  I didn't like George H. Bush's policies, but I still respected him. With his immature behavior, Trump is undermining his own credibility before he even takes office.  
And his hairpin trigger twitter rants gives cause for concern over how he will behave when holding the most powerful office in the world.  

The one thing he did that I liked is that he saved the Office of Congressional Ethics, despite Republican efforts to gut it.

----------


## Ironman

> I have my own issues with HuffPost after their attacks on Bernie and progressives, but they didn't make up this story as those tweets are still on Trump's twitter, here and here, and I don't think all stories from HuffPost should be dismissed automatically just because it comes from HuffPost.



We've had a field day up here with "fake news" - everything was so slanted for Hillary Clinton that it's like the fog has never lifted.  We have Rosie O'Donnell, D-list celebrity, pushing for martial law until Trump is "cleared of all charges".....he isn't even under any charges!

----------


## Ironman

> I really wanted to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. I couldn't watch it, but I heard his victory speech after he was elected was surprisingly "presidential".  Maybe all that buffoonery was just an act?  But no, he resumed his normal boorish behavior.  By comparison, he makes George W. Bush look distinguished and magisterial.   Why can't anyone at least get him to stop tweeting???  I didn't like George H. Bush's policies, but I still respected him. With his immature behavior, Trump is undermining his own credibility before he even takes office.  
> And his hairpin trigger twitter rants gives cause for concern over how he will behave when holding the most powerful office in the world.  
> 
> The one thing he did that I liked is that he saved the Office of Congressional Ethics, despite Republican efforts to gut it.



The Tweeting is because he still doesn't feel like the media is treating him fairly.  I am sure it will relax a bit.  For now, it's candid and straight from him.  

I think he is trying to help the country, but remember, he is presently fighting a war with people who want to discredit him.

----------


## sunrise

Obama had more than his fair share of enemies and critics - even his wife keeps getting compared to apes.  BUT he never stooped to this level.   It's unprecedented.  I mean calling out Meryl Streep? An actress!?  C'mon.  You want to be president, you gotta expect the attacks and weather them like...a president.  Otherwise, get off the stage. Minimally, deactivate your Twitter account.  It's breathtaking, his level of unprofessionalism. We can only go by his pattern of behavior; logic would dictate more of the same.  There's nothing to indicate he'll do a sudden 180 when he takes office.

----------


## Member11

> We've had a field day up here with "fake news" - everything was so slanted for Hillary Clinton that it's like the fog has never lifted.  We have Rosie O'Donnell, D-list celebrity, pushing for martial law until Trump is "cleared of all charges".....he isn't even under any charges!



I agree with you, the fake news and insults from both sides was bad and completely unnecessary, and I got annoyed at both for not talking about policies, especially since it is not that hard to talk about policies instead of making up fake news and throwing insults around.





> The Tweeting is because he still doesn't feel like the media is treating him fairly.  I am sure it will relax a bit.  For now, it's candid and straight from him. I think he is trying to help the country, but remember, he is presently fighting a war with people who want to discredit him.



But he is the President though, he is going to get attacked and criticised no matter what, look what Obama got. And for him to attack everyone who criticises him is not only unnecessary, but also a complete waste of his time. He is about to take control of a large and complex government, he should be doing his homework and preparing for the changeover. A lot of people will be depending on him soon and he should be ready.

----------


## Member11

> Socialized medicine (like in England and Canada) only works to a point.  After that, it's a mess.



Can I ask how can you be against something that you have never experienced? Obamacare is definitely not socialised medicine, even Medicare and Medicaid isn't true socialised medicine. The UK system isn't really socialised medicine either as most of it is privatised. True socialised medicine is a system that allows the government to negotiate cheap prizes. Republican and some Democrats won't allow Medicare to negotiate cheap prizes and because of that companies can increase prices by a lot unnecessary and make huge profits while almost bankrupting the system, which is why the system is having trouble. The red tape problem is also caused by the Republicans, because they don't want people to use it but can't get rid of it, so they put in a lot of red tape to scare doctors and patients away

In Australia, we have both socialised and private medicine, which allows people to compare both systems fairly and socialised medicine easily wins out as it is way cheaper, far more efficient, cheaper for the government and lower waiting times, in fact for some specialists when my doctor refer me to them, they phone me the next day and book an appointment the same week or the next week. In the private system, it would be at a bare minimum a month wait. In terms of red tape, it basically doesn't exist, with the socialised medicine here, you get a card that acts similar to an ATM card and you "pay with it" whenever you go to the doctor, very easy.

----------


## Member11

::D:

----------


## Otherside

From a Scottish TV Guide. The guy may go on and on about his Scottish heritage and all, but I don't think they like him much.

----------


## Member11

@Otherside
 Hahaha, I love it  ::D:

----------


## sunrise

> From a Scottish TV Guide. The guy may go on and on about his Scottish heritage and all, but I don't think they like him much.



That gave me a good chuckle

----------


## Member11

::D:

----------


## Ironman

That is just sad.

They are up in arms about a golf course he's got there.

----------


## Otherside

I know. I have family living up in that particular area. They really don't like him much. Not sure if it's because he built a wall around the golf course, pretty much wrecking the countryside (and it is pretty nice up there), or because he acted pretty damn entitled and assumed he'd just be able to get whichever plot of land he wanted (He fenced off land that did not belong to him legally, and has attempted to use a Compulsory Purchase Orders to get the land), regardless of whether the locals wanted to sell it (there is one guy who firmly refused, and the dispute is still going on, although you do not hear about it much outside the local newspapers). The residents even made an effort to fly Mexican flags around the town the last time he visited. 

Scottish Parliment said he could build the golf course based on the fact that it would provide a large number of jobs and income for Scotland. So far, that has yet to materialize. And with his current level of popularity, I don't see the Scottish Parliment being able to get as much money as they wanted from Trumps Golf Course.

----------


## sunrise

> 



I can't wait for his show to come back.

----------


## sunrise

> I know. I have family living up in that particular area. They really don't like him much. Not sure if it's because he built a wall around the golf course, pretty much wrecking the countryside (and it is pretty nice up there), or because he acted pretty damn entitled and assumed he'd just be able to get whichever plot of land he wanted (He fenced off land that did not belong to him legally, and has attempted to use a Compulsory Purchase Orders to get the land), regardless of whether the locals wanted to sell it (there is one guy who firmly refused, and the dispute is still going on, although you do not hear about it much outside the local newspapers). *The residents even made an effort to fly Mexican flags around the town the last time he visited.*



I love this

----------


## Member11

> ...he built a wall around the golf course, pretty much wrecking the countryside (and it is pretty nice up there)...



I'm still not sure why he did that as the views would be away to get people to come to his golf course, I know he wants to get back at the people living there because they didn't sell to him, but is he really that petty and immature to damage his own business just to get back at someone?

----------


## Otherside

> I'm still not sure why he did that as the views would be away to get people to come to his golf course, I know he wants to get back at the people living there because they didn't sell to him, but is he really that petty and immature to damage his own business just to get back at someone?



The houses in the town supposedly don't match his views of Scotland and are an "eyesore". It was his reason for trying to get the Compulsory Purchase Order, if I remember. Also tried to get a windfarm removed for the "eyesore" reasoning. He probably wants the Scotland you see in movies. And given that I've been the town in question quite recently (place called Balmedie), it's really not an ugly town. 

Not the Scotland that people actually live in, have jobs in, and have families in. Heck he's even ruined the landscape of Balmedie with that Golf Course of his. He managed to build on protected Sand Dunes, so it's ironic as heck that he's whining about ruining the enviroment of Scotland. Also hasn't made up that revenue of Golf Course, provided those jobs, paid taxes on it due to the fact that the golf course is running at a loss, or built the school, roundabout or affordable homes he promised to build for Scotland. 

And in order to avoid cries of fake news : 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...sh-golf-resort -> Lists in there what Trump originally promised to build when he applied to build the Complex back in 2008. Also mentions the closeness

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7534736.html -> Several complaints about the wall and the view. Apparently Trump also sent the guy the bill for it. The guy just ignored it.

http://scottishwildlifetrust.org.uk/...1341833139.pdf -> Letter to a Golfer from the Scottish Wildlife trust about the golf course being on Protected Sand Dunes, and asking him to boycott. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-35106581 -> The windfarms (he tried to get the Supreme Court to remove them. They said no.)

----------


## Member11

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/u...obamacare.html

And there goes Obamacare...

----------


## Member11

Trump posted this to Twitter. He is clearly using a sharpie and the paper is blank.

----------


## Member11

The cry babies are in charge. Sad!

I watched the swearing in, the crowd was very low.

----------


## sunrise

> Trump claimed falsely that the crowd for his swearing-in stretched down the National Mall to the Washington Monument and totaled more than 1 million people. It did not. Trump accused television networks of showing ?an empty field? and reporting that he drew just 250,000 people to witness Friday's ceremony.
> 
> 'It looked like a million, a million and a half people,' Trump said, falsely claiming that his crowd ?went all the way back to the Washington Monument.?   Trump also misrepresented what happened to the weather during his swearing in. He said he felt a few drops of rain as he started delivering his address, but then, '*God looked down and, and he said we're not going to let it rain on your speech*.. . .The truth is it stopped immediately.
> 
> Light rain continued to fall through the first few minutes of the speech, and VIP's at the dais took out ponchos, including former president George W. Bush, and then quit. Trump said there was a downpour right after he finished, which did not occur.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.f73431bfcd8c



  The president lives in a world of make believe

----------


## Member11

16195751_718536874987155_6633410920035656209_n.jpeg

Love it  ::D:

----------


## fetisha

I can't believe we are going backwards again *sigh*

----------


## sunrise



----------


## Member11

Trump is still talking about his crowd...

----------


## sunrise

The Netherlands welcomes Trump in his own words  (gotta love the Dutch)

----------


## HoldTheSea

> The Netherlands welcomes Trump in his own words  (gotta love the Dutch)



LMFAO!!! This is why the Dutch are my favorite people  ::D:

----------


## Member11

Size is a big issue for Trump...

----------


## sunrise

> LMFAO!!! This is why the Dutch are my favorite people



  I was surprised at how familiar they are with our politics.  They totally seem to get it.

----------


## sunrise

> Size is a big issue for Trump...



  That's sad.  What's even sadder is if they keep just making numbers up to suit their policy decisions.

----------


## Member11

One week in and things are getting quite messy to say the least...





> That's sad.  What's even sadder is if they keep just making numbers up to suit their policy decisions.



I don't doubt they will, Trump can't seem to let it go.

----------


## Otherside

There's people who can't get Transit flights from the US because of that order, which was stupid in the first place. They're not even trying to enter the US. They're trying to get to a connecting flight back home. And they can't even board in the first place because they have the wrong passport.

----------


## Ironman

> Trump posted this to Twitter. He is clearly using a sharpie and the paper is blank.



OMG - that's a wax figure.....and a scary one.  It makes him look like he's 90!

----------


## Ironman

> The president lives in a world of make believe







> 16195751_718536874987155_6633410920035656209_n.jpeg
> 
> Love it



Actually, people will be saying that about Obama pretty soon.

----------


## Member11

> OMG - that's a wax figure.....and a scary one.  It makes him look like he's 90!



It isn't a wax figure...

----------


## MobileChucko

Trump "IS" a wax figure, as wax figures don't have an ounce of brains-LOL! :Rofl:

----------


## HoldTheSea

> Trump "IS" a wax figure, as wax figures don't have an ounce of brains-LOL!



Lol Chuck, that is true  ::D:

----------


## MobileChucko

LOL!  You bet-cha, HoldTheSea... :Mega Shock:  (Can't blowout your brains when you don't have any-LOL!)

----------


## Member11

> Trump "IS" a wax figure, as wax figures don't have an ounce of brains-LOL!



You got me there!  ::D:

----------


## Member11

Trump is now ignoring court orders and the law...

http://www.commondreams.org/news/201...e-court-orders

----------


## Member11



----------


## Ironman

I can't believe how many people are slamming him.

Obama pulled the same stunts and got pats on the back.

----------


## Member11

> I can't believe how many people are slamming him.
> 
> Obama pulled the same stunts and got pats on the back.



Obama didn't ban anyone, and Obama tried to reach out to Republicans in his first and second term. And it was the Republicans who said Obama wasn't allowed to do executive orders, they can't say Obama is evil for doing something that they are now doing.

----------


## Ironman

> Obama didn't ban anyone, and Obama tried to reach out to Republicans in his first and second term. And it was the Republicans who said Obama wasn't allowed to do executive orders, they can't say Obama is evil for doing something that they are now doing.



If that was true, the Democratic Party is getting one heck of a lesson for what they did.

Obama had two executive order go to the Supreme Court and a third was the Obamacare mandate. 
Obama doubled our national debt (one man doubled what 43 put together) to the point where we are a credit risk - that did not happen.
We owe China money and they still beat us in trade.

Obama is into the "one world government" as his stance on Israel and Iran clearly put us all in a death spiral.  He wanted to see our country suffer and is now laughing all the way to the bank.  We are at each other's throats and he enjoys it, constantly blaming his opponents when he needed to look at himself in the mirror.

----------


## Member11

> If that was true, the Democratic Party is getting one heck of a lesson for what they did.



Yeah, that the Republicans are hypocrites.





> Obama had two executive order go to the Supreme Court and a third was the Obamacare mandate.



Obamacare is a written law that was passed by both houses and signed by the twice-elected President Obama, the court upheld the Obamacare mandate and said it is legal. Obama never went against the court orders.





> Obama doubled our national debt (one man doubled what 43 put together) to the point where we are a credit risk - that did not happen.



So, you support the guy that is planning to make the debt even bigger by blowing a huge hole in the budget?





> Obama is into the "one world government"...



If Obama was into a "one world government", why didn't he do anything to get to that goal?





> ...his stance on Israel and Iran clearly put us all in a death spiral.



How exactly is wanting peace between Israel and Palestine, and getting Iran to give up all it's nuclear weapons and nuclear power a bad thing?





> He wanted to see our country suffer...



By making it better...? Unemployment is low, stock market is good, the car industry is still alive and well.





> We are at each other's throats and he enjoys it, constantly blaming his opponents when he needed to look at himself in the mirror.



Trump is the one name-calling anyone who disagrees with him on policy...

----------


## Ironman

> Yeah, that the Republicans are hypocrites.
> 
> Obamacare is a written law that was passed by both houses and signed by the twice-elected President Obama, the court upheld the Obamacare mandate and said it is legal. Obama never went against the court orders.
> 
> So, you support the guy that is planning to make the debt even bigger by blowing a huge hole in the budget
> 
> If Obama was into a "one world government", why didn't he do anything to get to that goal?
> 
> How exactly is wanting peace between Israel and Palestine, and getting Iran to give up all it's nuclear weapons and nuclear power a bad thing?
> ...



Not as bad as the Democrats - they are really starting to show their true colors.  Trump is nowhere near as bad as Hitler.

Obamacare was not approved by a single Republican vote in the Senate.  It was approved 60-39.....58 Democrats, 2 Independent.  They lost the majority because of this single issue.  In the House of Representatives, it passed 219-212.  Again, a Democratic majority - 178 Republicans and 34 Democrats voted against it in the House (538 total).  The Democratic Party, since that vote in 2010, has lost over a thousand Senate, House of Representatives, Governorships, and State Senate/House positions.  That, with 74 Senate and House seats lost, is the largest loss by any President in our history.

The two people who wrote that bill, Jonathan Gruber and Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (Chicago mayor Rahm's brother) admitted that they lied to the people to get their support for the law.

Trump is a businessman.  He has been trying to show us that he wants America to succeed and not be in debt.

Obama wanted the UN to handle things HE should have handled.  He also didn't lift a finger against terrorism and his UN absetntion vote right before he left office was the ultimate proof he didn't like Israel (this after sending his campaign people over there to get Netanyahu to lose).

There will never be peace between Israel and the Palestinians.  That is the problem.  Every time the Palestinians have been given land, they end up losing it because they fight Israel for more land and lose.  The "Two State Solution" wil end up starting Armageddon.  "peace and security" will mean "a woman with labor pains"  The Palestinian people will strike and try to annihilate Israel.  Iran didn't give up anything; they  just tested a ballistic missile that flow almost 1,000km this week in direct violation of Obama's treaty.

Unemployment is high - people aren't looking for work.  After the unemployment benefits end, people aren't counted.  There are too many people unemployed here to have a rate that low.  Record number of people on food stamps and record low labor participation rates also don't support the rate.  The stock market is high because people are optimistic about something Obama never did.  He didn't spur enough growth in hiring.  They see that with Trump.  Right now, companies are stockpiing money and not hiring.  For instance, my company is hiring people.....in China and India.  They won't hire American workers because "the cost is too high".  That's literally what I was told.  Meanwhile, I worked a 58 hour week last week, half of that filling for an Indian coworker who doesn't do her job right.  instead of letting her go after six years of it, I have to constantly email her and her boss (my coworker) about things she doesn't do.

Trump is more upset at the media than anyone at this point.  He isn't calling anyone names anymore (although it was funny to hear "Crooked Hillary" and "Little Marco", and "Lyin' Ted").  We need a tough leader.

----------


## Member11

> Obamacare was not approved by a single Republican vote in the Senate.



With a Republican majority now does that mean they can't pass anything without Democrats' support?





> They lost the majority because of this single issue.



If the issue was Obamacare, which was passed in 2010, why did Obama get re-elected in the 2012 landslide?





> He has been trying to show us that he wants America to succeed and not be in debt.



His tax-cuts and spending plans will cause a huge debt. No doubts about it.





> Obama wanted the UN to handle things HE should have handled.



Obama was fulfilling an election promise to stop the USA getting into more unnecessary and costly wars, the same election promise Trump has made, one of the few I support.





> He also didn't lift a finger against terrorism...



Obama has been bombing terrorists non-stop with drones since taking office, in fact he did so many that the military had trouble keeping up.





> ...his UN absetntion vote right before he left office was the ultimate proof he didn't like Israel.



Because Netanyahu has been refusing to engage in the peace process and been taking more and more Palestine land.





> Iran didn't give up anything; they just tested a ballistic missile that flow almost 1,000km this week in direct violation of Obama's treaty.



A ballistic missile is not always a nuclear weapon. Iran is its own country with its own military, it is allowed to have weapons to defend itself. The enforceable agreement (not a treaty) is only about nuclear weapons and power.





> Unemployment is high - people aren't looking for work.  After the unemployment benefits end, people aren't counted.  There are too many people unemployed here to have a rate that low.  Record number of people on food stamps and record low labor participation rates also don't support the rate.  The stock market is high because people are optimistic about something Obama never did.  He didn't spur enough growth in hiring.  They see that with Trump.  Right now, companies are stockpiing money and not hiring.  For instance, my company is hiring people.....in China and India.  They won't hire American workers because "the cost is too high".  That's literally what I was told.  Meanwhile, I worked a 58 hour week last week, half of that filling for an Indian coworker who doesn't do her job right.  instead of letting her go after six years of it, I have to constantly email her and her boss (my coworker) about things she doesn't do.



This is right and this is a true criticism that can be levelled at not just Obama, but the Democrats and the Republicans too. All three are way too close to corporations, which would be corruption in any other context. I hoped with Trump he would at least get rid of the corruption and helped workers, but at the moment I don't see that happening, in fact he seems to be wanting to do the corruption himself.





> Trump is more upset at the media than anyone at this point.



The media is doing its job, being watchdogs. Trump should get on with his job, looking after the people.

----------


## Ironman

> With a Republican majority now does that mean they can't pass anything without Democrats' support?
> 
> 
> 
> If the issue was Obamacare, which was passed in 2010, why did Obama get re-elected in the 2012 landslide?
> 
> 
> 
> His tax-cuts and spending plans will cause a huge debt. No doubts about it.
> ...



Obama won because he campaigned better than he ruled.  He was a master at denigrating his opponents.  That's how he beat Hillary.
He also knew what people to target.  Romey was caught saying something like Hillary's "deplorables" comment  - 47% would vote Democratic no matter what because they get freebies.  Then, he disappeared the week before the election.  We also had a cyclone named Sandy where Obama was seen with Gov. Chris Christie (a Republican).

People were trying to give him the benefit of the doubt because he was making history.......and it ends up being in the wrong direction.  He pulled out of Iraq too early and dismissed ISIS to make himself look good.  It wasn't until the election came up that he decided to do anything, and that was more an effort to get Hilary elected to save his Presidency....which failed.

Netanyahu knows more about what is going on in the Middle East than anyone.  His job to is protect the people of Israel and Obama wanted to take that away from him.

We may never know what Obama was full after, but he did nothing more than try and lower America's life - and blame other people for it.  Being the smooth talker he is, people fell for it.  When people don't want to take responsibility for things that clearly happened during their watch, they look to Obama as a role model.

----------


## MobileChucko

You only have to go back to the beginning of our great republic to see why things are the way they are today...  George Washington hated the two party system, and actually said that it would be the demise of our nation. People are more divided today than I have ever seen them.  It was very sad that Trump and Clinton were the best we could do, with 330,000,000 Americans...  If I was given the chance to write just a single law for the good old USA, it would be that it's against the law for anyone to belong to a political party, or for one to even exist... :Oh yeah:

----------


## Member11

> Obama won because he campaigned better than he ruled.



That, and him not making good on some of his election promises is why his supporters are disappointed. They were promised big change, but got only small change. Nothing to do with Obamacare though.





> Romey was caught saying something like Hillary's "deplorables" comment  - 47% would vote Democratic no matter what because they get freebies.  Then, he disappeared the week before the election.  We also had a cyclone named Sandy where Obama was seen with Gov. Chris Christie (a Republican).



Like Hillary, Romey had only himself to blame, can't run a bad campaign and expect to win.





> People were trying to give him the benefit of the doubt because he was making history...



Except for the Republicans who tried to block every move he made from the start.





> He pulled out of Iraq too early and dismissed ISIS to make himself look good.



I don't blame him for doing that, in fact I supported him at the time, because IS were Iraq government's problem to deal with, not America's. No-one expected the Iraqi forces would run away from their posts like that and by time Obama could act and get the military in there the damage was already done. It is unfair to blame Obama, he didn't start the Iraq war which created IS in the first place and he couldn't foresee the forces running away.





> Netanyahu knows more about what is going on in the Middle East than anyone.



Netanyahu is trying to improve his low approval ratings while trying to survive an criminal investigation, he is trying to make it seems like the world is against Israel and he is their great defender.





> We may never know what Obama was full after, but he did nothing more than try and lower America's life - and blame other people for it.  Being the smooth talker he is, people fell for it.  When people don't want to take responsibility for things that clearly happened during their watch, they look to Obama as a role model.



This is what I have a problem with politics today, it is not about policies any more, it is only about attacking people personally. To say Obama is an evil guy that wanted to destroy America allows people on the left to call Trump Hitler. Just like Trump, Obama isn't a bad guy, he had good intentions and genuinely wanted to improve America. You may disagree with his policies and actions, but to claim that he wanted to lower America's life is completely unfair. Obama did good things and deserves credit for it and I'm willing to bet he had a positive effect on your life too.

----------


## sunrise

Obama couldn't do everything he wanted because of the obstructionist actions of Republicans.  They openly declared they would automatically fight any policies he put forward.  Even at the end.  He had a right to pick a Supreme Court Justice - they had no defensible right to block this.  

Trump on the other hand is already signaling he'll be breaking BIG promises.  Promises that got him votes.  And it's nothing to do with Democrats.  He's going back on his promise to reduce prescription drug prices.  And the people he hired clearly want to gut Social Security and MediCare.

----------


## sunrise

> You only have to go back to the beginning of our great republic to see why things are the way they are today...  George Washington hated the two party system, and actually said that it would be the demise of our nation. People are more divided today than I have ever seen them.  It was very sad that Trump and Clinton were the best we could do, with 330,000,000 Americans...  If I was given the chance to write just a single law for the good old USA, it would be that it's against the law for anyone to belong to a political party, or for one to even exist...



I think that would be an awesome idea.  What would the political landscape look like if there wasn't a party system?  But there would also have to be other changes, such as campaign financing and reversing Citizens United.

----------


## Ironman

> Obama couldn't do everything he wanted because of the obstructionist actions of Republicans.  They openly declared they would automatically fight any policies he put forward.  Even at the end.  He had a right to pick a Supreme Court Justice - they had no defensible right to block this.  
> 
> Trump on the other hand is already signaling he'll be breaking BIG promises.  Promises that got him votes.  And it's nothing to do with Democrats.  He's going back on his promise to reduce prescription drug prices.  And the people he hired clearly want to gut Social Security and MediCare.



I'd have to wait and comment on that, but I have not heard him say anything about Medicare.  He knows that it is people HIS AGE are affected by this, so it doesn't make any sense other than to try and reset how the money is being used.  I don't think "gutting" is the right term to use on this.  Other than that, it's fear news and as anxiety sufferers, we should know better.

Actually, yes they did have a right to block it and Congress has done it before - multiple times.  It was Obama they blocked....and they did it he put in two Justices already.  With everything that happened in his eight years, the people did NOT want to see his stuff continue.

I can't believe the outright hatred for the Republican Party - the Democratic Party is fractured because they still can't figure out what they did wrong.  They went too far with this President and then thought their poo didn't stink.  They went into areas of our lives that they should not have done.  He did it to make a name for himself and to try and destroy the Democratic Party.....but it backfired because they don't realize how out of touch they really are with the people.

Now, Iran is testing missiles.  Cuba's leaders can now say "sanctions?!  We can still be Communist and sell our cigars to America!"  What would John Kennedy say?
Syria is a mess because Obama let Putin in.  It's all a mess.

Hillary Clinton had the "let them eat cake" aura about her, not to mention "the server".

----------


## Ironman

> That, and him not making good on some of his election promises is why his supporters are disappointed. They were promised big change, but got only small change. Nothing to do with Obamacare though.
> 
> 
> 
> Like Hillary, Romey had only himself to blame, can't run a bad campaign and expect to win.
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the Republicans who tried to block every move he made from the start.
> ...



Well, in that respect it was Obama's Presidency that started the dirty tactics.  He did it to McCain, H. Clinton, and Romney.  The focus wasn't on the issues; it was on the person.  Note how Hillary kept saying he was "not qualified" and Obama joined her?  

Iraq wasn't stable enough, for one thing, and I don't think they trusted Obama the way they did Bush.

Obama's acts were questionable.  His actions emboldened the enemies who should still have been sanctioned.  Iran has not been nicer and neither has Cuba.  We should have waited until both Castro brothers were dead to reopen relations - we will never get through to the current regime, as they are showing that now.  Everything was politically correct and personally uplifting to him.  He could not take responsibility for anything under his watch.  

Netanyahu's wife was the one in trouble - that's on her to defend.

To be President of the United States, all you have to do is (1) be at least 35 years of age, (2) be a natural-born citizen, and (3) to have been a resident in the United States for 14 years.  It doesn't say anything about being in Congress or a Governor.  So, yes, Trump is qualified.

----------


## Member11

> Well, in that respect it was Obama's Presidency that started the dirty tactics.  He did it to McCain, H. Clinton, and Romney.  The focus wasn't on the issues; it was on the person.  Note how Hillary kept saying he was "not qualified" and Obama joined her?



So you fully support the guy who only does personal attacks?





> Iraq wasn't stable enough, for one thing, and I don't think they trusted Obama the way they did Bush.



The war started by Blush on a lie might have something to do with Iraq being unstable.





> Obama's acts were questionable.  His actions emboldened the enemies who should still have been sanctioned.  Iran has not been nicer and neither has Cuba.  We should have waited until both Castro brothers were dead to reopen relations - we will never get through to the current regime, as they are showing that now.  Everything was politically correct and personally uplifting to him.  He could not take responsibility for anything under his watch.



You say that but you don't provide any examples, especially anything that effected you personally. Your hate of him seems to be from people telling you that you should hate him rather than anything he did.





> Netanyahu's wife was the one in trouble - that's on her to defend.



Come on, dude. You really think his wife did corruption without him knowing? If it was Obama's wife, would you still think Obama didn't know anything about it?





> To be President of the United States, all you have to do is (1) be at least 35 years of age, (2) be a natural-born citizen, and (3) to have been a resident in the United States for 14 years.  It doesn't say anything about being in Congress or a Governor.  So, yes, Trump is qualified.



What does that have to do with anything I said?

----------


## Ironman

So you fully support the guy who only does personal attacks?
It depends on the attacks.  During the campaign, his attacks were kind of petty.  He was more focused on delivering his message and what he wanted to do.


The war started by Blush on a lie might have something to do with Iraq being unstable.
.....partly.  Iraq also refused to continue with sanctions imposed on them for the Gulf War - 1991.  That was part of it that led to the WDM business, things Hussein could have done under the table.  He was keeping aid for himself and not giving it to the people.  There was more to the story than the WMD stuff in the beginning.  Iraq was still to pay for the Gulf War.


You say that but you don't provide any examples, especially anything that effected you personally. Your hate of him seems to be from people telling you that you should hate him rather than anything he did.
Directly, it affected me in the workplace.  I work for a global company that is seemingly anti-American.  They will hire people from other countries before they hire Americans.  We were told by my boss that "we cost too much".  A lot of that is the regulations and insurance costs that were added during the Obama Presidency.  The rules and regulations were brought on right when we were at our weakest point after layoffs.  It's like we are being punished for fighting for our jobs.  I have also noticed that we are forced to pay an extra $400 on our taxes for not having health insurance (which I do have, obviously), but I found it disturbing that it was a consistent $400 "penalty".  That's against our way of life.  We still have too many people out of work and not looking.  That's a failure.


Come on, dude. You really think his wife did corruption without him knowing? If it was Obama's wife, would you still think Obama didn't know anything about it?
She was mistreating her staff.  I don't think there was corruption.  When it comes to the corruption, we have a slogan: "innocent until proven guilty."  It depends - one spouse can do things without the other knowing.


What does that have to do with anything I said?
It is the "qualification" issue - people trashing Trump because he has never held public office.  His election was basically a shakeup of our entire Government, Republican and Democrat.  Our Congress has been dreadfully deadlocked with political bickering and it was driving people bananas.
[/QUOTE]

----------


## Member11

> ...partly.  Iraq also refused to continue with sanctions imposed on them for the Gulf War - 1991.  That was part of it that led to the WDM business, things Hussein could have done under the table.  He was keeping aid for himself and not giving it to the people.  There was more to the story than the WMD stuff in the beginning.  Iraq was still to pay for the Gulf War.



The WMD stuff was a lie, made up by the Bush administration, on the other hand, Saudi Arabia continuously goes against the USA despite the USA handing over billions in taxpayers' funds, gave comfort and funding to the 9/11 attackers and is funding IS and other terrorists in the middle east to this day. I don't see how what happened in the Gulf War back 26 years ago is more important than what Saudi Arabia is doing.





> Directly, it affected me in the workplace.  I work for a global company that is seemingly anti-American.  They will hire people from other countries before they hire Americans.  We were told by my boss that "we cost too much".  A lot of that is the regulations and insurance costs that were added during the Obama Presidency.  The rules and regulations were brought on right when we were at our weakest point after layoffs.



That is the result of corporate greed which started 40 or so years back and is getting worst by the day, and it is happening in every developed country. It is also a major problem here in Australia. To say Obama caused or started it is completely unfair, although Obama didn't do much about it. And the issue isn't caused by rules and regulations, if businesses can run and make huge profits in war zones, some rules and regulations isn't going to hurt.





> I have also noticed that we are forced to pay an extra $400 on our taxes for not having health insurance (which I do have, obviously), but I found it disturbing that it was a consistent $400 "penalty".  That's against our way of life.  We still have too many people out of work and not looking.  That's a failure.



The USA doesn't have speeding fines, parking fines, etc? If your employer isn't providing health insurance or at least helping you pay for your own, it is breaking the law and hence the penalty.





> I don't think there was corruption.  When it comes to the corruption, we have a slogan: "innocent until proven guilty."  It depends - one spouse can do things without the other knowing.



It is what the police are saying. I didn't say whether he is guilty or not and I couldn't care less about it, however, it and his low poll numbers is why he is refusing to do a peace deal and trying to make it seem like the world is against Israel.





> It is the "qualification" issue - people trashing Trump because he has never held public office.



And I disagree with that argument people are using against Trump. You shouldn't assume my opinion on something.

----------


## Ironman

Saudi Arabia gave Hillary Clinton millions of dollars, too.  
Obama put on tighter regulations - he made it harder to hire and called it "spreading the wealth".
We have speeding fines, but we have to actively do something.  We don't have to have insurance; that's our risk we take.
Trump has a stance on Israel.  The Palestinian people do not want peace with Israel; they want Israel gone.

About his eligibility - that statement was for just information.  There are a lot of people around the Net saying he isn't qualified because he'd never held office.
I am as eligible as he is  ::

----------


## Member11

> Saudi Arabia gave Hillary Clinton millions of dollars, too.



And they gave to Trump's businesses too. And both things makes it okay how?





> Obama put on tighter regulations - he made it harder to hire and called it "spreading the wealth".



So you don't want a fair wage and just conditions? Want to work for $2 per day?





> We have speeding fines, but we have to actively do something.  We don't have to have insurance; that's our risk we take.



Unless you get hurt and end up in the ER where taxpayers usually foot the bill.





> The Palestinian people do not want peace with Israel; they want Israel gone.



Of course they do, they have been stuck in a state of war with Israel since forever. Doesn't mean a peace deal can't be made, Netanyahu is the one refusing to make a deal.

----------


## Ironman

Netanyahu knows more about the Palestinians than we do.  There is a reason.

Trump was almost completely self-funded with his campaign. 

I want a fair wage, but when they favor cheaper foreign employment, that's what they get.  I am having to constantly clean up for the mistakes for my Indian coworker, who has been with the company for over six years.  She still does her job like it's her first year.  That is extra strain on me.

I went to the ER three times last summer.  I know how much it costs.  It's steep but not bad unless other tests are done.  Again, that's a risk; health insurance shouldn't be forced especially the way it was done in 2010.  That was a one-party affair.  It was forced through without even reading the law.

----------


## Member11

> Netanyahu knows more about the Palestinians than we do.  There is a reason.



I just told you the reason, his low approval numbers and the corruption investigation. It's politics 101.





> Trump was almost completely self-funded with his campaign.



He says that, but the written documents he provided says different.





> I want a fair wage, but when they favor cheaper foreign employment, that's what they get.  I am having to constantly clean up for the mistakes for my Indian coworker, who has been with the company for over six years.  She still does her job like it's her first year.  That is extra strain on me.



Wouldn't it be good if there was some regulations that stopped corporations from doing that?





> I went to the ER three times last summer.  I know how much it costs.  It's steep but not bad unless other tests are done.  Again, that's a risk; health insurance shouldn't be forced especially the way it was done in 2010.  That was a one-party affair.  It was forced through without even reading the law.



You paid for the costs of your treatment, not the costs for the ER itself to exist, you are using something that others are paying for through taxes and insurance, you are getting a penalty because you are not putting in your share.

----------


## Ironman

> I just told you the reason, his low approval numbers and the corruption investigation. It's politics 101.
> 
> 
> 
> He says that, but the written documents he provided says different.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be good if there was some regulations that stopped corporations from doing that?
> ...



Well, it's also politics 101 that investigations have been politically driven.  He was questioned twice right after New Year's and says that there is nothing.  We still have to call him innocent until proven guilty.  It's not denial, but in America we do try to be fair to even the accused.

It will all come out.  if there was something shady, it would have come to light.

I do get overtime, but being made to feel like I am compensating for other people's ineptitude or laziness, that's not cool.

No, when it comes to insurance, I pay into the group to get the discount or I pay for everything by myself.  No insurance means 100% on the person.  That's the risk.  I had to do that after being laid off in 2002 with a root canal.  With insurance, I would have paid 20% of the full cost.  Since I chose not to have insurance, I had to pay the full amount.  When the dentist saw that I was doing this, he was nice enough to put a gold crown on my molar instead of a porcelain one.  That was out of his goodness (as gold is very expensive).

----------


## Member11

> Well, it's also politics 101 that investigations have been politically driven.  He was questioned twice right after New Year's and says that there is nothing.  We still have to call him innocent until proven guilty.  It's not denial, but in America we do try to be fair to even the accused.



You missed my point, I'm saying Netanyahu, himself, is using the peace process and the UN vote to make himself look like the victim to distract the voters from his low poll numbers and the investigations. The UN vote was on something that isn't enforceable and basically just asks Israel to stop building on Palestinian land, in fact if I got a group of 20 people together and we voted on the same thing, it would be just as enforceable as the UN vote was. Netanyahu is getting upset over a piece of paper.





> It will all come out. if there was something shady, it would have come to light.



Here it is. 22.67% of it was from Trump, himself.





> I do get overtime, but being made to feel like I am compensating for other people's ineptitude or laziness, that's not cool.



Exactly, do you think it would be fair for the government to come in and stop the company from doing that to you?





> No, when it comes to insurance, I pay into the group to get the discount or I pay for everything by myself.  No insurance means 100% on the person.  That's the risk.  I had to do that after being laid off in 2002 with a root canal.  With insurance, I would have paid 20% of the full cost.  Since I chose not to have insurance, I had to pay the full amount.



Think about it this way, you paid for your car, but you didn't help pay for the road to drive your car. The penalty is to help pay for the road.

----------


## sunrise

The healthcare individual mandate was originally a REPUBLICAN idea.  When Obama adopted as part of his ACA, Republicans predictably pivoted and attacked it.  Even the very same Republicans who were proponents of the mandate during Clinton's administration.  

Trump may be an unpredictable oddball, but the people he surrounded himself with are dyed-in-the wool conservative Republicans. I might be ok if they reduced entitlements if they weren't hypocritically promoting corporate welfare. He wants to spend big on the military and his wall, and concomitantly giving rich folks and corporations tax breaks. So entitlements are always the main focus when it comes to balancing the budget, putting the burden on the middle class and working poor.

----------


## Ironman

You missed my point, I'm saying Netanyahu, himself, is using the peace process and the UN vote to make himself look like the victim to distract the voters from his low poll numbers and the investigations. The UN vote was on something that isn't enforceable and basically just asks Israel to stop building on Palestinian land, in fact if I got a group of 20 people together and we voted on the same thing, it would be just as enforceable as the UN vote was. Netanyahu is getting upset over a piece of paper.
His issues with the Palestinians has been that way before any investigation.  He emphasized that the settlements being built were for Israelis and Palestinians, yet it was still crossing the line.  The last skirmish was the Palestinians digging tunnels into Israel and attacking people.  The Palestinians never keep their word to keep peace.  They are even given land through UN resolutions, only to lose it as punishment because they try to attack Israel for more land.  The UN resolution passed is enforceable and they tried to do something on January 15th with a whole set or countries and failed.  There was a BIG uproar about what Obama would do right before leaving office.  His abstention basically said "Israel doesn't have US support" when this a minority opinion among the American people. Most of us support Israel because they are our only ally in the Middle East.  Americans are different in this respect.  Other countries don't have the same dynamic we do. 


Here it is. 22.67% of it was from Trump, himself.
SuperPACs give money to all candidates.  The nominee can reject them.  That graph still means he was mostly self-funded.  I know that he worked with far less money that what Hillary had.  He ran his campaign on a budget.


Exactly, do you think it would be fair for the government to come in and stop the company from doing that to you?
The issue is responsibility for one's job.  I can understand "being too busy" and helping them, but "doing their job for them" when they are capable of doing it themselves is the issue.  I should not have had to work as hard as I did in 2016, having to constantly feel like I was cleaning up after people - my own job suffers at that point.


Think about it this way, you paid for your car, but you didn't help pay for the road to drive your car. The penalty is to help pay for the road.
We have city, state, and Federal taxes to pay for those.  We shouldn't be forced to have health care and then turn around and have people who can't afford it get a free ride.  That was a big flaw in Obamacare.  They wanted to force everybody to get on it, like socialized medicine (against our nation's framework).....but the healthy people they expected to enroll, didn't, and Obamacare has more dependent people who can't pay than can pay.  Therefore, the Government has to spend more money to pay for the sick.  In theory, helping the sick is a good idea, but reality - it costs too much.





> The healthcare individual mandate was originally a REPUBLICAN idea.  When Obama adopted as part of his ACA, Republicans predictably pivoted and attacked it.  Even the very same Republicans who were proponents of the mandate during Clinton's administration.  
> 
> Trump may be an unpredictable oddball, but the people he surrounded himself with are dyed-in-the wool conservative Republicans. I might be ok if they reduced entitlements if they weren't hypocritically promoting corporate welfare. He wants to spend big on the military and his wall, and concomitantly giving rich folks and corporations tax breaks. So entitlements are always the main focus when it comes to balancing the budget, putting the burden on the middle class and working poor.



If you are referring to the Republican idea from RomneyCare, then yes, but keep in mind - that was the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, not the entire nation.  There is a diffrenent set of dynamics that the Democratic Party tried to expand with the law.

Who sent it to the Supreme Court? The mandate was the first thing that Trump went after.

----------


## Member11

> The issue is responsibility for one's job.  I can understand "being too busy" and helping them, but "doing their job for them" when they are capable of doing it themselves is the issue.  I should not have had to work as hard as I did in 2016, having to constantly feel like I was cleaning up after people - my own job suffers at that point.



And if the person doesn't take responsibility, would you be happy with the government not allowing the company to export the job?





> We have city, state, and Federal taxes to pay for those.  We shouldn't be forced to have health care and then turn around and have people who can't afford it get a free ride.



The individual mandate is basically a tax to help pay for the ER.





> That was a big flaw in Obamacare.  They wanted to force everybody to get on it, like socialized medicine (against our nation's framework).....but the healthy people they expected to enroll, didn't, and Obamacare has more dependent people who can't pay than can pay.  Therefore, the Government has to spend more money to pay for the sick.  In theory, helping the sick is a good idea, but reality - it costs too much.



You're wrong about one thing, Obamacare isn't socialised medicine. It is a regulated free market system, it was Republican policy before Obama took it to try to make a deal with Republicans. A real socialised system, like the one in Australia, is free for all Australians to use and is paid for by a 2% levy on income earned after the $21,335 threshold, if you earn $21,335 or less you pay nothing.

Even though Obamacare is better than what was there before, it is still terrible policy. It is why I supported Bernie to win over Trump and Hillary, as Bernie wanted to copy Australia's system. If Bernie won and he put in the new system, all the stuff you are paying now for healthcare would disappear.

----------


## Member11



----------


## Ironman

> And if the person doesn't take responsibility, would you be happy with the government not allowing the company to export the job?
> 
> 
> 
> The individual mandate is basically a tax to help pay for the ER.
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong about one thing, Obamacare isn't socialised medicine. It is a regulated free market system, it was Republican policy before Obama took it to try to make a deal with Republicans. A real socialised system, like the one in Australia, is free for all Australians to use and is paid for by a 2% levy on income earned after the $21,335 threshold, if you earn $21,335 or less you pay nothing.
> ...



The issue is that there are 320,000,000 people plus in this country.  With the elderly population growing and the younger generation shrinking (abortion, less babies), There is too much emphasis on few people paying for the majority.  Obamacare, at it's current track, would lead to an insurance bubble that would burst and collapse our economy.

Bernie promised "free college", too, but who was going to pay for it?  He kept screaming "spread the wealth".....I am considered rich to him and I can barely pay my bills!  It's dream; that's all his ideas were.
Hillary wanted to continue Obama....which was exactly what people didn't want.  Outside of California (San Fran, Los Angeles), Illinois (Chicago) and New York (New York City), Trump won nearly every state.
In our country, it is near impossible for one party to get a third consecutive term.  Reagan - George H.W. Bush was an exception.  Barack Obama was no Ronald Reagan by any means.  





> 



Keith Olbermann was an ESPN sportscaster before he went off the deep end politically.  Today, he is ostracized for being too liberal.   Rosie O'Donnell keeps begging Keith to do something about Trump's Presidency - like delay the inauguration, impose martial law, etc.  Way too divisive.

Donald Trump has actually followed through on his promises more than most previous Presidents of any party.  He is actually a wake-up call for Republicans, too.  The man is focused on business and strengthening out country.  Obama made us a weakened mess.

----------


## Member11

> The issue is that there are 320,000,000 people plus in this country.  With the elderly population growing and the younger generation shrinking (abortion, less babies), There is too much emphasis on few people paying for the majority.  Obamacare, at it's current track, would lead to an insurance bubble that would burst and collapse our economy.



Did you read anything that I wrote?





> Bernie promised "free college", too, but who was going to pay for it?



Wall street, two small taxes on stock trades, easily paid for it.





> He kept screaming "spread the wealth".....I am considered rich to him and I can barely pay my bills!



If you have billions of dollars in the bank, you could donate to the site?  :;-):  Under Bernie's plans, you would have gotten a tax cut, a pay raise and all your healthcare costs would be gone. What is so wrong about billionaires and corporations (who got their wealth thanks to the USA) giving a little bit back to help people like you?





> It's dream; that's all his ideas were.



All his polices were fully costed, paid for and already written as bills ready to be passed.

----------


## Ironman

> Did you read anything that I wrote?
> 
> Wall street, two small taxes on stock trades, easily paid for it.
> 
> If you have billions of dollars in the bank, you could donate to the site?  Under Bernie's plans, you would have gotten a tax cut, a pay raise and all your healthcare costs would be gone. 
> What is so wrong about billionaires and corporations (who got their wealth thanks to the USA) giving a little bit back to help people like you?
> 
> All his polices were fully costed, paid for and already written as bills ready to be passed.



That job is already exported!  If the Indian employee was let go, he'd be replaced by another Indian employee.  That particular job used to be in the United States.  They think they are saving money, but if another employee is having to be paid to do her job, that's a loss.  Hence, the overtime that I won't even have time to spend.  It's been bad enough that I have had to delay vacation time because of this person's holidays - and I have been with the company for over 12 years to this person's 6.  It's like they have control over my job.

Our Medicare systems is similar to a trust.....but what happens if there is another recession?  Our interest rates are also still way too low given where we should be after a recession.  Eight years and we are barely breaking even.  There is no stimulus to hire in the United States other than the under-30 hour jobs to bypass the Obamacare mandate.

There aren't that many billionaires.  Even so, they probably helped Hillary, or her protesters (George Soros).  That's not philanthropy, it's social engineering through civil unrest.

It was the millennial crowd (college kids with weird majors and debt) that supported it.  Free college is a nice draw, but what would have happened when they got the bill for something else.  Assistance is okay, free handouts aren't much.

----------


## Member11

> That job is already exported!  If the Indian employee was let go, he'd be replaced by another Indian employee.  That particular job used to be in the United States.  They think they are saving money, but if another employee is having to be paid to do her job, that's a loss.  Hence, the overtime that I won't even have time to spend.  It's been bad enough that I have had to delay vacation time because of this person's holidays - and I have been with the company for over 12 years to this person's 6.  It's like they have control over my job.



If the proper rules and regulations are put into place, corporations will have no choice but to bring back the exported jobs.





> Our Medicare systems is similar to a trust.....but what happens if there is another recession?  Our interest rates are also still way too low given where we should be after a recession.  Eight years and we are barely breaking even.  There is no stimulus to hire in the United States other than the under-30 hour jobs to bypass the Obamacare mandate.



I like how you are trying to avoid talking about the Australian system, because you know it proves that real socialised healthcare does work and is quite cheap  :Tongue: 





> There aren't that many billionaires.



There are 540 billionaires in the USA, worth a collective $2.4 trillion, there is plenty.





> It was the millennial crowd (college kids with weird majors and debt) that supported it.  Free college is a nice draw, but what would have happened when they got the bill for something else.



I have no idea what you mean by this. Just like everyone else, students has to pay rent, food, clothing, etc, along with school books and equipment, so they still need to have a job. If someone picks a weird degree and can't get a job that would be there own fault and have to take responsibility for their actions, just like now. None of it has anything to do with tuition-free college.





> Assistance is okay, free handouts aren't much.



So, primary schools, high schools, roads, hospitals, law enforcement, defence, customer protection, 911, food/drug/aircraft safely are all evil free handouts too?

----------


## Ironman

> If the proper rules and regulations are put into place, corporations will have no choice but to bring back the exported jobs.
> 
> I like how you are trying to avoid talking about the Australian system, because you know it proves that real socialised healthcare does work and is quite cheap 
> 
> There are 540 billionaires in the USA, worth a collective $2.4 trillion, there is plenty.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by this. Just like everyone else, students has to pay rent, food, clothing, etc, along with school books and equipment, so they still need to have a job. If someone picks a weird degree and can't get a job that would be there own fault and have to take responsibility for their actions, just like now. None of it has anything to do with tuition-free college.
> 
> So, primary schools, high schools, roads, hospitals, law enforcement, defence, customer protection, 911, food/drug/aircraft safely are all evil free handouts too?



Trump is trying to release those regulations.  That is what I am trying to say.
I don't know anything about the Australian health care system - I am in the United States.  We are supposed to have free enterprise and competition.
The billionaires get taxed pretty high.  There isn't anything they can do with their money when they go other than to give it away.  They are in a high tax bracket anyway.  I have my own battles with a tax bracket.

The current college aged kids would support a free college offer because it would relieve them of responsibility of having to pay debts.  Having a good major would do it instead.  I had a loan, but I commuted to school - saved money that I would have used up living in dorms.  These are LIFE decisions.  Planning for the future, not today.  I had debt, but schools weren't doing things like building luxury apartments and pools for catering to students.  It's all out of control in colleges these days.  Luxury apartments for college students isn't a necessity but there are schools doing it and charged huge amounts.  It's not needed.  Education is supposed to be the most important thing!

No - we pay taxes for schools, roads, police, defense, etc.  Those aren't free.  If they cost more, we pay more, but we have to know what we are paying for.  We have been through a lot where our tax money has been misspent.

----------


## Member11

> Trump is trying to release those regulations.  That is what I am trying to say.



This brings me to me point, why is regulations under Obama bad, but regulations under Trump good? In fact, Trump has actually kept some of Obama's regulations.





> We are supposed to have free enterprise and competition.



So does Australia. Keep in mind, I'm a business man, I ran businesses before.





> The billionaires get taxed pretty high.  There isn't anything they can do with their money when they go other than to give it away.  They are in a high tax bracket anyway.  I have my own battles with a tax bracket.



Actually that is not true, billionaires do have a higher tax bracket, but they use tax loopholes (ones you can't use) to reduce their taxes to near, at or below zero. In fact, some billion dollar corporations gets a tax refund, as in the USA government pays the corporation money, thanks to the loopholes. You pay more in taxes as a percent of your wage than billionaires and corporations. This is why the taxes you have to pay is going up, they are shifting their tax burden onto you.





> The current college aged kids would support a free college offer because it would relieve them of responsibility of having to pay debts.  Having a good major would do it instead.  I had a loan, but I commuted to school - saved money that I would have used up living in dorms.  These are LIFE decisions.  Planning for the future, not today.  I had debt, but schools weren't doing things like building luxury apartments and pools for catering to students.  It's all out of control in colleges these days.  Luxury apartments for college students isn't a necessity but there are schools doing it and charged huge amounts.  It's not needed.  Education is supposed to be the most important thing!



The debt that students have to deal with these days is bigger than it once was, add in that wages have actually went backwards in real terms over the years means it is much harder to pay the debt off. The reason the tuition-free college is a thing is because the debt is hurting businesses (real businesses I mean, not corporations). Because people with debt are paying off the debt instead of spending money, businesses have less sales, with less sales businesses can't hire people, which means more unemployed people, which means less people spending money buying things from businesses, which means businesses can't hire people, and around and around it goes.





> No - we pay taxes for schools, roads, police, defense, etc.  Those aren't free.  If they cost more, we pay more, but we have to know what we are paying for.



Through taxes on Wall Street is how tuition-free college would be funded. It is the same thing.

----------


## Member11

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...never-happened

I still can not believe the world right now, the spokesperson and senior adviser for the US President so easily lied on TV without caring one bit. It is a big mistake to trust anything these people say.

----------


## sunrise

When facts are conveniently discarded and treated with disdain, there's nothing left to constrain poor decisions.

----------


## merc

The biggest thing that bothers me the most so far about President Trump was the very first press conference where "alternative facts," were presented, about something that should not matter. Crowd size!!!???? You can't make this stuff up. It'd be hilarious; if it weren't true. I saw this press conference live and it was "breaking news" that interrupted normal programming!!!

They could have chosen from several reasons for the lack of attendance such as fear of unruly crowds. If I saw demonstrators setting cars on fire I think I may have decided abruptly not to go to the inauguration. 

To be fair, at the same time when you look at the things he has done since being elected, they are just him fulfilling campaign promises. If he could do that without adding the personal slurs and insults???? It's going to be a very long four years. As a member of the middle, the middle of the middle class, I've learned to distrust republicans. Some of Trumps ideas aren't that bad. I cringe every time he says something rude and insulting and the press is having a field day. A good thing maybe is that ordinary people know more about what is going on then ever before.

As for getting rid of Obama care, I think all that will happen is that the name will be ripped off of the program and turned into "Trump Care." Instead of revising and changing aspects that weren't working. Scrap it and???? It will be the best. Believe it. I just worry about this man as our President, he has not a single ounce of diplomacy or politeness. I find it hard to believe he was a somewhat successful business man.

----------


## Member11

> As for getting rid of Obama care, I think all that will happen is that the name will be ripped off of the program and turned into "Trump Care." Instead of revising and changing aspects that weren't working. Scrap it and???? It will be the best. Believe it. I just worry about this man as our President, he has not a single ounce of diplomacy or politeness. I find it hard to believe he was a somewhat successful business man.



I thought that too, but there is more to it. Apart of Obamacare is actually a tax increase on billionaires and corporations, this is the sole reason why Republicans have been at war with Obamacare, their donors (the billionaires and corporations) hates that tax increase and wants it gone. You might have notice Republicans always saying they must repeal it, never fix or amend, always repeal. The reason why is if they repeal it the tax increase goes away without anyone noticing.

If it wasn't for this tax increase, my money would definitely be on Trump just renaming it with a few minor changes, after all it is Republican policy. But with this tax increase mixed in, my money is on them repealing it and promising to come up with a replacement later, but never do.

----------


## merc

The biggest thing i hate is the very large profitable corporations like McDonalds and others including the one I work for. They keep the  majority of workers part-time so they do not have to provide health insurance. As soon as Obama care was enacted our company dropped the part-time employee health insurance plan. Yet,  the majority of their workers receive the most governmental subsidies. I know this I work in a lower paying field, part-time, i.e. the housewife, student job extra cash. They get food assistance, medical assistance, housing  and heat assistance  to pay high fuel bills during winter. Most of their cash is extra money. No taxes. Obama care forced them all to sign up. One co-worker didn't sign up, he said it was still cheaper to pay the fine on his taxes, but that the fine goes up every year without insurance and once it became too expensive he would chose the cheapest option.

I've one co-worker who doesn't care when they cut our hours down to nothing for a week because his governmental assistance goes up to offset any of his personal loss. He's got a college degree and he is smart. A millennial who can't find a decent job. Anyway a lot of the laws don't favor family institutions. Two co-workers, young moms, don't want to get married because they get more assistance just having the father of their children as boyfriend who conveniently lives with them until it is convenient for them not to on the assistance forms. The rich screw the middle class over, the poor screw everyone over and another day in America. I'm still glad I live here in my little house and that we are getting by on what we make.

----------


## Member11

> The biggest thing i hate is the very large profitable corporations like McDonalds and others including the one I work for. They keep the  majority of workers part-time so they do not have to provide health insurance. As soon as Obama care was enacted our company dropped the part-time employee health insurance plan. Yet,  the majority of their workers receive the most governmental subsidies. I know this I work in a lower paying field, part-time, i.e. the housewife, student job extra cash. They get food assistance, medical assistance, housing  and heat assistance  to pay high fuel bills during winter. Most of their cash is extra money. No taxes. Obama care forced them all to sign up. One co-worker didn't sign up, he said it was still cheaper to pay the fine on his taxes, but that the fine goes up every year without insurance and once it became too expensive he would chose the cheapest option.
> 
> I've one co-worker who doesn't care when they cut our hours down to nothing for a week because his governmental assistance goes up to offset any of his personal loss. He's got a college degree and he is smart. A millennial who can't find a decent job. Anyway a lot of the laws don't favor family institutions. Two co-workers, young moms, don't want to get married because they get more assistance just having the father of their children as boyfriend who conveniently lives with them until it is convenient for them not to on the assistance forms. The rich screw the middle class over, the poor screw everyone over and another day in America. I'm still glad I live here in my little house and that we are getting by on what we make.



Exactly, it is gross and sickening  ::(:

----------


## Ironman

> The biggest thing i hate is the very large profitable corporations like McDonalds and others including the one I work for. They keep the  majority of workers part-time so they do not have to provide health insurance. As soon as Obama care was enacted our company dropped the part-time employee health insurance plan. Yet,  the majority of their workers receive the most governmental subsidies. I know this I work in a lower paying field, part-time, i.e. the housewife, student job extra cash. They get food assistance, medical assistance, housing  and heat assistance  to pay high fuel bills during winter. Most of their cash is extra money. No taxes. Obama care forced them all to sign up. One co-worker didn't sign up, he said it was still cheaper to pay the fine on his taxes, but that the fine goes up every year without insurance and once it became too expensive he would chose the cheapest option.
> 
> I've one co-worker who doesn't care when they cut our hours down to nothing for a week because his governmental assistance goes up to offset any of his personal loss. He's got a college degree and he is smart. A millennial who can't find a decent job. Anyway a lot of the laws don't favor family institutions. Two co-workers, young moms, don't want to get married because they get more assistance just having the father of their children as boyfriend who conveniently lives with them until it is convenient for them not to on the assistance forms. The rich screw the middle class over, the poor screw everyone over and another day in America. I'm still glad I live here in my little house and that we are getting by on what we make.







> Exactly, it is gross and sickening



This is what I have seen from people more than anything.  24-hour-a week jobs.  That's three days.  They have to find another job to keep paying the bills - that's considered two jobs, inflating the numbers.
This was an Obamacare law - 30 hours was considered the threshold for insurance coverage.  They found a way around it.

The unemployment rate went back up to 4.8% because there are people looking for work again - that was ignored throughout the Obama Presidency.  January's job creation exceeded expectations.

The threshold is one thing Trump needs to address.  It needs to go back up to 40 hours.  For part-time jobs, they would get reduced set of coverage, not the full set that a full-time would.

----------


## Member11

> ...but what happens if there is another recession?  Our interest rates are also still way too low given where we should be after a recession.  Eight years and we are barely breaking even.  There is no stimulus to hire in the United States other than the under-30 hour jobs to bypass the Obamacare mandate.



True, so you got to wonder why Trump is now removing the rules and regulations that are designed to prevent another recession, it is like he doesn't care what happens to you, he just cares about how much profit myself and his big business friends can make.

----------


## Ironman

> True, so you got to wonder why Trump is now removing the rules and regulations that are designed to prevent another recession, it is like he doesn't care what happens to you, he just cares about how much profit myself and his big business friends can make.



I do know that home ownership is down to the lowest levels in America since 1965.  That's from the collapse that the Recession spurred.
Our interest rates have been at historic low levels, which means there isn't an incentive to save money - it's spend, spend, spend.

In this case, it sounds like the rules are so tight that it has been inhibiting the chance for small businesses to borrow and banks to lend.

In other words, the grip is too tight on the economy.  It was designed to protect from a recession, but it's also prohibiting growth.  They need to find a middle section on that.

This goes back to the lack of jobs.  Businesses are going to need to borrow money to grow.  I know there is one company in my city trying to add staff and they ended up having to ask the city for a loan instead of a ban because the bank wouldn't grant them a loan.

I had a rough time getting my house refinanced into my name because the bank didn't want to lend me money - and interest rates were rock bottom and my credit scores were high at the time.

----------


## Member11

> I do know that home ownership is down to the lowest levels in America since 1965.  That's from the collapse that the Recession spurred.
> Our interest rates have been at historic low levels, which means there isn't an incentive to save money - it's spend, spend, spend.
> 
> In this case, it sounds like the rules are so tight that it has been inhibiting the chance for small businesses to borrow and banks to lend.
> 
> In other words, the grip is too tight on the economy.  It was designed to protect from a recession, but it's also prohibiting growth.  They need to find a middle section on that.
> 
> This goes back to the lack of jobs.  Businesses are going to need to borrow money to grow.  I know there is one company in my city trying to add staff and they ended up having to ask the city for a loan instead of a ban because the bank wouldn't grant them a loan.
> 
> I had a rough time getting my house refinanced into my name because the bank didn't want to lend me money - and interest rates were rock bottom and my credit scores were high at the time.



You are blaming the wrong thing, banks don't want to lend because interest rates are so low, banks make their profit from the interest paid on loans, if they can't charge a high interest than the banks avoid loans to businesses. It is why the banks are so focus on credit cards as there is nothing stopping it from charging high interest on credit cards. Also, removing the rules stopping banks from lending to people and businesses who can't afford to pay back the loan, is a very bad idea to do, that is what caused the GFC.

Spending is also not a bad thing, it is what creates a healthy economy and allows businesses to grow and create more jobs. The US economy is having trouble not because of rules and regulations, it is because the middle class has no cash to spend, due to low wages, the tax burden being shifted to them thanks to billionaires and corporations, the offshoring of jobs, high student loans, high mortgages for low value houses, etc.

There is just one simple and minor change that the USA government can do that would lead to the largest stimulus ever seen in US history, that is changing the minimum wage to $15. That cash will then fill the pockets of the middle class who would then go out and spend it, with more sales businesses would have no choice but to hire more staff and expand, who then has money to buy, leading to the secondary stimulus.

If after the increase the minimum wage was linked to inflation leading to an increase every year, the stimulus effect would be permanent. That is what is happening in Australia, our minimum wage is $17.70 currently and the last recession Australia saw was in 1987, two years before I was born.

The Republicans and their donors the billionaires and the corporations are lying to you so they can rob you.

----------


## Member11

http://www.latimes.com/politics/wash...htmlstory.html

Days until achieving majority disapproval:
Reagan: 727
Bush I: 1336
Clinton: 573
Bush II: 1205
Obama: 936
Trump: 8

The fact that this will be driving him crazy makes me happy  ::D:

----------


## Ironman

> http://www.latimes.com/politics/wash...htmlstory.html
> 
> Days until achieving majority disapproval:
> Reagan: 727
> Bush I: 1336
> Clinton: 573
> Bush II: 1205
> Obama: 936
> Trump: 8
> ...



He doesn't care - he is in the White House to do his job - that's making a lot of people happy.

The Presidency, for one thing, isn't a popularity contest.  Outside of the heavily urban states, Trump won most of the country.  The President's first priority is to protect the sovereignty of our country.

The things Presidents do aren't popular sometimes.  Trump's popularity will come from getting things accomplished, and things usually hurt in the beginning...

----------


## sunrise

> The fact that this will be driving him crazy makes me happy



I think it will bother him, but he tends to get more stubborn when faced with opposition. I can't believe it's only been a couple of weeks he's been in office. 





> Senior Trump administration officials reportedly told national security expert Steve Clemons that Trump and company are running the White House like the Keystone Cops.

----------


## Member11

> He doesn't care - he is in the White House to do his job - that's making a lot of people happy.



He is obsessed with polls, ratings and crowd sizes, he needs to feed his ego...

----------


## Ironman

> He is obsessed with polls, ratings and crowd sizes, he needs to feed his ego...



He isn't the first; I can tell you that much!

----------


## Member11

> He isn't the first; I can tell you that much!



Then why did you say he isn't obsessed with his popularity?





> Outside of the heavily urban states...



Why do people in cities don't matter any more? What happened to one person, one vote? Why do the votes of only the people of the majority in rural areas matter? It doesn't matter if you like it or not, Trump lost the popular vote, he doesn't have a mandate.

----------


## Ironman

> Then why did you say he isn't obsessed with his popularity?
> 
> Why do people in cities don't matter any more? What happened to one person, one vote? Why do the votes of only the people of the majority in rural areas matter? It doesn't matter if you like it or not, Trump lost the popular vote, he doesn't have a mandate.



He doesn't care about what people think of him - he cares about what he thinks of himself.  He doesn't do what makes him popular; he does what he thinks he needs to do. 

Your second point is exactly why we have the electoral college system.  Cities are still part of their states.  It's the whole state that is taken into consideration.  The rest of the state balances out the big cities.

If we always went by the popular vote, the major cities of our country would be the biggest focus.  Candidates would go to just the largest cities in the USA and then forget everyone else.  Where does that leave the smaller cities and states?  They would get railroaded every election.  Hillary Clinton only won the electoral vote because of four major American cities - Chicago (which won her Illinois), New York City (New York), and San Francisco/Los Angeles (California).  If California alone is taken out of the equation, Trump would have won the electoral vote.  It shows how slanted big cities are.  Donald Trump actually won the majority of the States in the election - that is how he got the votes.  He won over Democratic states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, which has been hard to do.

----------


## Member11

> He doesn't care about what people think of him - he cares about what he thinks of himself.  He doesn't do what makes him popular; he does what he thinks he needs to do.



In the last 15 hours, Trump has been attacking the legitimacy of a federal judge for doing his job and the judiciary. Trump also goes out his way to personally attack anyone who has criticised him or his actions. He is the most thin skin US President ever.





> Your second point is exactly why we have the electoral college system.  Cities are still part of their states.  It's the whole state that is taken into consideration.  The rest of the state balances out the big cities.



If you are happy with it, that's fine, but you can't call the United States a democracy.





> If we always went by the popular vote, the major cities of our country would be the biggest focus.  Candidates would go to just the largest cities in the USA and then forget everyone else.  Where does that leave the smaller cities and states?  They would get railroaded every election.  Hillary Clinton only won the electoral vote because of four major American cities - Chicago (which won her Illinois), New York City (New York), and San Francisco/Los Angeles (California).  If California alone is taken out of the equation, Trump would have won the electoral vote.  It shows how slanted big cities are.  Donald Trump actually won the majority of the States in the election - that is how he got the votes.  He won over Democratic states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, which has been hard to do.



Would you make the same argument if it was the opposite and Hillary won the electoral college, but lost the popular vote?

----------


## Ironman

> In the last 15 hours, Trump has been attacking the legitimacy of a federal judge for doing his job and the judiciary. Trump also goes out his way to personally attack anyone who has criticised him or his actions. He is the most thin skin US President ever.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are happy with it, that's fine, but you can't call the United States a democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you make the same argument if it was the opposite and Hillary won the electoral college, but lost the popular vote?



It's the second time a judge blocked it.  The weird thing about this is that the issue would only be for visa- green card-holders, and citizens.  They are the only ones documentally allowed to be here.
Trump threw the executive order out immediately the way he did so that there wouldn't have been time for protests to build until the "due date".  He should be 

The United States is a republic.

I would have to accept it.  It's not doing any good to throw a tantrum.  Trump has been pretty open to listening to them.  I can say that when Obama won, we didn't do nearly the destructive stuff people are doing today.  It's downright frightening.

----------


## sunrise

> I can say that when Obama won, we didn't do nearly the destructive stuff people are doing today.  It's downright frightening.



  That's not exactly true.  There's also been a rise in hate crimes since Trump got elected.

----------


## Ironman

> That's not exactly true.  There's also been a rise in hate crimes since Trump got elected.



Actually, I did a Google search, and the first several pages are articles from November for some reason.  Those two were included.  They went up once the election occurred but faded toward the inauguration.

Some even reported as fake by protesters posing as Trump supporters.
http://lidblog.com/top-30-fake-hate-crimes/

What I don't understand is that the CNN made no mention of Hillary's "deplorable" statement, which was as bad for a campaign as Romney's "47% speech" in 2012.  It was equally as divisive on the left as it was the right.

I do remember some of those, unfortunately, but we have yet to see how long these protests are going to last.  
The backlash has been more from the left as of when Trump was elected.  The 120-day travel ban is the latest - seven countries the Obama Administration labeled as possibly having terrorism cells - and people are calling it a complete Muslim ban.  If that were true: place like Egypt, Afghanistan, and Pakistan would have been included.

----------


## Member11

> What I don't understand is that the CNN made no mention of Hillary's "deplorable" statement, which was as bad for a campaign as Romney's "47% speech" in 2012.  It was equally as divisive on the left as it was the right.



Not true, CNN went after her just like every other media.

----------


## Ironman

I hit the wrong button  ::(: .

I meant in the articles I referenced.  Outside of that, they did go after her.  The time frame of the articles I was searching for were in November.

----------


## Member11

> I hit the wrong button .



No worries  :Hug:  I saw you do that before and was quite confused until I realise the edit and reply buttons are close together. Something I'll keep a look out for with the new design  ::): 





> I meant in the articles I referenced.  Outside of that, they did go after her.  The time frame of the articles I was searching for were in November.



Ahhh, I get you now. To be fair on CNN, 2016 and especially the election had hundred of thousands of stories, to put a summary of all the main stories on each story would have been a nightmare.

----------


## Member11



----------


## Member11



----------


## Member11

Those damn terrorists beds! Need a bed ban just until we figure out what's going on  ::D:

----------


## sunrise

^Oh the irony.

----------


## Ironman

> ^Oh the irony.



Oh, the BIAS.

Interesting that they didn't do this for Jay Carney or Josh Earnest.

----------


## Ironman

> Those damn terrorists beds! Need a bed ban just until we figure out what's going on



That didn't count San Bernardino - 13 people.  The shooters were foreign and the wife was from Afghanistan.

We also had a knife attack in Columbus, Ohio from a Somali student.

----------


## sunrise

> Oh, the BIAS.
> 
> Interesting that they didn't do this for Jay Carney or Josh Earnest.



The irony comment was about the statistics Jerry posted. Where's the outrage over all the gun violence?  

As for Spicer - c'mon.  His angry press briefing lent itself to comedic satire.  Press briefings are normally a bland affair.  He _spiced,_ it up.  That skit was uneven but there were some good bits.

----------


## Ironman

> The irony comment was about the statistics Jerry posted. Where's the outrage over all the gun violence?  
> 
> As for Spicer - c'mon.  His angry press briefing lent itself to comedic satire.  Press briefings are normally a bland affair.  He _spiced,_ it up.  That skit was uneven but there were some good bits.



It was a funny skit, though.  
The chewing gum was priceless.  I thought I had that habit bad.  You know the rumors....it stays in the system for seven years.  :: 

OMG!  I just realized!  That's Lambchop!  I wonder what Shari Lewis would say.

----------


## Member11

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/u...tegy.html?_r=1

----------


## Member11



----------


## PinkButterfly

I keep hearing what Trump wants to do about welfare and that's okay and also medicare and more but what I would LOVE to hear is lets do something for MENTAL HEALTH since so many are affected by it and many are losing their lives and that includes a lot of military that served the country so lets get some buildings up and make those places for mental health care and make it affordable and not just one building I am saying one in every state at least and better make it HUGE!!

----------


## sunrise

> It was a funny skit, though.  
> The chewing gum was priceless.  I thought I had that habit bad.  You know the rumors....it stays in the system for seven years. 
> 
> OMG!  I just realized!  That's Lambchop!  I wonder what Shari Lewis would say.



I didn't realize that was Lambchop, lol

----------


## Member11

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...ist-of-attacks

More lying by Trump and friends...

----------


## Ironman

That article listed only one event.  Why didn't the article list the other four?

----------


## Member11

> That didn't count San Bernardino - 13 people.  The shooters were foreign and the wife was from Afghanistan.
> 
> We also had a knife attack in Columbus, Ohio from a Somali student.



It is a 10 year average, it says so in the image...

----------


## Member11

> That article listed only one event.  Why didn't the article list the other four?



Huh? It is an Australian story, it focuses on the Australian attacks. Maybe you should read it fully first as it goes in details about six different Australian attacks that made headlines around the world, but Trump falsely claiming all were covered up.

----------


## Member11

> That article listed only one event.  Why didn't the article list the other four?



Please don't try to defend him on this. He is just straight up lying.

I remember the Sydney siege, for the whole 16 hours all TV channels and news media were focus on this one event, so was me and everyone I knew, I watched the whole thing non-stop until around 2am when I saw the police stormed the cafe after a gun shot was heard inside. After the event, the Sydney siege inquest started and ran from January 2015 to the end of 2016, as required by Australian law. The media covered the whole thing, I know that because I followed it closely.

And it wasn't just the Sydney siege, I remember in detail all the Australian attacks that Trump put in his list, every one of them was covered by the media with headlines and frontpage stories going around the world.

Shooting and attacks like these are very, very rare in Australia, when they do happen it is covered fully by the media and investigations are done afterwards to work out what happen and laws are changed to make sure it doesn't happen again, because Australians cares about each other.

For Trump to claim any of it was "covered up" is just a lie.

----------


## Ironman

> It is a 10 year average, it says so in the image...



Well, the last two years alone would have increased the percentage.

----------


## Ironman

> Please don't try to defend him on this. He is just straight up lying.
> 
> I remember the Sydney siege, for the whole 16 hours all TV channels and news media were focus on this one event, so was me and everyone I knew, I watched the whole thing non-stop until around 2am when I saw the police stormed the cafe after a gun shot was heard inside. After the event, the Sydney siege inquest started and ran from January 2015 to the end of 2016, as required by Australian law. The media covered the whole thing, I know that because I followed it closely.
> 
> And it wasn't just the Sydney siege, I remember in detail all the Australian attacks that Trump put in his list, every one of them was covered by the media with headlines and frontpage stories going around the world.
> 
> Shooting and attacks like these are very, very rare in Australia, when they do happen it is covered fully by the media and investigations are done afterwards to work out what happen and laws are changed to make sure it doesn't happen again, because Australians cares about each other.
> 
> For Trump to claim any of it was "covered up" is just a lie.



He would have been talking about any attacks, not just the one you mentioned.  We had terrorist attacks here - blatant attempts at beheading and "Allahu Akbar" shouts - that were called "workplace violence" by our President,  That is one thing Trump is talking about - terrorist attacks not being called as such.  We had a BIG problem with that here in the States in the last eight years.

----------


## sunrise

> A short time later, the White House provided a list of 78 attacks from September 2014 to December 2016 that officials claimed got short shrift from the news media.
> A perusal of the archives revealed that NBC News covered 57 of the attacks on the list, which resulted in the deaths if 745 people ? including the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015, which killed 130 people, left more than 400 others wounded and resulted in hundreds of stories.
> By contrast, *the 21 attacks NBC News did not cover were smaller incidents in places like Egypt, Bosnia or Bangladesh, resulting in the deaths of just eight people, total.* In a number of these incidents the suspects were described only as "unidentified" or "unidentified ISIL" operatives.
> Also on the White House list was another terrorist attack that was covered widely by both the U.S. and foreign media ? the December 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, which killed 14 people.



This administration has no respect for facts.   

And when Trump tweets: "Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election," he increasingly makes himself sound like a dictator. This is insanity.

----------


## Member11

> He would have been talking about any attacks, not just the one you mentioned.  We had terrorist attacks here - blatant attempts at beheading and "Allahu Akbar" shouts - that were called "workplace violence" by our President,  That is one thing Trump is talking about - terrorist attacks not being called as such.  We had a BIG problem with that here in the States in the last eight years.



Trump didn't say that, he said the media covered it up and didn't report on it, big different. And I would think the people who lost their lives were the most important issue, not the words the US President Obama uses.





> Well, the last two years alone would have increased the percentage.



That's deaths per year, not a percentage. And check the source, it is including the attacks during 2016, in fact it is over-stating the attacks by using the 10 year average instead of the most correct 16 year average, i.e. not including the years since 9/11 when there were no terrorists attacks, which bring the number for all jihadists down to an average of 6 deaths per year.

----------


## HoldTheSea

> This administration has no respect for facts.   
> 
> And when Trump tweets: "Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election," he increasingly makes himself sound like a dictator. This is insanity.



...Because he _is_ a dictator.
This [BEEP] is scary, I'm actually considering defecting to another country. He is going to start a war.

----------


## Ironman

> Trump didn't say that, he said the media covered it up and didn't report on it, big different. And I would think the people who lost their lives were the most important issue, not the words the US President Obama uses.
> 
> 
> 
> That's deaths per year, not a percentage. And check the source, it is including the attacks during 2016, in fact it is over-stating the attacks by using the 10 year average instead of the most correct 16 year average, i.e. not including the years since 9/11 when there were no terrorists attacks, which bring the number for all jihadists down to an average of 6 deaths per year.



Like Benghazi, being truthful about the circumstances would be more respectful for those we have lost.  Four people die in an attack, and "YouTube video" is not exactly what happened.  That's what Trump is saying.  There was more to the story that DIDN'T get reported.





> This administration has no respect for facts.   
> 
> And when Trump tweets: "Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election," he increasingly makes himself sound like a dictator. This is insanity.



Yes, they do.  They have no respect for the bias of the media or the things President Obama spewed.  That's why Trump got elected.

----------


## Ironman

> ...Because he _is_ a dictator.
> This [BEEP] is scary, I'm actually considering defecting to another country. He is going to start a war.



Like Obama's "pen and a phone"?

Give credit where credit is due.

----------


## Ironman

Nancy Pelosi says she can't work with 'President Bush'
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...dent-bush.html

By  Brent Scher  
Published February 07, 2017 
Washington Free Beacon 

Feb. 2, 2017: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of Calif. responds to questions about President Donald Trump's actions and agenda, during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington.


A day after House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was grilled by "Meet The Press" host Chuck Todd on whether her party's leadership was out of touch with the current political climate, the nearly three-decade veteran of Congress mistakenly referred to President Trump as "President Bush."

"While it's only been a couple of weeks since the inauguration, we've seen nothing that I can work with President Bush on," Pelosi said during a Monday press conference.

It appears that members standing behind Pelosi noticed the mistake but chose not to correct or interrupt her. It remains unclear, however, exactly which "President Bush" the minority leader was referring to.


....and she was picked to continue leading the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives.

----------


## Member11

> Like Benghazi, being truthful about the circumstances would be more respectful for those we have lost.  Four people die in an attack, and "YouTube video" is not exactly what happened.  That's what Trump is saying.  There was more to the story that DIDN'T get reported.



The Benghazi attack wasn't on Trump's list and CNN alone wrote 10,400 stories on it, according to Google.





> Yes, they do.  They have no respect for the bias of the media or the things President Obama spewed.  That's why Trump got elected.



So Trump is saying that you can't trust the media, polls and people you know, you can only trust him, isn't that what a scammer says?





> Like Obama's "pen and a phone"?
> 
> Give credit where credit is due.



I have no idea what that means...? I'm happy to give Obama credit for using a pen, it is better than a sharpie  :Tongue:

----------


## Ironman

> The Benghazi attack wasn't on Trump's list and CNN alone wrote 10,400 stories on it, according to Google.
> 
> 
> 
> So Trump is saying that you can't trust the media, polls and people you know, you can only trust him, isn't that what a scammer says?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what that means...? I'm happy to give Obama credit for using a pen, it is better than a sharpie



Benghazi's YouTube video was nothing more than a lie from the Obama Administration for explaining what happened.  There is still no effective explanation as to who told the security people (and lack thereof) to stad down as they were being attacked.  We lost an Ambassador that night - the first since the Carter Administration in 1979.  That was also the last run-in we had with Iran.  Interesting how Obama decided to make some waves over there again.

The "pen and the phone" was Obama's excuse for bypassing Congress that "he couldn't work with" with his own executive actions.

Trump at least Tweets.  He is asking the media to do their job and do it fairly.  He also had an interview where he explained some of the things going on.

----------


## Member11

> Benghazi's YouTube video was nothing more than a lie from the Obama Administration for explaining what happened.  There is still no effective explanation as to who told the security people (and lack thereof) to stad down as they were being attacked.  We lost an Ambassador that night - the first since the Carter Administration in 1979.



I'm not even going to touch this, I couldn't care less about the conspiracy theories for the Benghazi attack, I also find it sickening that people's deaths are being used as false political attack against a legitimately-elected President.





> That was also the last run-in we had with Iran.  Interesting how Obama decided to make some waves over there again.



Still is the last ran-in with Iran. All Obama did was made a deal that stops Iran from having nuclear weapons, I consider that a good thing, but I want to avoid a nuclear war and creating the next IS terrorist group.





> The "pen and the phone" was Obama's excuse for bypassing Congress that "he couldn't work with" with his own executive actions.



So? He had no choice as the Republicans refused to work with him on anything because to them he is a scary black muslim alien lizard monster demon. Even though he was legitimately elected twice as US President and left office with a 53% approval.





> He is asking the media to do their job and do it fairly.



It is not the media's job to only do positive stories of Trump. They are the watchdogs.

----------


## Ironman

> I'm not even going to touch this, I couldn't care less about the conspiracy theories for the Benghazi attack, I also find it sickening that people's deaths are being used as false political attack against a legitimately-elected President.
> 
> Still is the last ran-in with Iran. All Obama did was made a deal that stops Iran from having nuclear weapons, I consider that a good thing, but I want to avoid a nuclear war and creating the next IS terrorist group.
> 
> So? He had no choice as the Republicans refused to work with him on anything because to them he is a scary black muslim alien lizard monster demon. Even though he was legitimately elected twice as US President and left office with a 53% approval.
> 
> It is not the media's job to only do positive stories of Trump. They are the watchdogs.



Trump was legitimately elected by our laws.  I am not going into the "popular vote" issue again because it was discussed once before.
Obama and especially Hillary Clinton herself told the families of the fallen that it was the YouTube video - AT their funeral.  That is disgraceful.  The media didn't report on it until the families came forward and said it!

Iran is testing weapons in spite of the ban.  That was their intended outcome.  They want our country's demise.  They openly state it.  They don't care about any "treaty" because they don't plan on keeping it - their actions prove it.  They are going to end up with a nuclear weapon.

Obama was a lightweight phony who didn't want to work with Congress - he wanted the Republican Party's downfall and ended up ruining his own party instead.

When you get into personal attacks the way Obama and Clinton did, it means they have NOTHING to stand on.  Debate over.

They aren't watching; that's the problem!  They coddled Obama and Clinton and just "can't believe" that the people didn't vote with Hollywood.  If anyone tried to write anything against them, they got silenced or forced to have been removed.  There are journalists left out in the cold that are also coming forward with the tricks of the media.

----------


## Member11

> Trump was legitimately elected by our laws.



Again, why are you directing this at me? I never said Trump was elected illegitimately, in fact I told you this already, it shows you're not giving me the respect of listening to what I say and respond with your views so we can debate the issues properly. We can disagree on everything, but if you're not going listen to what I say and instead assume what my views are, there is no point continuing this debate.

----------


## Ironman

> I also find it sickening that people's deaths are being used as false political attack against a legitimately-elected President.



I couldn't tell if you were talking about Trump or Obama.  Benghazi was more about Clinton's role and Obama's oversight.  The embassy begged the State Department for more security because Libya was more dangerous with the Arab Spring and Qaddafi and all that.  From people who were still there, they said that the requests were shelved or denied.  It wasn't a YouTube video; it was a planned attack.

It's been a very ugly few weeks for anyone who voted for Trump - it's very easy to get up in arms, no pun intended. 

I have a bit of a different understanding of him because I find he and my dad had the same personality and grew up in the same timeframe - they were less than three months apart in age.  They grew up in a time when we had the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and Cuban embargo with President Kennedy.  They were also just finishing high school when he was assassinated.  I know that he comes across as egotistical and brash, but he did go to military school.  He is going to have an ambition to him that many are put off with.   

I need to clean the Chee-toh dust off my fingers.

----------


## imnormal

trumps twitter page gets me up in the morning i just _have_ to read his latest tweets <333

----------


## HoldTheSea

> trumps twitter page gets me up in the morning i just _have_ to read his latest tweets <333



Not sure if this is meant to be facetious or not.

----------


## Ironman

> Not sure if this is meant to be facetious or not.



I keep hitting the wrong button!

They are supposed to be straight from the President himself.
Never a dull tweet.

----------


## Member11

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-trump-cabinet

A Republican mega-donor Betsy DeVos was confirmed as secretary of education, she was picked for the job only because she gave a lot of money to Trump and the Republicans, it is clear she has no clue about how schools work or even have a basic level of understanding of education policy, and has no interest in learning anything.

I thought Trump's election promise was to drain the swamp, not fill it with his friends...?

----------


## Member11

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiehop...cial-advisors/

Trump got rid of a rule that requires financial advisors act in their client's best interest and avoid conflicts of interest when ever possible, so now financial advisors can continue to lie and push their clients into crappy investments that has higher commissions and bonuses for themselves. Yeah, Trump is great for working people  :doh:

----------


## sunrise

> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-trump-cabinet
> 
> A Republican mega-donor Betsy DeVos was confirmed as secretary of education, she was picked for the job only because she gave a lot of money to Trump and the Republicans, it is clear she has no clue about how schools work or even have a basic level of understanding of education policy, and has no interest in learning anything.
> 
> I thought Trump's election promise was to drain the swamp, not fill it with his friends...?



This was very disappointing.

----------


## Member11

President Donald Trump was confused about the dollar: Was it a strong one that’s good for the economy? Or a weak one?

So he made a call ― except not to any of the business leaders Trump brought into his administration or even to an old friend from his days in real estate. Instead, he called his national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, according to two sources familiar with Flynn’s accounts of the incident.

Flynn has a long record in counterintelligence but not in macroeconomics. And he told Trump he didn’t know, that it wasn’t his area of expertise, that, perhaps, Trump should ask an economist instead.

Trump was not thrilled with that response ― but that may have been a function of the time of day. Trump had placed the call at 3 a.m., according to one of Flynn’s retellings ― although neither the White House nor Flynn’s office responded to requests for confirmation about that detail.

...

There is the matter of Trump’s briefing materials, for example. The commander in chief doesn’t like to read long memos, a White House aide who asked to remain unnamed told The Huffington Post. So preferably they must be no more than a single page. They must have bullet points but not more than nine per page.

Small things can provide him great joy or generate intense irritation. Trump told The New York Times that he’s fascinated with the phone system inside the White House. At the same time, he’s registered a complaint about the hand towels aboard Air Force One, the White House aide said, because they are not soft enough.

He’s been particularly obsessed with the performance of his aides on cable television. Past presidents typically didn’t make time to watch their press secretary’s daily briefings with reporters, but Trump appears to have made it part of his routine. “Saturday Night Live’s” weekly skewering of his administration is similarly on his must-watch list ― with his reaction ranging from unamused to seething.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/ent...b04061313a1fbb

It is just two weeks in and it is already chaos, I doubt Trump will last until the next election, I give it 1-2 years tops. It is time to get the popcorn out and watch the USA burn to the ground though  :popcorn:

----------


## Ironman

> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-trump-cabinet
> 
> A Republican mega-donor Betsy DeVos was confirmed as secretary of education, she was picked for the job only because she gave a lot of money to Trump and the Republicans, it is clear she has no clue about how schools work or even have a basic level of understanding of education policy, and has no interest in learning anything.
> 
> I thought Trump's election promise was to drain the swamp, not fill it with his friends...?







> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiehop...cial-advisors/
> 
> Trump got rid of a rule that requires financial advisors act in their client's best interest and avoid conflicts of interest when ever possible, so now financial advisors can continue to lie and push their clients into crappy investments that has higher commissions and bonuses for themselves. Yeah, Trump is great for working people



This isn't your country.  Why the focus?

It's pointless.

----------


## Ironman

> President Donald Trump was confused about the dollar: Was it a strong one that’s good for the economy? Or a weak one?
> 
> So he made a call ― except not to any of the business leaders Trump brought into his administration or even to an old friend from his days in real estate. Instead, he called his national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, according to two sources familiar with Flynn’s accounts of the incident.
> 
> Flynn has a long record in counterintelligence but not in macroeconomics. And he told Trump he didn’t know, that it wasn’t his area of expertise, that, perhaps, Trump should ask an economist instead.
> 
> Trump was not thrilled with that response ― but that may have been a function of the time of day. Trump had placed the call at 3 a.m., according to one of Flynn’s retellings ― although neither the White House nor Flynn’s office responded to requests for confirmation about that detail.
> 
> ...
> ...



You need to read the content of the rest of the links on that page - all of them - and then tell me what the Huffington Post is trying to do.   It's not even owned by Arianna Huffington anymore.  

Air Force One towels not soft enough?   Calling Flynn about the dollar?   Come on!  This is just ridiculous.

----------


## Member11

> This isn't your country.  Why the focus?
> 
> It's pointless.



It isn't pointless to me. I enjoy talking about and debating politics, the law, etc. And as long as I don't go against the Community Guidelines, I'm more than allowed to make my views known, just like everyone else who posted in this thread or who are lurking. You might disagree, but that doesn't stop me from taking an interest in US politics.

----------


## Member11

> You need to read the content of the rest of the links on that page - all of them - and then tell me what the Huffington Post is trying to do.   It's not even owned by Arianna Huffington anymore.  
> 
> Air Force One towels not soft enough?   Calling Flynn about the dollar?   Come on!  This is just ridiculous.



Most of the accounts were confirmed by The New York Times and other media. It isn't the media's fault that Trump's staff are leaking against him and showing what Trump is like behind closed doors. The staff don't want the blame for the disaster that is about to happen and they want to get in good with the media so they will get good book deals.

I hate to break this to you, but the people around Trump, i.e. White House staff, billionaires, corporations, donors, Wall Street and the Republicans, have no loyalty and are more than willing to throw Trump under the bus to save their own asses.

----------


## Ironman

> Most of the accounts were confirmed by The New York Times and other media. It isn't the media's fault that Trump's staff are leaking against him and showing what Trump is like behind closed doors. The staff don't want the blame for the disaster that is about to happen and they want to get in good with the media so they will get good book deals.
> 
> I hate to break this to you, but the people around Trump, i.e. White House staff, billionaires, corporations, donors, Wall Street and the Republicans, have no loyalty and are more than willing to throw Trump under the bus to save their own asses.



The only disaster that is about to happen is the left causing a Civil War.  
Why worry about terrorist attacks when you're hellbent on destroying your domestic, anti One World Government opponents first?

There have been a lot of "news stories" about leaks, but I don't think bathroom towel softness would be anything major.  I seriously doubt he would approach a military expert about the dollar.  Trump is not your regularly-scheduled politician.  People who haven't seen that when he is coming into office are just not with it.

----------


## Member11

> The only disaster that is about to happen is the left causing a Civil War.  
> Why worry about terrorist attacks when you're hellbent on destroying your domestic, anti One World Government opponents first?



That's funny  ::D:  All the left is doing is resisting and protesting, actions they are entitled to do under the first amendment to the US Constitution and something that Republicans did when Obama took office. Since the right-wing didn't give Obama a chance, why should the left-wing give Trump a chance?





> There have been a lot of "news stories" about leaks, but I don't think bathroom towel softness would be anything major.  I seriously doubt he would approach a military expert about the dollar.  Trump is not your regularly-scheduled politician.  People who haven't seen that when he is coming into office are just not with it.



These leaks doesn't surprise me one bit as they all fit his character, I did research on the guy during the election. He inherited the wealth from his daddy who he could never get his approval, causing him to have daddy issues and to obsess about appearing successful when that isn't the case at all. The reason he doesn't release his tax returns is because it will clearly show he doesn't have anything near $10 billion dollars as he claims to have, instead it is more like $200 million. He isn't a business man, he never ran a successful business.

The guy knows he isn't successful, it is why he is so insecure, thin-skin and can't stand criticism, even something has minor as his tiny, tiny hands. One writer mention his tiny hands in an article ten or so years ago, and he got letters from Trump, one contained the outline of his hand in gold sharpie with the note, "See, not so short!". Despite selling a book, one that he didn't write and one that clearly he didn't read, and I think that is because the guy has trouble reading, it is why he doesn't like reading his briefings and instead damn it be only one page and made up of no more than nine bullet points.

The guy is not even able to mange his wealth correctly and is drowning in debt along with his current businesses, none of which make any profit and most he doesn't even own as he licenses his name to actually real and successful developers. He is good at only two things and that is marketing and grabbing attention, especially from the media. He doesn't hate the media, he loves the attention they give him. That is why he watches them endlessly to see what the media says about him and why he calls into shows a lot. You like him, because you are only seeing his marketing.

But can't run a government and without a functioning government crashes and recessions is all but guaranteed. As a real business person and someone who studied economics and law at university. I say, economic disaster is ahead.

I could be wrong, but I did correctly predicted that he would win against Hillary early last year.

----------


## Ironman

> That's funny  All the left is doing is resisting and protesting, actions they are entitled to do under the first amendment to the US Constitution and something that Republicans did when Obama took office. Since the right-wing didn't give Obama a chance, why should the left-wing give Trump a chance?
> 
> 
> 
> These leaks doesn't surprise me one bit as they all fit his character, I did research on the guy during the election. He inherited the wealth from his daddy who he could never get his approval, causing him to have daddy issues and to obsess about appearing successful when that isn't the case at all. The reason he doesn't release his tax returns is because it will clearly show he doesn't have anything near $10 billion dollars as he claims to have, instead it is more like $200 million. He isn't a business man, he never ran a successful business.
> 
> The guy knows he isn't successful, it is why he is so insecure, thin-skin and can't stand criticism, even something has minor as his tiny, tiny hands. One writer mention his tiny hands in an article ten or so years ago, and he got letters from Trump, one contained the outline of his hand in gold sharpie with the note, "See, not so short!". Despite selling a book, one that he didn't write and one that clearly he didn't read, and I think that is because the guy has trouble reading, it is why he doesn't like reading his briefings and instead damn it be only one page and made up of no more than nine bullet points.
> 
> The guy is not even able to mange his wealth correctly and is drowning in debt along with his current businesses, none of which make any profit and most he doesn't even own as he licenses his name to actually real and successful developers. He is good at only two things and that is marketing and grabbing attention, especially from the media. He doesn't hate the media, he loves the attention they give him. That is why he watches them endlessly to see what the media says about him and why he calls into shows a lot. You like him, because you are only seeing his marketing.
> ...



Well, he wouldn't have been the cause of it if is does happen.  We aren't doing that well right now anyway.  Nobody wants to admit it, but it's true.  I see it now with my own job and the work I have to do to literally prop up my foreign coworkers - since 2009.  I mean literally hold their hand by sending emails to their bosses/my coworkers to make sure THEY do their job correctly.  They aren't fired for poor performance anymore.

And yes, there is too much regulation - too much fear of another collapse, and that fear could send us into another one.  This time - healthcare.  That's the bubble I am seeing.

As for Trump, he has advisors all over the place.  He will be fine, but he needs more coaching.  As far as I have seen, he does listen to his team.
The media needs to back off - there is constructive criticism, and then outright subterfuge to sink Trump.  Our country doesn't need that.  Rightly so, the media has lost the majority of its credibility after the tactics in helping Clinton were revealed.

----------


## Member11

> Well, he wouldn't have been the cause of it if is does happen.  We aren't doing that well right now anyway.  Nobody wants to admit it, but it's true.  I see it now with my own job and the work I have to do to literally prop up my foreign coworkers - since 2009.  I mean literally hold their hand by sending emails to their bosses/my coworkers to make sure THEY do their job correctly.  They aren't fired for poor performance anymore.



Not unless he puts in a bad policy that causes a collapse, which is quite possible.





> And yes, there is too much regulation...



Nah, there isn't enough good regulation in the USA that is why more places has lead in the drinking water. Australia has much more good regulation than the USA and we have non-lead water and an economy that hasn't collapsed since I was born.





> As for Trump, he has advisors all over the place.  He will be fine, but he needs more coaching.  As far as I have seen, he does listen to his team.



He's advisors are too busy fighting among each other and just as clueless, did you not see Betsy DeVos's hearing?





> The media needs to back off - there is constructive criticism, and then outright subterfuge to sink Trump.  Our country doesn't need that.  Rightly so, the media has lost the majority of its credibility after the tactics in helping Clinton were revealed.



The media is doing its job, and it attacked Clinton too. Trump doesn't have to listen to the media and instead can do his job, but he isn't there to do the job, he is there for the attention and the title.

----------


## sunrise

> *The only disaster that is about to happen is the left causing a Civil War.*  
> Why worry about terrorist attacks when you're hellbent on destroying your domestic, anti One World Government opponents first?



??? Cancel your subscription to Conspiracy Quarterly.

----------


## Ironman

> Not unless he puts in a bad policy that causes a collapse, which is quite possible.
> 
> Nah, there isn't enough good regulation in the USA that is why more places has lead in the drinking water. Australia has much more good regulation than the USA and we have non-lead water and an economy that hasn't collapsed since I was born.
> 
> He's advisors are too busy fighting among each other and just as clueless, did you not see Betsy DeVos's hearing?
> 
> The media is doing its job, and it attacked Clinton too. Trump doesn't have to listen to the media and instead can do his job, but he isn't there to do the job, he is there for the attention and the title.



Yeah - I was a bit perplexed in the DeVos thing.  The first time the VP has ever had to step in and cast a vote for a Cabinet nominee.  My stepmom taught in Indiana (the state Pence is from and DeVos) and retired in 2012.  She said that the charter schools were beginning to take students away from the public school system - which ends up with the city schools getting less funding.  I kinda wonder if the same thing has been happening in my town.

I went to public schools and felt dumbed down - but then again, I was not a normal kid.  I started reading at 3 and read to my own preschool class.  In kindergarten, I was reading at a grade 5 level (10-11) and doing math at a grade 4 level (9-10, at age 5, I couldn't understand long division - go figure).  The school didn't know what to do with me and oddly, never labeled me "gifted".  That always bugged me when I saw kids labeled as such be real jerks to everyone and were pretty dumb at everything else.

I would like to think that she would do a good job -she deserves a try.  If there are problems, they need to find someone who would be a better fit.

That lead stuff was in Flint, Michigan when the city was trying to save money - I don't know what all went on, but a really bad decision was made with that city.  That's not a nationwide problem, though.

I think Trump will settle in - people aren't seeing that Trump may actually be patriotic in what he is doing.  There were points in his speeches that showed me his interest in people and things.  Oddly, it was about (1) the first hotel he had renovated, (2) an ice skating rink and how to build one - and this story was the most interesting I think I have ever heard him discuss, and (3) the way he saluted ALL of the military academy students marching in the Inauguration parade.  I have never seen ANY President do that.  It was like seeing him back in the high school days.

----------


## Ironman

> ??? Cancel your subscription to Conspiracy Quarterly.



It's a longshot, but considering the tirades and the violence at the inauguration and UC Berkeley...
Celebrities are part of the problem - they are spoiled and don't remember or know what it is like to have to live paycheck to paycheck.

"I've thought.......and awful lot.......about blowing up the White House" - really, Madonna?  It never crossed my mind when Obama was President.

----------


## Member11

> "I've thought.......and awful lot.......about blowing up the White House" - really, Madonna?



But it was okay for Fox News and the Republicans to joke about killing Obama?

----------


## Member11

> Yeah - I was a bit perplexed in the DeVos thing.  The first time the VP has ever had to step in and cast a vote for a Cabinet nominee.  My stepmom taught in Indiana (the state Pence is from and DeVos) and retired in 2012.  She said that the charter schools were beginning to take students away from the public school system - which ends up with the city schools getting less funding.  I kinda wonder if the same thing has been happening in my town.



DeVos doesn't like public schools and plans on defunding it further.





> That lead stuff was in Flint, Michigan when the city was trying to save money - I don't know what all went on, but a really bad decision was made with that city.  That's not a nationwide problem, though.



It is nationwide with more than 18 million Americans affected. Flint was caused by the State Republicans cutting corners to cut costs so they can give out tax cuts to large corporations.

----------


## Member11

> ??? Cancel your subscription to Conspiracy Quarterly.



Hahahahaha  ::D:

----------


## Member11

He loves them...

C4KtZsDXAA47Job.jpeg

He loves them not...

C4KuTe9XAAcqoB4.jpeg

He loves them...

Screen Shot 2017-02-09 at 06.39.42-fullpage.png

I'm starting to see a pattern here...  ::D:

----------


## Ironman

> But it was okay for Fox News and the Republicans to joke about killing Obama?



Nope - that's not funny.  The only time I ever heard of that was when some anchorman said "Obama" instead of "Osama" - his co-anchor immediately turned to him and pointed it out.

----------


## Ironman

> He loves them...
> 
> C4KtZsDXAA47Job.jpeg
> 
> He loves them not...
> 
> C4KuTe9XAAcqoB4.jpeg
> 
> He loves them...
> ...



Well, polls do change.  That would have to be from different days.  ::

----------


## HoldTheSea

> ??? Cancel your subscription to Conspiracy Quarterly.



Hahaha  ::D:  My thoughts exactly.

I'm choosing to stay out of this debate for the most part, but if I feel that my two cents are needed, I'll be happy to jump in.

----------


## Ironman

> Hahaha  My thoughts exactly.
> 
> I'm choosing to stay out of this debate for the most part, but if I feel that my two cents are needed, I'll be happy to jump in.



Uh-huh and there are plenty of leftover Obama people still in Cabinet positions.  Just sayin'.

----------


## Member11

> Uh-huh and there are plenty of leftover Obama people still in Cabinet positions.  Just sayin'.



There is none, they are all gone.

----------


## Ironman

> There is none, they are all gone.



Actually, there are still Obama-era people acting as interim Cabinet positions for those yet to be filled.  Once the Cabinet is approved, then they are done.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/u...tion.html?_r=0

It's from before the inauguration, but it explains what happens to the Cabinet positions.  They have a transition, too.

----------


## Member11

> Actually, there are still Obama-era people acting as interim Cabinet positions for those yet to be filled.  Once the Cabinet is approved, then they are done.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/u...tion.html?_r=0
> 
> It's from before the inauguration, but it explains what happens to the Cabinet positions.  They have a transition, too.



As pointed out in the story only 50 essential State Department and national security officials from the Obama-era were retained. But a few weeks later, they either resigned or were fired anyway. There are 1,100 positions in total.

----------


## Ironman

> As pointed out in the story only 50 essential State Department and national security officials from the Obama-era were retained. But a few weeks later, they either resigned or were fired anyway. There are 1,100 positions in total.



That was the State Department.  It's the other areas - like the lady Trump fired recently who was acting as Attorney General who told her people not to honor the travel ban executive order (she was appointed by Obama).  Now that Senator Jeff Sessions has been confirmed as Attorney General, she and her replacement would not be needed in their roles.

----------


## Member11

> That was the State Department.  It's the other areas - like the lady Trump fired recently who was acting as Attorney General who told her people not to honor the travel ban executive order (she was appointed by Obama).  Now that Senator Jeff Sessions has been confirmed as Attorney General, she and her replacement would not be needed in their roles.



It doesn't matter though, what matters is that his appointments are a bit clueless and has no idea how to run a government, most, like DeVos, doesn't even know anything about what their own department does. I understand what he is doing, bringing in new people, etc, but you still need people on board who has actually ran a government before and knows what to do, otherwise, it is going to be a disaster.

----------


## Member11

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN15M13L

----------


## Ironman

> It doesn't matter though, what matters is that his appointments are a bit clueless and has no idea how to run a government, most, like DeVos, doesn't even know anything about what their own department does. I understand what he is doing, bringing in new people, etc, but you still need people on board who has actually ran a government before and knows what to do, otherwise, it is going to be a disaster.



They will have people to help them.  Cabinet picks don't necessarily have to be political; they need to have experience in their particular areas.
It just seems like incompetence, but each department is more than the ones picked.  If there are problems they can be replaced like anyone else.  There would still be the nomination/confirmation process, but it can still be done.

----------


## Ironman

> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN15M13L



I read that and was shocked, but after what I have seen online since the Inauguration, I am not so surprised anymore.  
This is a very tense time.  It shouldn't be, but it is.

This is also the reason for one of the big issues I push on these sites.

DO NOT DATE unless you have yourself in a position to know who you are or where you are going in life.  When you overcome anxiety, your attitude, your mindset, and your focus could change to the point where you realize that you may not have been with the person you are with had you been in a healthy position before.  If the relationship has a strong foundation, then it will have handled the "transition", but most are so superficial that this political thing should have been discussed during the formation stages of the relationship, it wasn't and therefore comes the result of "you weren't the person I thought you were".  

Bad.

----------


## HoldTheSea

> DO NOT DATE unless you have yourself in a position to know who you are or where you are going in life.  When you overcome anxiety, your attitude, your mindset, and your focus could change to the point where you realize that you may not have been with the person you are with had you been in a healthy position before.



True.

----------


## Ironman

> I read that and was shocked, but after what I have seen online since the Inauguration, I am not so surprised anymore.  
> This is a very tense time.  It shouldn't be, but it is.
> 
> This is also the reason for one of the big issues I push on these sites.
> 
> DO NOT DATE unless you have yourself in a position to know who you are or where you are going in life.  When you overcome anxiety, your attitude, your mindset, and your focus could change to the point where you realize that you may not have been with the person you are with had you been in a healthy position before.  If the relationship has a strong foundation, then it will have handled the "transition", but most are so superficial that this political thing should have been discussed during the formation stages of the relationship, it wasn't and therefore comes the result of "you weren't the person I thought you were".  
> 
> Bad.







> True.



I need to clarify this a little bit.  What I mean is....we need to be able to stand on our own two feet and be strong enough in our individual identity.  Relationships should not be "clingy" or "dependent".  We have to be able to handle ourselves - yes, we can get overwhelmed as other people do.  If we are bound by anxiety, it can affect the way we see things and behave.  It also can change how we see other people.   The issue is if you are working on anxiety and are in a relationship, it can affect the other person as well. 

For instance, if I was in a relationship, and a bit needy and anxious about being alone, then I would gravitate toward some who "needs" and "provides".  BUT while working on my anxiety to better myself, I am not so "needy", but the dynamics of the relationship changes anyway.  Where does that get me?  There would be clashes in the relationship.  Would she want me to stay needy?  What if I don't need to be needy anymore?

That's just an example.  We just have to know where we are before getting into a relationship, that's all.  It would be fair to us and our others.

It's really for people who don't deal with anxiety as much as those who do.

----------


## Member11

Trump removes animal welfare regulations and is going to stop the FDA from making sure animal food is safe  ::(:

----------


## Member11

in case anyone needs a laugh: https://twitter.com/trump_regrets  ::D:

----------


## Member11

C4OJMGYUMAAnc8N.jpg_large.jpeg

 :Tongue:

----------


## sunrise

> in case anyone needs a laugh: https://twitter.com/trump_regrets







> @realDonaldTrump I voted for you but you act like a child. You should take your phone and throw it in the river. Time to lose your binky.



Re: voters who have regret because of his behavior - it's consistent with the way he was before he got into the White House.  And I thought that's WHY they voted for him. Why they would assume he would act differently is baffling.  But I can understand voters who are mad about Trump backing down from promises he made.

----------


## Ironman

Nothing like that pet food thing ever came up.

The issue with the FDA is that it takes too long for them to put together studies on medications.  That has been a problem for years.  I don't know about "dog food poisioning" - that article was from October - I saw one with that Keith Olbermann video (yeesh).

The bias is quite stifling, to scare tactic quality.  Keith Olbermann was the guy that Rosie O'Donnell went to right before the inauguration and asked him if there was something that could be done to delay the inauguration - before announcing that she wanted martial law.





> In fact, according to the Daily Beast, "Eleven of the 23 pet food recalls by the FDA since September of last year pulled chow off shelves due to food poisoned by listeria and salmonella."
> 
> Long story short - if Trump is allowed to take the White House in November, your dog's health could be in jeopardy sooner than later. If he pushes his proposals through, regulations that keep pet stores from selling food that could kill your dog could be gone and you'll have no way of determining whether the food you're giving your beloved pet is safe to eat.
> 
> We shouldn't be surprised at Trump's callous attitude toward our furry friends. As Keith Olbermann points out, there's no evidence Donald Trump has ever had a pet or cared for an animal in any way.

----------


## Ironman

> Re: voters who have regret because of his behavior - it's consistent with the way he was before he got into the White House.  And I thought that's WHY they voted for him. Why they would assume he would act differently is baffling.  But I can understand voters who are mad about Trump backing down from promises he made.



He hasn't done much of that.  The main one was going after Hillary.
The rest is running into Congress - they can't things done fast enough and never could.  He's basically doing the executive orders like Obama did <- THAT was the dangerous precedent.  Once you have a President who did all those things in eight years, it becomes the new threshold.

He's doing too much too fast - the travel ban is the biggest example.  He is, to me, doing the right thing, but it was rushed.

----------


## Member11

> The issue with the FDA is that it takes too long for them to put together studies on medications.  That has been a problem for years.



Would you rather them rush out the drugs without proper checks and have people get sick or die from a bad drug?





> Nothing like that pet food thing ever came up.



I remembered it and Olbermann cited his source, unless Trump's staff are fake news now.

----------


## Ironman

> Would you rather them rush out the drugs without proper checks and have people get sick or die from a bad drug?
> 
> 
> 
> I remembered it and Olbermann cited his source, unless Trump's staff are fake news now.



Nope that's just old news.  It just figured when it has been brought up.  It could be fake news.  Everything you read on the Internet is true, right?

We need the research sped up.  Other countries are beating us to the approvals these days.  We just might need more jobs inthat area, not at the management levels.

----------


## Cuchculan

If you look at other countries though, for example in Europe, were they have made a drug for treating Cystic Fibrosis, you will see they are asking a price for the drug that people can't afford. Tried and tested. People who needed treatment once a month, after taking this drug, only needed treatment about once a year. After the trials they asked for about 100,000 a patient. They had something that worked. Something people wanted. Then they got greedy. For now it is a rich person only drug. The average person can't afford it and the various countries can't afford to buy it either. So you create the perfect drug. Then you can hold the world to ransom. Making it unavailable unless they meet your asking price. 

As for Trump? He is like a kid with a whole lot of new toys. Jumping straight in and wanting to play with them all at the one time. The man needs to slow down a bit. Let people get used to him. Not just throw out all these new laws and want them brought into effect straight away. The man will run out of things to do in six months. He seriously feels like he has to answer to nobody at all.

----------


## Otherside

^Some drugs aren't available here on the NHS (our state health service) because of the price. The government won't pay for them. And so you can't get hold of them unless you go private. People have gone to court to get medications they need. Mostly this is the newer drugs that still have high prices. 

That said, the price of medication in America is ridiculous. Even private prescription medication is cheaper here. If was paying privately for the drug I take here (Depakote ER, or Sodium Valproate), it would be 24p ($0.30, according to google currency converter). I need 112 a month. The whole thing would cost me $33.60. 

To get the same drug in America, it costs several times that about. For the brand name drug (Depakote ER) it costs $380 got sixty. I'd need double that amount. For generic, it would still be over double, costing $180 for sixty.

I struggle to understand how the companies can justify such a massive difference in price between two different countries.

----------


## sunrise

> That said, the price of medication in America is ridiculous. Even private prescription medication is cheaper here. If was paying privately for the drug I take here (Depakote ER, or Sodium Valproate), it would be 24p ($0.30, according to google currency converter). I need 112 a month. The whole thing would cost me $33.60. 
> 
> To get the same drug in America, it costs several times that about. For the brand name drug (Depakote ER) it costs $380 got sixty. I'd need double that amount. For generic, it would still be over double, costing $180 for sixty.
> 
> I struggle to understand how the companies can justify such a massive difference in price between two different countries.



There's an article 





> Marathon Pharmaceuticals LLC says it will charge $89,000 annually in the U.S. for a decades-old steroidal drug that was approved for U.S. sale for the first time on Thursday, a price that is as much as 70 times higher than drug?s price overseas....The price set by Marathon, based in Northbrook, Ill., is 50 to 70 times what most U.S. patients now pay to buy deflazacort from an online pharmacy in the United Kingdom, according to advocates for patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
> http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compa...5wW?li=BBnb7Kz



Normally, the US drug companies try to justify their prices by saying it's necessary to pay for their research.  But in this case, the company is saying it needs to charge this much to make a profit.  If I needed this drug, it would actually be cheaper to fly to another country and buy it.

----------


## Member11

> Nope that's just old news.  It just figured when it has been brought up.  It could be fake news.  Everything you read on the Internet is true, right?



Don't trust Trump and his staff, got it.





> We need the research sped up.  Other countries are beating us to the approvals these days.  We just might need more jobs inthat area, not at the management levels.



That's not how it works. Drug companies always get approval from the FDA first before going to other countries. In Australia, a drug company with FDA approval will get "fast-track" approval as there is no point in repeating the work of the FDA. If the FDA starts to hand out approval like candy and it becomes worthless, the fast-track will no longer apply for the USA. So, to still take advantage of the fact-track system, drug companies will go to Europe first. The USA doesn't have fast-track, so the companies are likely to leave it last or not at all.

So, USA will go from having the drugs first to having them last if not at all.

----------


## HoldTheSea

> Trump removes animal welfare regulations and is going to stop the FDA from making sure animal food is safe



Omfg, this makes me more angry than ANYTHING I have ever heard about Trump. There is a special place in hell for him.
If I get banned from owning German Shepherds because of him, that's it, I'm leaving the fucking country. I'm already thinking about it tbh. I've been looking at real estate overseas, no joke. The US is no place to live right now if you have pets or kids!

----------


## Ironman

> Don't trust Trump and his staff, got it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not how it works. Drug companies always get approval from the FDA first before going to other countries. In Australia, a drug company with FDA approval will get "fast-track" approval as there is no point in repeating the work of the FDA. If the FDA starts to hand out approval like candy and it becomes worthless, the fast-track will no longer apply for the USA. So, to still take advantage of the fact-track system, drug companies will go to Europe first. The USA doesn't have fast-track, so the companies are likely to leave it last or not at all.
> 
> So, USA will go from having the drugs first to having them last if not at all.



So the rest of the world piggybacks on America?  That wasn't what the last eight years were all about.  There are still drugs approved in othet countries without America.

----------


## sunrise

Ambassador Palin





> After White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Wednesday refused to discount the possibility that President Donald Trump might name Sarah Palin as the next ambassador to Canada, Twitter exploded with negative comments north of the border.But first to complain were politicians. New Democrat Party member of Parliament Nathan Cullen told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation it would be difficult to take the former Alaska governor and onetime vice-presidential candidate seriously because she wouldn?t know the truth ?if it jumped up and knocked her on the head.? He also compared her to ?another Donald Trump.?
> 
> Another NDP member of Parliament, Charlie Angus, characterized such a choice as insulting, saying it shows ?how little? Trump and Steve Bannon ?think of Canada.?

----------


## Koalafan

Keeping up with politics is like stabbing myself in the eye at this point. I definitely try to keep up with politics and know what's going on but every morning when I do read stuff my reaction is just "what the [BEEP]?" and I just can't keep going. I feel like I'm in the wrong timeline and I can't get out  ::(:  I try and not think about how we have a reality TV star as president. The Canadian border isn't too much of a run is it?

----------


## HoldTheSea

> Keeping up with politics is like stabbing myself in the eye at this point. I definitely try to keep up with politics and know what's going on but every morning when I do read stuff my reaction is just "what the [BEEP]?" and I just can't keep going. I feel like I'm in the wrong timeline and I can't get out  I try and not think about how we have a reality TV star as president. The Canadian border isn't too much of a run is it?



Let's make a run for it  :Tongue:  I'm only a few hours from Canada.

----------


## Koalafan

> Let's make a run for it  I'm only a few hours from Canada.



Deal! You can sign up for their healthcare at the border, right?  ::D:

----------


## HoldTheSea

> Deal! You can sign up for their healthcare at the border, right?



Not sure what their healthcare laws are regarding koalas, but probably, haha  ::D:

----------


## Koalafan

> Not sure what their healthcare laws are regarding koalas, but probably, haha



Oh no! I hope they have koala healthcare in Canada  ::(:

----------


## HoldTheSea

> Oh no! I hope they have koala healthcare in Canada



Koala healthcare is probably better in Australia  :Tongue:

----------


## sunrise

I wouldn't mind living in Canada, especially Vancouver.  Not sure about Toronto - I don't think I could handle the winters.

----------


## Ironman

> I wouldn't mind living in Canada, especially Vancouver.  Not sure about Toronto - I don't think I could handle the winters.



They got some snow tonight.   It's not quite as cold as I would think it would be - it does have it's times when it is bad.

----------


## Member11

> So the rest of the world piggybacks on America?



No, the world has handed American drugs companies the biggest gift it ever got. With one approval, the American drugs companies has access to basically the worldwide market, saving it tons in further approval costs and giving it an advantage over other drug companies. With more drugs being sold, it means more American jobs too. You are getting angry about something that creates American jobs and give an advantage to American drug companies.

Not only that, but it will also put people's lives at risk. Corporations have proven time and time again it cannot be trusted to put safety above more profits. People also have a low trust in drugs already, just imagine what would happen if people started dying from bad drugs. Without testing, how can you be sure what you are taking is safe?

Getting rid of the FDA and trusting corporations, it is exactly like getting rid of the police and trusting criminals.





> There are still drugs approved in othet countries without America.



Yes, because different countries have different illnesses, e.g. lyme disease isn't found in Australia, so we don't have the treatments for it. Not only that, but most drugs have many different names depending on the market it is in.

----------


## Member11

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/10/po...dossier-update
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-...w-enforcement/

Uh-oh spaghetti-o's  ::D:

----------


## Cuchculan

Think we all know that in some countries there are deals struck between the pharmaceutical companies and the government. Here in Ireland most people with anxiety and depression are on the same forms of medication. I don't think that is by chance alone. You buy our brands of medication and we will give them to you at a nice price. Deals are done. Companies make loads of money. Everybody is a winner. Except the patient who may do better on some other form of medication that is not available to them. Our healthcare system is a joke. The NHS was mentioned in an earlier post. That is in the UK. Ours is actually worse than that. Unless you go private. Which will break the bank. Go private and you find yourself been giving these same forms of medication too. No escaping them at all. They are pushed on everybody.

----------


## Member11

> Think we all know that in some countries there are deals struck between the pharmaceutical companies and the government. Here in Ireland most people with anxiety and depression are on the same forms of medication. I don't think that is by chance alone. You buy our brands of medication and we will give them to you at a nice price. Deals are done. Companies make loads of money. Everybody is a winner. Except the patient who may do better on some other form of medication that is not available to them. Our healthcare system is a joke. The NHS was mentioned in an earlier post. That is in the UK. Ours is actually worse than that. Unless you go private. Which will break the bank. Go private and you find yourself been giving these same forms of medication too. No escaping them at all. They are pushed on everybody.



Exactly, it is why I think the USA and UK should copy Australia. I've been sick for awhile and been on so many different drugs and not once did I came across a drug that was not available to me at $5 per script. The system works because the Australian government makes deals with the drug companies before the drugs are listed and available. A part of that process includes the government working out a reasonable price that it will paid to the companies for the drugs. The companies are forced into this system, because little to no Australian gets their drugs outside this system, it's a form of socialise healthcare and it works.

----------


## Member11

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/o...or-trumps.html

The Trumps are profiting off of taxpayers...

----------


## Member11

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/w...y-874908739801

This might get a bit messy...

----------


## Ironman

> Exactly, it is why I think the USA and UK should copy Australia. I've been sick for awhile and been on so many different drugs and not once did I came across a drug that was not available to me at $5 per script. The system works because the Australian government makes deals with the drug companies before the drugs are listed and available. A part of that process includes the government working out a reasonable price that it will paid to the companies for the drugs. The companies are forced into this system, because little to no Australian gets their drugs outside this system, it's a form of socialise healthcare and it works.



For you in Australia, maybe, but it may not for other people in your country.
But, as you said with your explanation about diseases and drugs, you are not the the US.
We are not Australia.  Our system of Government is different.  This "you should be like us" thing is troubling.  That's "one world government" kind of stuff.  Obamacare is as close to socialized medicine as we have ever been and it is not working for us.  We have areas of the country paying far more than others and companies/doctors leaving the system.

We just caught a guy doing a monopoly thing on a drug and he is being put in prison for it - monopolies are against the law here and they will be forced to break up for the sake of building competition.
Drug companies should be out to make money but if they try to corner the market, that is a red flag here.  That is why generic medications like the one I am on are gaining steam.

----------


## Ironman

> http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/w...y-874908739801
> 
> This might get a bit messy...



She's as bad as Keith Olbermann  ::

----------


## Member11

> For you in Australia, maybe, but it may not for other people in your country.
> But, as you said with your explanation about diseases and drugs, you are not the the US.
> We are not Australia.  Our system of Government is different.  This "you should be like us" thing is troubling.  That's "one world government" kind of stuff.  Obamacare is as close to socialized medicine as we have ever been and it is not working for us.  We have areas of the country paying far more than others and companies/doctors leaving the system.



Like  
@sunrise
 said, you should cancel your subscription to Conspiracy Quarterly. No-one, outside the USA, wants anything to do with the USA, because an spoiled brat was elected into office. Obamacare is not even close to socialised medicine, it is an regulated free-market system. The fact that you *buy* healthcare insurance from corporations that *sell* it in a regulated *marketplace* should be a big clue that it is free-market policy.





> We just caught a guy doing a monopoly thing on a drug and he is being put in prison for it - monopolies are against the law here and they will be forced to break up for the sake of building competition.
> Drug companies should be out to make money but if they try to corner the market, that is a red flag here.  That is why generic medications like the one I am on are gaining steam.



I didn't say anything about monopolies nor would the fast-track system create monopolies. You changed the subject because you lost the argument and tried to cover it up.

----------


## Ironman

> Like 
> @sunrise
>  said, you should cancel your subscription to Conspiracy Quarterly. No-one, outside the USA, wants anything to do with the USA, because an spoiled brat was elected into office. Obamacare is not even close to socialised medicine, it is an regulated free-market system. The fact that you *buy* healthcare insurance from corporations that *sell* it in a *marketplace* should be a big clue that it is free-market policy.



It wasn't a "marketplace" when it only had three plans and groups of companies "assigned to take the bait".  States' rates jump 20% to 120% in one year and the taxpayers have to fill that in?
Uh, no.

Monopolies - one item to sell and charge what you want.  We don't do that here.

And the only time a debate is completely lost is when it resorts to a personal attack.  Yes, you hate Trump.  You also happen to be reading the two most left-leaning (and ratings-plummeted) news sources we have - MSNBC and the Washington Post.  They have been doing hit jobs on Trump all along, and CNN helped Hillary with debate questions.  Then again, if you read something over and over, no matter who false it is, it becomes truth.

One of these days, you might just have a leader in your country you won't like.

----------


## Member11

> It wasn't a "marketplace" when it only had three plans and groups of companies "assigned to take the bait".  States' rates jump 20% to 120% in one year and the taxpayers have to fill that in?
> Uh, no.



Yes, it is called a market failure, it happens in free markets. I know this because I studied economics at uni.





> Monopolies - one item to sell and charge what you want.  We don't do that here.



That's funny  :Rofl:  Yes, you do, i.e. Comcast, Google, Luxottica, Monsanto, YKK, etc. There is also just five major banks, handful of insurance companies and a handful of media companies. The USA is the king of monopolies.





> And the only time a debate is completely lost is when it resorts to a personal attack.



Trump personally attacks people everyday, I personally attack him back because I don't like bullies.





> Yes, you hate Trump.



I don't hate him, but I do have issues with him. And because I do, you assume I'm a die-hard Hillary supporter and assume my positions on topics without hearing me out first. You are the one adding to the issue of hyperpartisanship by refusing to even hear someone out who might disagrees with you. It is not good that you put yourself in an completely closed-minded state.





> You also happen to be reading the two most left-leaning (and ratings-plummeted) news sources we have - MSNBC and the Washington Post.  They have been doing hit jobs on Trump all along, and CNN helped Hillary with debate questions.  Then again, if you read something over and over, no matter who false it is, it becomes truth.



I think you mean The New York Times, something that you have linked to as well. And just because I post something doesn't mean I 100% agree with it, I could just only find it interesting or I wanted to make a point with it.





> One of these days, you might just have a leader in your country you won't like.



I'm curious now, what exactly do you think my politics are and my positions?

----------


## sunrise

> White House national security adviser Michael Flynn is under increasing political pressure and risks losing the confidence of some colleagues following reports that he misled senior administration officials about his discussion of sanctions with a Russian envoy shortly before President Trump took office.
> As White House aides scramble to get their stories straight about the exact nature of those communications and as Democrats call for Flynn?s security clearance to be suspended or revoked, neither Trump nor his advisers have publicly defended Flynn or stated unequivocally that he has the president?s confidence.
> Privately, some administration officials said that Flynn?s position has weakened and support for him has eroded largely because of a belief that he was disingenuous about Russia and therefore could not be fully trusted going forward.
> 
> ...?Flynn is running out of friends, no question,? a different administration official said. ?The broad consensus in the White House is that he lied. The vice president feels like he lied. In a position that needs to be no drama, it?s nonstop drama. I would be very surprised if he lasts much longer.?
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.308f5ce96587



This is what happens if you don't properly vet people

----------


## Member11

Universal health care is unaffordable, but 800 military bases around the world is for some reason...

----------


## Member11



----------


## Ironman

> Yes, it is called a market failure, it happens in free markets. I know this because I studied economics at uni.
> 
> That's funny  Yes, you do, i.e. Comcast, Google, Luxottica, Monsanto, YKK, etc. There is also just five major banks, handful of insurance companies and a handful of media companies. The USA is the king of monopolies.
> 
> Trump personally attacks people everyday, I personally attack him back because I don't like bullies.
> 
> I don't hate him, but I do have issues with him. And because I do, you assume I'm a die-hard Hillary supporter and assume my positions on topics without hearing me out first. You are the one adding to the issue of hyperpartisanship by refusing to even hear someone out who might disagrees with you. It is not good that you put yourself in an completely closed-minded state.
> 
> I think you mean The New York Times, something that you have linked to as well. And just because I post something doesn't mean I 100% agree with it, I could just only find it interesting or I wanted to make a point with it.
> ...



Those companies have competing companies.  Comcast is a competitor to Spectrum, my cable company.  

I didn't say you were a Hillary fan, but I find it completely ironic that you pull the "hyperparitsanship" issue when you are clearly posting multiple links bashing Trump and the USA - our healthcare, our military, NASA.

I'm not as closed-minded as you think I am, but it's a lot easier to be where I am with life experience.

----------


## Total Eclipse

> Those companies have competing companies.  Comcast is a competitor to Spectrum, my cable company.  
> 
> I didn't say you were a Hillary fan, but I find it completely ironic that you pull the "hyperparitsanship" issue when you are clearly posting multiple links bashing Trump and the USA - our healthcare, our military, NASA.
> 
> I'm not as closed-minded as you think I am, but it's a lot easier to be where I am with life experience.



I'm not weighting in on either side.. but it seems like, everyone knows what the right or wrong thing to do for a country outside of the country of "you should be like X country" and "X country is the best in the world". It's not as simple as that. And it can be alarming . Sometimes people don't understand the situation-- until they live in the country. 

People are also upset over Trumps tactics over NATO, and reducing our cost, and yet also raring about we spend too much on Military... However, the reason we have all the bases is to protect people. 

There has also been people complaining that we are backing out of funding for 3rd world country planned parent hood programs, refugee aid, illegal immigrant and etc.. Yet, still talk about how pathetic America is for not having free health-care. The humanity in us all wants to help everyone... however, "if America can't help themselves..." it's a double edge thing. If we where to back away from those programs until more economically sound, just maybe, we could afford a health-care program for everyone... and that sounds harsh, and cold.. (and I don't know what the best solution is...) -- the above isn't something I personally believe: but I know is a humanity vs economic view of things.. and people trying to find the balance. I'm just glad I don't have to make those choices... >.< It would feel like it would be screwing over someone, no matter what situation it goes with...

It's a really tough situation.. and our dynamics in our country and what we do are so much different than another, for someone to say "we do this and it works for us" is an understatement to the foundation of each country. 

I do hope we come up with health-care for all.. one day... and a proper system to make sure vets aren't on the streets dying, we take care of our disabled, and our everyday working people, as well as people that fall on hard times--- preventing them from going homeless....AND are able to aid other countries, refugee's, and 3rd world etc...  Right now, we've not been able to do any of this properly.

----------


## Lunaire

> I'm not weighting in on either side.. but it seems like, everyone knows what the right or wrong thing to do for a country outside of the country of "you should be like X country" and "X country is the best in the world". It's not as simple as that. And it can be alarming . Sometimes people don't understand the situation-- until they live in the country. 
> 
> People are also upset over Trumps tactics over NATO, and reducing our cost, and yet also raring about we spend too much on Military... However, the reason we have all the bases is to protect people. 
> 
> There has also been people complaining that we are backing out of funding for 3rd world country planned parent hood programs, refugee aid, illegal immigrant and etc.. Yet, still talk about how pathetic America is for not having free health-care. The humanity in us all wants to help everyone... however, "if America can't help themselves..." it's a double edge thing. If we where to back away from those programs until more economically sound, just maybe, we could afford a health-care program for everyone... and that sounds harsh, and cold.. (and I don't know what the best solution is...) -- the above isn't something I personally believe: but I know is a humanity vs economic view of things.. and people trying to find the balance. I'm just glad I don't have to make those choices... >.< It would feel like it would be screwing over someone, no matter what situation it goes with...
> 
> It's a really tough situation.. and our dynamics in our country and what we do are so much different than another, for someone to say "we do this and it works for us" is an understatement to the foundation of each country. 
> 
> I do hope we come up with health-care for all.. one day... and a proper system to make sure vets aren't on the streets dying, we take care of our disabled, and our everyday working people, as well as people that fall on hard times--- preventing them from going homeless....AND are able to aid other countries, refugee's, and 3rd world etc...  Right now, we've not been able to do any of this properly.



I believe that this is a very well-rounded view to have. 

Everything somewhere down the line is a zero-sum game. Making a decision to take action on one item is taking away labor and resources that could be put towards another item. 

I think that we all agree that things can be done better in every country. Unfortunately the reality of the matter is that there are a very large number of factors at play and it is much easier to say what the best outcome should be than it is to actually execute it.

----------


## Member11

> Those companies have competing companies.  Comcast is a competitor to Spectrum, my cable company.



Unless you live in states that only has Comcast, like Michigan. And two huge corporations is not a free and competitive market, it is a duopoly which is worst because both can claim to have competition while being anti-competitive and disinterest in each other. Real competition looks more like hundreds of small and big businesses beating each other up for every dollar.





> I didn't say you were a Hillary fan, but I find it completely ironic that you pull the "hyperparitsanship" issue when you are clearly posting multiple links bashing Trump and the USA - our healthcare, our military, NASA.
> 
> I'm not as closed-minded as you think I am, but it's a lot easier to be where I am with life experience.



Your point is undermined when you assumed that video "bashed" NASA without watching it first. That video is talking about the awesome things NASA could do with a bigger budget. If the USA can't handle constructive criticism then it should stop using the words freedom and free speech as it clearly doesn't know what those words means.

If you don't want people outside the USA giving criticism than you shouldn't criticise the healthcare systems of the UK and Canada, how would you know it is a failure if you never used it?

----------


## Lunaire

> Unless you live in states that only has Comcast, like Michigan. And two huge corporations is not a free and competitive market, it is a duopoly which is worst because both can claim to have competition while being anti-competitive and disinterest in each other. Real competition looks more like hundreds of small and big businesses beating each other up for every dollar.



Sure the cable space in the US may be heavily saturated with oligopolies in some regions, but these companies wouldn't be in business if there was no demand for their services. 

These companies take advantage of a high cost of entry to the market and low price elasticity to charge the prices they do, but if people weren't willing to pay them then they would be lower priced. 

Free market theory dictates that there will be a market-driven solution to a market-driven problem, and this is exactly what we are seeing with the rise of streaming services like Netflix that produce their own content for a much lower price and little to no commercials.

----------


## Member11

> Sure the cable space in the US may be heavily saturated with oligopolies in some regions, but these companies wouldn't be in business if there was no demand for their services.



Being forced to use a service is different to making a choice. It is impossible to go without the Internet these days and if there is only one provider, it doesn't matter how much it charges. Not having a choice kills the whole supply and demand.





> These companies take advantage of a high cost of entry to the market and low price elasticity to charge the prices they do, but if people weren't willing to pay them then they would be lower priced.



It doesn't matter though. Even if a small business starts up and be competitive, these corporations are so huge it can just buy up the competition. That is not a free market. No business should have that level of control over a market.





> Free market theory dictates that there will be a market-driven solution to a market-driven problem, and this is exactly what we are seeing with the rise of streaming services like Netflix that produce their own content for a much lower price and little to no commercials.



At the moment, the big media corporations are trying to bully Netflix by withholding content to get more and more money off it, that is why Netflix is rushing to create its own content to stop the bleeding. The market failure is still there, the same corporations that own the cable companies also own the studios that make the content, even if Netflix killed off the cable companies, the monopoly is still there and it controls Netflix.

----------


## Lunaire

> Being forced to use a service is different to making a choice. It is impossible to go without the Internet these days and if there is only one provider, it doesn't matter how much it charges, it is forced on people. Not having a choice kills the whole supply and demand.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter though. Even if a small business starts up and be competitive, these corporations are so huge it can just buy up the competition. That is not a free market. No business should have that level of control over a market.
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment, the big media corporations are trying to bully Netflix by withholding content to get more and more money off it, that is why Netflix is rushing to create its own content to stop the bleeding. The market failure is still there, the same corporations that own the cable companies also own the studios that make the content, even if Netflix killed off the cable companies, the monopoly is still there and it controls Netflix.



I disagree. Even if you dislike the outcome of the industry's market equilibrium, nobody in America is "forced" to use their service. This is hyperbole at best and a straw man argument at worst in that you are arguing against a market condition which does not exist. 

Internet and cable are services. They are luxuries and not necessities and are therefore not regulated like utilities are, despite being similar in limited spectrum and high cost of entry and infrastructure costs. Nobody is going to die from not having cable or internet. 

If the prices were too high or the service too poor to be considered worth it then consumer demand would go down and these companies would be required to adapt to the market. 

If nobody was willing to pay for the service then they would go out of business.

----------


## Member11

> Internet and cable are services. They are luxuries and not necessities and are therefore not regulated like utilities are...



The internet is regulated as a public utility by the FCC in the USA, it is why this site can exists without having to pay millions to cable/internet providers.





> I disagree. Even if you dislike the outcome of the industry's market equilibrium, nobody in America is "forced" to use their service. This is hyperbole at best and a straw man argument at worst in that you are arguing against a market condition which does not exist.



What if it was a food corporation instead, it was the only one selling food there was nothing else and no other way to get food and it was charging $50 for each apple. Wouldn't that be a forced choice if the only other option is death?

----------


## Lunaire

> The internet is regulated as a public utility by the FCC in the USA, it is why this site can exists without having to pay millions to cable/internet providers.
> 
> 
> 
> What if it was a food corporation instead, it was the only one selling food there was nothing else and no other way to get food and it was charging $50 for each apple. Wouldn't that be a forced choice if the only other option is death?



The FCC regulates the internet as a public utility for the purpose of Net Neutrality, not as a public necessity unlike water and heating. 

Your question regarding a single company selling food is a textbook example of an industry that cannot possibly have a monopoly in a free market economy. There is nearly no cost of entry to the industry as anyone can take the seeds of a non-gmo plant and replant them. 

If only one company was selling food and it was at a price that consumers deemed not worth the cost then people would grow their own food and competition would organically occur.

----------


## sunrise

> I'm not weighting in on either side.. but it seems like, everyone knows what the right or wrong thing to do for a country outside of the country of "you should be like X country" and "X country is the best in the world". It's not as simple as that. And it can be alarming . Sometimes people don't understand the situation-- until they live in the country. 
> 
> People are also upset over Trumps tactics over NATO, and reducing our cost, and yet also raring about we spend too much on Military... However, the reason we have all the bases is to protect people. 
> 
> There has also been people complaining that we are backing out of funding for 3rd world country planned parent hood programs, refugee aid, illegal immigrant and etc.. Yet, still talk about how pathetic America is for not having free health-care. The humanity in us all wants to help everyone... however, "if America can't help themselves..." it's a double edge thing. If we where to back away from those programs until more economically sound, just maybe, we could afford a health-care program for everyone... and that sounds harsh, and cold.. 
> 
> I do hope we come up with health-care for all.. one day... and a proper system to make sure vets aren't on the streets dying, we take care of our disabled, and our everyday working people, as well as people that fall on hard times--- preventing them from going homeless....AND are able to aid other countries, refugee's, and 3rd world etc...  Right now, we've not been able to do any of this properly.



Your argument of limited resources could be a valid one; however, that's not the reason that high ranking Republicans give.  Obamacare was attacked as "socialism" and government meddling.  I can't think of a single Republican president that actually tried to implement universal healthcare.  But they're always trying to cut entitlements and build up the military.  There are wasteful spending in social programs, but there's also a lot of waste in the military.  A LOT. I don't even think Democrats point out the irony.  The US spends more on the military than the next 7-8 countries combined. 


But the focus is always on entitlements.   Cut the waste - sure I'm for that.  There's fraud.  But the same goes for the military.  Also with prescription drug pricing. And corporate welfare.  

Regardless of where anyone falls on the political spectrum, everyone should be for universal healthcare.  People have died, untold numbers, because of lack of access to healthcare.  This should've been at the top of every presidential agenda.  The reason why universal healthcare has belatedly entered the US landscape is because of the health insurance lobby.

----------


## Member11

> Your question regarding a single company selling food is a textbook example of an industry that cannot possibly have a monopoly in a free market economy. There is nearly no cost of entry to the industry as anyone can take the seeds of a non-gmo plant and replant them. 
> 
> If only one company was selling food and it was at a price that consumers deemed not worth the cost then people would grow their own food and competition would organically occur.



Not if the corporations patents and control the seeds for different food items, which is what is going on now. And if the corporation is large enough, it has many different ways to make the entry impossible for anyone else. One popular way is to cut its prices to below cost in areas where there is competition and just wait until the competition goes out of business then raise prices again. Do that enough times and no-one will try again.

You are also forgetting about land, seeds, water, equipment, wages, storage, transport, etc, then you got the shop itself which includes property, stock, fit-out, wages, insurance, food safely, etc. The cost of entry is not low.

----------


## Lunaire

> Not if the corporations patents and control the seeds for different food items, which is what is going on now. And if the corporation is large enough, it has many different ways to make the entry impossible for anyone else. One popular way is to cut its prices to below cost in areas where there is competition and just wait until the competition goes out of business then raise prices again. Do that enough times and no-one will try again.
> 
> You are also forgetting about land, seeds, water, equipment, wages, storage, transport, etc, then you got the shop itself which includes property, stock, fit-out, wages, insurance, food safely, etc. The cost of entry is not low.



On the contrary, the cost of entry is _very_ low. Not every competitor would need to be a national distributor. 

You can very easily start a garden in your backyard. When I had a garden I have scattered seeds at random and nature did the rest at no cost to me. Rain and sunlight are free. 

Patented seeds are a different product from organically grown seeds. For your scenario to exist the entire supply of organically grown seeds would need to be destroyed or cut off. 

You also admitted that a large corporation would bring prices down to attempt to drive out business from lower priced competitors. This results in a lower cost good for the consumer and would continue to happen until the market reaches an equilibrium. 

I don't believe it is a fair comparison anyways as I stand by my belief that cable/internet are luxury items and not a necessity such as food.

----------


## Member11

> On the contrary, the cost of entry is _very_ low. Not every competitor would need to be a national distributor. 
> 
> You can very easily start a garden in your backyard. When I had a garden I have scattered seeds at random and nature did the rest at no cost to me. Rain and sunlight are free.



A small garden in a backyard isn't going to supply a store, especially one that is taking on a large corporation.





> Patented seeds are a different product from organically grown seeds. For your scenario to exist the entire supply of organically grown seeds would need to be destroyed or cut off.



That's easy to do as the corporations can have the government pass laws to make the non-patented seeds illegal.





> You also admitted that a large corporation would bring prices down to attempt to drive out business from lower priced competitors. This results in a lower cost good for the consumer and would continue to happen until the market reaches an equilibrium.



No it wouldn't, the corporation would drop prices to under cost price, so it is making a loss, wait a few months until the competition goes out of business, then raise prices to where it was before or even higher. Waiting until a hopeful small business owner comes along and puts their savings into starting a small business just to get cheap food for a few months is a horrible way to treat people. I prefer regulations so that there is hundreds of small businesses, instead of one corporation. 





> I don't believe it is a fair comparison anyways as I stand by my belief that cable/internet are luxury items and not a necessity such as food.



Internet isn't a luxury, if you need it to apply for jobs, it is an necessity.

----------


## Lunaire

> A small garden in a backyard isn't going to supply a store, especially one that is taking on a large corporation.
> 
> 
> 
> That's easy to do as the corporations can have the government pass laws to make the non-patented seeds illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't, the corporation would drop prices to under cost price, so it is making a loss, wait a few months until the competition goes out of business, then raise prices to where it was before or even higher. Waiting until a hopeful small business owner comes along and puts their savings into starting a small business just to get cheap food for a few months is a horrible way to treat people.
> ...



If a government passes a law restricting organically grown seeds then that is government interventionism and not a free market economy. I am not aware of a western country that has banned organically grown crops, but the United States certainly has not. 

You also certainly do not need to operate a full time store with a supply chain and logistics to sell things out of a backyard garden. Farm-side fruit stands and pop-up style farmers markets are quite popular in the states and do not require all of the costs you have mentioned. 

Even if a corporation would sell things at a loss to attempt to drive out local farmers, the local farmers could very easily re-enter the market as soon the corporation began selling at "regular" price again due to low cost of entry. 

This would cause a boom and bust cycle which is actually pretty common in free trade markets, especially regarding produce. If you were to visit the States you may notice that produce price varies considerably throughout the year due to fluctuations of supply and demand. 

Internet access is not required to apply for every job in the United States. There are plenty of businesses that accept handwritten applications and there are numerous locations that provide free internet access such as public wi-fi at businesses and free-to-use terminals at public libraries.

----------


## Total Eclipse

> Regardless of where anyone falls on the political spectrum, everyone should be for universal healthcare.  People have died, untold numbers, because of lack of access to healthcare.  This should've been at the top of every presidential agenda.  The reason why universal healthcare has belatedly entered the US landscape is because of the health insurance lobby.



I totally agree! I think deep down, people like that concept and want free healthcare for everyone. However, I know several people that have been stressed or scared due to some people getting short-ends-of-the-sticks with Obamacare, and insurance sky-rocketing, that they were unable to afford treatment and a modest size house. It was cheaper for them to have a very low-income job, to get treatment for their chronic illness, not to marry their partner, etc.. because of the system. 

And some people I've seen with stage-4 breast cancer.... decided it would be best to work out the rest of their days so they'd have money for their family and not seek anymore treatment. When people hear of new plans and their fears go back to what happened with Obamacare.. and they would 'rather not have any'. 

In my state, I've been grateful that we picked-up a form of Obamacare as without it I wouldn't be able to do my infusion therapy treatment, blood infusions, or medicine I require to stay stable with my illnesses (to say the least my bills would be over 60K a month..). It sadness me that so many other people are without insurance and not have that aid provided.

----------


## Member11

> If a government passes a law restricting organically grown seeds then that is government interventionism and not a free market economy. I am not aware of a western country that has banned organically grown crops, but the United States certainly has not.



I'm talking about what happens in the real world, not just theory. And you should look into what Monsanto does.





> You also certainly do not need to operate a full time store with a supply chain and logistics to sell things out of a backyard garden. Farm-side fruit stands and pop-up style farmers markets are quite popular in the states and do not require all of the costs you have mentioned.



That's great and all, but not going to help solve the monopoly issue.





> Even if a corporation would sell things at a loss to attempt to drive out local farmers, the local farmers could very easily re-enter the market as soon the corporation began selling at "regular" price again due to low cost of entry.



Not if the farmer has been bankrupted and commit suicide. Common problem seen throughout the world  ::(: 





> This would cause a boom and bust cycle which is actually pretty common in free trade markets, especially regarding produce.



A corporation using its market power to kill competition isn't normal.





> Internet access is not required to apply for every job in the United States.



With jobs hard to come by hoping to come across one of those rare jobs isn't a realistic thing one could do.

----------


## Total Eclipse

> Internet access is not required to apply for every job in the United States. There are plenty of businesses that accept handwritten applications and there are numerous locations that provide free internet access such as public wi-fi at businesses and free-to-use terminals at public libraries.



This is a pretty good point. Also, we have machines here just-for-applying for jobs. If you go to a location (i.e target or retail store) you can apply for jobs as well as generic machines in stores. For example    
@Jerry
 , here is a machine that many stores are loaded onto.. and people can apply for jobs through:

https://blog.publix.com/careers/file...12/DSC0539.jpg

These are of no cost and are in many local stores.

Given there are so many options to apply for jobs (the ones that don't accept had written applications) internet is still an luxury. We also have free programs that help people find jobs (they get you suits, fresh up your resume for you, free printing ability for the resume) ~

----------


## Lunaire

> I'm talking about what happens in the real world, not just theory. And you should look into what Monsanto does.
> 
> 
> 
> That's great and all, but not going to help solve the monopoly issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Not if the farmer has been bankrupted and commit suicide. Common problem seen throughout the world 
> ...



I am well aware of Monsanto and even though I dislike many of their business practices I am pretty sure that even they do not have the power to prevent me from growing organically grown crops in my own backyard to give to my neighbors. 

Let's just say we have a fundamental disagreement on reality and call it a day.

----------


## Total Eclipse

> I'm talking about what happens in the real world, not just theory. And you should look into what Monsanto does.



So far, 27 countries have banned Monsanto. It's being widely discouraged what they are doing and there is a huge fight back. I can't see every organic seed dying out.

----------


## Ironman

Monsanto has gotten themselves into some troubles over the years.

----------


## Member11

> I am well aware of Monsanto and even though I dislike many of their business practices I am pretty sure that even they do not have the power to prevent me from growing organically grown crops in my own backyard to give to my neighbors.







> So far, 27 countries have banned Monsanto. It's being widely discouraged what they are doing and there is a huge fight back. I can't see every organic seed dying out.



I'm not talking about what you can grow in your backyard, I'm talking about businesses and markets at scale. Your grenden isn't going to feed millions of people. If a company wanted to come in and start growing food, it is near impossible for them to compete against Monsanto as the new business can not use Monsanto seeds otherwise it gets sued and it can't match Monsanto on pricing as non-patented non-GMO seeds has much lower yields and higher spoils, which means it will cost more.

The new business might be able to win over some people who buy fruit and vegetables, and go out their way to buy organically and/or want to support small business, but lets be honest that isn't how most people eat food. There is no way that new business can new over the processed and fast food companies, it just not going to happen. That is a monopoly and market failure. Plus quite danger to food security to have one company controlling the food supply for millions of people.





> Let's just say we have a fundamental disagreement on reality and call it a day.



I don't know your reality in which monopolies are awesome, misuse of market power is normal and small business is crushed and not allowed in the market. This is my reality I'm a businessman and I believe in free markets and fair competition. Corporations doesn't like free markets and competition, and will do anything to kill it to retain its monopoly.

I started up and ran a successful business selling computer parts, I built up a good customer following as I offered the best customer service and longer warranties (this was before the Australian government force businesses to extend warranties). My success didn't go down well with a large corporation which I was completing against. Instead of completing right and try to win back the customers it lost, it used its market power to shut me down. First cutting prices to below cost, which hurt badly but luckily I had a supportive customer base.

But my luck ran out when the corporation made an expensive deal with the US corporations which was supplying both of us, the corporation got the suppliers to cut me off by making itself the exclusive supplier, which meant I had to buy my stock off the same corporation that I was completing against. And of course the corporation made sure I didn't have products to sell, killing me off completely.

I believe in real business, free markets and economics where it is the customer who chooses where they put their money and in the process chooses what business lives or dies. If you want to live in a reality where corporations has that power, and as a result you get crappy jobs and products, have fun and enjoy it. But I choose to live in a reality full of small businesses owned by people who care about their business, customers and staff.

----------


## Ironman

> I don't know your reality in which monopolies are awesome, misuse of market power is normal and small business is crushed and not allowed in the market. This is my reality I'm a businessman and I believe in free markets and fair competition. Corporations doesn't like free markets and competition, and will do anything to kill it to retain its monopoly.
> 
> I started up and ran a successful business selling computer parts, I built up a good customer following as I offered the best customer service and longer warranties (this was before the Australian government force businesses to extend warranties). My success didn't go down well with a large corporation which I was completing against. Instead of completing right and try to win back the customers it lost, it used its market power to shut me down. First cutting prices to below cost, which hurt badly but luckily I had a supportive customer base.
> 
> But my luck ran out when the corporation made an expensive deal with the US corporations which was supplying both of us, the corporation got the suppliers to cut me off by making itself the exclusive supplier, which meant I had to buy my stock off the same corporation that I was completing against. And of course the corporation made sure I didn't have products to sell, killing me off completely.
> 
> I believe in real business, free markets and economics where it is the customer who chooses where they put their money and in the process chooses what business lives or dies. If you want to live in a reality where corporations has that power, and as a result you get crappy jobs and products, have fun and enjoy it. But I choose to live in a reality full of small businesses owned by people who care about their business, customers and staff.



That's what I am saying - monopolies aren't awesome. There is a guy  in trouble for doing it with the epi-pen emergency anithistamine for severe allergic reactions. 

https://qz.com/764181/mylan-epipen-m...icing-scandal/

Running up the price to $600 a pen when it could save anyone's life is not cool.  Generics come up, but they haven't been able to get a good one together to help anyone.

US businesses were cutting cut like that in the bad economy, too.  That's why it is distressing to hear that small businesses are still having trouble.  Throwing additional regulations only made it worse.  Some of these "large corporations" started small and people tend to forget that!

----------


## Member11

> That's what I am saying - monopolies aren't awesome. There is a guy  in trouble for doing it with the epi-pen emergency anithistamine for severe allergic reactions. 
> 
> https://qz.com/764181/mylan-epipen-m...icing-scandal/
> 
> Running up the price to $600 a pen when it could save anyone's life is not cool.  Generics come up, but they haven't been able to get a good one together to help anyone.
> 
> US businesses were cutting cut like that in the bad economy, too.  That's why it is distressing to hear that small businesses are still having trouble.



Exactly, so what is your solution to the problem if not regulations? Mylan isn't in trouble, all it is getting is bad press, but it knows that will go away at some point and the people who need the EpiPen isn't going to stop buying it. The price increase is staying. Without normal market forces like competition and customer power, you got a complete market failure that is just going to get worst.

Small businesses are dying out there, patients are getting rip off and becoming poorer taking more money out of the economy. The economy is barely moving and is headed for another crash. The regulations Trump is getting rid of will do nothing, regulations isn't stopping banks from lending to small businesses, the banks don't lend anymore because gambling on the sock market is far more profitable.





> Some of these "large corporations" started small and people tend to forget that!



Yeah, that is true, but the corporations lost that mindset, especially with the people who made the business long gone, replaced by know nothing CEOs and directors who could not start up and run a successful business even if their lives depended on it. Just look at the situation you are in, you can't tell me the executive cares about the business, customers and the staff, including yourself.

After my situation, Australia passed in 2010 powerful consumer laws, requiring all products and services sold must be "fit-for-purpose" and of "acceptable quality". The laws gives us customers so much power, even with large corporations. The laws worked perfectly with bad corporations falling into line, customers are getting the products they want and it is much easier to set up a small business and take on large corporations. At the moment, Australia has a right-wing government and even it is supportive of these laws, in fact the laws are going to be improved on with an "effects test" on anti-competitive behaviour.

Now, I'm not saying the USA and Australia is the same and the USA should do what Australia does. The point I'm trying to make here is not all regulations are evil, some are bad, poorly written and/or just stupid, but most are not. You rely on many everyday. It is why you can eat the food you buy without worrying about getting food poisoning, you don't have to worry about the building you work in falling down, you know you'll get out of the building safely if there is a fire, and you can use your computer and other devices without getting electrocuted.

----------


## Ironman

> Exactly, so what is your solution to the problem if not regulations? Mylan isn't in trouble, all it is getting is bad press, but it knows that will go away at some point and the people who need the EpiPen isn't going to stop buying it. The price increase is staying. Without normal market forces like competition and customer power, you got a complete market failure that is just going to get worst.
> 
> Small businesses are dying out there, patients are getting rip off and becoming poorer taking more money out of the economy. The economy is barely moving and is headed for another crash. The regulations Trump is getting rid of will do nothing, regulations isn't stopping banks from lending to small businesses, the banks don't lend anymore because gambling on the sock market is far more profitable.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that is true, but the corporations lost that mindset, especially with the people who made the business long gone, replaced by know nothing CEOs and directors who could not start up and run a successful business even if their lives depended on it. Just look at the situation you are in, you can't tell me the executive cares about the business, customers and the staff, including yourself.
> 
> After my situation, Australia passed in 2010 powerful consumer laws, requiring all products and services sold must be "fit-for-purpose" and of "acceptable quality". The laws gives us customers so much power, even with large corporations. The laws worked perfectly with bad corporations falling into line, customers are getting the products they want and it is much easier to set up a small business and take on large corporations. At the moment, Australia has a right-wing government and even it is supportive of these laws, in fact the laws are going to be improved on with an "effects test" on anti-competitive behaviour.
> ...



Well, yeah, some regulations are good - I don't want all of them gone, but we have had ones that have been too strong, to the point where it is okay to take a risk and relax a few of them so companies and get in and build.  We are trying to get out of a recession and some of the rules are suppressing companies from being able to borrow, when they would clearly have the credit rating to be able to handle it.

We have the ability to put the rules back in place if things go wrong.

----------


## Total Eclipse

> I don't know your reality in which monopolies are awesome, misuse of market power is normal and small business is crushed and not allowed in the market.



I think  
@Lunaire
 was disagreeing with the examples you gave and the process of econ rather than wanting people to have monopolies. They where disagreeing with comparing food (which is a need) to a luxury item of TV and internet--- don't compare.

And as for GMO-related things and Monsanto... people need awareness. It's not about Monsanto's business tactics or monopoly that is alarming... but the harmful things that are in GMO's. In-fact they have cancer warnings on GMO products in some of the States now. Smoking was super popular at one point too.. and than, once people realized that it wasn't good for you... dramatically stopped. It's about education and making sure the consuming gets the best quality.

----------


## Member11

> I think 
> @Lunaire
>  was disagreeing with the examples you gave and the process of econ rather than want people to have monopolies. They where disagreeing with comparing food (which is a need) to a luxury item of TV and internet--- don't compare.



I think the internet and by extension smartphones are a necessity, rather than a luxury. That might be where the disagreement is. There might be cases where you can go without, but that is the same for other necessity like electricity and even food. Keep in mind at one point electricity was considered a luxury, and now a necessity. As more and more things are moved onto the internet, it will be more recognised as a necessity. To be honest, I don't think in person stores wouldn't exist in the future.

----------


## Lunaire

> I think 
> @Lunaire
>  was disagreeing with the examples you gave and the process of econ rather than want people to have monopolies. They where disagreeing with comparing food (which is a need) to a luxury item of TV and internet--- don't compare.



This is accurate. I believe that free market economics have been inaccurately portrayed here and disagree that the United States has an issue with monopolies. 

Using market power to drive out competitors is a consequence of industry conditions and is not a "market failure". A market failure in traditional microeconomic theory is when market supply fails to meet market demand. 

The amount of logical fallacies and conversational misdirection used in this thread is astounding. 

Claiming that I am "pro-monopoly" is a misrepresentation of the facts, a false cause fallacy, and a strawman argument.

----------


## Member11

> Using market power to drive out competitors is a consequence of industry conditions and is not a "market failure".



You can't say it is something that should be allowed to happen, it gives a lot of power to large corporations to stop small businesses getting to market. Those large corporations used to be small businesses at one point, that is true, but those corporations didn't face the same barriers to market that the small businesses these days do. With all this unchecked market power, where can the next Microsoft come from, or the next 21st Century Fox, or the next KFC?





> I believe that free market economics have been inaccurately portrayed here and disagree that the United States has an issue with monopolies.



The United States does have issues, the push to merge and get bigger and bigger is a house of cards that can do a lot of damage. If it wasn't for the US government stepping in, Comcast, Time Warner and Charter would have merged into a huge mess. Just imagine one company employing 243,000 people, if the company failed and had mass laid offs, it would send the US economy into a recession. The failure of one business should not kill a large economy like the United States. We have already seen what the failure of one large corporate bank can do.

You can't tell me there's no problems.

----------


## Member11

> Well, yeah, some regulations are good - I don't want all of them gone, but we have had ones that have been too strong, to the point where it is okay to take a risk and relax a few of them so companies and get in and build.  We are trying to get out of a recession and some of the rules are suppressing companies from being able to borrow, when they would clearly have the credit rating to be able to handle it.
> 
> We have the ability to put the rules back in place if things go wrong.



But there is a problem with mass removing regulations at speed, then putting them back, then taking them out again and repeating over and over again. It puts a brake on business investment and makes it near impossible to take risk as how would you know what the rules will be tomorrow or next week? What Trump is doing, especially at the speed he is doing it, is causing more harm than good.

No-one who goes into government are evil people and all regulations were put in with good intentions to try to address a problem. The mindset should be lets review the regulations see if they are doing what is intended, see if there were any unintended consequences and see if the problem is still there. If there is any problems, then work out the best way to fix it while avoiding any unintended consequences.

Even though he has good intentions, the bonfire approach used by Trump is causing problems and is going to end badly. The US economy is complex and full of unforeseeable consequences. As seen with the Muslim ban, the airlines and the movie industry suffered losses.

----------


## sunrise

Hasn't the notion of free market economy been debunked?  I don't think I ever took econ class, but I thought we developed antitrust laws in the U.S. because monopolies formed when there was very little regulation. Alan Greenspan, who was a strong believer in Ayn Rand's lassez faire philosophy, was devastated when the economy tanked and admitted he was wrong. Doesn't history prove time and again that when you peel back regulation, things go south?  

"...standard economic theory is typically overenthusiastic about unregulated free markets. It usually ignores the fact that, given normal human weaknesses, an unregulated competitive economy will inevitably spawn an immense amount of manipulation and deception." -ROBERT J. SHILLER Professor of Economics at Yale 

The crash of 2008 was largely fueled by shady Wall Street transactions.  It could've been prevented had there been someone paying attention.  Wouldn't pulling back the regulations just set us up for another economic crisis?

----------


## Lunaire

> Hasn't the notion of free market economy been debunked?  I don't think I ever took econ class, but I thought we developed antitrust laws in the U.S. because monopolies formed when there was very little regulation. Alan Greenspan, who was a strong believer in Ayn Rand's lassez faire philosophy, was devastated when the economy tanked and admitted he was wrong. Doesn't history prove time and again that when you peel back regulation, things go south?  
> 
> "...standard economic theory is typically overenthusiastic about unregulated free markets. It usually ignores the fact that, given normal human weaknesses, an unregulated competitive economy will inevitably spawn an immense amount of manipulation and deception." -ROBERT J. SHILLER Professor of Economics at Yale 
> 
> The crash of 2008 was largely fueled by shady Wall Street transactions.  It could've been prevented had there been someone paying attention.  Wouldn't pulling back the regulations just set us up for another economic crisis?



In case this was in reference to what I have posted -- I completely agree that regulations can be a good thing.

I also agree that the United State's antitrust laws do an effective job of preventing industry monopolies.

----------


## Member11

> I also agree that the United State's antitrust laws do an effective job of preventing industry monopolies.



Not really if you have banks "too big to fail".

----------


## Lunaire

> Not really if you have banks "too big to fail".



The banking industry is not a monopoly. 

A monopoly is when a single company holds exclusive control over an entire industry.

There are  5,903 FDIC registered financial institutions in the United States.

----------


## Member11

> The banking industry is not a monopoly. 
> 
> A monopoly is when a single company holds exclusive control over an entire industry.
> 
> There are  5,903 FDIC registered financial institutions in the United States.



I know what a monopoly is, you can have issues in a market without monopolies. I was talking about the United State's antitrust laws, it can't be effective if it allows companies to become "too big to fail".

----------


## sunrise

> I know what a monopoly is, you can have issues in a market without monopolies. I was talking about the United State's antitrust laws, it can't be effective if it allows companies to become "too big to fail".



There are people saying the regulatory response to the latest crash was insufficient.  I didn't realize that "too big to fail" was a real designation and that there's actually a threshold for it. Institutions perceived as being too big to fail have advantages over smaller banks because of government protection.  So there are economists who want the large banks broken up. Also, because of they have a lot of political power, no one gets prosecuted if there's criminal activity.

----------


## Member11

> There are people saying the regulatory response to the latest crash was insufficient.  I didn't realize that "too big to fail" was a real designation and that there's actually a threshold for it. Institutions perceived as being too big to fail have advantages over smaller banks because of government protection.  So there are economists who want the large banks broken up. Also, because of they have a lot of political power, no one gets prosecuted if there's criminal activity.



Exactly, couldn't put it better myself.

----------


## Member11

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...igence-contact

So, all but confirmed, Trump is a Russian puppet. Trump confirms leaks are real.

----------


## Total Eclipse

> I know what a monopoly is, you can have issues in a market without monopolies. I was talking about the United State's antitrust laws, it can't be effective if it allows companies to become "too big to fail".



I don't think  
@Lunaire
 was  saying the banks were fault free, but was noting that they weren't monopolies as the prior discussion hinted.

----------


## Member11

> I don't think    
> @Lunaire
>  was  saying the banks were fault free, but was noting that they weren't monopolies as the prior discussion hinted.



Is your argument really that I'm wrong because I didn't used the correct terms in a given situation? The banks are an oligopoly, which is another form of a monopoly and just as bad, something the antitrust laws should be preventing and failing. I have already gave examples of monopolies in the USA.

This new form of corporatism is going against proper free markets, capitalism and economic principles. This cutting wages and not paying taxes even when the company is making billions in profits is insane. The rush to merge and create monopolies goes against the whole idea behind competition, just look at Comcast, Time Warner, Charter and Verizon, these are not businesses competing against each other, these corporations are always in talks to try to find a way to merge into one company.

The reason this is happening is because the CEOs are all buddies and they are working together to try to get themselves the bigger pay package they can. This is not how real business works. And you can't tell me these know-nothing richie-rich CEOs can start and run a successful business, they couldn't do it even if their lives was depended on it. You and  
@Lunaire
 can't sit there and say this is all normal free market. Try telling that to small business owners who have to fight a losing battle with "too big to fail" corporations.

----------


## Total Eclipse

> You and  
> @Lunaire
>  can't sit there and say this is all normal free market. Try telling that to small business owners who have to fight a losing battle with "too big to fail" corporations.



Where did I say this? I said internet is a luxury, that's all --- and correcting what I thought   
@L
unaire meant and it taking off to a different meaning that what meant/ said. I still stand by my statement, and think the comparisons where out-reached. But the words above aren't something I said.

----------


## Lunaire

> The banks are an oligopoly, which is another form of a monopoly and just as bad, something the antitrust laws should be preventing and failing. I have already gave examples of monopolies in the USA.



I have not yet seen you give any examples of legitimate monopolies in the USA. 

How is the banking industry an oligopoly when there are nearly 6,000 FDIC registered financial institutions?

----------


## Total Eclipse

> Is your argument really that I'm wrong because I didn't used the correct terms in a given situation? The banks are an oligopoly, which is another form of a monopoly and just as bad, something the antitrust laws should be preventing and failing. I have already gave examples of monopolies in the USA.







> I have not yet seen you give any examples of legitimate monopolies in the USA. 
> 
> How is the banking industry an oligopoly when there are nearly 6,000 FDIC registered financial institutions?



That's what has confused me. The word monopolies, and oligopoly. A bank is neither by definition. I haven't really seen any examples of real monopolies in the United States in this thread. Not to say I agree with the system. But, saying those words to describe the situation changes the whole meaning of the point and debate.

----------


## sunrise

*Chaffetz, Goodlatte ask government watchdog to investigate leaks*






> Two top House Republicans asked the Inspector General on Wednesday to investigate leaks surrounding the ouster of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.The request came in a letter from Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
> "We request that your office begin an immediate investigation into whether classified information was mishandled here," the letter to the Inspector General read.
> Trump's administration has been beset by damaging leaks over its first month, including reports of Flynn's contact with the Russian ambassador to the US in December that ultimately led to his downfall.
> Trump himself has decried such leaks as the "real scandal." Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, has so far declined to investigate President Donald Trump's potential conflicts of interest or potential ties to Russia between himself or his aides.



Sidestepping of epic proportions.  Let's ignore the countless red flags concerning the administration's Russian connections.  Not to mention the irony of it all

----------


## Member11

> I have not yet seen you give any examples of legitimate monopolies in the USA.







> That's what has confused me. The word monopolies, and oligopoly. A bank is neither by definition. I haven't really seen any examples of real monopolies in the United States. Not to say I agree with the system. But, saying those words to describe the situation changes the whole meaning of the point.



_Monopoly, is a market containing a single firm that has or is close to total control of the sector._

Google? Microsoft? Facebook? Luxottica? Monsanto? YKK? AB InBev? Simmons?

_Oligopoly, a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers._

Movie studios, television and internet providers, wireless providers, healthcare insurance, book publishers, airlines, and freight railroads.





> How is the banking industry an oligopoly when there are nearly 6,000 FDIC registered financial institutions?



You do realise that not all FDIC registered financial institutions are consumer-facing banks, right? Just five banks owns more than 55% of the market and growing each year, these five are not competing against each other, therefore it is an oligopoly.

----------


## Lunaire

> _Monopoly, is a market containing a single firm that has or is close to total control of the sector._
> 
> Google? Microsoft? Facebook? Luxottica? Monsanto? YKK? AB InBev? Simmons?
> 
> _Oligopoly, a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers._
> 
> Movie studios, television and internet providers, wireless providers, healthcare insurance, book publishers, airlines, and freight railroads.
> 
> 
> ...



You are correct -- a monopoly is when a single entity maintains total industry control. Of the companies you listed, none of them match this definition.

*Google* > There are are numerous search engines. Here is a list of the top 10. Not a monopoly.
*Microsoft* > There are numerous operating systems. OS X, iOS, Ubuntu, Redhat, Debian, GNU, ArchLinux, Linux Mint, Puppy Linux, openSUSE, Fedora, Mageia, CentOS etc. Not a monopoly.
*Facebook* > There are numerous social media sites. MySpace, Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, Flickr, Instagram, Google+, Pinterest, etc. Not a monopoly.
*Monsanto* > There are numerous genomics companies. Archer Daniels Midland Company, Dow Chemical Company, Evogene, are a few major ones. Not a monopoly.
*YKK* > This is a Japanese company and not an American one. Nonetheless it has competition in the form of Arconic, Rio Tinto Alcan, and Talon International. Not a monopoly.
*AB InBev* > This is a Belgium company. Nonetheless it has competition in the form of Carlsberg Breweries, Heineken, Sabmiller Limited, and many others. Not a monopoly.
*Simmons* > This is a UK law firm. They do not control the entire industry either, and have major competitors in the form of Clifford Chance LLP, Freshfields Bruckhause Deringer, and Norton Rose. Not a monopoly.

Additionally, controlling 55% of a market share does not indicate a monopoly when there are 5,903 competing firms in the financial industry. Just because not all financial institutions in the United States are not consumer-facing does not mean that they aren't competition. 

There is no resource scarcity to prevent a consumer from switching to a bank with less market share if they choose to do so. This is not an oligopoly.

----------


## Total Eclipse

> You are correct -- a monopoly is when a single entity maintains total industry control. Of the companies you listed, none of them match this definition.
> 
> *Google* > There are are numerous search engines. Here is a list of the top 10. Not a monopoly.
> *Microsoft* > There are numerous operating systems. OS X, iOS, Ubuntu, Redhat, Debian, GNU, ArchLinux, Linux Mint, Puppy Linux, openSUSE, Fedora, Mageia, CentOS etc. Not a monopoly.
> *Facebook* > There are numerous social media sites. MySpace, Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, Flickr, Instagram, Google+, Pinterest, etc. Not a monopoly.
> *Monsanto* > There are numerous genomics companies. Archer Daniels Midland Company, Dow Chemical Company, Evogene, are a few major ones. Not a monopoly.
> *YKK* > This is a Japanese company and not an American one. Nonetheless it has competition in the form of Arconic, Rio Tinto Alcan, and Talon International. Not a monopoly.
> *AB InBev* > This is a Belgium company. Nonetheless it has competition in the form of Carlsberg Breweries, Heineken, Sabmiller Limited, and many others. Not a monopoly.
> *Simmons* > This is a UK law firm. They do not control the entire industry either, and have major competitors in the form of Clifford Chance LLP, Freshfields Bruckhause Deringer, and Norton Rose. Not a monopoly.
> ...



I was about to post something very similar. xD I agree...

 Also, for Luxottica (saw you forgot to add that in) --- the eye-glasses company. I'm pretty sure there is Costco, Walmart, Solstice, Zenni Optical and Warby Parker (just to name a few). You are still able to obtain eyeglasses and sunglasses through other companies. So not a true monopoly.

----------


## Otherside

> You are correct -- a monopoly is when a single entity maintains total industry control. Of the companies you listed, none of them match this definition.
> 
> *Google* > There are are numerous search engines. Here is a list of the top 10. Not a monopoly.
> *Microsoft* > There are numerous operating systems. OS X, iOS, Ubuntu, Redhat, Debian, GNU, ArchLinux, Linux Mint, Puppy Linux, openSUSE, Fedora, Mageia, CentOS etc. Not a monopoly.
> *Facebook* > There are numerous social media sites. MySpace, Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, Flickr, Instagram, Google+, Pinterest, etc. Not a monopoly.
> *Monsanto* > There are numerous genomics companies. Archer Daniels Midland Company, Dow Chemical Company, Evogene, are a few major ones. Not a monopoly.
> *YKK* > This is a Japanese company and not an American one. Nonetheless it has competition in the form of Arconic, Rio Tinto Alcan, and Talon International. Not a monopoly.
> *AB InBev* > This is a Belgium company. Nonetheless it has competition in the form of Carlsberg Breweries, Heineken, Sabmiller Limited, and many others. Not a monopoly.
> *Simmons* > This is a UK law firm. They do not control the entire industry either, and have major competitors in the form of Clifford Chance LLP, Freshfields Bruckhause Deringer, and Norton Rose. Not a monopoly.
> ...



Who the crapping hell are Simmons? And I highly doubt that the UK has a monopoly problem, since we've been brought into this. Why, is beyond me, given that this is a US politics discussion thread.  In fact, they've made some rather idiotic decisions, in my opinion, in an attempt to prevent that. And it's prevented by EU law - for the moment, anyway. 

The EU blocked a merger between two mobile phone companies - O2 and Three - most recently. The reasoning behind this was that this would have left the UK with three major phone operators, reducing consumer choice and raising prices. Shame really. This could have solved some of the problems that we have with mobile phone coverage here. Or perhaps its just that I would have benefitted, given that I'm on O2 at the moment. 

Thatcher, probably the most loved or hated politician here, blocked British Telecom from replacing the copper infrastructure with fibre. Not only was fibre cheaper than copper, but it has obvious benefits. It was blocked by Thatcher due to the fact that it was anti-competetive and monopolizing. Had the fibre rollout taken place, we may not have the problem we have today where rural areas sometimes are unable to get a broadband connection, and are reliant on dial-up for there internet. Something which is not really compatible with todays Web 2.0/Web 3.0/Call it what you want internet (it will just take an agonizingly long time to load.)

Seriously though, you could name any popular company and argue they have a monopoly. You could say that McDonalds has a monopoly over the food industry, but I still see people flocking to KFC for lunch. Or Dominos has a monopoly over Pizza Devilery, but the local Dial-a-Pizza still gets quite a lot of business. Or Costa over coffee shops, yet there is still a number of local, independent coffee shops here that a suceeding. Popularity does not a monopoly make.

----------


## Total Eclipse

> Who the crapping hell are Simmons? And I highly doubt that the UK has a monopoly problem, since we've been brought into this. Why, is beyond me, given that this is a US politics discussion thread.  In fact, they've made some rather idiotic decisions, in my opinion, in an attempt to prevent that. And it's prevented by EU law - for the moment, anyway. 
> 
> The EU blocked a merger between two mobile phone companies - O2 and Three - most recently. The reasoning behind this was that this would have left the UK with three major phone operators, reducing consumer choice and raising prices. Shame really. This could have solved some of the problems that we have with mobile phone coverage here. Or perhaps its just that I would have benefitted, given that I'm on O2 at the moment. 
> 
> Thatcher, probably the most loved or hated politician here, blocked British Telecom from replacing the copper infrastructure with fibre. Not only was fibre cheaper than copper, but it has obvious benefits. It was blocked by Thatcher due to the fact that it was anti-competetive and monopolizing. Had the fibre rollout taken place, we may not have the problem we have today where rural areas sometimes are unable to get a broadband connection, and are reliant on dial-up for there internet. Something which is not really compatible with todays Web 2.0/Web 3.0/Call it what you want internet (it will just take an agonizingly long time to load.)
> 
> Seriously though, you could name any popular company and argue they have a monopoly. You could say that McDonalds has a monopoly over the food industry, but I still see people flocking to KFC for lunch. Or Dominos has a monopoly over Pizza Devilery, but the local Dial-a-Pizza still gets quite a lot of business. Or Costa over coffee shops, yet there is still a number of local, independent coffee shops here that a suceeding. Popularity does not a monopoly make.



That is the point 
@Lunaire
 and I have been making!!! It's not a monopoly just because they are popular. And the examples that were given weren't all US based companies and weren't examples of American Monopoly. If another word was used to describe what they are doing -- it would take a different content and meaning.

----------


## Otherside

> That is the point @Lunaire and I have been making!!! It's not a monopoly just because they are popular. And the examples that were given weren't all US based companies and weren't examples of American Monopoly. If another word was used to describe what they are doing -- it would take a different content and meaning.



Yeah it might not have been best to quote @Lunaire. My apologies to him, I did understand the point hewas making and agree with him. 

Just don't understand why the UK has been brought into this at all. Especially when we've not only got the UK gov protecting against a monopoly, but the EU gov also protecting against one. 

Ironically here, the smaller companies can survieve because they are cheaper than the larger ones. The larger ones realize that people will pay more for familiarity and the brand name. The smaller companies charge less. 

Dominos charges over ?15 for a pizza. I can get it for ?10 from the local one. I often go there as a result. 

Costa will easily set me back ?3.50 for a small cup of that crap they call coffee. The more local places will cost me ?2, sometimes less. And taste nicer. I'll choose the local over the Costa shit. 

The five major mobile companies cost more to use. I know I'd get my phone contract cheaper from a less well known, smaller comapny such as GiffGaff rather than have to do everything over the internet, which even uses the same phone masts as O2 so I really wouldn't loose anything, but it was more convinient for me to go somewhere where theres a store. 

The big banks offer Help-to-buy savings accounts (a tax-free bank account here you put money into to help buy your first home, and you get a bonus on it when you withfraw it all to buy a house). The smaller, more local building society offers a higher interest rate than a big bank such as HSBC, which is why I'm going with them. Makes it more inconvinient because there isn't really a branch nearby and it only takes Cheque or BACs - not monthly Direct Debit, but I get more from them.

----------


## Member11

@Lunaire
 There are so many things wrong with what you said, I don't know where to start. You are using a definition of monopoly that is so narrow that nothing can ever be a monopoly. You are also miss the point, everything in economies is built on competition and consumer power if you take both away it collapses like a house of cards.

When a corporation gets so large and in control of so much of the market that it no longer bothers with competing, you no longer have a competitive free market. Also, one corporation can be in many different markets, just because the corporation has competition in one doesn't mean it has it in another.

YKK has a monopoly on the manufacture of zippers worldwide (including the USA), there is a good chance most zippers you own came from this corporation. As for the examples you cited, Arconic and Rio Tinto Alcan are both aluminum producers nothing to do with zippers, Talon International is the only one you got right, but with YKK in control of more than 90% of the market, Talon is next to useless as a competitor.

As for Microsoft, it has a monopoly in PC where it owns 90% of the market. If you go into a computer store, you would see it. And yes Apple has came about, but to say Microsoft and Apple are competitors is not true. Microsoft bankrupted Apple in the 1990s, but came to its rescue as it didn't want to be labelled an official monopoly and have to deal with antitrust issues. To this day, engineers from both companies work together and help each other. If you think there is competition between the two, you fell victim to the marketing.

As for Simmons, I was talking about the US pet food corporation which owns the pet food market.

As for Monsanto, its monopoly is in corn, 80% of the corn planted in the USA uses Monsanto's seeds. And it is illegal for framers to use seeds from their crops if they used Monsanto's seeds.

I could go on, but I cannot be bothered argue over definitions and let the main issue get lost. You can keep arguing over minor details that doesn't really matter, but I'm not engaging in that anymore.

----------


## Total Eclipse

> Ironically here, the smaller companies can survieve because they are cheaper than the larger ones. The larger ones realize that people will pay more for familiarity and the brand name. The smaller companies charge less.



Yeah, we have several things similar that happen here. 

I also think the word monopoly is overused in media causing confusion to some people.





> I could go on, but I cannot be bothered. You clearly have no interest in the topic at hand, because you avoid the core issue and argue over definitions. You can keep arguing over minor details that doesn't really matter, but I'm not engaging anymore.



I'm not playing semantics on the words nor am I an economic major. But if you label something so incorrectly, it changes the meaning of the content, that needs to be clarified. In this case, for me, the convo about banks is mute or an underline disagreement as I don't think they are 'true' monopoly's (which is why I was debating them). If you don't mean monopoly, I'm not sure what you mean.. it would change the whole meaning of the posts (for me) and I'm unsure what that meaning would be. Which I think is why I (and I wont speak for      
@Lunaire
 )  questioned it. For me, that's where the miscommunication is coming from. And why I've as well been trying to gain clarification!  ::):

----------


## Member11

I think this thread needs something light-hearted to laugh at... Enter Sean Spicer...  ::D: 





You're welcome  ::D:

----------


## Ironman

> Not really if you have banks "too big to fail".







> The banking industry is not a monopoly. 
> 
> A monopoly is when a single company holds exclusive control over an entire industry.
> 
> There are  5,903 FDIC registered financial institutions in the United States.







> I know what a monopoly is, you can have issues in a market without monopolies. I was talking about the United State's antitrust laws, it can't be effective if it allows companies to become "too big to fail".



There would still be more than one company.  One of them, Lehman Brothers, did fail in the Recession.  There are plenty of others.  A lot of the big banks took advantage of the downturn and gobbled up smaller banks' assets.  My dad's mortgages were moved from Countrywide to Bank of America.  The former failed and Bank of America took them.   I had major issues with this bank - they didn't even seem to know what to do about my situation!  I took over my dad's mortgages and they could refinance the mortgages right.  Fortunately, the second one is paid off now (who in the world pays off a mortgage at age 41?  That doesn't happen very often!)   I threatened foreclosure twice and they still couldn't help me.





> There are people saying the regulatory response to the latest crash was insufficient.  I didn't realize that "too big to fail" was a real designation and that there's actually a threshold for it. Institutions perceived as being too big to fail have advantages over smaller banks because of government protection.  So there are economists who want the large banks broken up. Also, because of they have a lot of political power, no one gets prosecuted if there's criminal activity.



Actually, it was halted, but there should have been restoration.  We threw money at the problem (actually the People LENT it and should have been paid back.  We weren't - that is the big issue).

----------


## Ironman

I haven't eaten Domino's Pizza in over 10 years.  I have  boycott of them because they would not hire my brother who was desperate for a job after my dad died in 2007.  
A local pizza chain hired him as an assistant manager and he was promoted to store manager within two months!    That chain helped him get on his feet and he thanked them for that when he left.  I had never seen my brother so grateful for the opportunity.

----------


## Member11

Wow... just wow...

----------


## Member11

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...placement-plan

"Because the ACA required insurers to offer a set of benefits, the new rule would also allow insurance companies to offer less valuable plans, meaning that out-of-pocket costs would increase, and subsidies could go down. The rule would also lower requirements for the number of some types of doctors insurers are required to have in plans."

Trump's new rule, giving insurance companies new ways to screw over people.

----------


## Member11

Fox News is now turning against Trump  :popcorn:

----------


## Ironman

> Wow... just wow...



He really tore into them, didn't he? lol

Other than the fake National Guard immigration roundup story, it's been pretty quiet as of late.

His rally was pretty cool.  He brought a guy up from the audience to speak at the Presidential podium.

----------


## Ironman

> Fox News is now turning against Trump



Shepard Smith?  It's not a surprise.  He's probably the most liberal voice they have.

Fox & Friends has been known to be honest, too.  President Trump watches that show, so he gets the information.

He wants fair coverage, not off-the-wall slanderous stuff.

----------


## Member11

> He really tore into them, didn't he? lol



Nope, he was a complete idiot and a spoiled brat.

----------


## sunrise

Chris Wallace too, eh?  It's amazing he's already starting to campaign for the next term amidst all the chaos.

----------


## Ironman

> Nope, he was a complete idiot and a spoiled brat.



They needed it.  CNN said he was unhinged.  I had to laugh.

----------


## Ironman

> Chris Wallace too, eh?  It's amazing he's already starting to campaign for the next term amidst all the chaos.



What did Chris do?  He ripped into everyone at the debate.  He won the whole thing and he was the reporter.

Anyway, I would expect a lot of different things since he isn't a politician.

----------


## sunrise

> What did Chris do?



You didn't watch the YouTube video?  He castigated Trump for bashing the press.  A US President calling the media "the enemy" is outrageous.

_Wallace said. "But what Jefferson [was saying] is, despite all of our disputes, that to the functioning of a free and fair democracy, you must have an independent press."_

----------


## Member11

> They needed it.  CNN said he was unhinged.  I had to laugh.



CNN is right. But no matter how you see the media, at least they are doing their job, unlike Trump.

----------


## Ironman

> You didn't watch the YouTube video?  He castigated Trump for bashing the press.  A US President calling the media "the enemy" is outrageous.
> 
> _Wallace said. "But what Jefferson [was saying] is, despite all of our disputes, that to the functioning of a free and fair democracy, you must have an independent press."_



"Enemy of the people" - he knows we are supposed to have an independent press.  They have been asleep at the wheel until Trump became President.  They can't even hide their bias now.  Even the people are seeing it.  Our media lost credibility because they couldn't be honest.

They need to treat it like a wake-up call and do their jobs.

----------


## Ironman

> CNN is right. But no matter how you see the media, at least they are doing their job, unlike Trump.



No, their not, actually.  They are not the worst at the bias, but they do have a lot of problems.  Van Jones revealed that with his behavior at the election.  He was just the latest.  They got in trouble for giving Hillary Clinton debate questions so she could study up ahead of time.

MSNBC is the worst - when you have a commentator on the air, put feminine hygiene products on her as earrings to prove that "women have value" and that Obamacare is "good" for women, there is a problem.

----------


## Member11

> No, their not, actually.  They are not the worst at the bias, but they do have a lot of problems.  Van Jones revealed that with his behavior at the election.  He was just the latest.  They got in trouble for giving Hillary Clinton debate questions so she could study up ahead of time.
> 
> MSNBC is the worst - when you have a commentator on the air, put feminine hygiene products on her as earrings to prove that "women have value" and that Obamacare is "good" for women, there is a problem.



I couldn't care less about the cable channels. They are just trying to fill time.

----------


## Ironman

> I couldn't care less about the cable channels. They are just trying to fill time.



 ::  True - useless banter.

The networks here, a lot of times, have completely ignored or devoted little time to stories - time constraints or what not.  That's almost "lying by omission" because it doesn't bring the right attention to things that need it.  That's everywhere.  They are better than the cable channels when they do the news overall.

----------


## Member11

> True - useless banter.
> 
> The networks here, a lot of times, have completely ignored or devoted little time to stories - time constraints or what not.  That's almost "lying by omission" because it doesn't bring the right attention to things that need it.  That's everywhere.  They are better than the cable channels when they do the news overall.



Just because the cable channels are horrible, doesn't mean the media as a whole is evil.

----------


## Otherside

On the subject of fake news, the Sweden comments are making me laugh. Lol. 

As for the biases, all channels/sources are going to be biased. Huffpost is left wing. Breitbart is right thing. They both have there biases and have both have been known to give out information that is not true. Or both ignore certain stories and push others that fit there agenda. Eg - in my country, Huffpost would tell you that were overrun by white nationalist little-englanders attacking anyone foreign looking. Breitbart tells you that were overrun by refugees enforcing sharia law and Birmingham is a no go zones for anyone white. The truth is neither of those things. But both companies have there own agendas and biases, and will push forward stories that push there own biases. 

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

----------


## sunrise

> "Enemy of the people" - he knows we are supposed to have an independent press.  They have been asleep at the wheel until Trump became President.  They can't even hide their bias now.  Even the people are seeing it.  Our media lost credibility because they couldn't be honest.
> 
> They need to treat it like a wake-up call and do their jobs.



Trump demonizes any press that's critical of him.  That's why he favors Breitbart.  The press is actually finally doing their job, hence the reason why Flynn left.  It's journalistic reporting that lead to it, not Trump who sat on the info he had for weeks on Flynn and did nothing.

----------


## Ironman

> Trump demonizes any press that's critical of him.  That's why he favors Breitbart.  The press is actually finally doing their job, hence the reason why Flynn left.  It's journalistic reporting that lead to it, not Trump who sat on the info he had for weeks on Flynn and did nothing.



He wasn't the only one - he is just far more vocal about it.  He never mentioned anything about Breitbart.  If so, it proabably had something to do with Milo Yiannopoulos more than anything.  

I don't think it was the media being the main issue with Flynn.  He was asked about the conversation he had.  The conversation was actually NOT to supposed to have revealed Flynn as the person talking (if US wiretapping was used).  He was outed as having had the conversation, when it should have been an investigation.  He was not forthright with Pence the way he should have been.  The way the news was revealed was sketchy.

----------


## Member11

> I don't think it was the media being the main issue with Flynn.  He was asked about the conversation he had.  The conversation was actually NOT to supposed to have revealed Flynn as the person talking (if US wiretapping was used).  He was outed as having had the conversation, when it should have been an investigation.  He was not forthright with Pence the way he should have been.  The way the news was revealed was sketchy.



There was an investigation and everything was handed to the white house and Trump a month before the leak happened, Trump did nothing about it. The current FBI investigation is looking at Trump's connection to Russia.

----------


## sunrise

> He wasn't the only one - he is just far more vocal about it.  He never mentioned anything about Breitbart.  If so, it proabably had something to do with Milo Yiannopoulos more than anything.  
> 
> I don't think it was the media being the main issue with Flynn.  He was asked about the conversation he had.  The conversation was actually NOT to supposed to have revealed Flynn as the person talking (if US wiretapping was used).  He was outed as having had the conversation, when it should have been an investigation.  He was not forthright with Pence the way he should have been.  The way the news was revealed was sketchy.



I can't tell if you're being serious.  Breitbart is practically Trump's state-sponsored media outlet. Some say the real president is Steve Bannon. And Trump has hired others from Breitbart in his administration.

The press, real investigative journalism, is the best protection we have right now.  And now even some at Fox are saying Trump is crossing the line.  But, the question is, will it be enough.





> The suppression of the free press gives rise to dictators, McCain said.
> “In other words, a consolidation of power. When you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press,” McCain said. “And I’m not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I’m just saying we need to learn the lessons of history.”

----------


## Member11

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...on-school-trip

Trump is ignoring court orders, so much for the rule of law...

----------


## Ironman

> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...on-school-trip
> 
> Trump is ignoring court orders, so much for the rule of law...



Actually - something dorsn't make sense here.

What did Iceland do?  If the man was allowed to be here, Reykjavik blocked him, not the United States.

Second, he isn't from one of the seven countries.  If he was and then traveled to the UK to get here, that would be a different story.

I think there is some missing information.

----------


## Ironman

> I can't tell if you're being serious.  Breitbart is practically Trump's state-sponsored media outlet. Some say the real president is Steve Bannon. And Trump has hired others from Breitbart in his administration.
> 
> The press, real investigative journalism, is the best protection we have right now.  And now even some at Fox are saying Trump is crossing the line.  But, the question is, will it be enough.



That doesn't make it "state sponsored".   
I don't know where that label is coming from.

I would bet that Trump is watching as much news as he can.

----------


## Otherside

> Actually - something dorsn't make sense here.
> 
> What did Iceland do?  If the man was allowed to be here, Reykjavik blocked him, not the United States.
> 
> Second, he isn't from one of the seven countries.  If he was and then traveled to the UK to get here, that would be a different story.
> 
> I think there is some missing information.



Not necessarily. US border force operates in airports in other countries. I know they have a deal with Canada where passport/visa checks are done and the decision to deny/allow entry in made before entry to the US. I've been checked by them in Calgary before. A similar agreement could be in place in Iceland. 


Even so, the fact that he was denied in Iceland is confusing. Iceland is part of the Schengen area, and as the guy was a British Citizen (and therefore a European Citizen), he should have had the right of free travel within Iceland. Something off is going on there. 

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

----------


## Member11

> I would bet that Trump is watching as much news as he can.



And that is the problem, he should be reading briefing papers.





> Not nessecerilly. US border force operates in airports in other countries. I know they have a deal with Canada where passport/visa checks are done and the decision to deny/allow entry in made before entry to the US. I've been checked by them in Calgary before. A similar agreement could be in place in Iceland.



Same for Australia, when I was going through my local airport on my way to the USA, they checked with the USA while I was at check-in, at customs and at the boarding gate.

----------


## Member11



----------


## Member11

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...aid-low-income

Legal aid is on the chopping block...

----------


## Ironman

> 



As opposed to passing a bill they didn't read or know what was in it?
No wonder companies are dropping out.

----------


## Ironman

> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...aid-low-income
> 
> Legal aid is on the chopping block...



Wasteful spending.....from 2009

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...steful-spendi/

During the worst economic downturn in decades, the federal program that provides free legal help to impoverished Americans has spent tax dollars on a decorative natural-stone wall, no-bid contracts for consultants, alcohol for a congressional party and more than 100 casino hotel rooms that were never occupied, government documents show. 

The Legal Services Corp. - which stirred national controversy a few years back by paying for limousines, first-class airfare and $14 Death by Chocolate pastries for its executives - has created new symbols of excessive spending in recent months, according to federal audit reports and congressional correspondence obtained by The Washington Times. 


And the timing couldn’t be worse. 

Even as President Obama was calling on government to reduce wasteful spending, his administration was trying to persuade Congress to increase LSC’s funding by $45 million to help more Americans who are being evicted from homes or are facing other economic hardships and are in need of subsidized legal help.

In 2009-2010, the Democrats decided to go on spending sprees even on the city level, buying things we couldn't afford because they had the Government power.

----------


## Member11

> As opposed to passing a bill they didn't read or know what was in it?
> No wonder companies are dropping out.



What are you talking about? The Democrats are the ones who wrote it. It is the Republicans and Trump who refuses to read anything and demand everything to be one page long.

----------


## Ironman

> What are you talking about? The Democrats are the ones who wrote it. It is the Republicans and Trump who refuses to read anything and demand everything to be one page long.



Congress didn't read the bill and the writers of the bill openly admitted that they lied to get it to pass.....
The other writer was brother of Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, an Obama crony,

Jonathan Gruber.....

----------


## Member11

> Wasteful spending.....from 2009



The year is now 2017, and Trump just spent over $10 million dollars of taxpayers' money on his three weekend trips to Mar-a-Lago in just one month. You must be pissed about that, right?

----------


## Ironman

> The year is now 2017, and Trump just spent over $10 million dollars of taxpayers' money on his three weekend trips to Mar-a-Lago in just one month. You must be pissed about that, right?



It was cheaper than Obama's trips out to Hawaii.

----------


## sunrise

> It was cheaper than Obama's trips out to Hawaii.



At Trump's pace, he will far outspend Obama on security costs.  He's travelled to Mar-a-Lago 3 times and then there's the cost of guarding Trump Tower in NYC.  Plus,  his son's trip to Uruguay that for some reason, required Secret Service protection.  It's only February.





> On Saturday, Trump’s sons Eric and Don Jr., with their Secret Service details in tow, will be nearly 8,000 miles away in the United Arab Emirates, attending the grand opening of a Trump-brand golf resort in the “Beverly Hills of Dubai.”

----------


## sunrise

*Republicans' 'real-live experiment' with Kansas's economy survives a revolt from their own party*

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback's ambitious tax overhaul, which slashed taxes for businesses and affluent households, leading to years of budget shortfalls, narrowly survived a mutiny Wednesday afternoon when about half of Republican lawmakers joined Democrats in an effort to overturn it.

Brownback, a Republican who once called his tax policy a 'real-live experiment' with conservative principles, had vetoed a bill that would have repealed the most important provisions of his overhaul.....The state is facing a $350 million budget shortfall. Brownback's critics say the state's persistent deficits are evidence that the economic benefits from reduced taxes are not always adequate to make up for reductions in revenue, as advocates of supply-side changes have sometimes claimed.

For both Brownback and his critics, the changes are a model for the policies that Republicans in Washington, D.C., might pursue on a national level now that they are in control of the federal government. One of President Trump's advisers on economic policy during the campaign, Stephen Moore, also helped Brownback develop the changes he enacted beginning in 2012. Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), the speaker of the House, served as Brownback's legislative director when Brownback was in Congress.

Ryan's and Trump's proposals for tax reform have important features in common with Brownback's policies. Both reduce the number of income-tax brackets. Brownback's policies and Ryan's proposal treat income from legal entities typically used by small businesses more favorably than ordinary income. Likewise, the plan Trump advanced as a candidate appeared to reduce the tax rate on such earnings, known as 'pass-through income,' but his proposal was ambiguous on this point. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.7c32c5fcb81e

----------


## Member11

> It was cheaper than Obama's trips out to Hawaii.



Obama spent $97 million in travel costs over his full 8 years in office, Trump will out-spend him in just 9 months. Again, if Obama spending was wasteful, why isn't Trump's spending wasteful too?

----------


## Member11



----------


## Ironman

> At Trump's pace, he will far outspend Obama on security costs.  He's travelled to Mar-a-Lago 3 times and then there's the cost of guarding Trump Tower in NYC.  Plus,  his son's trip to Uruguay that for some reason, required Secret Service protection.  It's only February.



After Ivanka and her family were heckled in an airplane for going coach, they would need some​ protection.  He could use his own plane, but it is not worth the risk. I don't think he particularly likes using Air Force One, but it's part of the job.  If it gets excessive, I'd complain.

Secret Service for the family has always been in place.

----------


## Ironman

> *Republicans' 'real-live experiment' with Kansas's economy survives a revolt from their own party*
> 
> Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback's ambitious tax overhaul, which slashed taxes for businesses and affluent households, leading to years of budget shortfalls, narrowly survived a mutiny Wednesday afternoon when about half of Republican lawmakers joined Democrats in an effort to overturn it.
> 
> Brownback, a Republican who once called his tax policy a 'real-live experiment' with conservative principles, had vetoed a bill that would have repealed the most important provisions of his overhaul.....The state is facing a $350 million budget shortfall. Brownback's critics say the state's persistent deficits are evidence that the economic benefits from reduced taxes are not always adequate to make up for reductions in revenue, as advocates of supply-side changes have sometimes claimed.
> 
> For both Brownback and his critics, the changes are a model for the policies that Republicans in Washington, D.C., might pursue on a national level now that they are in control of the federal government. One of President Trump's advisers on economic policy during the campaign, Stephen Moore, also helped Brownback develop the changes he enacted beginning in 2012. Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), the speaker of the House, served as Brownback's legislative director when Brownback was in Congress.
> 
> Ryan's and Trump's proposals for tax reform have important features in common with Brownback's policies. Both reduce the number of income-tax brackets. Brownback's policies and Ryan's proposal treat income from legal entities typically used by small businesses more favorably than ordinary income. Likewise, the plan Trump advanced as a candidate appeared to reduce the tax rate on such earnings, known as 'pass-through income,' but his proposal was ambiguous on this point. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.7c32c5fcb81e



You can cut taxes, yes, but you are only going to raise revenue by increasing the number of people paying into the system.  That didn't happen, therefore the shortfall occurred.

----------


## sunrise

> After Ivanka and her family were heckled in an airplane for going coach, they would need some​ protection.  He could use his own plane, but it is not worth the risk. I don't think he particularly likes using Air Force One, but it's part of the job.  If it gets excessive, I'd complain.
> 
> Secret Service for the family has always been in place.



His sons. What about his sons?  They're traveling to foreign countries to promote Trump's businesses - with taxpayer funded security.  When did this ever happen before? And Mar-a-Lago, why go there so much?  Another consequence of Trump not fully divesting from his businesses.

----------


## sunrise

> You can cut taxes, yes, but you are only going to raise revenue by increasing the number of people paying into the system.  That didn't happen, therefore the shortfall occurred.



Yes, it was a poorly thought out plan, unless they believed it would somehow magically generate government revenue.  How do you create more people paying into the system, while at the same time cutting taxes?  When they created this tax cut, everyone clamored to take advantage of it.  The same would happen on a national scale.

----------


## Ironman

> His sons. What about his sons?  They're traveling to foreign countries to promote Trump's businesses - with taxpayer funded security.  When did this ever happen before? And Mar-a-Lago, why go there so much?  Another consequence of Trump not fully divesting from his businesses.



Michelle, Malia, and Sasha went overseas pretty often as well.

----------


## Ironman

> Yes, it was a poorly thought out plan, unless they believed it would somehow magically generate government revenue.  How do you create more people paying into the system, while at the same time cutting taxes?  When they created this tax cut, everyone clamored to take advantage of it.  The same would happen on a national scale.



That's where the incentive to build jobs come in.  People go to the jobs, make money, and pay taxes.

----------


## sunrise

> Michelle, Malia, and Sasha went overseas pretty often as well.



Don't know if they went often, but if they went on vacation, then I'm realizing, Trump's kids will also be taking vacations, with tax payer funded security.  When First Ladies go abroad, though, it's often involving some diplomacy, as well as a combo of doing a vacay. Laura Bush took more trips.

----------


## sunrise

> That's where the incentive to build jobs come in.  People go to the jobs, make money, and pay taxes.




But that didn't happen.

----------


## Member11

> That's where the incentive to build jobs come in.  People go to the jobs, make money, and pay taxes.



By that logic, if I cut your wage by half, you will get more money.

----------


## Ironman

> But that didn't happen.



Correct.  That's where it failed.





> By that logic, if I cut your wage by half, you will get more money.



But you still pay!  

We have too few people paying high taxes.  We have too few jobs.  If you lower taxes and increase the number of jobs, people will leave welfare and make a salary to pay taxes.  Combined with existing jobs, more people are paying money.  The burden on those who have been working is decreased.

----------


## sunrise

> 



LOL.  That would explain sooooo much

----------


## Member11

> But you still pay!



If that logic is true, why don't you donate half your wage to the site or any not-for-profit? According to that logic, you will be better off as more money will appear magically in your pocket that you can buy more things with.





> We have too few people paying high taxes.  We have too few jobs.  If you lower taxes and increase the number of jobs, people will leave welfare and make a salary to pay taxes.  Combined with existing jobs, more people are paying money.  The burden on those who have been working is decreased.



That sounds great, but how do you create those jobs? Cutting taxes doesn't lead to job creation that has been proven over and over again. In fact, it is likely to lead to less jobs as the reduced government services that is used to pay for the cuts will make the middle class and poor think twice before spending their money causing less sales and possible job losses.

----------


## Member11

> LOL.  That would explain sooooo much



I know, right? It also explains why he avoids briefings and watches a lot of TV  ::D:

----------


## Member11

I actually agree with Fox News for once, this is weird times  ::\:

----------


## Ironman

> I actually agree with Fox News for once, this is weird times



Change is uncomfortable.

----------


## Member11

> Change is uncomfortable.



Nope, this is how dictatorships starts.

----------


## Ironman

> Nope, this is how dictatorships starts.



No, it's not how dictatorships start.  That is hysteria.

----------


## Member11

> No, it's not how dictatorships start.  That is hysteria.



You call me hysterical, when you were going crazy about Obama and his so-called "one world government" plans.

Plus, I didn't say Trump is a real dictator, Trump is a spoiled brat crying and running into the arms of his buddies over at Infowars and Breitbart, complaining how the real journalists are being mean to him and how the political establishment and the real billionaires won't let him in their clubs.

----------


## Member11



----------


## Ironman

> You call me hysterical, when you were going crazy about Obama and his so-called "one world government" plans.
> 
> Plus, I didn't say Trump is a real dictator, Trump is a spoiled brat crying and running into the arms of his buddies over at Infowars and Breitbart, complaining how the real journalists are being mean to him and how the political establishment and the real billionaires won't let him in their clubs.



The one world government isn't an Obama-only thing.  That actually goes back to the EU, Clinton, and George W. Bush with their outsourcing.  We have been suffering ever since.

He doesn't care about the establishment letting him into clubs. Lol

There is bias in those outlets he blocked.  Obama did the same thing.  He was right to call them out, but they continued to do it.

Fox News did file a protest against the Trump Administration for blocking outlets.

----------


## Member11

> The one world government isn't an Obama-only thing.  That actually goes back to the EU, Clinton, and George W. Bush with their outsourcing.  We have been suffering ever since.



You clearly don't know what the EU is, it isn't a government replacement.





> He doesn't care about the establishment letting him into clubs. Lol



Yes, he does. All his life he just wanted to get approval and be apart of the elite, it is obvious in his tweets.





> There is bias in those outlets he blocked.  Obama did the same thing.  He was right to call them out, but they continued to do it.



Obama didn't ban any outlets. He even went on Fox News many times.





> Fox News did file a protest against the Trump Administration for blocking outlets.



Yes, because even they know it is wrong for Trump to do that.

----------


## sunrise

> There is bias in those outlets he blocked.  Obama did the same thing.  He was right to call them out, but they continued to do it.



 Except he didn't block media that were biased in favor of him, such as Breitbart and Fox.

----------


## fetisha

the conversation between jerry and ironman is going over my head *sigh* I wish I was smarter.

----------


## Member11

http://thehill.com/policy/technology...net-neutrality

Net neutrality is going away, this is going to do damage to Anxiety Space and other small websites  ::(:

----------


## Ironman

> You clearly don't know what the EU is, it isn't a government replacement.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he does. All his life he just wanted to get approval and be apart of the elite, it is obvious in his tweets.
> 
> 
> 
> Obama didn't ban any outlets. He even went on Fox News many times.
> ...



The EU is trying to another United States, and they are failing.

Trump can create his own elite group, and it won't be people whose noses are turned so high, they'd start oinking

----------


## Member11

> The EU is trying to another United States, and they are failing.



The EU isn't a country, it is a trade bloc that allows a free flow of people, goods, services and capital within a group of actual countries. It is nothing like the United States and it wasn't designed to be.





> Trump can create his own elite group, and it won't be people whose noses are turned so high, they'd start oinking



He tried that, it failed, all his businesses are either losing money fast or have failed. He is not a great businessman, he is a fraud and a wanna-be. The fact that you believe otherwise shows how powerful marketing can be.

----------


## Member11



----------


## Member11

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...onal_22417.pdf

The media is more trusted than Trump, according to new poll  ::D:

----------


## sunrise

> 



The statistics on evangelical Christians were interesting.  Didn't know that.

----------


## Member11

> The statistics on evangelical Christians were interesting.  Didn't know that.



Me either, it is quite interesting.

----------


## Member11

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/23/po...ald-trump-pot/

No more weed for recreational use in the USA.

----------


## Lunaire

> ...like an underlying Depression with a recession we are barely out of.



Do you mind elaborating on what sort of recession you believe the United States to be in when the S&P 500 has been a positively trending bull market since Obama's election in 2009?

----------


## Member11

> ...like an underlying Depression with a recession we are barely out of.



What 
@Lunaire
 said, and the fact that there are 324,000 open factory jobs nationwide, thanks to Obama, so I don't know how you can say Obama ruined the USA.

----------


## Ironman

> Do you mind elaborating on what sort of recession you believe the United States to be in when the S&P 500 has been a positively trending bull market since Obama's election in 2009?



I am talking about how things can appear to be going right and not be, particularly in the Obama years.

If things are going so well, why are there riots?  Why is crime so high in Chicago?  Why are we so divided?  Why are so many people still out of work even though the numbers don't match?  Why is drug use so high (hard drugs)?  It was only AFTER Trump was elected that there seems to be a glimmer of hope.  Stocks are reacting as if they ate hopeful that businesses could thrive again.

----------


## Member11

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/u...y-complex.html

He has no clue what he is doing, he is talking BS. There is no plan.

----------


## Lunaire

Locking thread in favor of a new thread found here.

----------

