The Don

Runnin said:
“There is no more California,” Burns said. “It’s now international, lawless territory. Everything is up for grabs. Illegal aliens are murdering people there. People are being raped. Trump isn’t lying about anything — the rest of the country just hasn’t found out yet.”

In case you are being serious - it proposes that true California was domestic, aka. White, and lawful (both completely untrue, btw) and that now it's overrun by illegals, aka. Mexicans, and is unlawful, implying that what made California California was it's whiteness and lawfulness. I'll ignore that other claims.
Click to expand...

Thanks for gracing me with your seriously preposterous (not to mention bizarre) interpretation of that text and, as I suspected, fragile racist accusations.
 
Hawk said:
More NYT goodness from Maureen Dowd:

Certainly, Trump could explode at any moment in a fiery orange ball. But meanwhile, he has exploded the hoary conventions, money-grubbing advisers and fund-raising excesses of the presidential campaign, turning everything upside down, inside out, into sauerkraut.

It is a fable conjured up in several classic movies: A magnetic, libidinous visitor shows up and insinuates himself into the lives of a bourgeois family. The free spirit leaves, but only after transforming the hidebound family, so that none of them can see themselves the same way again.

That is the profound metamorphosis Trump has wrought on the race. The Don Rickles of reality shows is weirdly bringing some reality to the presidential patty-cake.

The Donald’s strange pompadour and Hillary’s strange server have eclipsed all the usual primary permutations.

Because Trump is so loud, omnipresent, multiplatform and cutting, he’s shaping the perception of the other candidates. Once he blurts out the obvious — Jeb is low energy, Hillary is shifty, Mitt choked — some voters nod their heads and start to see his targets in that unflattering light as well.

Trump has trapped his Republican rivals into agreeing with his red-meat opinions on immigration or attacking him, neither of which are good options. Trump bluntness only works for Trump, and getting into a scrap with him is like being tossed into a bag of badgers.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/o...=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
Click to expand...

I found Axelrod's quotes in the Dowd piece to be insightful. Americans seem to want change until they get it. Having been involved with campaigns (lo, though many years ago) the "change" theme always seems to resonate with someone.
 
50PoundHead said:
I found Axelrod's quotes in the Dowd piece to be insightful. Americans seem to want change until they get it. Having been involved with campaigns (lo, though many years ago) the "change" theme always seems to resonate with someone.
Click to expand...

Was just going to make a thread on this.

Americans don't want someone who's been in Washington too long or at all, but at the same time Americans want someone who has "experience". Can't have that experience unless you've been in the game for a while.

Americans want someone who hasn't been exposed and will stand up to the corruption and backroom deals on Capitol Hill, but Americans want someone who can compromise and make a deal with the other side. Can't do that unless you've made good friendships and connections on the Hill.

Palin had zero foreign policy credentials, yet people felt she was more qualified than Obama,a Senator at the federal level, whom was on various Subcomittees with foreign relations.

Hillary has one of the most prestigious resumes on paper that anyone running for the office has ever had, yet people think she's not qualified to be President. (I'm not endorsing Hillary btw, just saying it like it is).

Cruz has been in the Senate for 3 years now, Rand and Rubio for 5. At what point are those guys officially Washington establishment guys? I was watching O Brother and have to reference one of my favorite Pappy O'Daniel scenes.

"People like that reform (change). Hey maybe we should get us some reform too?"
"I'll reform you you soft-headed son bitch. How you gonna run reform when we're the damn incumbent?!"


Obama is the shining example for this conundrum. He came into office with the change tone, yet when the other side wouldn't move an inch to compromise with him, Americans all of the sudden decided they want him to compromise even if it means agreeing to outlandish things. Just compromise just to compromise, not even getting the best deal. Obama wins re-election, and the opposing party's top leader says it's not a mandate for anything.

Trump and Carson are two who don't have that Washington experience, yet polls suggest people like them because they are not Washington guys, but don't like them because they don't have that Washington experience.
 
which dumbass do you think Burns is in this photo?

imrs.php


for someone who likes to make fat jokes of others, he might should hit the gym
 
50PoundHead said:
Americans seem to want change until they get it. Having been involved with campaigns (lo, though many years ago) the "change" theme always seems to resonate with someone.
Click to expand...

not sure why Donald even comes close to the mold of change

he might could be worse actually

"I would call up the head of Ford; Who I know.. if I was President [of the US]. I'd say..'congratulations.. I understand you're building a nice $2.5 billion dollar car factory in Mexico, and that you're going to take your cars and sell them the the United States - ZERO TAX - just fly them across the border'.

And you say to yourself. 'how does that help us?' right? 'where is that good?' It's not.

So I'd say, 'congratulations, that's the good news. Let me give you the bad news. Every car and every truck and every part manufactured in this plant that comes across the border..we're gonna charge you a thirty percent tax.' " ~Donald Trump
Click to expand...

as my Mom taught me many moons ago, actions speak louder than words:

11223317_1080873935256618_4109175400754874861_n.jpg


but hey, i'm sure he pulled himself up from his boot straps

11925997_10206354624198679_2864425764109421509_n.jpg
 
Hawk said:
Thanks for gracing me with your seriously preposterous (not to mention bizarre) interpretation of that text and, as I suspected, fragile racist accusations.
Click to expand...
You asked and I tried to answer as plainly as possible.

I don't have the power to grace anything.
 
goldfly said:
not sure why Donald even comes close to the mold of change

he might could be worse actually

as my Mom taught me many moons ago, actions speak louder than words:

11223317_1080873935256618_4109175400754874861_n.jpg


but hey, i'm sure he pulled himself up from his boot straps

11925997_10206354624198679_2864425764109421509_n.jpg
Click to expand...

I've always believed that "change" is a malleable macro-concept and has almost exclusively become more about style than substance. I thought Axelrod's quote hit that dead center. Bush (at least the post-9/11 iteration) seemed to be all about action over deliberation. Obama, while obviously dedicated to certain actions, certainly provided an image of greater reflection and contemplation. Trump seemingly wants to get back to action-mode.

But I really have to laugh at his comments about Ford. Okay, we put a 30% tax on cars coming back into America from Mexico. Sounds good, but Ford would pass the cost of the tax on to the consumer. Ford's option would be to start building more cars in Detroit (or other places in the US), but those are union jobs and the higher cost of American labor will be again passed on to the consumer. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for union jobs, but when the American public is paying a couple of thousand more for a car as a result of what Trump is suggesting, they'll be railing against the change; the change they supposedly wanted.

The other thing I want to know about Trump (and I'm relatively certain this will come out) is the magnitude of the tax breaks and other enticements he was provided for his development projects. My guess is it's in the billions.
 
50PoundHead said:
I've always believed that "change" is a malleable macro-concept and has almost exclusively become more about style than substance. I thought Axelrod's quote hit that dead center. Bush (at least the post-9/11 iteration) seemed to be all about action over deliberation. Obama, while obviously dedicated to certain actions, certainly provided an image of greater reflection and contemplation. Trump seemingly wants to get back to action-mode.

But I really have to laugh at his comments about Ford. Okay, we put a 30% tax on cars coming back into America from Mexico. Sounds good, but Ford would pass the cost of the tax on to the consumer. Ford's option would be to start building more cars in Detroit (or other places in the US), but those are union jobs and the higher cost of American labor will be again passed on to the consumer. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for union jobs, but when the American public is paying a couple of thousand more for a car as a result of what Trump is suggesting, they'll be railing against the change; the change they supposedly wanted.

The other thing I want to know about Trump (and I'm relatively certain this will come out) is the magnitude of the tax breaks and other enticements he was provided for his development projects. My guess is it's in the billions.
Click to expand...

Trump wanting to tariff everything that we import is a joke. Between cutting off trade, cutting off immigration, and taxing all imports, I'd say he's nearly as anti-growth as Hilary and Bernie
 
sturg33 said:
Trump wanting to tariff everything that we import is a joke. Between cutting off trade, cutting off immigration, and taxing all imports, I'd say he's nearly as anti-growth as Hilary and Bernie
Click to expand...

So you rather jobs go overseas than keep them here? What jobs can we provide our nation when you can get 1/10 or more of the dollar when you build/make it overseas. This is how Wally World took out all the middle class businesses in the states. When I went home, not many mom and pop stores, all Wally Worlds and Targets and when I pick up an item, made in China, made in Indonesia, made in Pakistan. I put them down, rather pay the extra dollar to find Made in the USA. One, I found out that products made overseas are not good quality and sometimes dangerous and then you have the buy the same thing again, meaning if you bought it from the USA and their strict regulation, it lasts longer.

This is why raising the minimum wage will not work here, almost all the mom and pop establishments will close and then the oligarchs like Wally World, Target, General Dollar and so forth will only be the stores you can shop at.
 
PS--I bought a nice tie off the clearance rack a few years back and didn't notice until I got home it was a Donald Trump brand. Just checked the other day to see where it was made. Sure enough, it was manufactured by the evil Chinese.

Aerch, I get what you're saying and I don't disagree, but the bottom line is that if Trump shuts down free trade, prices go up. Given where the American middle class is, that's a non-starter.
 
AerchAngel said:
So you rather jobs go overseas than keep them here? What jobs can we provide our nation when you can get 1/10 or more of the dollar when you build/make it overseas. This is how Wally World took out all the middle class businesses in the states. When I went home, not many mom and pop stores, all Wally Worlds and Targets and when I pick up an item, made in China, made in Indonesia, made in Pakistan. I put them down, rather pay the extra dollar to find Made in the USA. One, I found out that products made overseas are not good quality and sometimes dangerous and then you have the buy the same thing again, meaning if you bought it from the USA and their strict regulation, it lasts longer.

This is why raising the minimum wage will not work here, almost all the mom and pop establishments will close and then the oligarchs like Wally World, Target, General Dollar and so forth will only be the stores you can shop at.
Click to expand...

Cutting off trade with the rest of the world would be a total economic disaster
 
sturg33 said:
Cutting off trade with the rest of the world would be a total economic disaster
Click to expand...

Would it though? I mean I'm not talking about cutting off trade, but making a level playing field. If China devalues the yen to make exports cheap and steals our intellectual property charge a hefty tariff. We have to be proactive. A free market cannot exist in a world where people don't play by the rules. And if they dont' play by the rules, **** them.
 
zitothebrave said:
Would it though? I mean I'm not talking about cutting off trade, but making a level playing field. If China devalues the yen to make exports cheap and steals our intellectual property charge a hefty tariff. We have to be proactive. A free market cannot exist in a world where people don't play by the rules. And if they dont' play by the rules, **** them.
Click to expand...

That would be all well and good if our economy wasn't so dependent on imports from others, especially from China.

You can't say you want the minimum wage raised then say you want to tax the hell out of imports.

And the US has done plenty of currency manipulating over the years, so we don't have much of a leg to stand on. And if we ever decided to cut our spending, maybe we wouldn't need to borrow so much from... CHINA to finance our recklessness.

Like it or not they kind of have a hold on us. And cutting off trade with them would be a disaster
 
sturg33 said:
That would be all well and good if our economy wasn't so dependent on imports from others, especially from China.

You can't say you want the minimum wage raised then say you want to tax the hell out of imports.

And the US has done plenty of currency manipulating over the years, so we don't have much of a leg to stand on. And if we ever decided to cut our spending, maybe we wouldn't need to borrow so much from... CHINA to finance our recklessness.

Like it or not they kind of have a hold on us. And cutting off trade with them would be a disaster
Click to expand...

i never hear you talk about actually changing the way we live

it's always "we are dependent on this or that, so we have to keep it this or that way"
 
goldfly said:
i never hear you talk about actually changing the way we live

it's always "we are dependent on this or that, so we have to keep it this or that way"
Click to expand...

And that's what I was trying to hit at (albeit unsuccessfully) in my mention of the allure of "change" in the political discussion. Everyone seems to want it, but no one seems want to do the cost/benefit on any proposal because any cost seems to be too high for what might amount to a substantial benefit. Nothing comes without sacrifice on someone's part; the question is "Who sacrifices?" Inertia has really taken over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top