Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

[No Excuses]

Democrats keep losing yet the prosperous parts of the country are heavily liberal. 

 

Hillary lost the electoral college but won the popular vote and dominated in areas that contribute the most to our GDP.

 

The GOP is the party of moochers who are sucking off of the success of liberal America. It's all good. We got y'all.

[visionary]

 

 

 

Oh boy....

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

I don't have an issue with the Goldman picks. I work in finance lol. 

 

Its just funny that so many of his key points are already turning out to be bull****. 

 

Not surprising at all but it's funny as hell. It's also funny to see his supporters falling over backwards on why this is ok even though they wanted to skewer Hilary for the same **** lol. 

[RedskinsFan44]

6 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

I come on this thread and look at the reactions to Pres-Elect Trump's cabinet picks to ease my mind.  As long as liberals and progressives (one and the same...I guess) are unhappy about the picks, lets me know he is on the right path!

 

^ This is pretty idiotic.  You are not concerned at all by him loading his staff with Goldman Sachs types but were outraged that H gave speeches to them?  Also, calling his razor thin electoral victory / popular vote loss a mandate is a stretch.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

10 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

I come on this thread and look at the reactions to Pres-Elect Trump's cabinet picks to ease my mind.  As long as liberals and progressives (one and the same...I guess) are unhappy about the picks, lets me know he is on the right path!

Well here is an intelligent viewpoint.

[RedskinsFan44]

Meet Rex Tillerson:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-candidate-for-state-has-close-ties-to-vladimir-putin-1481033938

[visionary]

 

[No Excuses]

Just now, BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 said:

I don't have an issue with the Goldman picks. I work in finance lol. 

 

Its just funny that so many of his key points are already turning out to be bull****. 

 

Not surprising at all but it's funny as hell. It's also funny to see his supporters falling over backwards on why this is ok even though they wanted to skewer Hilary for the same **** lol. 

 

In many ways, Trump can be good for the economy of liberal America. 

 

Lower federal taxes means cities have the ability to bring in more revenue rather than keeping their revenue low to fill the coffers of the federal government.

 

These policies at the state level have left rural America in the dumps. Yet these people keep voting GOP and pretending that liberals are to blame for their woes.

[Rskins06]

Just now, RedskinsFan44 said:

^ This is pretty idiotic.  You are not concerned at all by him loading his staff with Goldman Sachs types but were outraged that H gave speeches to them?  Also, calling his razor thin electoral victory / popular vote loss a mandate is a stretch.

What is idiotic?  Razor thin?  306-232 is not razor thin.  Not looking at just HIS win, Democrats have lost the House, the Senate, Governorships and now the White House, please tell me how that IS NOT a mandate on liberal policies?  Please, don't bring up the popular vote either, elections aren't won according to popular vote, if they were, you would have seen Trump in California, Oregon, Washington, etc.  HRC didn't bother visiting Wisconcin or Michigan until she knew she was in trouble.  

As to his Goldman Sachs appointees, if I had to run a multi million or billion dollar corporation, I wouldn't hire a local accountant or financial advisor who has never been successful.  I would hire those smart enough to ensure I was given the best chance to succeed.  As for the outrage with HRC, in public she spoke against Goldman Sachs while taking HUGE speaking fees and praising them privately in those speeches.  It was just another example of her saying whatever she had to in order to win.

[visionary]

Lol, what can you say?

 

 

 

More on this:

 

[Rskins06]

With his appointees to Sec Def and DHS, who better to run those than 2 former 4 star Generals who know how to keep America safe and know how to properly manage our Military?  Of course, currently having 19 yrs in (3more to go) and 3 tours to Afghanistan and Iraq, I may be admittedly biased.

[RedskinsFan44]

It's idiotic to base your opinion of something on other's reactions to it, which is basically letting others think for you.  As to Goldman Sachs, if you can't see Trump's hypocrisy already I will never convince you of it.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

24 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

What is idiotic?  Razor thin?  306-232 is not razor thin.  Not looking at just HIS win, Democrats have lost the House, the Senate, Governorships and now the White House, please tell me how that IS NOT a mandate on liberal policies?

You think this election was won with republican policies & values?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

31 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

As to his Goldman Sachs appointees, if I had to run a multi million or billion dollar corporation, I wouldn't hire a local accountant or financial advisor who has never been successful.  I would hire those smart enough to ensure I was given the best chance to succeed.

But you'd elect a man with no government or military experience and who has never demonstrated anything beyond the most rudimentary knowledge of issues and policy to the highest office in the land. The guy who asked Kasich to be in charge of setting foreign and domestic policy for him.

32 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

As for the outrage with HRC, in public she spoke against Goldman Sachs while taking HUGE speaking fees and praising them privately in those speeches.  It was just another example of her saying whatever she had to in order to win.

There could be a legitimate point in here but since you support Donald Trump, it's obvious that you don't really care about that sort of thing.

[visionary]

 

 

 

Industrial Revolution 2.0 here we come.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Rskins06 said:

I come on this thread and look at the reactions to Pres-Elect Trump's cabinet picks to ease my mind.  As long as liberals and progressives (one and the same...I guess) are unhappy about the picks, lets me know he is on the right path!

 

And that is why the country is ****ed. 

 

The people whose attitude is that having people point out that things are bad, is more important than the fact that they are bad. 

 

"Yeah, Trump solved Detroit's unemployment problem by dropping a nuclear weapon on Detroit. But the only people complaining about it are people who don't agree with every single thing Trump has done. So I approve of it."

[Zazzaro703]

22 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

It's idiotic to base your opinion of something on other's reactions to it, which is basically letting others think for you.  As to Goldman Sachs, if you can't see Trump's hypocrisy already I will never convince you of it.

Trumps excuse for not "draining the swamp" has been that it is virtually impossible to do so unless he were to have the country run by people that are essentially rookies like himself. It was always unrealistic to think he wouldn't have Goldman Sachs type people filling some of his cabinet positions. That's why I have been for getting away from the one party system and was cool with Bernie Sanders winning even though I really cannot stand the fringe liberal progressive loudmouths that really give their movement a bad name. At least it would have been a different direction. 

 

What we would have gotten under Clinton would have been a lot worse. Total corruption is what we would have gotten. She was ready to go to war with Russia over alleged cyber crimes saying she would treat them the same as a physical attack. Thankfully, the democrat clowns in power didn't learn a damn thing from the election and are blaming fake news for the loss (Hilarious, I remember a fake news story about a cartoon being the cause of our embassy being overrun). I was stunned reading what Harry Reid had to say, but the current form of the Democratic Party won't be around for much longer if that's what they truly think which is good for the country. The sooner the republicans and democrats are replaced by newer modern day parties with modern day policies, the better for us all. 

 

My politics actually are in line with a lot of the posters here. I'm for woman's body woman's choice, I'm for more thorough background checks when purchasing fire arms, I'm for clean and renewable energy, I'm for illegal immigrants already here being given citizenship if they can prove they have held jobs and haven't committed any violent crimes, I'm for freedom of expression, religion, ideas as long as you aren't harming anyone, I'm for EVERYONE being treated equally, I'm for vastly improving our educational system giving young people hope for a future that doesn't involve the guns, drugs and crime that is a huge problem in cities like Chicago. But, because I think Hillary Clinton stands for everything wrong with our political system people think I'm an alt right infowarrior and there were even calls to put me on posters ignore list because I had a differing point of view that most of the time I sourced. I would also use MSM sources to back up what I was saying MOST of the time. Censorship of differing points of view isn't going to solve anything, another lesson the left needs to learn or they will be left in the dust as the election showed. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 minutes ago, Zazzaro703 said:

But, because I think Hillary Clinton stands for everything wrong with our political system people think I'm an alt right infowarrior and there were even calls to put me on posters ignore list because I had a differing point of view that most of the time I sourced.

That's not why people think you are an alt right infowarrior and you know it.

[Larry]

57 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

With his appointees to Sec Def and DHS, who better to run those than 2 former 4 star Generals who know how to keep America safe and know how to properly manage our Military?  Of course, currently having 19 yrs in (3more to go) and 3 tours to Afghanistan and Iraq, I may be admittedly biased.

 

Yeah, speaking for myself, I do have to agree that civilian control of the military is a nice principle, at least in theory, BUT ......

 

I also have have to reflect that the Republicans seem to have a long standing history of TALKING a lot about supporting our military. But, when they get power, they divert the money to big-ticket defense contracts (and away from the basic needs of the actual soldiers). 

 

Maybe be some retired generals MIGHT have some more loyalty to the troops, than to big corporations. 

 

At least, I'm choosing to hope that's the case. 

[PF Chang]

4 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

I think the discussion (both here and in the broader public forum) show how truly effed we are as a nation.  People are happy about some of the Trump picks SIMPLY BECAUSE they piss off the people they believe are the left wing enemy.  

 

And a few posts later...

 

1 hour ago, Rskins06 said:

I come on this thread and look at the reactions to Pres-Elect Trump's cabinet picks to ease my mind.  As long as liberals and progressives (one and the same...I guess) are unhappy about the picks, lets me know he is on the right path!

 

 

I think Kilmer may have been onto something!

[Rskins06]

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Yeah, speaking for myself, I do have to agree that civilian control of the military is a nice principle, at least in theory, BUT ......

 

I also have have to reflect that the Republicans seem to have a long standing history of TALKING a lot about supporting our military. But, when they get power, they divert the money to big-ticket defense contracts (and away from the basic needs of the actual soldiers). 

 

Maybe be some retired generals MIGHT have some more loyalty to the troops, than to big corporations. 

 

At least, I'm choosing to hope that's the case. 

Speaking from experience, the Military IS treated better under Republican leadership.  When I first enlisted in USMC in 1988, Pres Bush was in office, upon Clinton's election, the Military lost over 240,000 jobs, loss of pay increases, force reductions, etc.. In 2001, upon reentering military, Pres Bush in office, saw increases in pay, housing, etc.. I understand the nation at war, however, from 2000-2008 there were attempts to reduce civilian and military pay discrepancies, increase benefits, better housing, medical facilities, etc.  From 2008 - present, again, we have forced reductions, loss of benefits, very small pay increase (1% per year which is lower than cost of living increases) and aging equipment.

Republicans have ABSOLUTELY supported actual Soldiers.  It's the Democrats who talk about our great military while taking away benefits, reduce our numbers and reduce funding for training and equipment.

[No Excuses]

The Democrats really do suck for trying to be fiscally responsible. Unlike those Republicans who cut taxes and then bloat up the debt through big government deficit spending.

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

When I first enlisted in USMC in 1988, Pres Bush was in office, upon Clinton's election, the Military lost over 240,000 jobs, loss of pay increases, force reductions, etc..

 

And yet, military spending under Clinton went up.  (It went down, his first few years, by a really tiny amount.  Then, later on, went up, by a very tiny amount, and ended up being higher, again by a really tiny amount.)  

 

I used to have this discussion with the venerable poster named Sarge, every few months, for several years.  He'd point to how many task forces the navy had, at the begining and end of Clinton.  How many batalions the Army had, before and after.  

 

And I'd point out that the dollars pretty much stayed unchanged, throughout.  

 

And then I'd relate a story.  Purely anecdotal, and no, I can't provide a link or a video or whatever.  Just a personal memory.  

 

It was some time ago, and I was clicking through the cable channels, looking for something to watch.  And I saw a picture of a hearing room, with a bunch of generals sitting behind a microphone-covered table, with lots of flash bulbs going off.  

And the general was saying "The military does not need a spending increase above what's being spent now."  

 

Needless to say, that caught my attention.  I'd always assumed that generals always wanted more money.  (Not because they're evil or stupid or greedy or anything.  But simply because their job is to be prepared for everything.  They have to consider the possibility that maybe every single nation on Earth will unanimously decide to attack us, simultaneously, while half of our forces are down due to a biological weapon that we weren't prepared for, and so forth.)  

 

So, I kept watching.  

 

It was the JCS, testifying before Congress, about this year's military spending bill.  

 

And, what CJCS was telling Congress was that Congress has earmarked so much of the military's budget for big-ticket defense contracts, that the military has no budget left for training, readiness, maintenance, and personnel retention.  

 

That this was resulting is a dangerous situation in which the military is having trouble retaining the experienced personnel that they need, to maintain readiness.  He was here, today, to plead with Congress to stop telling the military to buy all these big-ticket items, and to allow them to spend it where the military wanted to spend it - on the troops.  

 

Now, again - that's just an anecdotal story.  No support whatsoever except for my claim that I saw it on TV.  

 

But.  I point out, it does fit with the facts that we're both pointing out.  Lower quality of military life (and readiness), while still spending the same amount of money.  

 

Even if it were just a theory I'd made up.  If I had never seen that testimony on CSPAN.  It's still a theory that at least fits the facts which we both can support.  

 

[Burgold]

Rudy apparently pulled his name. Now, who does Trump pick for Secretary of State. I'm guessing David Duke.

[Rskins06]

3 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

The Democrats really do suck for trying to be fiscally responsible. Unlike those Republicans who cut taxes and then bloat up the debt through big government deficit spending.

Exactly when have the Democrats tried to be fiscally responsible?  Better yet, when has anyone in our government tried to be fiscally responsible?  Please, let's not try and to debate fiscal responsibility, both parties have proven to be fiscally irresponsible.