GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread

[Doug S.]

Actually, Al, I LOOK for reasons to like Trump. We have him for 4 years, but I think it will be a very rocky 4 years if he doesn't develop a bit more "transparency". He is now saying he won't release his tax returns, but every other POTUS in recent memory has. Obviously he's afraid for the American public to find out what they show. I understand that he is reluctant to "broadcast" his military decisions...I grew up in a military family...but he is not a military strategist and his "I'm the smartest person in this room, and every room I'm in" attitude is going to be detrimental when he thinks the advice his military specialists gives is wrong. I fear for our nation, Al...this phat phuque in North Korea is a ticking time-bomb and as soon as he manages to get a missile that can reach the continental U.S. he will relish being even more challenging. He will LOOK for a reason to use a nuke on us, just to show that he can. China MAY be a bit of help, but this asswipe is such a renegade that I don't think even China can reign him in.

We're in a very tumultuous time and IMHO it is just not a good thing to keep the American public in the dark, much less than lie to them. When Trump stated that they had sent an "armada" to the north Pacific, we all saw moving pictures of battleships surrounding an aircraft carrier, steaming somewhere. Now we find out that either the battleships were sent alone, or the "armada" was not dispatched at the time he led the country to believe it was. Which was it? Either way, I view this morning's revelations as a lie...a lie by omission is just every bit as much a lie as an outright lie. Sure, they are headed for the north Pacific now...but we were led to believe that they started heading that way a week ago, maybe more. Shame on him for that!!!!

Like I said, I REALLY do want Trump to be successful...if he succeeds, the country succeeds. I just don't think his "secrecy" is always advisable, and any act of war ought to come after a declaration of war by our congress. Didn't we learn our lessons in Viet Nam and the middle east? Unpopular "Military actions" do not set well with the majority of Americans, IMHO, and Trump has shown that he relishes doing things his way. He doesn't want to be transparent and that may very well cost him the support of even his own party, the members of which seem to be abandoning him at every opportunity. His business acumen is undeniable, even if his methods are a bit questionable (take the profit and run, then declare bankrupcy????).

He's already reneged on quite a few of his promises...hard to keep track of them. How long will the majority of Americans want to put up with that?

Cheers, Al. Nice to see you back in our discussions!

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Doug, I think tax returns are of no consequence in the big picture. As far a transparency, the last guy was about as transparent as carbon paper. I don't know about where you are located, but things are picking up in Tucson, but I suppose if Bush was blamed for 8 years, Obama will take credit for the next 4, only if it's positive of course. Right now the news media is like a bunch of chickens that find a little sore on another chicken and do their best to peck it to death. Every day some trivial BS comes out, and they play it to the hilt, rarely anything positive. The entire Trump family and anyone that has ever known them is in the spotlight. If they burp, the world knows about it. But we don't have any Conservative media to speak of. I'm still baffled by the concept of huge taxes, giving money and services to everyone except those who paid into, groveling to the world, spending money we don't have, and shrinking the military. But then I'm not a liberal.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

This is a typical headline. Trump’s missing ‘armada’ finally heading to Korea. This AMs news. Not that it was always going to go there, but that he "might" not have complete control, puts a nice negative spin on it. I tend to look at the final outcome. I don't listen to liberal media. Propaganda US style, swaying the illiterate electorate. The sad thing is that it works.

 

[Doug S.]

I don't listen to liberal media. Propaganda US style, swaying the illiterate electorate. The sad thing is that it works.

I listen to both...it seems that ALL of the news sources (with the possible exception of the BBC) has aligned itself with one or the other political parties/persuasions. If you only read or listen to information from one side, you'll end up with a one-sided opinion, naturally. I understand the desire to embrace a news source that agrees with your political persuasion, but in that respect I believe that both "sides" are disseminating what the POTUS has labeled as "Fake News"...which is somewhat of an oxy-moron; it is news or it is not news, whether it is fake or real isn't the issue, whether it is accurate or not is.

Speaking of news...it is decidedly one sided when someone (and particularly a POTUS) holds secrets. Trump has stated emphatically that he wants to keep the media guessing, that he likes to "surprise" people. I think the population of the U.S. deserves better than that...up to a degree. I would not support an announcement that the military will strike a defined target on Wednesday of next week...those issues should remain under the broad umbrella of "...need to know", and with our freedom of the press it is difficult to keep a military secret, so the U.S. public does not need to know in most cases. Now...if the POTUS does intend to drop a nuclear bomb on...say, for example, North Korea...well, that is another issue. IF that were a definite plan, I would certainly let diplomats and other key governmental personnel know so that U.S. citizens could be removed to a safe location (not that there really is one in a nuclear war...it was just an example, although admittedly a poorly stated one).

The bottom line is that there is a time and place for transparency and a time and place for secrecy, and the secrecy should be limited to matters of national defense, to my beliefs. I would be just as exasperated if the POTUS were Democratic and would not release his tax returns as I admit I am with our current POTUS. It's just the right thing to do...UNLESS you are hiding something. I wonder what that could be, Al...don't you?????

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Rod]

It's the Keystone Cops right now.

The Armada while not lost, Trump had no clue. Being interviewed by CNBC, he thought he bombed Afghanistan, but the interviewer reminded him it was Syria. Accuse Obama and Susan Rice of crimes, whoops! No crimes were committed. It's all a distraction from the Russia investigation.

The taxes are an HUGE issue with me. Why hide anything? Be proud! Trump wants tax cuts, great, now let's see your taxes to see how much you'll benefit.

Ivanka is side-dealing from the White House with her brand trademark deal with China the same day as China's President is visiting the "Winter White House."

Can't see the White House visitor logs? None? Why? You can always hide names, if desired, there's a procedure for that.

"Spicey" doesn't know the F'ing difference between a Concentration Camp and the Holocaust Center? No gas was used by Hitler?

Remove environmental and banking regulations? So banks can crap up the markets and we can breathe crappy air? Bring back "clean coal" (it's not), when time has already passed it by as an energy source.

Things are running amok IMO.

 

[Larry L.]

..Being interviewed by CNBC, he thought he bombed Afghanistan, but the interviewer reminded him it was Syria.

I didn't see that interview ('never watch that network) so I don't know the full CONTEXT in which Trump mentioned Af'stan...however...uh...skeeeuze me, but...uh...just a small 'aside'...uh...we DID bomb Af'stan around the same time, you know...'dropped the M.O.A.B., remember? It was in most of the papers. (BTW, in which of our "57 states" did Trump make that comment...and was it a "corpse-man" who asked the question? Never mind...'they were rhetorical questions. :nice

As I've done in the past, I could go item by item countering every statement you've made (Obama and Susan Rice accusations vs. the Trump/Trump campaign/Russia connection accusations...not to mention the Clintons/Russia connection and the uranium deal...the Clinton Foundation/Clinton Initiative "pay for play" vs. Ivanka's company, etc., etc.)..., but, it would only start yet another never ending 'point-counterpoint' back-and-forth...and I've become verrry tired of same. So instead, I've decided to simply 'lurk' and chuckle at the sound of snowflakes melting... :lipsrsealed:[/QUOTE]

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Did we ever find out anything about Obama's college grades, attendance, etc?

 

[Doug S.]

Did we ever find out anything about Obama's college grades, attendance, etc?

I wasn't aware it was an issue of contention...fill me in, please, Al. I guess the only thing I could say is that he must have graduated from college because he was a college professor at one time...didn't he teach constitutional law? I remember something about that...again, not quite sure I remember what it was.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

I wasn't aware it was an issue of contention...fill me in, please, Al. I guess the only thing I could say is that he must have graduated from college because he was a college professor at one time...didn't he teach constitutional law? I remember something about that...again, not quite sure I remember what it was.

Cheers!

Doug

U.C. Law School's statement on that question stated Obama was "...a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors...(emph mine)." The college DID NOT come right out and point-blank directly verify/confirm/stipulate he in fact was an actual "professor" in accordance with the common definition of the title...and one would think the school would have come right out and SAID he was a professor if in fact he had been one.

IOW, 'just another example of libs using double-talk, spin, obfuscation, and good ole smoke and mirrors to prop up/backup a fellow lib's claim/utterance.

 

[Rod]

And I could counter your points with even more points, but I'd get too tired as well. Waste of time. He's a loser and I'm ready for impeachment. However, Congress might have to move the proceedings to the golf course(s) at or near Mar-a-Lago in order to find him and try him.

War and the economy tanking is inevitable. Just a matter of time.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I wasn't aware it was an issue of contention...fill me in, please, Al. I guess the only thing I could say is that he must have graduated from college because he was a college professor at one time...didn't he teach constitutional law? I remember something about that...again, not quite sure I remember what it was.

Cheers!

Doug

His college records were asked for numerous times, they were never released. The media never said anything about it, that's why it wasn't common knowledge. As for playing golf, Obama played 306 rounds at $1,000,000 plus a round with travel, security etc. Not bad, 1/3 of a billion to play golf on our dollar.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

WTF are they going to impeach him for? As far as I know he's not getting a BJ in the O office. I'll see you after a year.

 

[Doug S.]

His college records were asked for numerous times, they were never released. The media never said anything about it, that's why it wasn't common knowledge.

Yeah, Al, I sure don't remember hearing anything about efforts to get his college records. I am a bit perplexed, though, as to who requested them, why they wanted them, and what they were going to do with them. AFAIK there has never before been a request for those records from a Presidential candidate from any party, but I could be wrong about that. On the other hand, I do recall candidates being encouraged, even expected to release their Tax records...and I don't remember any of them refusing. I do remember that Romney (who was not a Presidential candidate at the time) refused to release his and IMHO it cost him the Republican nomination...along with his apparent disdain for anyone who was not in the ultra-wealthy (there was something about the upper 2% or 5% or...well, that's all I remember about that).
So...help clear up my confusion about the college transcript issue...inquiring minds want to know, you know.
Cheers, Al!
Doug

 

[Larry L.]

WTF are they going to impeach him for?

Simple. 'Not being a lib...or more specifically - not being Obama. :laugh4:

 

[Keith]

So, 'Muricans...from your perspective, what are your thoughts after 100 days of Trump? (Doug & Jeff, no need to reply guys. :laugh

The thing about the carrier group "heading for Korea" seemed a bit immature didn't it? Was it meant as a joke, political rhetoric, empty threat, what?

Whatever the flavour of your presidency, I really hope it all works out for the sake of world peace if anything.... :shifty:

 

[Larry L.]

Speaking only for my own darned self, I'm d-i-s-g-u-s-t-e-d that, having had at least 6 years to come up with one, Trump and the GOPs didn't have a 'consensus-approved' bill to repeal and replace Obamacare ready to go on day-one. There is/was NO excuse for that. Every GOP in congress ran on getting that done. 'Pathetic. 'Same basic idea applies to a tax overhaul bill.

'Was darned glad to see Trump reverse so many of Obama's Exec Orders just as he said he was going to do. 'Great to see the two pipelines f-i-n-a-l-l-y given the 'green light'...'great to see Gorsuch on the bench...'great to see Trump reverse the COAL MINE regs Obama used to, in effect, shut down America's coal industry...'great to see him do what he has done in general to this point. (I'd have ordered ALL of Assad's air base facilities hit had it been up to me...but...)

To your specific carrier group question: I have no idea what the deal was there. As I recall, Trump said he was ordering the 'group to the Korean Peninsula. I don't recall him saying that he had already ordered the 'group to the Korean Peninsula "right this very second", nor that he had ordered the 'group to make a 'bee line' directly to Korean waters "w/o delay". Wherever/wherever else the 'group may have gone/done along the way or >why< (aaaaah...now, there's the rub...innit) I have no clue and 'couldn't care less. "What difference at this point does it make" as a certain member of the so-called "LOYAL" opposition once said.

What has disgusted me more than anything else has been the absolute, complete and TOTAL, 24/7/365 obstructionist policy adhered to by the Democrats solely for the sake OF obstruction. 'Party before country'. 'Great. They're acting like a bunch of two-year-olds throwing a group tantrum in a toy isle.

 

[Larry L.]

...Wherever/wherever else the 'group may have gone/done along the way...

Obviously that should read: "Wherever/WHATever else..."

I did manage to catch/fix a half dozen other dyslexia-based screw-ups I'd made before "editing" time ran out though...

 

[Doug S.]

What has disgusted me more than anything else has been the absolute, complete and TOTAL, 24/7/365 obstructionist policy adhered to by the Democrats solely for the sake OF obstruction. 'Party before country'. 'Great. They're acting like a bunch of two-year-olds throwing a group tantrum in a toy isle.

Geez, Larry...you could not have done a better job of describing John Boehner and his partners in crime during the Obama administration!

Cheers to you for recognizing the problem...not so much for not recognizing it as obstructionism when the Repubs were doing it....but, as I have said so many times before in the past, there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see, and party loyalty (or political persuasion) can have a blinding effect. It's just human nature.

As for Trump, I'm with you on putting the miners back to work...as for the rest, we can just agree to respect the other party's right to have a different opinion, right?

Onward! Through the fog :uneasy:

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

Geez, Larry...you could not have done a better job of describing John Boehner and his partners in crime during the Obama administration!

Cheers to you for recognizing the problem...not so much for not recognizing it as obstructionism when the Repubs were doing it....but, as I have said so many times before in the past, there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see, and party loyalty (or political persuasion) can have a blinding effect.

I expected exactly that response from either you or Jeff...or both. The GOPs didn't oppose anything and EVERYthing 24/7/365 the way your crew is doing today. The GOPs even VOTED TO CONFIRM TWO - TWO - FAR LEFT JUSTICES to SCOTUS (Kagan and Sotomayor)...unlike the disgusting display orchestrated by Chucky Schumer against Gorsuch this time around. And that was done dispite the fact the Democrats had A-P-P-R-O-V-E-D Gorsuch for the fed bench about a decade prior!

Prince Harry Reid let some 450 bills - many bipartisan bills sit on his desk rather than forward 'em to the President. If the GOPs had been as "obstructionist" as your crew is being today, NONE OF THOSE BILLS could possibly have been/would have been sitting on Reid's desk in the 1st place, could/would they.

Nuff said.

 

[Rod]

Impeachment - 1) The Emoluments lawsuit(s) and 2) colluding with another government to be elected President.

We'll wait and see where the whole FISA warrant on Carter Page and all the contacts with the Russia ambassador by Sessions, Jared The Son-in-law, General Flynn, Manafort and the British dossier about Trump loving "Golden Showers" by prostitutes during a Russian trip a few years ago.

The Armanda - Trump tried to take credit for something he wasn't aware of, the location of the carrier group going AWAY from North Korea.

ACA - And thank yout to Larry for the stating that the President and the Republicans have been bitching about ACA since 2010 and didn't even have a bill ready to go on Day. Personally, I'm employed with health insurance, so ACA doesn't affect me today, but I'd be happy to repair or replace it with something that works better for everyone.

Obstructionist? Almost one year and no hearings for Merrick Garland. Ted Cruz was open to holding the seat open for another 4 years, if Hillary was elected. Thankfully, new polls show he may be voted out of office.

And have you heard of the Freedom Caucus. They're being obstructionists to their own party.

Putting miners back to work? So they can die of black lung or have a mine cave in on them? I'm all for retraining them to be part of the modern 21st century economy.