Election Day

[MTK]

Haven't heard a sniff of what his infrastructure plan is. As I said my list was failed or unfulfilled so far so I'm definitely eagerly waiting on that.

DACA should be a stand alone bill IMO, not crowbarred in to the crock of shit wall.

Not sure that draining the swamp by filling it with Goldman Sachs alum and making it the richest cabinet ever was really what people thought they were voting for. But hey it sure sounded catchy.

At least his golf game is sharp. It better be.

"If I win I may never see my property -- I may never see these places again," Trump said at an August 2016 event. "But because I'm going to be working for you, I'm not going to have time to go golfing, believe me. Believe me. Believe me, folks."

[Chico23231]

I think the biggest failure of trump is he unwillingness to attempt to bring folks together while clearly explaining policies positions and benefits of these positions. He’s had opportunities to do that as well. The Charlottesville response was really terrible

[TheMalcolmConnection]

This reminds me, is he taking a salary? I do recall him promising that as well.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

This reminds me, is he taking a salary? I do recall him promising that as well.

According to politifact he has donated all of his salary so far.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ake-no-salary/

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

According to politifact he has donated all of his salary so far.

Trump-O-Meter: Take no salary | PolitiFact

He has all so made ten times his salary just by inflating the dues at his golf clubs and resorts.


President Donald Trump earns millions of dollars in fees from his club's new members | Miami Herald

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Giantone

He has all so made ten times his salary just by inflating the dues at his golf clubs and resorts.


President Donald Trump earns millions of dollars in fees from his club's new members | Miami Herald

You aren't winning if you aren't getting richer due to your Presidency G1.

Me and CR see this differently I bet, on a technicality he's right that Trump hasn't taken a dime for the official salary of President, yet it doesn't matter because his businesses are raking in money from being associated. Don't forget, every time he visits his own golf course, we have to pay for the security detail, and that money goes right into the golf course proffers. It's a brilliant business strategy.

CRed, this Russia investigation means nothing to me unless he can find hard evidence (which does include subordinates like Flynn flipping on the higher ups, which is a mainstay of our criminal justice system, or even a paper trail of some sort). If they got nothing concrete, oh well.

Chico I agree, he only panders to his base and ignores everyone who has any objection. Imagine a world where Congress and him say "gee we'd have no problem passing legislation where we take into account the other side of the aisle, and work together to find a compromise that works for everyone."

Instead you end up with tax reform bills where they buy votes by including certain things for certain senators to get them the bare minimum votes to pass. It's pathetic.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

You aren't winning if you aren't getting richer due to your Presidency G1.

Me and CR see this differently I bet, on a technicality he's right that Trump hasn't taken a dime for the official salary of President, yet it doesn't matter because his businesses are raking in money from being associated. Don't forget, every time he visits his own golf course, we have to pay for the security detail, and that money goes right into the golf course proffers. It's a brilliant business strategy.

CRed, this Russia investigation means nothing to me unless he can find hard evidence (which does include subordinates like Flynn flipping on the higher ups, which is a mainstay of our criminal justice system, or even a paper trail of some sort). If they got nothing concrete, oh well.

Chico I agree, he only panders to his base and ignores everyone who has any objection. Imagine a world where Congress and him say "gee we'd have no problem passing legislation where we take into account the other side of the aisle, and work together to find a compromise that works for everyone."

Instead you end up with tax reform bills where they buy votes by including certain things for certain senators to get them the bare minimum votes to pass. It's pathetic.

I don't know that we see it differently, but let's just agree that no president left office poorer then when he entered.

I also agree flipping for lesser pleas is critical, so let's see if something is out there. But with all the leaks in that investigation if there was a whopper, I think it would have started flopping and you can believe CNN has every ear to the ground, every pole in the water trying to land it. Deep investigations take time, I understand that, but depending on where you mark the start of it we are between 8 months and 1 year or even more and no criminal basis has been even alleged in relation to election collusion.

As for one sided bills we started down that road in the Obama/Republican congress years and remember Trump actually did work with Pelosi and Schumer to pass one extension. I am more than willing to put equal part blame on the Senate majority leader and Republican do nothing's in Congress. There are bipartisan deals to be made but if Trump has to pander to his base (me) because the left HATES and the swamp republicans cant govern, then yes it will be one sided laws until the Congress actually works together like adults.

[CRedskinsRule]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...2je1Dd&ampcf=1

Complaining these guys make money from their position is equivalent to arguing a qb's worth against the salary cap. Like em or hate em they are going to make their money.

I still say the simple answer to the question of winning is yes. After 1 year and with a very strong opposition group he has managed his position and the economy to at the least do no harm and from many perspectives done actual positives.

You really want to go deep, even the racial and sexual harassment discussions are winning because for the first time in forever all sides are having frank open discussions and more powerful people are being held accountable then ever before. Are people hearing each other, I dont know but everyone is speaking truth not politically correct garbage.

So MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL Y'ALL OUT THERE

[CRedskinsRule]

I think the wall/DACA has a logic to both sides grandfathering in those who came here while setting physical impediments to future illegal immigration.

A second option would be to include the wall in any infrastructure bill. But rather than looking at deals the left has made intransigent positions and ridiculed those who see a different path.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I think the wall/DACA has a logic to both sides grandfathering in those who came here while setting physical impediments to future illegal immigration.

A second option would be to include the wall in any infrastructure bill. But rather than looking at deals the left has made intransigent positions and ridiculed those who see a different path.

So how does that have Mexico pay for the Wall?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So how does that have Mexico pay for the Wall?

It doesn't.

But like I said it gives both political sides a win and like any compromise its not 100% what either side wants.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Just curious, what do you think of him as a person? I've always been independent with a slight left lean, but he just seems like such a terrible fucking person (I felt gross voting for Hillary too).

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Just curious, what do you think of him as a person? I've always been independent with a slight left lean, but he just seems like such a terrible fucking person (I felt gross voting for Hillary too).

Best as I can tell he's the equivalent of the president from the movie Ideocracy. Not much to like about him as morals go.

That said, I believe Hillary to be a ten times worse human, and that's being polite.

It says alot about our country that those two were the headliners on the ballot and none of it is good.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Best as I can tell he's the equivalent of the president from the movie Ideocracy. Not much to like about him as morals go.

That said, I believe Hillary to be a ten times worse human, and that's being polite.

It says alot about our country that those two were the headliners on the ballot and none of it is good.

So it's kinda like the Redskins FO, it doesn't matter who the coach is because there are higher powers within fucking it all up regardless.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

So it's kinda like the Redskins FO, it doesn't matter who the coach is because there are higher powers within fucking it all up regardless.

I guess. Maybe it's like the 4-3 3-4 debate, it doesn't really matter cause the swamp is going to do what they want anyway.

And on that superb segue let me explain what I think is a crucial difference in response to Matty's Goldman Sachs/swamp comment.

I think these terms Winning and Swamp have very different meanings to the population in general. I laid out what I saw as Winning but I also think I acknowledged that a Trump supporter's definition of winning, and a Trump opponent's definition of winning simply is not the same.

Likewise the definition of the swamp is not the same from what I gather in here. For me, as a Trump supporter, the swamp is that bureacratic quagmire that finds it's home in DC and the surrounding neighborhoods, and has slowly but inexorably crept into every part of our lives with impacts that are created by unelected bureacrats who dwell at their desks regardless of who the current President is or which party is in power. These are the people who have no vested interest in the well being of the nation, only in keeping their fiefdoms alive and funded. There are elected officials who feed the swamp, and they are found in both parties. When Trump talks about draining the swamp those bureacracies are what I see him referring to. Matty used the term the swamp to refer to bankers and elitists, but they aren't what I call the swamp. I do think they have their own place in hell (Funny thing is that Alexander Hamilton, who is beloved by many because of the excellent broadway play - that is coming to the Kennedy center on my birthday in case some fellow warpathers want to pitch in and get me and my daughter tickets but I digress, Alexander Hamilton would have been in Goldman Sachs without a doubt, or perhaps he would have been a modern day Fed chairman)