TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 149 of 170
Trump is Chicken
What do you get when you cross the year of the rooster with the year of Trump?
A "yuge" statue.
www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/asia/donald-trump-rooster/index.html
A giant chicken sculpture, sporting the President-elect's signature hairdo and hand gestures, has been erected outside a shopping mall in Taiyuan, in China's northern Shanxi Province.
The sculpture was commissioned by the company that owns the mall and will be its mascot, Cao Mingliang, the deputy director of planning department from N1 ArtWalk Mall, told CNN.
Wei Qing, whose Shenghe Yangtai Business is selling replica chickens, told CNN he thought sculpture was hilarious.
"I think the chicken is very cute and funny, the hairstyle and eyebrows look very much like Donald Trump. I'm sure it will attract a lot of customers," he said.
At least four stores are selling the Trump chicken, with prices starting from $57 to a whopping $1,739 for a statue that's 32 feet tall.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, second, since you failed to respond regarding what YOUR OWN SOURCE said about the cause of the Trump shift - which was that it didn't assign a cause - I take it you've abandoned your claim that YOUR OWN SOURCE said it was the Comey letters.
Quote:Hmmm. Was I a true blue Bernie supporter? I recall saying Bernie would have a better chance of winning. So, can you find me that quote where I said I was a true-blue Bernie supporter? QUOTE AND LINK REQUIRED But I DO remember saying I was voting AGAINST HILLARY, which I did.
Originally posted by second:
1kiki, What happened to the true blue Bernie supporter you once were?
Quote:Yep, me and Nate Silver, your hero. You should really be bagging on him for being so very, very wrong when the odds were down at 7%.
The one who was convinced Trump had no chance of winning?
Quote:I wanted to know why I should vote FOR Hillary. What was so good about her? And I was willing to vote for her if I could have had reassurances she wouldn't get us into a nuclear war with Russia. If you could have cogently addressed that, I would have listened. But you blew me off. Well, Hillary's loss. Literally. BTW, I never said I was going to vote for the Green Party for sure either. So if you want to claim otherwise QUOTE AND LINK REQUIRED. The only thing I said was that I was going to vote AGAINST HILLARY. Which, to reiterate, I did.
Always demanding justifications for why you should vote for Hillary rather than the Green Party.
Quote:No, I understood. I even remember asking you how far the odds would have to be stacked before you felt safe.
You were completely unable to understand that the odds showed that Trump's chances of winning were the same as the odds for playing Russian Roulette with two bullets in the six-shooter. That is a 33.3% chance.
In any case, Hillary lost YAY!!! Things went the way I wanted.
Now the next task is to fight against Trump.
Care to join? Or are you going to pout and whine, like a baby?
How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Just as an observation, I've noticed over the decades that republican-ism fosters grass-roots action and populist movements, while democrat-ism co-ops grass roots movements and fosters dependency on government caretaking and action.
That's how so many school boards ended up in republican hands, why county governments are so often republican, and how - in 2010 - republicans were able to win so many state legislatures, governorships, and Congress. They were ready and poised at the lower levels.
So, to continue on with this historical observation - back in the days of Reagan the Campus Crusade for Christ really took off, as one of the grass-roots political/ religious movements that became prominent. Televangelism entered its heyday.
The Hyde amendment was passed.
The NRA shifted from a gun-owners hunting club to a political movement.
While creationists have lost case after case in the Supreme Court starting 1979, conservatives have responded by taking over school boards. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/25/school-board-curricul
um-conservative-history-column/16159795/
"In response to the rise of the Christian right, the 1980 Republican Party platform assumed a number of its positions, including dropping support for the Equal Rights Amendment and adding support for a restoration of school prayer."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right
And conservative think tanks were formed to shape the debate.
While the population as a whole went in one direction nationally, the republicans co-opted movements and dug in locally, and behind the scenes.
The 60's, 70's, and to some extent the 80's saw a very activist 'liberal' movement. The 60's saw the civil rights movement and union organizing and the anti-war movement. The 70's saw the women's movement and the rise of environmentalism. The early 80's saw an attempt to be more inclusive of people with disabilities. But around the 1980's all that took a back seat to a 'show me the money' mentality, to Reaganomics, castigation of 'welfare queens' who were going to get in the way of that mythic shining city somewhere - and so on. That seems to be the end of grass-roots liberal activism. At some point liberals ceded action to the democratic party and became dependent on it.
Meanwhile, conservatives carried on.
How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A Pew Research opinion poll conducted between Nov. 30 and Dec. 5, after the election had cast the usual victor’s glow on Donald Trump, indicated that only 37% of Americans thought Trump was well-qualified for the presidency, just 31% deemed him moral, and a mere 26% viewed him as a good role model. On the other hand, 62% thought he had poor judgment and 65% considered him reckless. And this man won?
www.people-press.org/2016/12/08/low-approval-of-trumps-transition-but-
outlook-for-his-presidency-improves/
Perhaps, despite his appalling personal attributes, Trump’s positions on key issues resonated with the electorate? In fact, concentrating on the economic issues that many pundits claim put him in the White House, he’s on the wrong side of almost every one. It’s a sobering inventory, based upon Trump’s own statements after the election and his cabinet picks. Those cabinet choices Trump has made tell the real story, the one that is the opposite of his campaign promises. See that sobering inventory at "Donald Trump is on the wrong side of almost every issue voters care about".
www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-is-on-the-wrong-side-of-almost-
every-issue-voters-care-about-2016-12-28
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:1kiki, now I understand your thinking, maybe. Hillary was the Greater Evil, Trump was the Lesser Evil, and Bernie was Good Enough. Now that Greater Evil has been defeated, 1kiki is moving on to defeating Lesser Evil. In the meantime, while that defeat of Evil is from 4 to 8 years away, which is longer than WWII (the most destructive war ever fought) a political party that has a very colorful, yet Totally Evil {heard of Nixon?} history except for tax-cuts exclusively for people like me, will be in charge of all branches of the Federal Government.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
In any case, Hillary lost YAY!!! Things went the way I wanted.
Now the next task is to fight against Trump.
Care to join? Or are you going to pout and whine, like a baby?
‘The Wealthy Would Never Steal’ — A Credo for Trump’s Party
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/the-wealthy-would-never-s
teal-a-credo-for-trumps-party.html
Larry Kudlow praised Trump for choosing a cabinet of billionaires because rich men are incorruptible — after all, they don’t need even more money. This is ludicrous on its face; consider, for example, Russia’s oligarchs.
There is a special irony of seeing this argument from any right-wing advocate of supply-side economics.
Remember, their whole worldview is based around the claim that cutting taxes on rich people will work economic miracles because of incentives: let a plutocrat keep more of an extra dollar in income, and he’ll create jobs in order to get that extra income. But if lower marginal tax rates are an incentive to produce more, the prospect of personal gain is also an incentive to engage in corrupt practices. You can’t claim greed as a wealthy man’s motivator while claiming that wealth insulates a man from greed and temptation.
Kudlow claims, “Wealthy folks have no need to steal or engage in corruption.”
In point of fact, it is easy to find wealthy folks who steal and engage in corruption. Look at, oh, imprisoned coal baron Don Blankenship, who indirectly murdered 29 of his employees by blatantly flouting safety regulations and who tried to purchase his state’s legal and political system to protect himself. (Blankenship endorsed Trump.) Or look at Vladimir Putin, a leader whose methods Trump has repeatedly praised and who has leveraged his power into billions of dollars of personal wealth. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/12/23/why-exposing-putins-wealth-wo
uld-be-obamas-best-revenge/
www.cfr.org/russian-federation/why-exposing-putins-wealth-would-obamas
-best-revenge/p38614
The reality is clearly that even the insanely wealthy generally want more. You can ask why they want it; the hedonistic pleasures of luxury can be had for only a tiny fraction of what the average Trump nominee is worth. There are only so many $1,000 bottles of champagne you can drink a day without dying from cirrhosis. But for such people, money is not about consumption, but about their ego, power, and winning the game. Unlike a craving for alcohol, that kind of greedy craving has no fatal limit.
But what’s more interesting and revealing, I think, is the way right-wing advocates of supply-side economics have always claimed that tax money is an incentive for billionaires, but are suddenly saying that money from conflicts of interest is NOT an incentive to cheat.
And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and always was a sham. It was never about the incentives to keep the rich motivated to work harder and smarter at creating jobs for the other 99%; it was just another excuse to make the rich richer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECOND, is it safe to talk to you now?
Quote:This was my thinking as well. I tried to explain my POV many times: I was only hoping for three things from the Trump admin that Hillary would NEVER accomplish, three things that could NEVER be accomplished at the state or local level: stop provoking Russia, kill free trade, and stop accommodating illegal immigration. The rest I was ready to fight Trump on.
1kiki, now I understand your thinking, maybe. Hillary was the Greater Evil, Trump was the Lesser Evil, and Bernie was Good Enough. Now that Greater Evil has been defeated, 1kiki is moving on to defeating Lesser Evil. In the meantime, while that defeat of Evil is from 4 to 8 years away, which is longer than WWII (the most destructive war ever fought) a political party that has a very colorful, yet Totally Evil {heard of Nixon?} history except for tax-cuts exclusively for people like me, will be in charge of all branches of the Federal Government.- SECOND
Now, I have a natural advantage: I live in the Big Blue State of CA. CA will continue with its carbon-reduction plan. If Obamacare is reduced to block-grants for each state, then CA might dust off that (superior, more cost-effective) single-payer model legislation that they shelved when Obamacare was passed. CA will continue to fund education and infrastructure: state and LA County residents just passed a number of huge bond and tax-retention measures this past November to fund various projects. Our state legislature is supermajority Democratic: they could pass a statewide increase in taxes, if they so chose. And fortunately, our state government is spending (mostly) rationally and setting aside a "rainy day" fund, because economies can always turn sour!
So I have a good chance of fighting Trump at the state level, and even at my city-level. I don't intend to bang my head against the Federal government wall very much, although I will ... as usual... contact my Congresspeople when necessary.
Quote:That is why they need to be fought. It's not going to be easy. But at least the fight is in the USA, and not some secret trade tribunal that we don't have access to.
Wealthy Would Never Steal’ — A Credo for Trump’s Party
Under "free trade", if the USA were to impose regulations which reduced usual or expected profits, the issue would be decided by private trade tribunal. And all of your environmental, health/ consumer, or worker wage/ safety regulations would be just so much toilet paper, and you would have absolutely no venue in which to present your case. That is my main concern. Capisce?
I may be wrong in my vote, or I may be right, but no matter who won the election, I didn't expect MY interests to be respected. I assumed I would be fighting, either way.
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
"If you aren't aware, Texans don't have much concern for the well-being of Yankees or Californians, even Yankee factory workers in Indiana "- SECOND
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Your first concern is too easy for Trump. He can go deaf, dumb, and blind to Russia. Trump has perfected that act.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, is it safe to talk to you now?
This was my thinking as well. I tried to explain my POV many times: I was only hoping for three things from the Trump admin that Hillary would NEVER accomplish, three things that could NEVER be accomplished at the state or local level: stop provoking Russia, kill free trade, and stop accommodating illegal immigration.
The second concern, free trade, is too complicated for me to make a guess on what Trump will do. Trade wars, anger by Americans over higher prices caused by higher tariffs, Republican Congressmen feeling uncooperative about fulfilling Trump's promise. Too uncertain how serious Trump is about overcoming those difficulties. He may not do a damn thing. Or he may.
But the third concern, illegal immigration, has a solution that is already up and running, but it is running at a tenth of the speed it should run if Trump intends to keep his promise. Will Trump do more than Obama did (or Hillary would)? Only if the Republican controlled Congress will spend more money on federal courts because immigration is already hogging half of the federal court system’s time and money. If there will be more immigration prosecutions under Trump, there will need to be more federal courts to hear the cases. A little article says: Immigration Now 52 Percent of All Federal Criminal Prosecutions
Immigration remains the major focus of federal criminal enforcement efforts. The latest available data show that criminal prosecutions for illegal entry, illegal re-entry, and similar immigration violations made up 52 percent of all federal prosecutions in FY 2016. During the 12 months ending September 30, immigration prosecutions totaled 69,636.
http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/446/
Did you notice that Obama did more than Bush about deporting illegal aliens? We will see if Trump does more than Obama. That will require more than Trump running his mouth. These immigration cases get tracked (Deportation Proceedings in Immigration Courts) so you can see what is happening in 2017. Or NOT happening under President Trump.
http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/charges/deport_filing_charge.
php
Click Time Series: Number to get a chart of cases.
Then there are employer sanctions for hiring illegal immigrants. What has Trump done about that? Nothing. He has actually hired illegals and not had his fat Trump ass thrown in jail. What is California doing? Nothing. One state has done something that does not amount to a hill of beans http://archive.azcentral.com/business/news/articles/20131102arizona-em
ployer-sanctions-law-seldom-used.html :
On January 1, 2008, an employer sanctions law took affect in Arizona. Business owners face the nation's first state law that requires employers to verify the work documents of their new employees. The law says any business that knowingly hires a worker who is in the country illegally will have its business license suspended. For a second offense, the business' license could be revoked. That is different from the federal penalties of fines and possible criminal prosecution that have been infrequently imposed for similar offenses.
www.fairus.org/issue/employer-sanctions
If Trump had more federal courts run by his Dept of Justice, more violations of his new federal employer sanctions law could be prosecuted and more illegal immigrants would find their employer going to a federal jail and their job going away.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now the next task is to fight against Trump.
Care to join? Or are you going to pout and whine, like a baby?
How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Does that mean a Vietnam War protest style fight? That didn't work so well, did it?
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Now the next task is to fight against Trump.
Care to join? Or are you going to pout and whine, like a baby?
All that passionate draft-card and flag burning did not move Nixon out of office, did it? But it did rile the hardhats, the long distance truckers, the Merle Haggard country music fans, and the Archie Bunkers, you know, the super patriots who wanted all the hippies to leave the country or love Nixon.
If any of those ancient Archie Bunkers are alive, they voted for Trump. Most of Archie's grandchildren voted for Trump. The best that Trump protestors can hope for is the same as what saved the Nixon protestors from complete futility: Trump's own version of Watergate.
Even if Trump goes, there is still VP Mike Pence, who is as bad as Trump -- he just doesn't have Trump's attention-deficit brain/hyperactive mouth to make him as obnoxious as Trump. And, obviously, the Republican party will hold its grip on a majority of states and Congress because Archie Bunker is and always has been the majority in America.
If Archie Bunker had understood, which is not Archie's strongest characteristic, that Nixon wrecked a Vietnam ceasefire before the 1968 election, some Archie Bunkers, but not many, would have voted against Nixon or abstained from voting. Read the details here www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-viet
nam-treason#
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump announced that Sprint was bringing 5,000 jobs back to America. "I just spoke with the head person," Trump told Bloomberg. "He said because of me they're doing 5,000 jobs in this country."
Good work, Trump! But I have since learned that Trump was lying. First of all, Sprint announced these jobs back in April. Here's the Kansas City Star: "Sprint Corp. is launching a nationwide service to hand-deliver new phones to customers in their homes. The Direct 2 You service, which first rolled out in a Kansas City pilot, will lead to the hiring of about 5,000 mostly full-time employees as it spreads nationwide."
Second, the Japanese owner of Sprint, Softbank, announced in October that it was creating a huge tech investment fund.
Third, in December, Softbank's CEO announced the fund again after a meeting with Trump, and said that one part of the whole package was the creation of 50,000 new jobs. Today, Sprint reluctantly conceded that its 5,000 jobs were part of the previously announced 50,000 jobs.
And finally, these jobs were announced yet again yesterday.
That makes four times these jobs have been announced. Donald Trump was responsible for none of them.
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/donald-trump-holds-micro-press-
conference-comes-idiot
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME