TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 96 of 170
Trump does not personally seem very engaged with policy issues, but if he wins, he’ll have a nearly unprecedented ability to enact a sweeping policy agenda.
The main reason for that is if he wins it’s all but guaranteed he’ll have a Republican congressional majority to work with.
Imagine, in other words, that Trump does what he says he wants to do on taxes, the environment, immigration, and health care. His agenda is there, and on all but the immigration issues his views are basically in line with the vision put forth by Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who will do the boring work of drafting the bills for Trump to sign.
The result would be a sweeping transformation of American life. Millions would be forcibly removed from their homes and communities as new resources and a new mission invigorate the pace of deportations. Taxes would drop sharply for the richest Americans while rising for many middle-class families. Millions of low-income Americans would lose their health insurance, while America’s banks would enjoy the repeal of regulations enacted in the wake of the financial crisis.
Millions of Americans would love some or all of these changes, and millions of others would hate them. But most of all, the vast majority of Americans would simply be confused. Someone who’d been following the election moderately closely — scanning headlines, watching cable news, and tuning in to debates — would simply have no idea that this sweeping shift in American public policy by Congress will become law if Trump wins. Beneath the din of email coverage and the mountains of clichés about populism, the media has simply failed to convey what’s actually at stake in the election.
House Republicans have already cooked up a massive agenda on domestic policy that commands majority support and that Trump has largely endorsed. The centerpiece is a major cut in taxes for high-income people financed by deep cuts to anti-poverty programs, paired with broad deregulation of the finance and health insurance sectors.
Trump’s agenda is largely identical to this, except that his proposed tax cut for the wealthy is much larger . . .
There is more at www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/2/13483020/policy-stakes-2016
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
Quote:Even without Trump, there will be trouble.
Originally posted by G:
I know you know, but just for the record: SIGNYM and KILLKILL just aren't interested.
Here's a happy, positive spin I just thought of. Stay with me: Trump wins. The scenario you describe above comes true in full. In the second year of the Trump reign, The People - especially those that voted for him - are finally unable to deny the destruction and false promises made by Trump. An actual, physical revolt happens and sweeping gov. change finally occurs. Had it not been for Trump it would have been another 35 years before such progress would be made. He goes down as The Failure that Saved America.
America's constitutional democracy is going to collapse some day just like crappy democracies in Latin America because, in retrospect, the Founding Fathers made some very poor decisions while writing the US Constitution. Matthew Yglesias explains why other countries with constitutions modeled after the US Constitution have had the very same troubles that the USA is now having between Democrats and Republicans.
www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed
“Voiced in another register, my outlandish thesis is actually the conventional wisdom in the United States. Back when George W. Bush was president and I was working at a liberal magazine, there was a very serious discussion in an editorial meeting about the fact that the United States was now exhibiting 11 of the 13 telltale signs of a fascist dictatorship. The idea that Bush was shredding the Constitution and trampling on congressional prerogatives was commonplace. When Obama took office, the partisan valence of the complaints shifted, but their basic tenor didn't. Conservative pundits — not the craziest, zaniest ones on talk radio, but the most serious and well-regarded — compare Obama's immigration moves to the actions of a Latin-American military dictator. . . .
The breakdown of American constitutional democracy is a contrarian view. But it's nothing more than the view that rather than everyone being wrong about the state of American politics, maybe everyone is right. Maybe Bush and Obama are dangerously exceeding norms of executive authority. Maybe legislative compromise really has broken down in an alarming way. And maybe the reason these complaints persist across different administrations and congresses led by members of different parties is that American politics is breaking down.”
I should mention that 1kiki and Signym are ordinary in Texas. 1kiki is very much like the far left wingers I know at the University of Texas at Austin and Signym is very much like my Republican neighbors in Baytown Texas. 1kiki and Signym would argue that that is not them at all, as would their argumentative clones living in Texas.
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
"When I found out about Trump’s treatment of a Scottish family in his attempt to force them off their land I had to make a film about it. Now he wants to sue."
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/03/youve-been-trumped-too-f
ilm-donald-trump
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
On the financial disclosure forms that Donald J. Trump has pointed to as proof of his tremendous success, no venture looks more gold-plated than his golf resort in Doral, Fla., where he reported revenues of $50 million in 2014....But this summer, a considerably different picture emerged in an austere government hearing room in Miami, where Mr. Trump’s company was challenging the resort’s property tax bill.
Mr. Trump’s lawyer handed the magistrate an income and expense statement showing that the gross revenue had indeed been $50 million. But after paying operating costs, the resort had actually lost $2.4 million.
Well, really, what's the difference between plus 50 million and minus 2.4 million? According to Trump, nothing much. But it goes a long way toward explaining why he filed bankruptcy so many times, doesn't it?
Donald Trump’s Income Isn’t Always What He Says It Is, Records Suggest
www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/politics/donald-trump-money.html?_r=0
Trump listed gross revenue, as opposed to net income after expenses, on his disclosure forms without acknowledging that choice. Thus he made himself look far more important than he is. In news releases, the Trump campaign said that “Mr. Trump’s income” was $362 million in a 2015 report, and was more than $557 million in a 2016 report required by ethics laws. During the debate with Mrs. Clinton in September, he mentioned $694 million. So much hot air in so little time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
On the financial disclosure forms that Donald J. Trump has pointed to as proof of his tremendous success, no venture looks more gold-plated than his golf resort in Doral, Fla., where he reported revenues of $50 million in 2014....But this summer, a considerably different picture emerged in an austere government hearing room in Miami, where Mr. Trump’s company was challenging the resort’s property tax bill.
Mr. Trump’s lawyer handed the magistrate an income and expense statement showing that the gross revenue had indeed been $50 million. But after paying operating costs, the resort had actually lost $2.4 million.
Well, really, what's the difference between plus 50 million and minus 2.4 million? According to Trump, nothing much. But it goes a long way toward explaining why he filed bankruptcy so many times, doesn't it?
Donald Trump’s Income Isn’t Always What He Says It Is, Records Suggest
www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/politics/donald-trump-money.html?_r=0
Trump listed gross revenue, as opposed to net income after expenses, on his disclosure forms without acknowledging that choice. Thus he made himself look far more important than he is. In news releases, the Trump campaign said that “Mr. Trump’s income” was $362 million in a 2015 report, and was more than $557 million in a 2016 report required by ethics laws. During the debate with Mrs. Clinton in September, he mentioned $694 million. So much hot air in so little time.
Good reporting SECOND
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, I agree, this is good reporting.
Allow me to add this:
Melania gave a speech that defies comprehension. She spoke of cyber bullying and how she would concentrate on the young children exposed to this unsavory
exposure. What's completely baffling is the fact that her dear husband is the King of Cyber Bullying. What gives!? Doesn't that go against message?
The Trump campaign is falling apart at the seams and no one seems to be capable of righting the ship. By the way, Kelly Anne appeared on The View and it was a total disaster as Donald says.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/the-view-clashes-with-trump-campaign-
manager-kellyanne-conway/ar-AAjLKKi?OCID=ansmsnnews11
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
On the financial disclosure forms that Donald J. Trump has pointed to as proof of his tremendous success, no venture looks more gold-plated than his golf resort in Doral, Fla., where he reported revenues of $50 million in 2014....But this summer, a considerably different picture emerged in an austere government hearing room in Miami, where Mr. Trump’s company was challenging the resort’s property tax bill.
Mr. Trump’s lawyer handed the magistrate an income and expense statement showing that the gross revenue had indeed been $50 million. But after paying operating costs, the resort had actually lost $2.4 million.
Well, really, what's the difference between plus 50 million and minus 2.4 million? According to Trump, nothing much. But it goes a long way toward explaining why he filed bankruptcy so many times, doesn't it?
Donald Trump’s Income Isn’t Always What He Says It Is, Records Suggest
www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/politics/donald-trump-money.html?_r=0
Trump listed gross revenue, as opposed to net income after expenses, on his disclosure forms without acknowledging that choice. Thus he made himself look far more important than he is. In news releases, the Trump campaign said that “Mr. Trump’s income” was $362 million in a 2015 report, and was more than $557 million in a 2016 report required by ethics laws. During the debate with Mrs. Clinton in September, he mentioned $694 million. So much hot air in so little time.
Good reporting SECOND
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If Trump is elected - which is doubtful- the globalists, neocons, media, financial institutions, international corporations, "IP" companies, and Janet Yellen will do everything that can to torpedo his Presidency ... without actually, yanno, hurting themselves too badly. So they might engineer a quick contraction of the stock market by raising rates, crank up some trouble spot on the globe, allow a major terrorist incident at home, and try to create a real "color revolution" within the borders of the USA. It's been done before many times elsewhere; there's a whole playbook of options, and people are so divided in the USA that it's entirely possible.
I know you know, but just for the record: SIGNYM and KILLKILL just aren't interested.
Here's a happy, positive spin I just thought of. Stay with me: Trump wins. The scenario you describe above comes true in full. In the second year of the Trump reign, The People - especially those that voted for him - are finally unable to deny the destruction and false promises made by Trump. An actual, physical revolt happens and sweeping gov. change finally occurs. Had it not been for Trump it would have been another 35 years before such progress would be made. He goes down as The Failure that Saved America.
Quote:Truer words were never spoke.
Even without Trump, there will be trouble.
Hillary, if she is elected and runs true to form, will be ridiculously belligerent abroad and shred the Constitution ever further at home under the guise of being "at war". I'm sure she will take this opportunity to stuff even more money into her pantsuit. There could be a real showdown between her and the House; and she COULD - under dire enough circumstances that she herself creates - suspend Congress to avoid impeachment.
Quote:Well, the Presidential system was a poor choice, Parliamentarian systems work much better.
America's constitutional democracy is going to collapse some day just like crappy democracies in Latin America because, in retrospect, the Founding Fathers made some very poor decisions while writing the US Constitution.
But, as a liberal- SECOND, you should note that the article points a finger at BOTH Bush and Obama as Constitution-shredders. Bush was no progressive, but neither is Obama. And Hillary for sure isn't: she is a dyed-in-the-wool globalist, neocon, and transnational ass-licker.
Quote:What you have yet to figure out, SECOND, is that when I criticize Obama, I'm criticizing him from the LEFT. Since you define yourself as the leftward edge of politics (clearly, you have no one else to compare yourself to except troglodytes) I think you just don't know what the even further-left thinks of liberals. HINT: My even more leftward friends call you folks "liberaloids". Basically, liberals like you would never actually attempt to fundamentally challenge those in power.
I should mention that 1kiki and Signym are ordinary in Texas.
The word that comes up frequently in the liberal agenda is "help". Liberals want to "help" immigrants escape their home nations (which the USA has likely destabilized, exploited, or bombed) and liberals want to "help" the poor (who can't find jobs because transnationals have outsourced or automated the work in pursuit of maximized profits). The only reason liberals want to "help" the disadvantaged is so that open revolt doesn't occur. Liberals have no intention of SOLVING problems - they just want to soften the worst aspects of "business as usual" so that things can continue as they have been.
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Yes, I agree, this is good reporting.
Allow me to add this:
Melania gave a speech that defies comprehension. She spoke of cyber bullying and how she would concentrate on the young children exposed to this unsavory
exposure. What's completely baffling is the fact that her dear husband is the King of Cyber Bullying. What gives!? Doesn't that go against message?
The Trump campaign is falling apart at the seams and no one seems to be capable of righting the ship. By the way, Kelly Anne appeared on The View and it was a total disaster as Donald says.
I watched it. All the press was left scratching their heads over her hypocrisy on the subject of cyber bullying. And they said as much.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What you have yet to figure out, SECOND, is that when I criticize Obama, I'm criticizing him from the LEFT. Since you define yourself as the leftward edge of politics (clearly, you have no one else to compare yourself to except troglodytes) I think you just don't know what the even further-left thinks of liberals. HINT: My even more leftward friends call you folks "liberaloids". Basically, liberals like you would never actually attempt to fundamentally challenge those in power.
The word that comes up frequently in the liberal agenda is "help". Liberals want to "help" immigrants escape their home nations (which the USA has likely destabilized, exploited, or bombed) and liberals want to "help" the poor (who can't find jobs because transnationals have outsourced or automated the work in pursuit of maximized profits). The only reason liberals want to "help" the disadvantaged is so that open revolt doesn't occur. Liberals have no intention of SOLVING problems - they just want to soften the worst aspects of "business as usual" so that things can continue as they have been.
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"
By design, the USA Constitution rules gives the nation a government that cannot go forward or backward, turn left or right, unless it is pushed very hard by some powerful external force that is not part of the system of voters and Congress and Presidents. Often the external force is war.
Sometimes the external force might be economics, for example, Napoleon wanting to sell the Louisiana Purchase. Before the purchase was finalized, the decision faced Federalist Party opposition; they argued that it was unconstitutional to acquire any territory. Per usual, a political party was bullshitting because their real motive was economic self-interest. They did not want US grain being shipped from New Orleans rather than the East Coast.
It was the greatest land bargain in history and the Federalist Party wanted to pass up this deal because, they said but were insincere, the U.S. Constitution does not contain explicit provisions for acquiring territory. Jefferson went outside the Constitution and made a treaty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase#Domestic_opposition_a
nd_constitutionality
The cheapest land deal in history and the USA almost decided to not take the deal.
The House called for a vote to deny the request for the purchase, but it failed by two votes, 59–57. If even one more Congressman had changed their vote on the treaty, this important decision would have gone undecided. That was 1803 and the Federal Government was not running right even back then. They came so very close to making no decision, or the stupidest imaginable decision, looked at another way.
The Feds of 2016 show that the system has not changed in two centuries. The Feds are constantly dithering, unable to decide whether to go left or right, forward or backward.
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
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What you have yet to figure out, SECOND, is that when I criticize Obama, I'm criticizing him from the LEFT. Since you define yourself as the leftward edge of politics (clearly, you have no one else to compare yourself to except troglodytes) I think you just don't know what the even further-left thinks of liberals. HINT: My even more leftward friends call you folks "liberaloids". Basically, liberals like you would never actually attempt to fundamentally challenge those in power.
The word that comes up frequently in the liberal agenda is "help". Liberals want to "help" immigrants escape their home nations (which the USA has likely destabilized, exploited, or bombed) and liberals want to "help" the poor (who can't find jobs because transnationals have outsourced or automated the work in pursuit of maximized profits). The only reason liberals want to "help" the disadvantaged is so that open revolt doesn't occur. Liberals have no intention of SOLVING problems - they just want to soften the worst aspects of "business as usual" so that things can continue as they have been.
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"
SECOND
We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.
Wrong SECOND. SIG doesn't see a government full of bad people doing bad things so she posts about it. If that were true she would not defend the likes of Russia. No SIG wants to get others to believe democracies like Americas are failures. Therefore we should be angry and rebel. That's why she is always poking them, delegitimizing them. It is her defense of everything Russian that gives it away. If you want a clear window into what SIG and 1kiki are about look to Putin. They believe as he does. They believe as Russians do.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME