|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Nov 19, 2016 17:37:40 GMT
Exactly. And now they're throwing in with a presidential candidate who is touting radical policies that could be horrible for the US economy and social fabric - likely will be. They have the popular vote to control the actual legislative branches, so that's a lot to lose if any of the soft support figures they've either gone to far - fiscal conservatives - or that they aren't what they thought they were getting. The house Republicans are spineless. They've fought more with Donald Trump this year than Barack Obama. They've done nothing with their majority but block Obama SC appointees. Their majority is going to stay firm, they redrew the lines in the 2010 REDMAP project. With the electoral math being what it is (Democrats start with hundreds of votes because of NY and California) they're acting like they don't even care to win the Presidency. www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/27/ratfcked-the-influence-of-redistrictingI'm really fed up with the GOP post Bush. They aren't losing elections because of the media or abortion, they're losing elections because they have feckless candidates without any real accomplishments. So now redrawing the districts, since 2010, didn't help at all then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2016 18:05:54 GMT
The house Republicans are spineless. They've fought more with Donald Trump this year than Barack Obama. They've done nothing with their majority but block Obama SC appointees. Their majority is going to stay firm, they redrew the lines in the 2010 REDMAP project. With the electoral math being what it is (Democrats start with hundreds of votes because of NY and California) they're acting like they don't even care to win the Presidency. www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/27/ratfcked-the-influence-of-redistrictingI'm really fed up with the GOP post Bush. They aren't losing elections because of the media or abortion, they're losing elections because they have feckless candidates without any real accomplishments. So now redrawing the districts, since 2010, didn't help at all then. Did you read what I wrote? You respond to a request for the source of your spurious logic with something completely unrelated? What's that Bryce? You're right. This a clown post, bro!
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Nov 19, 2016 18:28:22 GMT
"Bro" ? That's hilarious lol
I knew you would dance around an easy question to answer.
Has re-districting or gerrymandering helped the GOP since 2010 ?
It's a simple question. Yes or No, should have been easy for that superior intellect.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 19, 2016 19:54:13 GMT
Dear Trump Is The Devil Contunuous Posters, It didn't work to keep him out. It won't work for force him out. You lost. Suck it up. We all lost. And we are all going to have to suck it up.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 19, 2016 19:55:12 GMT
Its clearly amateur hour for the coming administration. Its showing now, it will show again.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 19, 2016 19:59:13 GMT
The Trump white house is shaping up to be far right. And America is mostly in the middle.
If there was an equivalent ultra left in the white house, you would see the same protests - as was promised by the Trumpeters if Hillary was elected.
Hey, it was a close election with Hillary winning the popular vote. Suck it up, there is going to be controversy for years to come.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Nov 19, 2016 23:51:28 GMT
The Trump white house is shaping up to be far right. And America is mostly in the middle. If there was an equivalent ultra left in the white house, you would see the same protests - as was promised by the Trumpeters if Hillary was elected. Hey, it was a close election with Hillary winning the popular vote. Suck it up, there is going to be controversy for years to come. It's going to be a long 4+ years for you BadHab if you create boogeymen on top of the fact that your candidate didn't win. What makes you conclude that this election was a reincarnation of the Beer Hall putsch? This whole "fear" thing coming from the left would be comical if it weren't so honestly sad and pathetic. So far so good according to the market, which only bodes well as a indicator of the future. I honestly can't think of a single thing, unless of course I was in this country illegally, that anyone should fear. Enlighten me.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 20, 2016 0:04:14 GMT
The Trump white house is shaping up to be far right. And America is mostly in the middle. If there was an equivalent ultra left in the white house, you would see the same protests - as was promised by the Trumpeters if Hillary was elected. Hey, it was a close election with Hillary winning the popular vote. Suck it up, there is going to be controversy for years to come. It's going to be a long 4+ years for you BadHab if you create boogeymen on top of the fact that your candidate didn't win. What makes you conclude that this election was a reincarnation of the Beer Hall putsch? This whole "fear" thing coming from the left would be comical if it weren't so honestly sad and pathetic. So far so good according to the market, which only bodes well as a indicator of the future. I honestly can't think of a single thing, unless of course I was in this country illegally, that anyone should fear. Enlighten me. Actually I'll agree with that, but I would say that you have reason to fear if you are a black gay Muslim who might need an abortion and is in the country illegally. He's made a lot of promises and he can't possibly keep them all, he can't keep them all and if he does he's going to up the deficit substantially, but spending deficits only matter when the Democrats are in charge, the issue goes away magically when the Republicans are in - see Ronald Reagan about that. His cabinet is looking very much extreme right wing to me. But we will see. He said a lot, I doubt he can get it all done, he's already backed off on a few things, but again, we will see. The market is reacting now, how it will react when he's in office, again we will see.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Nov 20, 2016 0:14:10 GMT
It's going to be a long 4+ years for you BadHab if you create boogeymen on top of the fact that your candidate didn't win. What makes you conclude that this election was a reincarnation of the Beer Hall putsch? This whole "fear" thing coming from the left would be comical if it weren't so honestly sad and pathetic. So far so good according to the market, which only bodes well as a indicator of the future. I honestly can't think of a single thing, unless of course I was in this country illegally, that anyone should fear. Enlighten me. Actually I'll agree with that, but I would say that you have reason to fear if you are a black gay Muslim who might need an abortion and is in the country illegally.He's made a lot of promises and he can't possibly keep them all, he can't keep them all and if he does he's going to up the deficit substantially, but spending deficits only matter when the Democrats are in charge, the issue goes away magically when the Republicans are in - see Ronald Reagan about that. His cabinet is looking very much extreme right wing to me. But we will see. He said a lot, I doubt he can get it all done, he's already backed off on a few things, but again, we will see. The market is reacting now, how it will react when he's in office, again we will see. See, I don't get this. One of his main advisors is black, another, gay. In addition, he is considering a candidate (Richard Grennel) for a cabinet post who would be the 1st openly gay cabinet member in our country's history. And if you're in this country illegally, my heart does not miss a beat. My crackpot adherence to legalities I guess that makes me a racist or xenophobe or something. As for his economic policies, I've got to wait to judge that until a budget comes out. I do know that a trillion dollar infrastructure program is a big ticket item... let's see if he gets it done early and under-budget!
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Nov 20, 2016 0:19:42 GMT
Actually I'll agree with that, but I would say that you have reason to fear if you are a black gay Muslim who might need an abortion and is in the country illegally.As for his economic policies, I've got to wait to judge that until a budget comes out. I do know that a trillion dollar infrastructure program is a big ticket item... let's see if he gets it done early and under-budget! It has been reported that money for infrastructure will be $500M. I would like the money to be more. How it's paid for and where the money comes from will be interesting. Glad McConnel has said earmarks will not be coming back.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Nov 20, 2016 0:24:01 GMT
As for his economic policies, I've got to wait to judge that until a budget comes out. I do know that a trillion dollar infrastructure program is a big ticket item... let's see if he gets it done early and under-budget! It has been reported that money for infrastructure will be $500M. I would like the money to be more. How it's paid for and where the money comes from will be interesting. Glad McConnel has said earmarks will not be coming back. From "The Hill": "He has called for $550 billion worth of infrastructure investment paid for by bonds, as well as a $1 trillion package financed by offering tax credits to private investors." I found that second part interesting. Yeah, earmarks suck.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Nov 20, 2016 0:27:30 GMT
Hope it's enough dough. There are a lot of dilapidated highways and bridges.
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Nov 20, 2016 2:56:47 GMT
The Trump white house is shaping up to be far right. And America is mostly in the middle. If there was an equivalent ultra left in the white house, you would see the same protests - as was promised by the Trumpeters if Hillary was elected. Hey, it was a close election with Hillary winning the popular vote. Suck it up, there is going to be controversy for years to come. Obama.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Nov 20, 2016 3:11:12 GMT
Al Gore win then popular vote in 2000. Bush Jr. was a bone head. The banks went wild afterwards ending with the "Great Recession" as of the word depression was not to be used. OBama takes over, the great change was the same ole banking credo. China owned our debtedness. But the world changes, China is cracking down on the media. Russia is too. Hillary was no different. Trump is change, the effect is polarization. I welcome the change! There is no super majority in Congress. Relax.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 4:51:26 GMT
Al Gore win then popular vote in 2000. Bush Jr. was a bone head. The banks went wild afterwards ending with the "Great Recession" as of the word depression was not to be used. OBama takes over, the great change was the same ole banking credo. China owned our debtedness. But the world changes, China is cracking down on the media. Russia is too. Hillary was no different. Trump is change, the effect is polarization. I welcome the change! There is no super majority in Congress. Relax. Stuff like this shows just how much politicians have lost the plot: “I didn’t think it was offensive,” Abraham told WDSU. “Maybe some people do — OK. But it was a cake I just wanted to share with everybody.” www.yahoo.com/beauty/offensive-birthday-cake-sets-politicians-at-odds-233538995.html
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Nov 20, 2016 14:16:24 GMT
It has been reported that money for infrastructure will be $500M. I would like the money to be more. How it's paid for and where the money comes from will be interesting. Glad McConnel has said earmarks will not be coming back. From "The Hill": "He has called for $550 billion worth of infrastructure investment paid for by bonds, as well as a $1 trillion package financed by offering tax credits to private investors." I found that second part interesting. Yeah, earmarks suck. This has to go through Ryan and Congress of course....shaping up to be a battle. And that "private investment" will result in toll roads and bridges etc....a private for profit infrastructure that the public will have to pay daily for use forever. I find this especially interesting.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Nov 20, 2016 14:32:05 GMT
From "The Hill": "He has called for $550 billion worth of infrastructure investment paid for by bonds, as well as a $1 trillion package financed by offering tax credits to private investors." I found that second part interesting. Yeah, earmarks suck. This has to go through Ryan and Congress of course....shaping up to be a battle. And that "private investment" will result in toll roads and bridges etc....a private for profit infrastructure that the public will have to pay daily for use forever. I find this especially interesting. Infrastructure has a lot of interest from both sides of the aisle, it shouldnt be too difficult to get something done. As for toll roads, although Im not inherently against the people using particular roads actually being the ones to pay for them, I'm not certain that that is what is being considered. The article stated it was luring investors through tax credits.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 20, 2016 14:33:49 GMT
From "The Hill": "He has called for $550 billion worth of infrastructure investment paid for by bonds, as well as a $1 trillion package financed by offering tax credits to private investors." I found that second part interesting. Yeah, earmarks suck. This has to go through Ryan and Congress of course....shaping up to be a battle. And that "private investment" will result in toll roads and bridges etc....a private for profit infrastructure that the public will have to pay daily for use forever. I find this especially interesting. If he ever gets there. He might spend the next 4 years doing this. www.ew.com/article/2016/11/19/donald-trump-deletes-hamilton-tweetThe obvious thing to do is to say 'of course we will represent all Americans ... blah blah blah' No. Instead he stirs up shit. Controversial, polarizing and close election, of course these people are lightning rods when they appear publicly. There would have been a ton of shit if Hillary were elected as well.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Nov 20, 2016 14:52:20 GMT
This has to go through Ryan and Congress of course....shaping up to be a battle. And that "private investment" will result in toll roads and bridges etc....a private for profit infrastructure that the public will have to pay daily for use forever. I find this especially interesting. Infrastructure has a lot of interest from both sides of the aisle, it shouldnt be too difficult to get something done. As for toll roads, although Im not inherently against the people using particular roads actually being the ones to pay for them, I'm not certain that that is what is being considered. The article stated it was luring investors through tax credits. From what I read the sweetener for private investment is, in fact, private for profit infrastructure. When I get to linking that info (family day here at the house) to a source I will post it for you Edit: Quick hit from Politico: www.politico.com/story/2016/11/conservatives-vs-trumps-infrastructure-plan-231221The money-shot from the article- "His pledge for the $1 trillion in investment, based on a proposal crafted by economist Peter Navarro and billionaire financier Wilbur Ross, talks about a “bold, visionary plan. ... in the proud tradition of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.” But it would rely heavily on private funding that’s driven by a tax credit — whose cost they say would be offset by tax revenues reaped from the resulting jump in business activity. That tax scheme would apply only to money-making infrastructure projects like toll roads and airports."
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Nov 20, 2016 15:05:58 GMT
From "The Hill": "He has called for $550 billion worth of infrastructure investment paid for by bonds, as well as a $1 trillion package financed by offering tax credits to private investors." I found that second part interesting. Yeah, earmarks suck. This has to go through Ryan and Congress of course....shaping up to be a battle. On budget matters the GOP will use reconciliation. That is how Ryan will gut the ACA. I think McConnell will only use an up n down vote for the supreme court and Session appointments.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Nov 20, 2016 15:48:20 GMT
Infrastructure has a lot of interest from both sides of the aisle, it shouldnt be too difficult to get something done. As for toll roads, although Im not inherently against the people using particular roads actually being the ones to pay for them, I'm not certain that that is what is being considered. The article stated it was luring investors through tax credits. From what I read the sweetener for private investment is, in fact, private for profit infrastructure. When I get to linking that info (family day here at the house) to a source I will post it for you Edit: Quick hit from Politico: www.politico.com/story/2016/11/conservatives-vs-trumps-infrastructure-plan-231221The money-shot from the article- "His pledge for the $1 trillion in investment, based on a proposal crafted by economist Peter Navarro and billionaire financier Wilbur Ross, talks about a “bold, visionary plan. ... in the proud tradition of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.” But it would rely heavily on private funding that’s driven by a tax credit — whose cost they say would be offset by tax revenues reaped from the resulting jump in business activity. That tax scheme would apply only to money-making infrastructure projects like toll roads and airports."I'm all for it if the cost is offset. We dont need to go FULL-retard on the deficit. I am absolutely not opposed to toll roads, I use them once a month when going to the airport or into the city. Thanks for your research efforts.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Nov 20, 2016 15:56:35 GMT
This has to go through Ryan and Congress of course....shaping up to be a battle. And that "private investment" will result in toll roads and bridges etc....a private for profit infrastructure that the public will have to pay daily for use forever. I find this especially interesting. If he ever gets there. He might spend the next 4 years doing this. www.ew.com/article/2016/11/19/donald-trump-deletes-hamilton-tweetThe obvious thing to do is to say 'of course we will represent all Americans ... blah blah blah' No. Instead he stirs up shit. Controversial, polarizing and close election, of course these people are lightning rods when they appear publicly. There would have been a ton of shit if Hillary were elected as well. So the fact that the cast/audience decided to embarrass a visitor to the show is a-ok? I found the incident incredibly disrespectful and classless. But, back to Trump...why is protest only allowed from the left? At least Trump's "protest" of the incident via tweets didnt cause millions of dollars in damage and injure people, right? Where was the outcry from that?
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 20, 2016 16:09:51 GMT
If he ever gets there. He might spend the next 4 years doing this. www.ew.com/article/2016/11/19/donald-trump-deletes-hamilton-tweetThe obvious thing to do is to say 'of course we will represent all Americans ... blah blah blah' No. Instead he stirs up shit. Controversial, polarizing and close election, of course these people are lightning rods when they appear publicly. There would have been a ton of shit if Hillary were elected as well. So the fact that the cast/audience decided to embarrass a visitor to the show is a-ok? I found the incident incredibly disrespectful and classless. But, back to Trump...why is protest only allowed from the left? At least Trump's "protest" of the incident via tweets didnt cause millions of dollars in damage and injure people, right? Where was the outcry from that? Either side if elected would have drawn negative, unwanted attention and protests, it was a polarizing election. Trump is president elect, doesn't he have better things to do? He didn't have to stir more shit up, but he did. Question. Should he be doing infrastructure finance as you were talking about, or picking cabinet members or meeting with heads of foreign governments, or should he be spending his time tweeting about Pence getting booed? It's common sense, Hillary knows she would be a lightning rod and she isn't going out, especially when common sense tells you you are going to be in a 'hostile' environment. New York theater - the bastion of those liberal elites. what did he think was going to happen? What would happen if Hillary went to a NASCAR race?
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Nov 20, 2016 16:15:49 GMT
So the fact that the cast/audience decided to embarrass a visitor to the show is a-ok? I found the incident incredibly disrespectful and classless. But, back to Trump...why is protest only allowed from the left? At least Trump's "protest" of the incident via tweets didnt cause millions of dollars in damage and injure people, right? Where was the outcry from that? Either side if elected would have drawn negative, unwanted attention and protests, it was a polarizing election. Trump is president elect, doesn't he have better things to do? He didn't have to stir more shit up, but he did. Question. Should he be doing infrastructure finance as you were talking about, or picking cabinet members or meeting with heads of foreign governments, or should he be spending his time tweeting about Pence getting booed? It's common sense, Hillary knows she would be a lightning rod and she isn't going out, especially when common sense tells you you are going to be in a 'hostile' environment. New York theater - the bastion of those liberal elites. what did he think was going to happen? What would happen if Hillary went to a NASCAR race? You keep saying this but I've never seen it... there were exactly zero protests/riots when Obama was elected twice. How can you make the claim of civil unrest had Hillary been elected? He is picking his Cabinet, he IS reaching out to foreign leaders, he IS putting plans together for his agenda, he IS protesting (which I agree with) the mistreatment of OUR vice-President. Yes, NYC is the bastion of the liberal elites... This is AMERICA bro, you should be able to go out without being subjected to such unprofessional embarrassment. I thought expectations were always higher for the party that is allegedly so broad-minded and better educated. Guess not.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Nov 20, 2016 16:20:48 GMT
If he ever gets there. He might spend the next 4 years doing this. www.ew.com/article/2016/11/19/donald-trump-deletes-hamilton-tweetThe obvious thing to do is to say 'of course we will represent all Americans ... blah blah blah' No. Instead he stirs up shit. Controversial, polarizing and close election, of course these people are lightning rods when they appear publicly. There would have been a ton of shit if Hillary were elected as well. So the fact that the cast/audience decided to embarrass a visitor to the show is a-ok? I found the incident incredibly disrespectful and classless. I didn't like what the Hamilton cast did either. I don't like a lot of Pence's politics but what he endured at the show was indeed classless and not called for.
|
|