Re: What would it take?
 

We've got cities that don't even have safe water to drink... how about getting that shit fixed asap?!

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=MTK;1164997]Problem is he's full of magic bullet solutions, I alone can fix things, I'll make us great again, etc. His words. It's hard to imagine there's much of a long term vision in any of his plans. I think he just wants to slap band-aids on everything, claim victory, and bask in the credit he feels he deserves.[/QUOTE]


Alot like his businesses before they go under, wind up in court, go bankrupt, etc etc. Except now it is the country. Now we have a vested interest in his naive, reactionary, and amateurish psyche.
He has already set in motion a chain of events that will not only make us less safe, but also less prosperous.
Please spare me any pie charts, memes, and /or fox news articles detailing one of his dog and pony show "deals" that "prove" otherwise. Lol

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164978]We spent 8years on ObamaCare, which basically was opposed by about half the country (not arguing the exact numbers) and now a new administration is going to do it's best to repeal it. We had a pipeline running half across the country that Pres Obama was willing to let sit as a waste of metal, we built a bridge just for the sake of having a bridge. I don't know about how much will get stuck in eminent domain questions, but honestly, if we put more effort to make it work, then bicker about it, i believe we certainly could build it and be done within 6 years.

Like I said I don't know eminent domain ins and outs, but suppose you build it, and as a land owner your choice is, either fight the government's right to build it, and have your land be one of the prime locations for any illegal traffic that wants to cross into the US, or agree to the eminent domain request, and have a safer southern end to your property. Yes it's bully pulpit type request of use, but most land owners, in my mind are going to go with a "free" border on their land, rather than become an open invite to criminals.
Maybe it will be less impactful than not, but a couple things I think can be said clearly and those are:
1) coupled with better border enforcement/immigration policy it would be an added deterrent
2) if it takes 3 years to be built, that would be good hardworking jobs for US citizens.
3) done right, it could be a physical testament to US abilities, like the Panama Canal.[/quote]

With Obamacare, that is just a total mess when you consider the process to eliminate it has already started. And it's [URL="http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/04/news/economy/obamacare-repeal-deficit/"]expected to cost[/URL] around 350 billion over the next decade. So that's already a huge waste when you consider A. the money it took to implement the program, B. the money it will take to repeal the program, and C. the fact that innocent citizens have already lost their health insurance and the gov't hasn't even started on a plan to replace it. Do you really want to go through that again with a likely half finished wall? Besides, the wall might stop ordinary people seeking a better life, but it's not gonna stop the cartels who have billions to spend on getting around it.

I say build a wall in densely populated areas, then put the rest of the money into sensors and technology to stop people that might try to cross over more unforgiving ground, like the mountain range in the midst of it. This of course ignores the argument that we will be paying for the wall after all. If the gov't taxes Mexican imports, the companies being taxed will just raise the price to cover the tax. Maybe he'll tax the outgoing money being sent home by families in the US, but he's just starting shit with Mexico by doing that. I guess we're cool with having a hostile country right next door to us, just the cost of doing business right?

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1164998]We've got cities that don't even have safe water to drink... how about getting that shit fixed asap?![/quote]

Flint hasn't had clean water in almost 3 years, they've already adapted. Let me guess his plan for fixing our infrastructure, he's gonna eliminate the Dept of Education and all the grant money going to those useless college kids will go to fixing our infrastructure instead.

What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=mooby;1165001]Flint hasn't had clean water in almost 3 years, they've already adapted. Let me guess his plan for fixing our infrastructure, he's gonna eliminate the Dept of Education and all the grant money going to those useless college kids will go to fixing our infrastructure instead.[/QUOTE]



Close, but it actually just eliminates the grant money going to the useless non white American male christian college kids so ..... you know (insert any killary email meme here)
I gotta go now though there are unsafe refugees crawling all over my yard. BAD! There are millions of them in my yard! Help me @ #presidentpig!

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1164997][B]Problem is he's full of magic bullet solutions, I alone can fix things, I'll make us great again, etc.[/B] His words. It's hard to imagine there's much of a long term vision in any of his plans. I think he just wants to slap band-aids on everything, claim victory, and bask in the credit he feels he deserves.[/quote]

This is definitely what I was trying to say, but in a way more rambling fashion. :)

I understand people all over the country are hurting and what they wanted was a magic bullet. That's obviously how he got elected. I just feel like he spouted off this shit to get into office without a single clue on how to make it happen.

HE'S obviously not smart enough and right now, I don't think he's surrounding himself with anyone up to the task.

If he said, I'm going to appoint a team of the world's/country's best engineers to thoroughly plan this wall, I'd have a lot more faith.

Also, forgot about the go-ahead for the pipeline. Forget the environment ya'll. JOBS!

Re: What would it take?
 

I'm a Jim Webb democrat...guy is too bright and never has been sold. Tough to find in today's political world. Everything he says makes sense and is based in reason. He actually answers questions

Re: What would it take?
 

So how deep is the Flynn rabbit hole?

Re: What would it take?
 

As far as the left can take it

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=MTK;1165118]So how deep is the Flynn rabbit hole?[/QUOTE]

Putin is running the country.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1165120]As far as the left can take it

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk[/quote]

Just curious, are the only truths you accept the ones coming out of the Trump's mouth? You read like my coworkers, aka the guys I generally respect for their knowledge about the job we do yet would never discuss politics with because Trump has taught them to distrust anyone that's not him.

Re: What would it take?
 

[url=http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-deploys-missile-violating-treaty-and-challenging-trump/ar-AAmVID5?li=BBnb7Kz]Russia Deploys Missile, Violating Treaty and Challenging Trump[/url]

[IMG]http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/c5/c595586b491836bb2135fb603c2f4e5997ce0e2f8e41c30a81af650f568eaff8.jpg[/IMG]

I guess since Trump and Putin are bros it's all good.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1165125][url=http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-deploys-missile-violating-treaty-and-challenging-trump/ar-AAmVID5?li=BBnb7Kz]Russia Deploys Missile, Violating Treaty and Challenging Trump[/url]

[IMG]http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/c5/c595586b491836bb2135fb603c2f4e5997ce0e2f8e41c30a81af650f568eaff8.jpg[/IMG]

I guess since Trump and Putin are bros it's all good.[/quote]

I guess the next thing he will do is invade Crimea

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=mooby;1165124]Just curious, are the only truths you accept the ones coming out of the Trump's mouth? You read like my coworkers, aka the guys I generally respect for their knowledge about the job we do yet would never discuss politics with because Trump has taught them to distrust anyone that's not him.[/QUOTE]
I distrust most of the media (including fox just saying) and standard politicos. That doesn't mean I trust everything out of Trumps mouth I just think his lies/faults are more self-evident.

I have a son who lies at times to cover his faults. But he is a terrible liar and I can tell his intent and when/why he's lying pretty easily. My ex on the other hand is what I would call a nuanced liar. A LOT of what she says has manipulations or distortions intended to lead to her ends.
I consider trump closer to my son, in his boisterous hyperbole shake my head when a stupid is as stupid does moment happens. I consider the political parties and major media groups more as my ex wife. They have agendas and hidden agendas and they will distort and even outright lie if it accomplishes their ends.

Take this Flynn leak. The level of the intrigue that is actually involved in gaining transcripts of his calls and pushing out innuendoes and discourse is very scary from who theoretically would even have access to the material in the first place. Are they putting it out for altruistic purposes or are they simply trying to tear down an elected president. Who benefits from his demise. Not the country which benefits from a stable security structure, not Trump who now is mired in a broughaha, but the democrats certainly do, and really so do the Russians when our security apparatus is chasing high level leaks like these.

I know this rambled a bit but that's the best I can say. I listen to every channel of news from the Rachel maddow show to Kennedy to the messy truth to Hannity. I try to listen and weed out obvious bias on all sides and try to understand who is gaining form the spin put on any message/news. I also try to acknowledge my libertatarian hatred for big government /nanny state / intolerance of social differences concepts of life when I listen to media.



Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1165128]I distrust most of the media (including fox just saying) and standard politicos. That doesn't mean I trust everything out of Trumps mouth I just think his lies/faults are more self-evident.

I have a son who lies at times to cover his faults. But he is a terrible liar and I can tell his intent and when/why he's lying pretty easily. My ex on the other hand is what I would call a nuanced liar. A LOT of what she says has manipulations or distortions intended to lead to her ends.
I consider trump closer to my son, in his boisterous hyperbole shake my head when a stupid is as stupid does moment happens. I consider the political parties and major media groups more as my ex wife. They have agendas and hidden agendas and they will distort and even outright lie if it accomplishes their ends.

Take this Flynn leak. The level of the intrigue that is actually involved in gaining transcripts of his calls and pushing out innuendoes and discourse is very scary from who theoretically would even have access to the material in the first place. Are they putting it out for altruistic purposes or are they simply trying to tear down an elected president. Who benefits from his demise. Not the country which benefits from a stable security structure, not Trump who now is mired in a broughaha, but the democrats certainly do, and really so do the Russians when our security apparatus is chasing high level leaks like these.

I know this rambled a bit but that's the best I can say. I listen to every channel of news from the Rachel maddow show to Kennedy to the messy truth to Hannity. I try to listen and weed out obvious bias on all sides and try to understand who is gaining form the spin put on any message/news. I also try to acknowledge my libertatarian hatred for big government /nanny state / intolerance of social differences concepts of life when I listen to media.



Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk[/quote]

Fair enough. As far as the leak goes, it's safe to say we might never know the intentions of the leaker. But this article I read from an admittedly biased source basically says how you feel about it depends on what side of the aisle you sit on. The party in power (this is true even for Obama) will always say that the issue at hand is somebody leaked classified material, in this case somebody who had access to wiretaps on the Russian ambassador's phone.

The people that side with the party that isn't in power are typically more occupied with what the leak is about, which is why the left will be calling for Flynn's head and wondering how extensive the Russian ties to our gov't are, and the right will be trying to crucify the leaker responsible, whomever that might be. I agree with the article/op-ed though, if you have to commit a felony to expose the truth it's a necessary price to pay. The gov't is supposed to represent the people and have our best interests at heart. When somebody at the highest levels of gov't is willing to lie to the people he's entrusted to protect, there needs to be repercussions.