Re: What would it take?
 

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.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164965]

Overall the country is as satisfied with Trump as they were with Obama, but now the Democrats get to be the dissatisfied group.
[/quote]


No,poll or no poll.It's not even close.If you honestly think this country is the same now as when Obama was President and the the country is going through the same things ,then there is just no hope for you.It's not Democrats don't you get that,it's everyone but Trump supporters.Republicans are as pissed off as other groups but more and more republicans are coming out and complaining about Trump ,his people and his polocies.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=Giantone;1164982]No,poll or no poll.It's not even close.If you honestly think this country is the same now as when Obama was President and the the country is going through the same things ,then there is just no hope for you.It's not Democrats don't you get that,it's everyone but Trump supporters.Republicans are as pissed off as other groups but more and more republicans are coming out and complaining about Trump ,his people and his polocies.[/QUOTE]
We will see. I was just saying that the Gallup poll just out showed something I thought was interesting in the extreme flip in sentiment between rep and dems.

Its been less then one month and so far all he has been doing is checking off the things he promised and spoke about in the campaign. I do think political denizens on both sides didn't really believe he would do what he campaigned to do, but his voters/supporters see him working at it even as the establishment drags its collective feet.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164983]We will see. I was just saying that the Gallup poll just out showed something I thought was interesting in the extreme flip in sentiment between rep and dems.

..... I do think political denizens on both sides didn't really believe he would do what he campaigned to do, but his voters/supporters see him working at it even as the establishment drags its collective feet.
[/quote]


I believed it and what I believed is happening.Donald Trump is taking down this nation with his ignorance.The "establishment"is not dragging it's feet ,it's trying to save the country from collapsing in spite of Trump.

Re: What would it take?
 

Whar does "Taking it down" mean to you?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

If somehow a super-villian comes to this Earth and says, "I'm going kill all your first born." and he does it, I guess I'd have to give him credit for doing what he said.

Drumpf is doing what he said he would do, my problem is the stuff he IS doing are his half-baked ideas.

1) Repeal Obamacare? Sure, HAVE A FUCKING PLAN. Regardless of the positives and negatives, this country needed some kind of system. As imperfect as it is, it was a start. He started trying to chip away at it with zero plan and people who were benefiting by it might suffer. That's bad.

2) Muslim ban. I remember when he said, "Let's stop all these Muslims from coming in until we can figure out what's going on." Something to that effect. Another half-baked idea. You want to do it? Fine. Be consistent. It's just a random smattering of countries he chose. Roll-out was a mess. I think vetting is perfectly fine, but it's like he's just throwing shit at the wall and saying, "Look! I'm doing it!"

3) The wall. I haven't seen any plans or heard a proposed budget, but this is the most ridiculous idea of them all. I'm 100% behind border security. Maybe once I hear the actual "plan" I might change my mind, but I'm looking at the proposed budget and this seems like the biggest waste of money in tax-payer history. Again, likely to be ineffective. Maybe I just have this giant concrete eye-sore in my mind and I will admit if I'm wrong (I'm obviously no engineer), but I just don't see how this would work. Jobs? I love jobs! You could give people jobs rolling the proverbial rock up the hill all day, and they could say, "Hey! We got a job though." In the end, I still think it's a waste of time, money, and more when we could be spending that budget on a lot more problems in this country.

Our infrastructure is aging and is awful. If Drumpf said he would put that money into that, I'd be 100% behind him.

Just because he's doing what he says doesn't mean they're good ideas in the first place.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;1164988]...
Just because he's doing what he says doesn't mean they're good ideas in the first place.[/quote]

Fair enough that you don't like him or the ideas, but they are what he ran on, what won states that had gone for democrats for the last couple decades, and what he is going to do.

By the way, he did say he was going to invest in the infrastructure, and if he's keeping the rest of his campaign promises instead of playing nice with the politicos then I would expect him to keep that one too, but the democrats will have to actually play ball because the republicans will fight him on that one.

Re: What would it take?
 

Immigration and border security are complex issues that demand more complex solutions than building a wall or banning certain people from coming here.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=MTK;1164991]Immigration and border security are complex issues that demand more complex solutions than building a wall or banning certain people from coming here.[/QUOTE]
Agreed and yet both actions can easily be a part of the more complex solution instead of making a false suggestion that Trump is claiming either one of those are a magic bullet solution.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164994]Agreed and yet both actions can easily be a part of the more complex solution instead of making a false suggestion that Trump is claiming either one of those are a magic bullet solution.

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

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.

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.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=mooby;1165131]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.[/QUOTE]
So does that hold true across political lines for you? Because I am certain it was proved both in the bush administration and a certain secretary of state that top officials lied about WMDs and attacks on US Embassies.

In the Flynn case the saw is the cover-up is worse than the action and that's great for media intent on not allowing Trumps presidency to succeed. There is nothing I have seen that said there was any topics spoken of that harmed US interests. At the worst, that I can tell, is a discussion of sanctions that were being imposed at the time. Is it much different then a sitting president telling a top Russian advisor off mike that he will have more leeway after the upcoming election?

I dunno. For me its about an establishment that is clawing and scraping and pulling evil(imo) machinations to keep its power in play when a new administration Is coming in to town and purposefully turning over the apple cart.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

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]
Did you read the part where the deployment took place in December?

Interesting that it is published the day that a besieged NSA director rresigns.

Look. Trump wants to get Islam, doesn't like China, and his wife is Slovenian so has at least some ties to eastern bloc (cold war language) countries. Is it really that shocking he will be most likely to sync up with Russia. In the geopolitical realm if we want to make both China and Iran think twice about their dealings with us - having some level of cooperation with Russia would be helpful. Hillary wanted a reset at one point Bush made nice with them. This isn't some great capitulation.

Finally remember when TU bombers were flying along our coasts (in international airspace like the trawler was)

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

And now for.something completely different --

Before video games no one ever said "Oh Crap. I died"

When you drop your phone upside down it turns into a Schroedinger phone

The internet is pretty much like ancient Egypt. People write on walls and worship cats.


Thanks to @justshowerthoughts for that intermission

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1165133]So does that hold true across political lines for you? Because I am certain it was proved both in the bush administration and a certain secretary of state that top officials lied about WMDs and attacks on US Embassies.

In the Flynn case the saw is the cover-up is worse than the action and that's great for media intent on not allowing Trumps presidency to succeed. There is nothing I have seen that said there was any topics spoken of that harmed US interests. At the worst, that I can tell, is a discussion of sanctions that were being imposed at the time. Is it much different then a sitting president telling a top Russian advisor off mike that he will have more leeway after the upcoming election?

I dunno. For me its about an establishment that is clawing and scraping and pulling evil(imo) machinations to keep its power in play when a new administration Is coming in to town and purposefully turning over the apple cart.

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

I forgot to link to the article I read:
[url]https://theintercept.com/2017/02/14/the-leakers-who-exposed-gen-flynns-lie-committed-serious-and-wholly-justified-felonies/[/url]

For me it absolutely crosses party lines. Just like Obama did with Chelsea Manning and Snowden, I fully disagree with. He basically attacked whistleblowers, which is contrary to the message they were putting out at the time. If the gov't is doing shady shit, they need to be called out for it. Letting it go unchecked just lets them know they can keep pushing the line all they want, which is unacceptable.

As for Flynn, it's not so much what they were talking about as it is the fact that he lied to Pence and/or the rest of the administration. Pence goes out and puts out a message based on the information he received from his trusted advisers. When your adviser is lying to you you end up looking like a fool. They had no choice but to dump him.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1165134]Did you read the part where the deployment took place in December?

Interesting that it is published the day that a besieged NSA director rresigns.

Look. Trump wants to get Islam, doesn't like China, and his wife is Slovenian so has at least some ties to eastern bloc (cold war language) countries. Is it really that shocking he will be most likely to sync up with Russia. In the geopolitical realm if we want to make both China and Iran think twice about their dealings with us - having some level of cooperation with Russia would be helpful. Hillary wanted a reset at one point Bush made nice with them. This isn't some great capitulation.

Finally remember when TU bombers were flying along our coasts (in international airspace like the trawler was)

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

I just looked through the whole article and can't find where it says the actual deployment took place in December? I see the part where it said it started testing in 2008, but nothing relevant besides that.

Re: What would it take?
 

From the article:

Administration officials said the Russians now have two battalions of the prohibited cruise missile. One is still located at Russia’s missile test site at Kapustin Yar in southern Russia near Volgograd. [B]The other was shifted in December from that test site to an operational base elsewhere in the country,[/B] according to a senior official who did not provide further details and requested anonymity to discuss recent intelligence reports about the missile.

Re: What would it take?
 

So so funny that Russia is now some sort of issue when for most of the Obama presidency, Putin outmaneuvered US interest and Obama personally all over the globe.

Where was the outrage over Crimea, Ukraine, hacking and leaking across the globe, giving Snowden sanctuary, major arms deals with Iran, military action in Syria against US back troops which turned the tide where Assad is winning that war, etc.

???? You were ok with that???

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1165141]So so funny that Russia is now some sort of issue when for most of the Obama presidency, Putin outmaneuvered US interest and Obama personally all over the globe.

Where was the outrage over Crimea, Ukraine, hacking and leaking across the globe, giving Snowden sanctuary, major arms deals with Iran, military action in Syria against US back troops which turned the tide where Assad is winning that war, etc.

???? You were ok with that???[/quote]

Pretty sure there was "outrage" about everything you mentioned.I know I was how should I say it..".disagreed with "to be nice when all the Snowden crap was going on and certain poster's were happy it happen.Seems certain poster's are never happy.Obama was at fault for getting us into or keeping us in War and now he gets shit becuase he didn't stand up to Putin (with military force) even though Congress had tied his hands.How were we to know it wasn't "fake news"...any of it,you can't trust anyone.The WP the NYT,ABC,CBS,ABC,CNN.Wait wasn't it the WP that broke the Flynn info......sorry I digress.Yeah, I'm pretty sure there was outrage.




example.....

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/37427-wikileaks-crazy-amount-of-documents-released.html[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Giantone;1165142]Pretty sure there was "outrage" about everything you mentioned.I know I was how should I say it..".disagreed with "to be nice when all the Snowden crap was going on and certain poster's were happy it happen.Seems certain poster's are never happy.Obama was at fault for getting us into or keeping us in War and now he gets shit becuase he didn't stand up to Putin (with military force) even though Congress had tied his hands.How were we to know it wasn't "fake news"...any of it,you can't trust anyone.The WP the NYT,ABC,CBS,ABC,CNN.Wait wasn't it the WP that broke the Flynn info......sorry I digress.Yeah, I'm pretty sure there was outrage.[/quote]

There was limited coverage and very little outrage. Nobody held the administration responsible for any of ass kicking they received. Even when these were FACTUAL events.

Now, rumors and speculation our report by the media as FACT.

There's the difference.


Doesn't everyone know the FBI investigated and interviewed Flynn about the speaking with the Russians and found he didn't lie to them and didn't break any laws? We know this fact, right?

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Giantone;1165142]Pretty sure there was "outrage" about everything you mentioned.I know I was how should I say it..".disagreed with "to be nice when all the Snowden crap was going on and certain poster's were happy it happen.Seems certain poster's are never happy.Obama was at fault for getting us into or keeping us in War and now he gets shit becuase he didn't stand up to Putin (with military force) even though Congress had tied his hands.How were we to know it wasn't "fake news"...any of it,you can't trust anyone.The WP the NYT,ABC,CBS,ABC,CNN.Wait wasn't it the WP that broke the Flynn info......sorry I digress.Yeah, I'm pretty sure there was outrage.




example.....

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/37427-wikileaks-crazy-amount-of-documents-released.html[/url][/quote]

Nobody held the president and his state department responsible. Nobody..the media looked the other way, his brainwashed followers, etc. And still don't.

From now a historical perspective, which is still writing itself....Obama and his Presidency may go down as one of the worst Presidents when its comes to foreign policy. Certainly in the modern era

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1165145]Nobody held the president and his state department responsible. Nobody..the media looked the other way, his brainwashed followers, etc. And still don't.

From now a historical perspective, which is still writing itself....Obama and his Presidency may go down as one of the worst Presidents when its comes to foreign policy. Certainly in the modern era[/quote]

And lets not forget about our sailors that were captured by the Iranians.
That was an epic fail for Obama.
I would have had the Straits of Hormuz locked down with Aegis cruisers pointing in all directions.

Re: What would it take?
 

I'm trying to look at this without considering past presidencies...

It is a total, 100% shit show. There is no one to blame but Trump.

In the grand scheme of everything, it's still extremely early in his presidency, but good lord, everything is falling apart and I don't think you can blame the media or blame either party. Sure (and I'm well aware of this fact) EVERYTHING he does is under the hottest microscope of all time, so it's reported on quite a bit. He's putting people who were "loyal" in positions of power; qualifications be damned.

I almost laugh when I hear some of the people he is hiring... It's like he intentionally picks the worst possible people for their jobs. There are a couple I agree with, but 80%-90% are just total head-scratchers.

I guess getting back to the question at hand, what would it take? Right now it would take a hell of a lot. I consider myself a reasonable person and I might be past changing at this point unless he does a total 180. We all know that isn't going to happen.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1165145]Nobody held the president and his state department responsible. Nobody..the media looked the other way, his brainwashed followers, etc. And still don't.

From now a historical perspective, which is still writing itself....Obama and his Presidency may go down as one of the worst Presidents when its comes to foreign policy. Certainly in the modern era[/quote]


Sorry , I disagree ,one of the greatest ..."Hell NO" ,I understand that but sorry I disagree.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1165146]And lets not forget about our sailors that were captured by the Iranians.
That was an epic fail for Obama.
I would have had the Straits of Hormuz locked down with Aegis cruisers pointing in all directions.[/quote]

that was a terrible shit show...media still didn't go after the administration and the administration still gave Iran a sweetheart deal.



Could you fucking imagine if this happened with Trump in office? The media would crucify him...yet Obama, they simply looked the other way...why is that?

Re: What would it take?
 

I don't think - this close to the transition - that you can ignore the state of affairs the last President left the current administration. Just like in the beginning of Pres. Obama's administration the economy and surrounding travesties were direct consequences of the Bush administration.

I also think the major foot dragging in the senate hasn't enabled Trump to have his full team in place nearly a month into his administration, and that leaves more empty positions to be filled.

That said, I don't think Trump's campaign transition was good. I think his focus on pushing out executive orders every other day prevented some groundwork to be laid down, and for as radical as he wanted to change many departments he didn't account for the natural inertia of bureaucracies.

And even though he knows the media is, in general, against a non-liberal agenda, he failed to account for the sway it has over the day to day mood of the country. And he gave too much value to those who thought alternative media methods could counterbalance a heavyweight like CNN when it marshall's it's resources against your agenda.