Per gturner's suggestion, spinning this into its own thread... The "First 100 Days" plan from October, with commentary ... Mitch McConnell has already said "ha ha, yeah right." Pretty much your garden-variety pandering to people who believe in one-size-fits-all rules and are too intellectually lazy to process the idea that different situations call for different actions, but... whatever. Again, a one-size-fits-all blanket statement that appeals to people who like sound bites, but I'm not sure how you enact it. Sounds fine, though I'm not sure how much difference it would make. If you can't become a registered lobbyist, you can just become a consultant and advise your client on their government relations. (And most of Congress won't want to limit their potential future income streams too much...) Ditto. Sort of ironic. But also fine. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce hates that idea, and they influence a whole lot of Republicans. Both parties have sizable free-trade contingents. And it could be messy as hell. Pretty easy, since we're not technically in it. One of those things that sounds good if you're looking for an excuse to talk tough and grandstand, but has questionable impact. But also not horrifically stupid or anything. Sounds fine. What it actually translates to, remains to be seen. More burying our heads in the sand and trying to act like non-renewable resources can last forever, but we're basically already doing that, just to a lesser degree. Ditto. If it actually goes to fixing our water and environmental infrastructure, instead of to tax breaks for his buddies ... Impact depends on what they are. ... or at least the parts of it that the Scalia types care about. "I'm for limited government and local control! Except when I want to use the federal purse to punish local governments that do things I don't like!" Ah, here we get to the ugly nativist stuff. And, woo-hoo, the fearmongering! The biggest breaks are for the richest, according to the Tax Policy Center's analysis. It's Reaganomics with a spray tan, and it'll just let the divide between rich and poor get bigger. Good idea, but will the Chamber of Commerce Republicans go for it? Sounds a bit like ARRA. With the added bonus of "tax incentives" that can be used to throw more money at big business. So, a mixture of vouchers ("let's take money away from public schools and send it to religious proselytization centers!") and what seems to be a complete misunderstanding of what Common Core actually is. ("Ending Common Core" would actually mean a federal regulation overriding the choices of the states that worked together to develop and implement it of their own volition. We're for limited government and local control, folks!") Health Savings Accounts work fine if you're already financially comfortable and only ever have small expenses. It's not a substitute for insurance, and it's pure fantasy to think otherwise. Notably absent from this description is any mention of the ban on discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. Sounds good, although since we already have it, I assume he's talking about an expansion. Seems like I've heard that before ... oh, hey, it was from Obama! A colossal waste of money. Notably absent from any of these proposals is how they'd be paid for, outside of fantasies about massive growth that no economist takes seriously. No mention of prevention, just of locking people up. Which is far more costly in the long run, but appeases the "git tuff" crowd that doesn't actually care that much about reducing crime as long as they get to see some macho posturing. But also not the worst pander out there. Well, our military is pretty fucking good already. But I'm fine with spending money on it; generally speaking, I support the idea that the best way to guarantee peace is to have a military so fucking overwhelmingly powerful that we never have to use it. I wonder what those "support our people and our values" tests will look like ... and how many of his supporters would pass them. Impossible to comment without seeing what the reforms are.
I, of course, would love it if the first thing he did was to pick a fight with Mitch McConnell over term limits, but I don't see that happening.
What home school do people usually chose to send their kids to? Fuck it. I'm sending my kids to Katy Perry's house. Let her deal with the bastards.
I suspect it's a rhetorical statement, since in order to have kids he'd have to get a women to like him and thereafter get laid.
Not necessarily. A few days ago I spent hours talking about sex, kinky sex, relationships, science, and media with my absolutely gorgeous neighbor, who is lonely, has anxiety issues, and doesn't have cable. I told her that her Great Dane could play in my back yard with my other neighbor's two dogs. (She got a puppy to save her relationship but ended up with a Great Dane and no boyfriend.) So today I gave her a memory stick loaded with Peaky Blinders, True Blood Season 1, Victoria, Westworld, Belle (2013) and The Free State of Jones. She will get addicted to one of them, probably True Blood, and then I'll have her coming back to me for more, just like any guy who gets a gorgeous vulnerable girl hooked on crack or heroin. I'll keep upping her to harder shows like Preacher, Dark Matter, Longmire, Queen of the South, Narcos, 12 Monkeys, Downton Abbey, and Rick and Morty. Is it unethical, if not downright evil? Well yes. Yes it is. But she lets her phone connect to my WiFi (she gets a good signal in her kitchen), so she's a WiFi snark and all normal societal prohibitions that keep men from getting hot babes hooked on addictive shows are completely void. So if she ends up living in her pajamas, binge watching Voyager season 4 with a blank, hollow expression on her face, I'll feel no guilt or remorse at all.
I've been trying to find something...anything...that I can agree with people who voted for Trump over. Opposing the TPP may be the only common ground I can find. Interesting that Bernie is opposed as well.
I'm trying as well, but more for purely selfish reasons...like the fact that I'm marrying into a family of mostly Trump supporters and Thanksgiving will have no booze.
Shit, all this liberal bellyaching - imagine a world in 2008 with even a tenth of the histrionics, protesting, doomsaying, and not-my-presidenting when Obama won. Might have been the only conceivable thing that got louder play than the historic moment itself. But today? It's more akin to 'business as usual.' [Ah, lefties, can't live with 'em, no point to a Leftorium without them.]
And the person who got Obama to finally cough up the birth certificate was made the next President of the United States.
Perfect example, the birthers. Most on the (sane) right laughed at the birthers right along with *all* of the left, along with all the supporting apparatus like big media and liberal elites spokespeople. So, um, where's the sane left repudiating the left's more outrageous reactions ? Nowhere. Mostly silence, more pissing, though sometimes mocking, from the elites (see elitist WF poster child, the OP).
Nope, but my fiancé's grandparents don't drink, and no one in the family drinks around them. Hence sober Thanksgiving around Trump supporters, where politics will be brought up and I'll be one of two people with any real comprehension of tax law having to explain the consequences of Trump's tax plan combined with everything he wants to expand and how I will not be adding "All Hail Trump" to my repertoire.
Yes, how bigoted and hateful! What this country economic zone needs is more criminals and terrorists.
