Vote for Mr. Trump why ? Check out please

[Torpedo]

#1..... No doubt Obama was responsible for accelerating the Nat'l Debt more; it was just over $10 trillion when he took office. There were 2 options ... one continue bailouts that Bush began, or let everything go to bankruptcy and reorg. Personally, I think he did the right thing, but of course, when Bush was doing it, it was ok with the Republicans. Obama had plans of bringing everything under control, but unbeknowist to him, the night before his inauguration the Republicans (led by Newt Gingrich) were planning the Party Of NO strategy; that's a known fact that all members of that meeting now admit doing.

Both sides of the fence constantly plot against the other. Hell go back to Nixon and Watergate. Nixon didn't do anything that hadn't been done before but the Democrats controlled both houses. They could impeach him but getting a conviction in the Senate would have been problematic.

Obama is just a lousy leader. All he has done is bitch about the Party Of NO. A really good leader would have gotten at least some of what he wanted. When he had his trifecta he ran everything he could through and pretty much ignored the Republicans. He pissed a lot of people off. So when it came time to to reach across the aisle there wasn't much interest in helping him. Most of his problems he created himself out of his own arrogance.

The polarization of the Democrats and Republicans has been going on from since the 1970's most presidents have had the skill to deal with it. Our current president and his predecessor were both more concerned about their legacy than the country. George W. Bush had to try try to outshine daddy, Barack Obama was the first black president so he had to leave a memorable mark, and if we get Hillary Clinton as our first woman president I can't imagine what kind of shape the country will be in

 

[Torpedo]

#4.....As far as President Obama "leading" instead of complaining ... after the second obstructionist meeting by the Republicans on Obama's second inauguration, he did start leading ... he started going AROUND the Republicans in Congress with his Executive Orders, and ohhhhh my, NOW he's violating laws and the Republicans wanting to impeach him. Did you know that Pres. GW Bush made MORE Executive Orders while he was in office than Obama? I don't recall the Democrats calling to impeach President Bush, however, do you?

Circumventing your opposition doesn't count as leading at least in my book. Bush made more executive orders, so what? It's the content of the orders that is the issue. Several of President Obama's orders were clearly intended to circumvent Congress and the legislative process

 

[Torpedo]

since when was that of any importance to the republican party?
under Reagonimics it wasn't any concern at all... no taxes... big spending on defense ... on and on.... national debit was through the ceiling but it wasn't a concern... took a good Dem to get it back under control......and then along comes another republican ... no tax increase... spends on all kinds of wars.. debit of no concern..... along comes another Dem... tries to work on it.... but the party of no stopped anything he tried to do and wants to complain about the debt.... big problem with rationale here

The debt never exceeded the GDP under Reagan

 

[Torpedo]

Want the Nat'l Debt to go away, encourage your Congressman to go to the table of negotiations with new President Hillary Clinton, and ask HER for a "balanced approach" to bring it down ... she'll do it

I would say that is mostly a pipe dream. There are way too many political debts that she will need to pay. Plus if elected she would be the first woman President and we are back to another President that that is going to put their legacy ahead of the good of the country

 

[Torpedo]

I get chills down my back just imagining the devastation those idiots would have had on the USA ... wars, wars, wars,

We got into WWII with Japan because Roosevelt was non confrontational with the Japanese in the Pacific during the 1930's. Lord Chamberlain appeased Hitler and by 1945 a lot of people died. The Russians are currently buzzing our ships, they have invaded Crimea and are deploying additional Nuclear weapons. Iran got a "Treaty" that for all intentions is unenforceable. They got to upgrade their nuclear material refining equipment and move most of it into a mountain that could survive a direct hit of a strategic nuke. North Korea is doing more saber rattling. And then there is China's expansionist policies we are doing nothing to counter. Taking even a cursory look at history and our current president has laid the foundation for some serious problems in the next few years

 

[Torpedo]

So, if the Republicans had just washed their hands of Obama's strategy (not been constant obstructionists) I could totally agree that it was ALL on Obama, but they chose to obstruct. So,the Republicans, like it or NOT, do have OWNERSHIP in the current state of the nation.

That sounds a lot like a leadership problem

 

[Torpedo]

gotta run ... family cookout (its mom's day) calls my attention away from this "always fun" discussion with the TORP!.

How did your cookout go? I have had some awesome barbecued pork in North Carolina, the best beef was in Oklahoma (sorry Texas)

 

[hoping hubby]

Did you know that Pres. GW Bush made MORE Executive Orders while he was in office than Obama? I don't recall the Democrats calling to impeach President Bush, however, do you?

Surely you don't really think the number of executive orders is of any importance. The issue is WHAT the president tries to do with them. Most are just innocuous orders that involve routine business of the executive branch. Obama has tried to use them to usurp the legislative power vested solely in the congress by the constitution. Hell even Saturday Night Live understands that!

 

[MacNfries]

Several of President Obama's orders were clearly intended to circumvent Congress and the legislative process

I believe you could say exactly the same thing about the Republicans establishing the "Party Of No" prior to Obama's 1st inauguration, AND the entire Republican congress signing the Grover Norquist "PLEDGE"; both circumvented the President Of The US.

The debt never exceeded the GDP under Reagan

At the time the Nat'l Debt, which was under $1 trillion, was NOT the issue ... deficit spending WAS. Up until Reagan, every POTUS since Truman had paid down the debt. Reagan's intent was to pass wealth back to the wealthiest at the expense of the middleclass by implementing 11 different tax plans that impacted them. Reagan even went on Nat'l TV to say he was "shoring up SS for the next 20 years" with his tax increases, THEN used those extra tax funds to help pay for his other unbudgeted BS.

Taking even a cursory look at history and our current president has laid the foundation for some serious problems in the next few years

I disagree. But there is one thing everyone should realize, a nuclear war is inevitable ... there will be a nuclear war. The only question is whether it will be global. I forsee the US being hit with a dirty bomb in the next 2-3 years; there's absolutely no way to avoid it.

It's the content of the orders that is the issue. Several of President Obama's orders were clearly intended to circumvent Congress and the legislative process

Ohhhh, so you and fellow conservatives have a secret "grading system" and rule to determine the value of an Executive Order now? Like determining the next Supreme Court Judge ... "its the people who will choose the next Supreme Court Judge" (M McConnell)

if elected she would be the first woman President and we are back to another President that that is going to put their legacy ahead of the good of the country

Purely assumptive on your part. As always conservatives preach the "doom & gloom" IF voters go with Democrats. Its one of their strategies along with voter suppression to gain/retain seats in Washington since they have no PLATFORM to really run on. Let me ask you here, do you think the Republicans would get the same "mileage" on their platform if they explained the true intent of their "decrease government", and that is removing entitlements to the neediest Americans? You don't have to really answer that as I don't want to encourage you to LIE. I simply blame the Democrats for not putting their feet to the fire with that terminology.

Torp, you're always talking about Obama getting nothing done and going around Congress. I'm just curious, as Republicans took the initiative to secretly stop Obama before he even took office, exactly HOW would Obama accomplish anything under those circumstances WITHOUT using the Executive Orders? The VOTERS put Obama in office not once, but twice, by significant voting margins ... does Congress think they have no obligation to do the will of the PEOPLE? Do you think their current popularity (snickering) and the current state of the Republican party has anything to do with their past 7 years of ineffectiveness & "do nothing" strategies?
.....And the thing is, listening to the GOP candidates and to Ryan last week, there is NO intention by the Republican party to change its 30+ years "stuck on Reaganomics" platform ... its still "cut taxes, decrease government" which has played itself OUT and has failed. The only reason Reaganomics and "trickle down" survives is because the rich Democrats in Congress secretly support it and simply let the Republicans take the flax for it. When will the Republicans quit pissing on the backs of the working class and telling them its rain?

 

[MacNfries]

How did your cookout go? I have had some awesome barbecued pork in North Carolina, the best beef was in Oklahoma (sorry Texas)

The cookout went awesomely well, thank you. My brother & his family joined us and he and I banged out some bluegrass music (we're both amateur musicians) and did the cooking. By the way, I'm partial to the NC vinegar based BBQ as well, but we had BBQ chicken this time, grilled corn on the cob, Southern potato salad, fresh g-beans, and the ******* had burgers as usual. My ******* made her awesome "scratch" coconut cake that she learned from her grandmother.

 

[subhub174014]

The debt never exceeded the GDP under Reagan

well then are you saying the debt is no issue?

 

[subhub174014]

Donald Trump's Economic Plans Would Destroy the U.S. Economy

Make America have a recession again.
On Thursday, Donald Trump’s tweet about tacos was only the second-most alarming message he sent to potential voters. Less open to humorous interpretation was his threat to default on U.S. debt in the event of a recession.

“I’ve borrowed knowing that you can pay back with discounts,” he told CNBC. “I would borrow knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

This policy would be so disastrous that even its suggestion is dangerous. In the event of a recession, Trump would treat the full faith and credit of the United States to a capricious hair cut. As Josh Barro explained, this wouldn’t just represent a historic default, putting the U.S. in the position of a country like Greece or Argentina; it could also spark an international financial crisis, as “investors would cease to see Treasuries as a safe asset and demand higher interest rates in exchange for risk.”

Trump has promised to make America great again. But a closer look his policy proposals, such as they are, suggests that within his first few years as president, he would more likely make American recessionary again.
The problem begins with his outspoken approach to Mexican immigration. His “plan” to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants would shrink the economy by about 2 percent, according to American Action Forum (AAF), a conservative and pro-business think tank. The sudden subtraction of 7 million workers would cause an immediate shock to thousands of businesses, triggering a GDP collapse ranging from $400 billion to $600 billion in production, AAF’s analysis found, with the worst of the slump occurring in industries like construction and hospitality. “The things Donald Trump has said are utterly unworkable,” Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economic adviser to Senator John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign and the forum's president, told Reuters.

Trump’s plan for a border wall could cost several billion dollars more. But as a financial matter, the wall is one of the least troubling aspects of his policy fantasies. By contrast, his tax plan would cut federal revenue by almost $10 trillion in the next decade, according to the Tax Policy Center. Meanwhile, he has no plans to cut spending on Medicare, Medicaid, benefits for veterans, defense, or Social Security, which, along with mandatory payments on the debt, collectively account for more than two-thirds of government spending. In fact, several of his proposals suggest he would raise spending on some of these measures, such as Social Security and veterans benefits. The deficit would, in short order, reach unprecedented peacetime, non-recession levels. (That’s not counting the revenue collapse from manufacturing a recession with mass deportations.)

Here is Trumponomics, in a sentence: Create an unnecessary economic downturn by deporting 7 million workers while cutting taxes for the rich and requiring the United States to borrow trillions of dollars from creditors, whom Trump has now threatened to stiff, if he feels like it. It would be the greatest, dumbest recession in American history.

Trump’s abandonment of economic common sense is, like so much of his appeal, not an outlier position in the GOP so much as an extrapolation of his party’s recent commitment to fiscal insanity. Republicans elites have responded to widening income inequality by proposing a series of escalating tax cuts for the rich. Paul Ryan, nominally the adult-elect of the party, rose to fame with tax-cut promises and draconian proposals to shrink the safety net. When interest rates were historically low and infrastructure spending was attractive, Republicans called for deficit reductions. When the recovery was still fragile, they played chicken with the debt ceiling by threatening a default until the president caved to their budget demands.

Trump’s economic ideas are so haphazard that, by their own merits, they scarcely deserve to be taken seriously or considered alongside each other. But given that he has managed to become the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, the media doesn’t have a choice. Like so much of his candidacy, those ideas are a joke—one that the country is civically obligated to take seriously.

 

[muscles44]

He's gonna cut all the Democrats programs that waste American tax payer money

 

[MacNfries]

I say "encourage Trump to talk more; in fact, bait him to talk more ... the more he talks the more he makes our case".

 

[subhub174014]

Trump is crushing the conservative movement: Inside the implosion of a decrepit ideology

Ever since M. Emmett Tyrrell wrote “The Coming Conservative Crack-up” in The American Spectator back in 1987 (he wrote a book with the same title five years later), the idea that the modern conservative movement that was incubated in the pages of the National Review and John Birch Society pamphlets and hatched in the embers of the epic flame-out of the Goldwater campaign was in crisis has been in circulation.


Tyrrell had written an earlier book cleverly called “The Liberal Crack-up,” in which he concluded that the left had achieved all it could have reasonably achieved by the 1970s and had turned to dilletantish radicalism obsessed with silly cultural irrelevancies like feminism. But he was no less concerned for his own tribe, which he saw in the tumult of the Iran-Contra scandal as being dangerously parochial and self-serving, unable to “insulate their President against dissolving into sentimental appeasement against his Iranian foes.” That was nearly 30 years ago, and one observer or another has been crying wolf about this impending crack-up on a regular basis ever since then (often preceded by a fundraising ask to fend it off.) This time, however, it’s for real.

couldn't get the rest to cut and paste

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/09/tru..._inside_the_implosion_of_a_decrepid_ideology/

 

[Torpedo]

I disagree. But there is one thing everyone should realize, a nuclear war is inevitable ... there will be a nuclear war. The only question is whether it will be global. I forsee the US being hit with a dirty bomb in the next 2-3 years; there's absolutely no way to avoid it.

Our current President is far more concerned about how he will look in the history books than how the country will do. He has committed many of the same errors that lead up to WWll. As to the inevitability of Nuclear war. Obama's weakness has made it more likely. Once the genie is out of the bottle it is hard to say what can happens. We did survive the Cold War but Obama has managed to restart it. Second time around we may not be so lucky. If Putin has the mindset that a first strike is feasible he will do it. There was more to Crimea than it appears. It was also a test to see what the world's resolve is.

 

[Torpedo]

The cookout went awesomely well, thank you. My brother & his family joined us and he and I banged out some bluegrass music (we're both amateur musicians) and did the cooking. By the way, I'm partial to the NC vinegar based BBQ as well, but we had BBQ chicken this time, grilled corn on the cob, Southern potato salad, fresh g-beans, and the ******* had burgers as usual. My ******* made her awesome "scratch" coconut cake that she learned from her grandmother.
View attachment 847959

Whatever criticisms anyone may have of the South the ability to produce a good meal aren't among them. The pork I had was so good I said to Hell with the bread and just piled it on my plate.

It is good that your ******* cooks/bakes it is getting to be a lost art. My wife insisted both girls learn to cook, they initially rebelled but my wife was adamant. Now both girls are excellent cooks. My wife even insisted I learn to cook, good example for the girls she said. Since loosing her, her training has proven invaluable. Bluegrass? I have always enjoyed Bluegrass and Jazz, so much of the player comes through

 

[Torpedo]

Torp, you're always talking about Obama getting nothing done and going around Congress. I'm just curious, as Republicans took the initiative to secretly stop Obama before he even took office, exactly HOW would Obama accomplish anything under those circumstances WITHOUT using the Executive Orders? The VOTERS put Obama in office not once, but twice, by significant voting margins ... does Congress think they have no obligation to do the will of the PEOPLE? Do you think their current popularity (snickering) and the current state of the Republican party has anything to do with their past 7 years of ineffectiveness & "do nothing" strategies?

A good leader can turn most opposition to his/her cause. The real problem President Obama has happened when he had his trifecta. He ran rough shod over the Republicans never giving any thought that down the road he was going to need them. His own arrogance did him the greatest harm. He is hardly unique, I have seem this sort of behavior in the corporate world more times than I can count. If you take a close look at corporate CEO and other senior officer replacement and firings nearly all the time it comes down to not working well with others. When sitting in the big chair you still have to work with those under your leadership

 

[Torpedo]

Trump’s abandonment of economic common sense is, like so much of his appeal, not an outlier position in the GOP so much as an extrapolation of his party’s recent commitment to fiscal insanity. Republicans elites have responded to widening income inequality by proposing a series of escalating tax cuts for the rich. Paul Ryan, nominally the adult-elect of the party, rose to fame with tax-cut promises and draconian proposals to shrink the safety net. When interest rates were historically low and infrastructure spending was attractive, Republicans called for deficit reductions. When the recovery was still fragile, they played chicken with the debt ceiling by threatening a default until the president caved to their budget demands.

Trump is a spoiled baby and a bully. I have seen the tantrums when he doesn't get his way. His condescending attitude when he does. This country has had 15 years of prima donna's in the White House We don't need another 4 or 8 years.

 

[Torpedo]

Purely assumptive on your part. As always conservatives preach the "doom & gloom" IF voters go with Democrats. Its one of their strategies along with voter suppression to gain/retain seats in Washington since they have no PLATFORM to really run on. Let me ask you here, do you think the Republicans would get the same "mileage" on their platform if they explained the true intent of their "decrease government", and that is removing entitlements to the neediest Americans? You don't have to really answer that as I don't want to encourage you to LIE. I simply blame the Democrats for not putting their feet to the fire with that terminology.

Too much baggage for her to be a good president. I haven't seen Democrats ever do much more that smoke and mirrors when it comes to reducing government in a meaningful way