Trump

[MoValley John]

Just to be transparent, I'm hardly a cradle conservative. Grew up in Chicago area, son of a union Democrat, turned business owner that welcomed unions. I joined the military where I swayed conservative. Still a "conservative" Democrat. Finished college, got married, moved to conservative Omaha. Became a very conservative Republican. Over the last several years, became disenfranchised with both the Republican party and hardline conservatives. I grew up knowing and embracing Chicago politics, not anymore.

I did not, and will not support Trump. I did not support Hillary. I can't stand what has become of the political culture. The days of Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan sparring during the day, only to meet up in private, have a drink and hash out compromise are over.

Sad times we live in. Sadder yet, young voters don't remember the days of passionate debate followed up with compromise.

[shockmonster]

No, those were the first four articles I found for each case with a 10s Google search, as I mentioned. The original post I replied to said, and I quote: "You allowed the media to continue their "love affair" with Obama, and not spending any media time on his scandals digging up wrong doing."

In each case, they DID put out a story on each scandal, often with more accurate information than conservative media.

For instance, the Iran "ransom" was badly reported by the conservative media. To put it simply, the money was not given to Iran, it was returned to Iran. Before 1979, Iran sent that money to the US as part of a deal to buy fighter jets. When the Iranian hostage crisis struck in 1979, the money was frozen in US banks even though Iran never received the jets, and it stayed frozen for almost 40 years.

Furthermore, the money issue was negotiated by an entirely separate team of negotiators. In fact, an international court (Iran–United States Claims Tribunal) was set up years before hostage negotiations, and if the US did not resolve the $400M settlement they could have been forced to pay the full $10B Iran was seeking from the tribunal.

But that just wasn't covered by conservative media. Instead, it was reported very simply: Obama gave $400M in taxpayer money as a ransom.

And in response to another criticism (that mainstream news buried or delayed these types of Obama-era scandals), they usually were the first to report such instances. The Iran scandal was first reported by Wall Street Journal.

But anyway, the point was just that the mainstream media did cover scandals, even if people weren't aware of it.

The Iran "ransom" was the story put out by the Obama administration. It was money we owed Iran and not a ransom at all. Many didn't buy their story because they said that it was odd, and kind of "spy like", that the money had to be flown "SECRETLY" in the dead of night, and only after the money reached Iran, were the hostages (prisoners that had broken the law according to the Iranian's) released and flown out. To those conservative outlets, it seemed like a "ransom". To the mainstream media, our government was paying back money they owed the Iranian government. Fox is the only mainstream conservative media outlet, and while slanted according to other media outlets, they are pretty fair and balanced if you follow the news portion of coverage (Chris Wallace, Shep Smith, etc.), and not their evening crew of Hannity and company.

[I_Vector_Wu]

We interrupt your regularly scheduled programming for this public service announcement:

So I'm in London, heading in from Cockfosters on the Piccadilly Line in search of some Bangers and Mash with Squishy Peas and a proper pint. I stumble across this fine establishment. I thought I'd give it a go, wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean, but the Mrs. was having none of that, straight away. Is this THE Spearmint Rhino often referenced here?:playful:
IMG_5461.jpgIMG_5462.JPG

Thank you for your time, we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

[WstateU]

We interrupt your regularly scheduled programming for this public service announcement:

So I'm in London, heading in from Cockfosters on the Piccadilly Line in search of some Bangers and Mash with Squishy Peas and a proper pint. I stumble across this fine establishment. I thought I'd give it a go, wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean, but the Mrs. was having none of that, straight away. Is this THE Spearmint Rhino often referenced here?:playful:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4819[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]4820[/ATTACH]

Thank you for your time, we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue...

[MoValley John]

Dude ain't in London, he's a couple blocks from the Omaha airport.

Not that I would know anything about that...

[I_Vector_Wu]

Dude ain't in London, he's a couple blocks from the Omaha airport.

Not that I would know anything about that...

Ye of little faith
IMG_5463.JPG

Why the hell would I be in Omaha! :biggrin-new:

[wufan]

Ye of little faith
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4821[/ATTACH]

Why the hell would I be in Omaha! :biggrin-new:

To visit the Iowa Playhouse with MVJ.

[WstateU]

nm

[shocktown]

Ye of little faith
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4821[/ATTACH]

Why the hell would I be in Omaha! :biggrin-new:

That retirement package from ATC must really be sweet!

[Play Angry]

Lee and Moran just killed the Senate's second swing at the health bill. This is good news in the sense that the bill is horrible, bad news in the sense that the delay makes a tax bill far less likely this year. Budget/shutdown fight also close to a certainty over the next few months.

[Kung Wu]

Trump / Russia is relevant and disturbing.
Kennedy might have even done worse.
Both can be true.

So far Trump and Russia are not disturbing. I'll let you know when it crosses that threshhold.

But both being true is exactly the point MVJ and Play Angry (I think) have been making all along. Dirty politics has been going on a long time, by both sides.

[shockmonster]

So far Trump and Russia are not disturbing. I'll let you know when it crosses that threshhold.

But both being true is exactly the point MVJ and Play Angry (I think) have been making all along. Dirty politics has been going on a long time, by both sides.

Here is a discussion between a conservative (Tucker Carlson) and liberal (Max Blumenthal) who actually agree that Democrats who want to make Trump look like a fascist dictator, and Republicans who don't like Trump are both together going after the collusion angle between Russia and Trump. I'm not sure I'm totally in their camp but they argue that the rhetoric is approaching craziness, and makes the world less safe (war mongering against Russia), and doesn't allow the U.S. and Russia to strategically work on world problems where they have common interests. The interesting thing about Russia is that the Democrats under O'Bama were closer to siding with Russia (to stay out of war), and the Republicans were anti-Russia (John McCain and Lindsey Graham who are closer to the traditional Pentagon view of Russia).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJ_d594y8

"Progressives are falling into the Russia Trap"

[Aargh]

I'm a smaller government believer, but I struggle to support lowering taxes in a deficit period. My position is that you cut spending, and then see if you can cut taxes.

Cutting taxes is incredibly popular. That's the easy route to voter nirvana. It also extends and expands the deficit, which is just delaying the inevitable tax increase to begin paying off at least part of it. Cutting spending is incredibly unpopular if politicians have to specify what's going to be cut. In Kansas, all we've heard from the "cut spending" crowd is that we have to cut spending, and in 6 years, never a single specific on what should be cut and where.

The possible exception is that Kansas' "cut spending" crowd wants to reduce the number and pay scales of school administrators. That isn't setting well with local entities who don't think the State should be micro-managing what they do in their community.

That's of some interest, because the "cut spending" group insists that the Federal government should have no control over State policies because the State is better able to deal with local issues than the Feds. When it comes to State vs. local, the "cut spending" group thinks they should be able to control how local communities spend State dollars.

Cutting spending is a great buzzword, but when it comes down to nut-cuttin' time, politicians don't have the stones to do it. It's political suicide.

If the general population ever figures out that AHCA was going to cut $900 billion from Medicaid to fund a tax reduction for an incredibly small number of very high earners (including Trump and his family), it won't be pretty for the Repubs in 2018. I doubt that the general population will figure that out.

[ShockingButTrue]

So far Trump and Russia are not disturbing. I'll let you know when it crosses that threshhold.

But both being true is exactly the point MVJ and Play Angry (I think) have been making all along. Dirty politics has been going on a long time, by both sides.

Yeah, a lot of people have noticed a connection with the whole Russian fiasco. It really started last summer. It's kinda smelly (pun intended) :



It's really nice that this witch lost. Fairly and legally.

[wufan]

I'm a smaller government believer, but I struggle to support lowering taxes in a deficit period. My position is that you cut spending, and then see if you can cut taxes.

Cutting taxes is incredibly popular. That's the easy route to voter nirvana. It also extends and expands the deficit, which is just delaying the inevitable tax increase to begin paying off at least part of it. Cutting spending is incredibly unpopular if politicians have to specify what's going to be cut. In Kansas, all we've heard from the "cut spending" crowd is that we have to cut spending, and in 6 years, never a single specific on what should be cut and where.

The possible exception is that Kansas' "cut spending" crowd wants to reduce the number and pay scales of school administrators. That isn't setting well with local entities who don't think the State should be micro-managing what they do in their community.

That's of some interest, because the "cut spending" group insists that the Federal government should have no control over State policies because the State is better able to deal with local issues than the Feds. When it comes to State vs. local, the "cut spending" group thinks they should be able to control how local communities spend State dollars.

Cutting spending is a great buzzword, but when it comes down to nut-cuttin' time, politicians don't have the stones to do it. It's political suicide.

If the general population ever figures out that AHCA was going to cut $900 billion from Medicaid to fund a tax reduction for an incredibly small number of very high earners (including Trump and his family), it won't be pretty for the Repubs in 2018. I doubt that the general population will figure that out.

Hard to disagree with any of this, and I don't. With the likely outcome of a spending cut being that the majority party loses reelection, is it in the long term good to do so? Obviously if the spenders are elected as a result of the spending cut, spending is likely to go up. I don't know the solution.