Stupid is as stupid does.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/us/politics/trump-wall-flake.html?mcubz=0
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/us/politics/trump-wall-flake.html?mcubz=0
Trump says he is "willing to close down government" to build border wall
- Thread starter uncboy10
- Start date
I'd be in favor of shutting down the gravy train for the politicians and refunding the money to the taxpayers in lieu of building a stupid wall.
Great... cover for one liar whose lies don't bother you by offering another liar whose lies bothered you. That's fool-proof.
Totally not my intention here. ALL politicians lie. Anyone with any common sense knows that Trump won't shut down the government to fund the wall. And anyone with common sense knows that once the government takes over something(like health insurance) we are screwed. And the wall will have no direct effect on me, health insurance has.
I see... I like to be sure.
The government will, eventually, take over health care, by the way. As far as that stupid wall, "direct effect" is somewhat subjective. The simplicity appeals to some people, I guess.
The more nothing gets done by the government, the more I'm liking this Trump platform. Seriously, it's genius. He's already pissed off all the dems. Now he's pissing off the republicans. If this keeps up, Congress and the President will accomplish nothing, which to me, is perfect.
Moving forward, I want to see a candidate campaign on "getting nothing done". I'd vote for that guy (or gal) in a heartbeat. Because nothing is what's good for us.
Moving forward, I want to see a candidate campaign on "getting nothing done". I'd vote for that guy (or gal) in a heartbeat. Because nothing is what's good for us.
They basically have already. I want to make my own decisions concerning healthcare. As far as the wall, enforce the laws we have on the books already. I believe many people would be ok with that and that the wall is more of a symbolic token than anything else.
Good point!The more nothing gets done by the government, the more I'm liking this Trump platform. Seriously, it's genius. He's already pissed off all the dems. Now he's pissing off the republicans. If this keeps up, Congress and the President will accomplish nothing, which to me, is perfect.
Moving forward, I want to see a candidate campaign on "getting nothing done". I'd vote for that guy (or gal) in a heartbeat. Because nothing is what's good for us.
You might be right. What I am saying is the wall is more symbolic to fire up his base. If current laws and border enforcement remains strong I have no issues with no wall being built.
Its a total cop out to call the wall "symbolic." Trump certainly doesn't see it as a symbol. He wants to literally build a border wall. The symbolism argument just comes from people who refuse to accept that he is actually as stupid as he portrays himself to be.
Kind of like when Obama said you could keep your own doctor and all that stuff about Obamacare?
Agreed that Trump doesn't see it as symbolic. I am hoping that it becomes symbolic, as I think fortifying the vetting process would do a lot more than building a physical wall.
Trump is definitely as stupid as he portrays himself to be - which I love because it shows that a total bozo can be President... although we kind of already learned that from the previous one.
Agreed on the first point. But the vetting is much stronger than most people realize. Especially for refugees, which is the point that people tend to focus on. Some of the Visa programs are much more lax, and its just a matter of time before an atrocity is committed by someone who slipped through. Even if one thinks the current vetting process is adequate, its important for those on the left to acknowledge the need for constant vigilance.
Calling Barack Obama stupid is just plain silly. The man clearly is extremely intelligent and thoughtful, even if you don't agree with what he has to say. I may be opposed to conservatism but I can still easily recognize the difference between someone like Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro, and Donald Trump or Glenn Beck or Alex Jones.
Trying to equate the intelligence of our current POTUS with the last one is a total farce. And I'd say the same thing if we were comparing Trump to Reagan or Bush.
Barry was/is very smart, not insulting his intelligence. Just saying that when it came to running the country he was also a clown. Focused on divisive rhetoric on race, and cramming a shitty healthcare plan down everyone's throats so he could have something "monumental" for his legacy. By doing that he ended up making his legacy "the guy who sucked so bad the country voted for Trump".
Hillary Clinton had one hundred million times more to do with people voting for Trump than Obama did. She was a uniquely horrible candidate.
Half of Trump's base probably doesn't even know that the ACA and Obamacare are the same thing. Quite a lot of them weren't very pleased when they came to realize what the Republicans were proposing as an alternative. Which was zilch. Nada. The entire Republican party literally could not come up with a healthcare bill to replace or improve Obamacare. Which should have been easy to do since Obamacare is so "shitty."
I don't know about this whole "divisive rhetoric on race" talking point. It largely seems to be a partisan argument that exclusively comes from the right. Some of his comments during his presidency brought race issues to the forefront of the public discussion, but his election as the first black president had already done that anyways.
His lengthy statement following Trayvon Martin's murder was both unnecessary and divisive. It validated the newly-formed BLM movement, which has many legitimate objectives but undermines itself with its anti-law enforcement message.
Obama could have won a 3rd term, are you kidding me? That guy is easily the most popular president in my lifetime (almost 50 years).
I was amazed at the crowds he whipped into a lather during Hillary's campaign. Obama was like a rock star. And, his legacy and popularity is only going to continue to grow, I'm sure.
Fair enough. Though I don't think those comments were that bad. I definitely see your point about validating BLM, but at the same time his comments about police were pretty accurate. I completely agree that we need large scale reform in our police departments all around the country.
And as strum pointed out, this seems to be generally recognized as a low point in his presidency. Certainly not the norm. Yet I rarely hear people point out specific instances like this one, usually its just calling him the "divider in chief" or the "muslim traitor."
Completely agree. But my least favorite thing about Barry (aside from how he funded his campaign) was that he know that too. That damn Nobel Prize was the worst thing that ever could have happened to him.
Was he really? Or were people just too scared to say they didn't like him? Personally, I think it was the latter. I guess all candidates brings a new page to their party's playbook. The Obama admin brought one of the best tactics in the history of politics (at least for the dems). They introduced the notion that if one doesn't support progressive ideas, there is something wrong with your character. Up until that point, people on opposite ends of the political spectrum could simply disagree without thinking less of their counterpart. But the Obama era, whether intentionally devised of not, brought character assassination as the go-to move. If you don't support liberal policies, you're a bad person, a racists, a bigot, etc. It's genius. Because no one wants to be labeled those things. So people who simply disagreed with Obama had to quietly disagree because of fear of being called out by irrational liberals. Getting the label of bigot or racist could do damage to individual's family, home, jobs, etc. Eventually, people on the right started to relent. Don't get me wrong; the people that liked Obama really, really liked Obama. But I know from my experience that there were many that didn't but were just fearful of expressing that sentiment.
And that's why I disagree with uncboy's statement that Hillary was the reason Trump was elected. I mean, yeah, she was an unusually bad candidate (except for being a woman which scored her points with the same people that thought it was high time we had a black man as President). But people were tired of being silent. Tired of not being able to say what was on their mind. Tired of having to hold back in their criticism of anything minority related - be it the Prez, BLM, muslims, etc. So when a guy came along that looks to not give a f*ck like Trump, people jumped on that train quick. "Finally, a guy saying what I've been wanting to say for the last 5 years". So to me, Obama's legacy is indeed Trump. And I will continue to believe that and perpetuate that belief as long as I can.
I sincerely hope you're wrong about him saying what people have been wanting to say. Because if there are that many idiots in this country, then we are in bigger trouble than I thought.
There are plenty of intelligible critiques of postmodernism and neo-marxist ideologies. There's no need for anyone to rally around a buffoon like Trump just because they reject those ideas.
Trump's appeal has a lot more to do with his simplistic rhetoric and nationalist dog whistling. There is a reason he didn't talk about Canada sending any "bad hombres." But by speaking like an idiot (unintentionally) he appeals to the lowest common denominator. The average American is stupid. Appeal to stupid, and you're probably going to win the election. Combine that with not so subtle ethno-nationalist rhetoric, and the worst candidate for president in history on the other side, and you get a win.
That's obviously an oversimplification, but I completely disagree with you about Obama's legacy being Trump. If Hillary doesn't rig the nomination, and Bernie Sanders is running against Trump in the general then we get an entirely different outcome.
Thank goodness for Donna Brazille and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz then because Sanders is an absolute dumbass.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how it is known that Obama "is very smart".
He didn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize AT ALL. That was a slap-in-the-face of the award, in my opinion.
You could read his book, but that would answer a lot of other questions about his race beliefs ect....LOL
Speech is an excellent predictor of intelligence. Having a larger lexicon correlates very strongly with higher levels of intelligence.
The circumstances were abysmal when he took office and the economy turned around. I don't think he was the reason, but the American public loves to congratulate politicians. And, a great many people like the ACA. He will get credit for the death of bin Laden. And, unlike Clinton, he wasn't trying to pork women in his leisure time. Obama is actually a good role model as a family man/father. He's not known as a former addict or drunk. He's been married once and still married. he has all of those old family values points.
I have serious issues with a great many things he did, but my issues are not a problem for even the most ardent conservatives, and certainly not a big deal for people who are Democrats. To me, he will get credit, like most politicians, for things that they themselves weren't really responsible for.
And, I don't think of Obama as "black." That's not in my conscious mind. The only time I think of that context is when I consider how other people are thinking about it. Even my uber-liberal friends love to fall-back on that excuse of "they just don't like him because he's black." That's so lazy and such a cop-out.
There is no doubt that Barack Obama is very intelligent. That can be good or bad, depending on how the individual applies that. But, Obama is extremely articulate, and highly intelligent.
I remember seeing an interview with Clinton and Chris Wallace after CLinton left office. And, Clinton just wiped the floor with Wallace. A buddy and myself happened to be watching it and we both were like "Man, that mvtherfvcker is smart! He could sell ice to Eskimos!" Now, Clinton was someone I had no trust in at all. I didn't trust that dude in the slightest. But... he, like Obama, was HIGHLY intelligent. You don't get to be a Rhodes Scholar by being stupid. He didn't have a wealthy family to pull strings to get him through life like George W. Bush, or even Kennedy. Although, I believe JFK was highly intelligent as well.
