weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 15, 2015 20:16:53 GMT -5
I found this on Rush's website. Did Rush come up with that? It's really stupid.
It's a mixture of Russian, Ukrainian and English, in a faux Cyrillic alphabet and makes no sense whatsoever. Wait just a damn minute! You went to Rush Limbaugh's website? I looked at your link, yes. I needed a laugh. Done!
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 15, 2015 20:49:07 GMT -5
I found this on Rush's website. Did Rush come up with that? It's really stupid.
It's a mixture of Russian, Ukrainian and English, in a faux Cyrillic alphabet and makes no sense whatsoever. Wait just a damn minute! You went to Rush Limbaugh's website? Why the surprise? Do you only go to those sites that support your point of view? That would lead, I'd think, to a very narrow viewpoint. I prefer to read a variety of viewpoints.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Oct 15, 2015 22:31:31 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2015 12:15:57 GMT -5
I like the faux Cyrillic alphabet. I can understand it!
I think we ought to tell the Ruskis to get with the program! The Ruskis are with the program- have been for decades. What we need to do is tell the DEMOCRATS to get with the program.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2015 12:58:56 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2015 13:08:13 GMT -5
of course he could. i give him about a 10% chance as of today. edit: their logic is mushy, however. Iowa doesn't mean shit. and Bush and Christie ALSO lead for "longer than we have left to Iowa".
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2015 13:26:25 GMT -5
of course he could. i give him about a 10% chance as of today. edit: their logic is mushy, however. Iowa doesn't mean shit. and Bush and Christie ALSO lead for "longer than we have left to Iowa". To my knowledge neither Bush, nor Christie have ever led? Can you clarify what you're talking about here?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2015 13:29:23 GMT -5
of course he could. i give him about a 10% chance as of today. edit: their logic is mushy, however. Iowa doesn't mean shit. and Bush and Christie ALSO lead for "longer than we have left to Iowa". Look, we all know I can't predict shit- and I'm not going to try. I do want to understand what you're seeing that I'm not. By my count Trump leads in IA, NH, SC, NV, OH, PA and FL by not small margins.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 19, 2015 16:15:41 GMT -5
Jeb!That is all. Back to your harried predictions on who will win the 2015 Republican nomination.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2015 17:17:29 GMT -5
of course he could. i give him about a 10% chance as of today. edit: their logic is mushy, however. Iowa doesn't mean shit. and Bush and Christie ALSO lead for "longer than we have left to Iowa". Look, we all know I can't predict shit- and I'm not going to try. I do want to understand what you're seeing that I'm not. By my count Trump leads in IA, NH, SC, NV, OH, PA and FL by not small margins. what i am thinking is that a campaign as vapid as that of Trump can't stand up. it is really just that simple. as i have said before, at least half a dozen times, i might be wrong. we can talk about it again in January.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2015 17:25:43 GMT -5
of course he could. i give him about a 10% chance as of today. edit: their logic is mushy, however. Iowa doesn't mean shit. and Bush and Christie ALSO lead for "longer than we have left to Iowa". To my knowledge neither Bush, nor Christie have ever led? Can you clarify what you're talking about here? your knowledge is wrong. Bush lead in December 2014- Feb 2015. he lead again from April 1st to Mid July of this year. i mentioned it about 20x on the Bush thread. Christie lead from July 2013- December 2013. he lead again from November 2013 to January 2014. he lead again from August 2014 to September 2014. Walker lead in March of 2015. Trump has lead since he took over from Bush in July. BARELY three months. that is FOUR MONTHS LESS than Bush, and EIGHT MONTHS LESS than Christie. the only way he could lead longer than Christie is to never lose his lead all the way through the primaries. so, see, from where i sit, i have seen three "leaders" fall flat on their asses. i have no reason to expect that Trump will NOT be the fourth.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2015 17:35:51 GMT -5
Look, we all know I can't predict shit- and I'm not going to try. I do want to understand what you're seeing that I'm not. By my count Trump leads in IA, NH, SC, NV, OH, PA and FL by not small margins. what i am thinking is that a campaign as vapid as that of Trump can't stand up. it is really just that simple. as i have said before, at least half a dozen times, i might be wrong. we can talk about it again in January. I'm going to confidently assert that you're wrong. Your assessment of Trump as "vapid" is not the correct read of the situation. I'll use the events of this past weekend as one of many examples of the fact that Trump is a very smart, very tough, calculating player who is in this to win it-- and he's a guy used to having to fight, and used to winning. He just completely baited and subsequently rolled Jeb Bush. Again. Oh, yeah- Trump knew, and he planned it. He knew. And the fact that Jeb didn't see it coming, and fell for it is a perfect example of why he isn't qualified to manage a restaurant, let alone run the country. And I have to tell you, though I'm not a Trump guy, I am thoroughly enjoying watching him roll these masters of the universe like the weak ass dolts they are. They're so used to being coddled, and so entitled, that seeing them get their asses handed to them over and over again is hilarious. www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/18/flashback-jeb-bush-admitted-leaky-immigration-led-911/
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2015 17:37:13 GMT -5
To my knowledge neither Bush, nor Christie have ever led? Can you clarify what you're talking about here? your knowledge is wrong. Bush lead in December 2014- Feb 2015. he lead again from April 1st to Mid July of this year. i mentioned it about 20x on the Bush thread. Christie lead from July 2013- December 2013. he lead again from November 2013 to January 2014. he lead again from August 2014 to September 2014. Walker lead in March of 2015. Trump has lead since he took over from Bush in July. BARELY three months. that is FOUR MONTHS LESS than Bush, and EIGHT MONTHS LESS than Christie. the only way he could lead longer than Christie is to never lose his lead all the way through the primaries. so, see, from where i sit, i have seen three "leaders" fall flat on their asses. i have no reason to expect that Trump will NOT be the fourth. OK, that's a valid point on a technicality. Let's look at it a different way: has Trump ever not led since he got in?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2015 17:47:17 GMT -5
what i am thinking is that a campaign as vapid as that of Trump can't stand up. it is really just that simple. as i have said before, at least half a dozen times, i might be wrong. we can talk about it again in January. I'm going to confidently assert that you're wrong. yeah, i have heard that before. Your assessment of Trump as "vapid" is not the correct read of the situation. sorry, you might have misunderstood me. i meant that is campaign is vapid. he is bright enough.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2015 17:50:46 GMT -5
your knowledge is wrong. Bush lead in December 2014- Feb 2015. he lead again from April 1st to Mid July of this year. i mentioned it about 20x on the Bush thread. Christie lead from July 2013- December 2013. he lead again from November 2013 to January 2014. he lead again from August 2014 to September 2014. Walker lead in March of 2015. Trump has lead since he took over from Bush in July. BARELY three months. that is FOUR MONTHS LESS than Bush, and EIGHT MONTHS LESS than Christie. the only way he could lead longer than Christie is to never lose his lead all the way through the primaries. so, see, from where i sit, i have seen three "leaders" fall flat on their asses. i have no reason to expect that Trump will NOT be the fourth. OK, that's a valid point on a technicality. Let's look at it a different way: has Trump ever not led since he got in? yeah. he trailed for almost exactly one month after he announced his candidacy. but you are the one raising the technicality. i am only looking at candidates and polling numbers.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2015 18:18:16 GMT -5
I'm going to confidently assert that you're wrong. yeah, i have heard that before. Your assessment of Trump as "vapid" is not the correct read of the situation. sorry, you might have misunderstood me. i meant that is campaign is vapid. he is bright enough. I think vapid describes literally every campaign except Trump's. The fact is that Trump has tackled literally every major issue from taxes, to foreign policy, to immigration, welfare, and the economy and done so in a way-- like the Jeb Bush 9/11 leaky immigration issue in a way which, agree or not, has forced an actual dialogue on issues regarded by the political elite in both parties to be settled, and steadily steaming towards an 'inevitable' outcome- e.g. amnesty for tens of millions of illegal immigrants. He has single handedly set amnesty back to the the 1980's. It's a dead issue, a non-starter. No candidate would dare utter the word now. That's the opposite of vapid- again, agree or disagree.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2015 18:28:26 GMT -5
sorry, you might have misunderstood me. i meant that is campaign is vapid. he is bright enough. I think vapid describes literally every campaign except Trump's. The fact is that Trump has tackled literally every major issue from taxes, to foreign policy, to immigration, welfare, and the economy and done so in a way-- like the Jeb Bush 9/11 leaky immigration issue in a way which, agree or not, has forced an actual dialogue on issues regarded by the political elite in both parties to be settled, and steadily steaming towards an 'inevitable' outcome- e.g. amnesty for tens of millions of illegal immigrants. He has single handedly set amnesty back to the the 1980's. It's a dead issue, a non-starter. No candidate would dare utter the word now. That's the opposite of vapid- again, agree or disagree. there are several campaigns that are quite specific, Paul, so that is not at all true. Trump's tax plan is a recipe for disaster. if disaster is what you want, then yes, that is quite specific. when i say specific, i means specific and "consistent with his other goals". again, presuming that is other goals are the stated ones, his tax plan is sheer madness. "build a wall" is not actually a plan. so, no, he is very very low on specifics that have any reasonable hope of obtaining his other stated goals. i call that vapid.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2015 18:35:58 GMT -5
OK, that's a valid point on a technicality. Let's look at it a different way: has Trump ever not led since he got in? yeah. he trailed for almost exactly one month after he announced his candidacy. but you are the one raising the technicality. i am only looking at candidates and polling numbers. Sorry, but you're actually completely wrong. The statement isn't that Trump has led the longest. It is that Trump has led for more days than we have left until the votes are cast. That applies to none of the other candidates. Christie led from July 2013 - January 2014, and again in August and September of 2014. That's 9 months. When Christie last held the lead there was over a year to go before the votes will be cast in the first primaries. Giving Bush credit for "mid July", and given the first primary is "mid Feb", then that's about as many days, not more days. I agree with you that we have seen leaders come and go- that's the interesting thing about Trump. According to CW, he should be gone by now. What I like about Trump is that he is showing the GOP how to win. Why I think Trump needs to take some early primaries is that unless he does, he'll be dismissed, and the GOP will die-- it's right on the precipice now of going full Whig. Unless the GOP takes on the Trump issues, they will be rendered forever irrelevant. They will cease to exist.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2015 18:42:17 GMT -5
I think vapid describes literally every campaign except Trump's. The fact is that Trump has tackled literally every major issue from taxes, to foreign policy, to immigration, welfare, and the economy and done so in a way-- like the Jeb Bush 9/11 leaky immigration issue in a way which, agree or not, has forced an actual dialogue on issues regarded by the political elite in both parties to be settled, and steadily steaming towards an 'inevitable' outcome- e.g. amnesty for tens of millions of illegal immigrants. He has single handedly set amnesty back to the the 1980's. It's a dead issue, a non-starter. No candidate would dare utter the word now. That's the opposite of vapid- again, agree or disagree. there are several campaigns that are quite specific, Paul, so that is not at all true. Trump's tax plan is a recipe for disaster. if disaster is what you want, then yes, that is quite specific. when i say specific, i means specific and "consistent with his other goals". again, presuming that is other goals are the stated ones, his tax plan is sheer madness. "build a wall" is not actually a plan. so, no, he is very very low on specifics that have any reasonable hope of obtaining his other stated goals. i call that vapid. Well, I used to strongly object to Trump's 0% bracket-- but then I examined it. We really need to scrap the income tax and abolish the IRS. In fact, Trump's tax plan is proof of that. It's Reagan's tax plan. If Reagan's tax plan had been the solution, we'd still have the Reagan rates. The tax code and the IRS are an ever-present Trojan Horse. They've got to go. That being said, if we're not going to do that- scrap the tax code, and the IRS, then let's admit it: we already have a 0% tax bracket. Trump expands that modestly-- essentially adjusting it for inflation for the first time in decades. His tax plan has been looked at, and using the static analysis-- which has been shown to be faulty-- it is revenue neutral. Anyone with half a brain knows it'll quadruple economic growth (probably being conservative) and grow revenue to the treasury just as Reagan's tax code did. It's basically a return to Reagan's tax rates of 1986, with the subsequent payroll tax hikes left in place. We've been over the wall- it's already law. It's purely a matter of execution.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2015 19:40:00 GMT -5
there are several campaigns that are quite specific, Paul, so that is not at all true. Trump's tax plan is a recipe for disaster. if disaster is what you want, then yes, that is quite specific. when i say specific, i means specific and "consistent with his other goals". again, presuming that is other goals are the stated ones, his tax plan is sheer madness. "build a wall" is not actually a plan. so, no, he is very very low on specifics that have any reasonable hope of obtaining his other stated goals. i call that vapid. Well, I used to strongly object to Trump's 0% bracket-- but then I examined it. We really need to scrap the income tax and abolish the IRS. In fact, Trump's tax plan is proof of that. It's Reagan's tax plan. If Reagan's tax plan had been the solution, we'd still have the Reagan rates. The tax code and the IRS are an ever-present Trojan Horse. They've got to go. That being said, if we're not going to do that- scrap the tax code, and the IRS, then let's admit it: we already have a 0% tax bracket. Trump expands that modestly-- essentially adjusting it for inflation for the first time in decades. His tax plan has been looked at, and using the static analysis-- which has been shown to be faulty-- it is revenue neutral. Anyone with half a brain knows it'll quadruple economic growth (probably being conservative) and grow revenue to the treasury just as Reagan's tax code did. It's basically a return to Reagan's tax rates of 1986, with the subsequent payroll tax hikes left in place. We've been over the wall- it's already law. It's purely a matter of execution. that is Trump in a nutshell: he has interesting concepts, but when pressed on the details, the best he can bring is: "i will assemble a YOUGE team of BRILLIANT people, we will GET THE JOB DONE and UNDER BUDGET". and candidly, i am so sick of that bullshit line, that THIS is what i hear when he says it: "i have no fucking clue how to do it, in practical or political terms, but i am now going to run up the same bullshit surrender flag i always do, and declare victory"
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2015 19:44:57 GMT -5
yeah. he trailed for almost exactly one month after he announced his candidacy. but you are the one raising the technicality. i am only looking at candidates and polling numbers. Sorry, but you're actually completely wrong. The statement isn't that Trump has led the longest. It is that Trump has led for more days than we have left until the votes are cast. That applies to none of the other candidates. Bush and Christie lead for more days than we have left until Iowa, as well. are you saying that they didn't lead for as many days as they had left WHEN THEY LEAD? i am not sure that is true either, but it might be. but it is such a confusing claim that honestly, i am still not sure if i understand the claim! Christie led from July 2013 - January 2014, and again in August and September of 2014. That's 9 months. When Christie last held the lead there was over a year to go before the votes will be cast in the first primaries. Giving Bush credit for "mid July", and given the first primary is "mid Feb", then that's about as many days, not more days. I agree with you that we have seen leaders come and go- that's the interesting thing about Trump. According to CW, he should be gone by now. What I like about Trump is that he is showing the GOP how to win. Why I think Trump needs to take some early primaries is that unless he does, he'll be dismissed, and the GOP will die-- it's right on the precipice now of going full Whig. Unless the GOP takes on the Trump issues, they will be rendered forever irrelevant. They will cease to exist. that's cool. show away. but that is not going to get him the win, imo. what will the GOP do when he loses?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 20, 2015 9:11:57 GMT -5
Well, I used to strongly object to Trump's 0% bracket-- but then I examined it. We really need to scrap the income tax and abolish the IRS. In fact, Trump's tax plan is proof of that. It's Reagan's tax plan. If Reagan's tax plan had been the solution, we'd still have the Reagan rates. The tax code and the IRS are an ever-present Trojan Horse. They've got to go. That being said, if we're not going to do that- scrap the tax code, and the IRS, then let's admit it: we already have a 0% tax bracket. Trump expands that modestly-- essentially adjusting it for inflation for the first time in decades. His tax plan has been looked at, and using the static analysis-- which has been shown to be faulty-- it is revenue neutral. Anyone with half a brain knows it'll quadruple economic growth (probably being conservative) and grow revenue to the treasury just as Reagan's tax code did. It's basically a return to Reagan's tax rates of 1986, with the subsequent payroll tax hikes left in place. We've been over the wall- it's already law. It's purely a matter of execution. that is Trump in a nutshell: he has interesting concepts, but when pressed on the details, the best he can bring is: "i will assemble a YOUGE team of BRILLIANT people, we will GET THE JOB DONE and UNDER BUDGET". and candidly, i am so sick of that bullshit line, that THIS is what i hear when he says it: "i have no fucking clue how to do it, in practical or political terms, but i am now going to run up the same bullshit surrender flag i always do, and declare victory" Well, I have a different philosophy completely when it comes to the role of the chief executive. I don't want a 39 point plan. I want to know what their vision for the country is, and I want to know generally what they'd like to accomplish, and roughly how. We all know (or should know) that there are factors which will complicate any President's plans. We also know that even in the best of circumstances, the President is not going to be hands-on actually doing anything. The President is going to do exactly what Trump said: assemble a cabinet, assemble teams, give them directives, and oversee their progress. A POTUS needs to be a high-level thinker, a leader. We don't want a control freak, micro-manager for POTUS. We do want someone smart. Someone tough. And someone thinking about the country- OUR country (sad we're at the point this needs to be specified). This is what qualifies Trump in my book, and that's why should he get the nomination, I'll support him. There are only three candidates as far as I'm concerned: Cruz, Carson, and Trump. I am supportive of them in that order.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 20, 2015 9:12:52 GMT -5
Sorry, but you're actually completely wrong. The statement isn't that Trump has led the longest. It is that Trump has led for more days than we have left until the votes are cast. That applies to none of the other candidates. Bush and Christie lead for more days than we have left until Iowa, as well. are you saying that they didn't lead for as many days as they had left WHEN THEY LEAD? i am not sure that is true either, but it might be. but it is such a confusing claim that honestly, i am still not sure if i understand the claim! Christie led from July 2013 - January 2014, and again in August and September of 2014. That's 9 months. When Christie last held the lead there was over a year to go before the votes will be cast in the first primaries. Giving Bush credit for "mid July", and given the first primary is "mid Feb", then that's about as many days, not more days. I agree with you that we have seen leaders come and go- that's the interesting thing about Trump. According to CW, he should be gone by now. What I like about Trump is that he is showing the GOP how to win. Why I think Trump needs to take some early primaries is that unless he does, he'll be dismissed, and the GOP will die-- it's right on the precipice now of going full Whig. Unless the GOP takes on the Trump issues, they will be rendered forever irrelevant. They will cease to exist. that's cool. show away. but that is not going to get him the win, imo. what will the GOP do when he loses? If Trump gets the nomination, and provided the systematic voter fraud scheme is not too far gone.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2015 10:37:30 GMT -5
that is Trump in a nutshell: he has interesting concepts, but when pressed on the details, the best he can bring is: "i will assemble a YOUGE team of BRILLIANT people, we will GET THE JOB DONE and UNDER BUDGET". and candidly, i am so sick of that bullshit line, that THIS is what i hear when he says it: "i have no fucking clue how to do it, in practical or political terms, but i am now going to run up the same bullshit surrender flag i always do, and declare victory" Well, I have a different philosophy completely when it comes to the role of the chief executive. I don't want a 39 point plan. I want to know what their vision for the country is, and I want to know generally what they'd like to accomplish, and roughly how. We all know (or should know) that there are factors which will complicate any President's plans. We also know that even in the best of circumstances, the President is not going to be hands-on actually doing anything. The President is going to do exactly what Trump said: assemble a cabinet, assemble teams, give them directives, and oversee their progress. A POTUS needs to be a high-level thinker, a leader. We don't want a control freak, micro-manager for POTUS. We do want someone smart. Someone tough. And someone thinking about the country- OUR country (sad we're at the point this needs to be specified). This is what qualifies Trump in my book, and that's why should he get the nomination, I'll support him. There are only three candidates as far as I'm concerned: Cruz, Carson, and Trump. I am supportive of them in that order. different than what? dude, i am CEO of one enterprise, CFO of a second, and President of a few others. you think i don't know what makes a good CEO? no, where you and i differ is that you think that swagger without substance makes a good CEO, and i think they should have both.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2015 10:38:42 GMT -5
that's cool. show away. but that is not going to get him the win, imo. what will the GOP do when he loses? If Trump gets the nomination, and provided the systematic voter fraud scheme is not too far gone. don't worry. if the systematic voter suppression system works, he won't have any trouble.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,208
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 20, 2015 11:27:49 GMT -5
that is Trump in a nutshell: he has interesting concepts, but when pressed on the details, the best he can bring is: "i will assemble a YOUGE team of BRILLIANT people, we will GET THE JOB DONE and UNDER BUDGET". and candidly, i am so sick of that bullshit line, that THIS is what i hear when he says it: "i have no fucking clue how to do it, in practical or political terms, but i am now going to run up the same bullshit surrender flag i always do, and declare victory" Well, I have a different philosophy completely when it comes to the role of the chief executive. I don't want a 39 point plan. I want to know what their vision for the country is, and I want to know generally what they'd like to accomplish, and roughly how. We all know (or should know) that there are factors which will complicate any President's plans. We also know that even in the best of circumstances, the President is not going to be hands-on actually doing anything. The President is going to do exactly what Trump said: assemble a cabinet, assemble teams, give them directives, and oversee their progress. A POTUS needs to be a high-level thinker, a leader. We don't want a control freak, micro-manager for POTUS. We do want someone smart. Someone tough. And someone thinking about the country- OUR country (sad we're at the point this needs to be specified). This is what qualifies Trump in my book, and that's why should he get the nomination, I'll support him. There are only three candidates as far as I'm concerned: Cruz, Carson, and Trump. I am supportive of them in that order. I am most interested in who they would appoint to the Supreme Court. Presidents come and go, Justices are there for what seems like forever and make rulings that have truly lasting impact.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 20, 2015 13:27:40 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 20, 2015 13:29:33 GMT -5
Well, I have a different philosophy completely when it comes to the role of the chief executive. I don't want a 39 point plan. I want to know what their vision for the country is, and I want to know generally what they'd like to accomplish, and roughly how. We all know (or should know) that there are factors which will complicate any President's plans. We also know that even in the best of circumstances, the President is not going to be hands-on actually doing anything. The President is going to do exactly what Trump said: assemble a cabinet, assemble teams, give them directives, and oversee their progress. A POTUS needs to be a high-level thinker, a leader. We don't want a control freak, micro-manager for POTUS. We do want someone smart. Someone tough. And someone thinking about the country- OUR country (sad we're at the point this needs to be specified). This is what qualifies Trump in my book, and that's why should he get the nomination, I'll support him. There are only three candidates as far as I'm concerned: Cruz, Carson, and Trump. I am supportive of them in that order. different than what? dude, i am CEO of one enterprise, CFO of a second, and President of a few others. you think i don't know what makes a good CEO? no, where you and i differ is that you think that swagger without substance makes a good CEO, and i think they should have both. CEO of what size enterprise? How many employees do you have, how many countries do you operate in? However, my main point to you is this: you are misreading Trump. If you think he's all swagger, and no substance-- you probably still don't understand Reagan.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2015 13:49:29 GMT -5
highest mark according to NBC. many other polling agencies had him over 30% in August.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2015 13:50:21 GMT -5
different than what? dude, i am CEO of one enterprise, CFO of a second, and President of a few others. you think i don't know what makes a good CEO? no, where you and i differ is that you think that swagger without substance makes a good CEO, and i think they should have both. CEO of what size enterprise? How many employees do you have, how many countries do you operate in? However, my main point to you is this: you are misreading Trump. If you think he's all swagger, and no substance-- you probably still don't understand Reagan. i didn't pass credentials because i am CEO of a large enterprise. i claimed it because i carefully observe what other CEO's do, and understand the basic job. i never said he is all swagger and no substance. i said his campaign is. correctly. but i will add the following: the substance that he has provided shows that he has no substance in terms of those topics. they are simple minded ideas that are uniformly terrible, imo.
|
|