Trump Alone at the Top

[Chef Jim]

Why is infrastructure spending seen as a liberal thing? I'd think both sides of the aisle would be invested in that... having good infrastructure is both good for the people and good for business.

 

It's not what they're spending money on it's how they're spending money on these things. How many billions of dollars have they thrown at infrastructure recently with what appears zero improvement of said infrastructure. I'm tired of throwing money at **** and seeing little or no improvement. In some cases we're going backwards. See our educational system.

[Dorkington]

That I can agree on, its frustrating throwing money at things and having it done poorly. Combination of lazy/corrupt management, and shady contractor deals/oversight in many instances. Seems we lack a certain amount of pride to do well for the greater good, on a whole. :/

[B-Man]

On Feb. 6, 2009 President Obama issued Executive Order 13502 that encourages federal agencies to "consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement." A project labor agreement requires contractors and subcontractors to pay union wages and to recognize collective bargaining agreements. The order "does not require" project labor agreements, but it’s reasonable to say that "encouragement" from the president is likely to carry considerable weight with federal agencies.

 

It is worth noting that the first President Bush prohibited project labor agreements on federal projects in 1992. President Clinton reversed that policy shortly after taking office in 1993. The second President Bush put it back in 2001. Now Obama has returned to Clinton’s policy.

 

We’ll leave it to you to decide whether that pattern reflects ideological differences or "paybacks."

[IDBillzFan]

 

It's not what they're spending money on it's how they're spending money on these things. How many billions of dollars have they thrown at infrastructure recently with what appears zero improvement of said infrastructure. I'm tired of throwing money at **** and seeing little or no improvement. In some cases we're going backwards. See our educational system.

 

I remember the only thing I ever saw as a result of Barry's donor distribution plan (also known as the Recovery Act) were signs on the road telling me that something was happening there as a part of the Recovery Act.

 

In reality, there was never anything happening anywhere in the vicinity of the sign, but we had a sign, dammit.

 

Recover Act was almost as successful as the Cash for Clunkers bill.

[Nanker]

Whoopsie!

"The media, along with Hillary Clinton and her supporters throughout the Democratic Party establishment, has pushed the line of attack against Trump for days. Now on Tuesday, President Barack Obama has said that Trump is “unfit” to serve as President over the matter. Even a group of anti-Trump congressional Republicans has gone after Trump on the matter.

But as Breitbart News and other new media have exposed Khan’s various deep political and legal connections to the Clintons—and to Muslim migration—the attack line has crumbled. Now, with Khan deleting his website in an apparent effort to hide his biographical information, the attack is falling apart even more."

There's a song stench of desperation in the air.

Mr. Kahn's hastily deleted website.

[keepthefaith]

 

It's not what they're spending money on it's how they're spending money on these things. How many billions of dollars have they thrown at infrastructure recently with what appears zero improvement of said infrastructure. I'm tired of throwing money at **** and seeing little or no improvement. In some cases we're going backwards. See our educational system.

Yes and I'm tired of new spending ideas without dealing with the deficits we already have and the train wreck of entitlements that is coming. If a President and house actually right-sized and re-prioritized government spending, it wouldn't be that hard a sell to spend a few bucks on infrastructure.

Edited August 2, 2016 by keepthefaith

[GG]

Whoopsie!

 

"The media, along with Hillary Clinton and her supporters throughout the Democratic Party establishment, has pushed the line of attack against Trump for days. Now on Tuesday, President Barack Obama has said that Trump is unfit to serve as President over the matter. Even a group of anti-Trump congressional Republicans has gone after Trump on the matter.

But as Breitbart News and other new media have exposed Khans various deep political and legal connections to the Clintonsand to Muslim migrationthe attack line has crumbled. Now, with Khan deleting his website in an apparent effort to hide his biographical information, the attack is falling apart even more."

There's a song stench of desperation in the air.

 

Mr. Kahn's hastily deleted website.

Our he took down the site because the trump nutjobs started harassing all the organizations that he listed on the site?

[Chef Jim]

Yes and I'm tired of new spending ideas without dealing with the deficits we already have and the train wreck of entitlements that is coming. If a President and house actually right-sized and re-prioritized government spending, it wouldn't be that hard a sell to spend a few bucks on infrastructure.

 

With the amount of ****ty roads we have here in the Bay Area I'm all for diverting current spending on infrastructure not creating new spending.

[Bob in Mich]

Couldn't sleep so I watched a movie - "The U.S. vs John Lennon". It centered on Lennon's anti-war activism and how Nixon used various government agencies to try to silence him - Justice Dept, FBI, Immigration, etc. Some of these efforts were legal, some not so much.

 

This got me thinking about a possible Trump administration. Does anyone think Trump will be above such actions? If, in his mind he is wronged by a rival, or anyone really, or if he is sued, will he be able to resist using the power of the presidency to retaliate? If his people or one of his children are caught red handed doing something illegal, will he be able to resist getting involved to cover up the incident?

 

If Trump gets elected, he will likely be impeached, imo.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Bob in Mich

[Magox]

Our he took down the site because the trump nutjobs started harassing all the organizations that he listed on the site?

 

 

This is the more plausible answer. Breitbart is the Dailykos (on steroids) of the (new) right.

 

 

On a side note, this Trump campaign has devolved from a **** show to a **** storm.

[Observer]

 

 

On a side note, this Trump campaign has devolved from a **** show to a **** storm.

 

And yet you have peple here who keep following him because "he's not Hillary."

 

Even his own party is starting to get how dangerous he is. I just wish they'd shift to Johnson instead of Hillary. Just shows that the left, right, and many here are deeply invested in the current two parties.

 

Bush's campaign manager, Whitman, McCain...the parade of defections has only just begun.

[Magox]

 

And yet you have peple here who keep following him because "he's not Hillary."

 

Even his own party is starting to get how dangerous he is. I just wish they'd shift to Johnson instead of Hillary. Just shows that the left, right, and many here are deeply invested in the current two parties.

 

Bush's campaign manager, Whitman, McCain...the parade of defections has only just begun.

 

Oh, did you know that Trump is leading Ayotte in the polls in N.H?

 

[/dev/null]

Couldn't sleep so I watched a movie - "The U.S. vs John Lennon". It centered on Lennon's anti-war activism and how Nixon used various government agencies to try to silence him - Justice Dept, FBI, Immigration, etc. Some of these efforts were legal, some not so much.

 

This got me thinking about a possible Trump administration. Does anyone think Trump will be above such actions? If, in his mind he is wronged by a rival, or anyone really, or if he is sued, will he be able to resist using the power of the presidency to retaliate? If his people or one of his children are caught red handed doing something illegal, will he be able to resist getting involved to cover up the incident?

At least when Obama did this he made it look legal and had underlings take the fall for him

[Nanker]

 

 

This is the more plausible answer. Breitbart is the Dailykos (on steroids) of the (new) right.

 

 

On a side note, this Trump campaign has devolved from a **** show to a **** storm.

This story has legs now.

One would think the Clintonistas would be a little more careful in choosing their attack dogs. DWS, Bloomberg, Buffett, and now a sleazy lawyer. Who's next - Alan Grayson?

[ALF]

Trump spokeswoman: Obama probably caused Khan's death

Donald Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson said President Obama, who took office in 2009, may be to blame for Capt. Humayun Khan's death in 2004.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/08/03/katrina-pierson-obama-trump-khan-war-cooper-intv-ac.cnn

[KD in CA]

Couldn't sleep so I watched a movie - "The U.S. vs John Lennon". It centered on Lennon's anti-war activism and how Nixon used various government agencies to try to silence him - Justice Dept, FBI, Immigration, etc. Some of these efforts were legal, some not so much.

 

This got me thinking about a possible Trump administration. Does anyone think Trump will be above such actions? If, in his mind he is wronged by a rival, or anyone really, or if he is sued, will he be able to resist using the power of the presidency to retaliate? If his people or one of his children are caught red handed doing something illegal, will he be able to resist getting involved to cover up the incident?

 

If Trump gets elected, he will likely be impeached, imo.

 

Why would you expect anything else from either Hillary or Trump considering the Obama Administration has been using those same tactics against political rivals without consequence for the past 8 years?

On Feb. 6, 2009 President Obama issued Executive Order 13502 that encourages federal agencies to "consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement." A project labor agreement requires contractors and subcontractors to pay union wages and to recognize collective bargaining agreements. The order "does not require" project labor agreements, but it’s reasonable to say that "encouragement" from the president is likely to carry considerable weight with federal agencies.

 

It is worth noting that the first President Bush prohibited project labor agreements on federal projects in 1992. President Clinton reversed that policy shortly after taking office in 1993. The second President Bush put it back in 2001. Now Obama has returned to Clinton’s policy.

 

We’ll leave it to you to decide whether that pattern reflects ideological differences or "paybacks."

 

Ah yes, labor unions. America's favorite form of organized crime.

 

And one reason to vote for Trump.

[Magox]

This story has legs now.

One would think the Clintonistas would be a little more careful in choosing their attack dogs. DWS, Bloomberg, Buffett, and now a sleazy lawyer. Who's next - Alan Grayson?

 

What's the story, that he has been a Democrat and a Hillary supporter for a while now? No, the story is that Trump is a buffoon who steps into the Democrats traps on a near daily basis. And you know what? The Democrats have a legion of operatives posing as everyday citizens who will be people that the general public will sympathize with because of their backgrounds who are going to go on the attack against Trump.

 

And you know what? Trump is going to take the bait every !@#$ing time and continue to punch down and bleed support. He can't help himself.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Magox

[4merper4mer]

Couldn't sleep so I watched a movie - "The U.S. vs John Lennon". It centered on Lennon's anti-war activism and how Nixon used various government agencies to try to silence him - Justice Dept, FBI, Immigration, etc. Some of these efforts were legal, some not so much.

 

This got me thinking about a possible Trump administration. Does anyone think Trump will be above such actions? If, in his mind he is wronged by a rival, or anyone really, or if he is sued, will he be able to resist using the power of the presidency to retaliate? If his people or one of his children are caught red handed doing something illegal, will he be able to resist getting involved to cover up the incident?

 

If Trump gets elected, he will likely be impeached, imo.

I am worried he might use the IRS against his political enemies.

[Nanker]

 

What's the story, that he has been a Democrat and a Hillary supporter for a while now? No, the story is that Trump is a buffoon who steps into the Democrats traps on a near daily basis. And you know what? The Democrats have a legion of operatives posing as everyday citizens who will be people that the general public will sympathize with because of their backgrounds who are going to go on the attack against Trump.

 

And you know what? Trump is going to take the bait every !@#$ing time and continue to punch down and bleed support. He can't help himself.

Very true.

[4merper4mer]

Whether or not Trump has been in this to help Hillary all along is still in question IMO but it does strike me as odd that his direct attacks against Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, etc. were the earmark of his primary campaign and his focus during the general has been himself as a victim and the family of a fallen soldier.

 

He is doing enough saying things like "rigged system" that he will have a constituency after the election. This constituency will have drawn a few dems, but will be something like 85% drawn from Republicans. Although I don't think Hillary will have coattails because she is so terrible, I do think there are enough existing moron R's in congress that she will get whatever she wants. The Republicans will be damaged moving forward as Trump has helped fracture party unity. It is hardly his fault alone even if he is trying to help HRC. The establishment opened the door wide for someone like him to walk in and start ripping the place apart. They are mostly to blame for not having the finger on the pulse of their constituency or not caring about it.

 

Whether or not Trump is in on it doesn't really matter. What's happening is what's happening.

 

It's happening on the Dem side a little too with the Bernie nuts but those people can and have been controlled by the dems for 100 years. This is probably just a hiccup until they can be distracted by the next evil Koch brother or whatever.

 

The part I don't get is all the Hillary love coming from supposed Republicans and Conservatives. It is very disconcerting. And it's love. She's......a........commie. She wants the government in control of everything. Why does it matter if your particular sector will be the last one to go? And it doesn't matter if she is a commie for the wrong reason....like personal gain....which she seemingly is now after years as a true believer, or a commie for altruistic reasons like hippie Bernie. She's still a commie and generations will suffer for it.

 

IMO we're faced with 4 years of a nut job being crazy and getting nothing done or some number greater than 4 years of commies being in control and solidifying their grip on the last holdout....albeit a tenuous one....to a system that actually works.

 

In truth it is probably already too late with or without Trump even running because even the supposed most ethical among us like James Comey have proven to be completely and utterly subservient to their masters. Despite their message, Cruz, Paul, Rubio, and whoever else would have been shut down one way or the other. It would have just been a different spin and the Hillary lovers would have gotten their way.

Edited August 3, 2016 by 4merper4mer