So much winning...

[JAFBF]

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

[JAFBF]

[JAFBF]

 

 

Need to do some digging, may have a gem later.

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

7 minutes ago, JAFBF said:

 

 

Need to do some digging, may have a gem later.

 

All the libscum think Obummer is responsible still for anything good.  They are mind fucked.

[JAFBF]

This one is more local.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/05/08/trump-says-gm-will-sell-lordstown-ohio-plant-to-workhorse-for-electric-truck-production.html

 

 

[Vambo]

Pentagon approves plan to shift $1.5B for wall along US-Mexico border

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pentagon-approves-plan-to-shift-1-5b-for-wall-along-us-mexico-border

The funds are being reprogrammed from the Afghan Security Forces Fund, a project focused on chemical weapons, Air Force programs, savings related to a military retirement system, and coalition support funds. The Pentagon is also expected, at some point, to transfer up to $3.6 billion from military construction budgets to pay for wall construction, but details of those plans have yet to be announced.

 

[Vambo]

Dems fume as Trump moves to amend DC's July 4 celebration, possibly address the nation

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-fume-as-trump-moves-to-amend-july-4-celebrations-address-the-nation

President Trump has apparently taken charge of this year’s Fourth of July celebration in Washington, D.C., and will possibly give a personal address, angering some Democrats who fear the president will politicize the holiday.

City officials in the nation's capital were notified of Trump’s plan to address the nation on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and move the traditional fireworks display from the Capitol Reflecting Pool to the nearby West Potomac Park, the Washington Post reported.

 

[MLD Woody]

Foxconn

[tiamat63]

Vote 3rd party

[Vambo]

[DieHardBrownsFan]

1 hour ago, Vambo said:

Dems fume as Trump moves to amend DC's July 4 celebration, possibly address the nation

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-fume-as-trump-moves-to-amend-july-4-celebrations-address-the-nation

President Trump has apparently taken charge of this year’s Fourth of July celebration in Washington, D.C., and will possibly give a personal address, angering some Democrats who fear the president will politicize the holiday.

City officials in the nation's capital were notified of Trump’s plan to address the nation on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and move the traditional fireworks display from the Capitol Reflecting Pool to the nearby West Potomac Park, the Washington Post reported.

 

I believe we should do away with MLK day, and make it President Trump MAGA day.

[Westside Steve]

2 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

I believe we should do away with MLK day, and make it President Trump MAGA day.

Nah we already have 364 President Trump Maga days. 

😉🌭🇺🇸⚾️🥧

WSS

[calfoxwc]

this is dumb. "Vote third party" to have Pres Trump lose the elction. Seriously?

The trade deficit with China was way over 300 billion...a YEAR: ACtually, now that I brought his over - it is 500 billion a YEAR. A HALF TRILLION a YEAR. They talked about this on Fox news - on Ingram's show -

One reason for the trade war is that Trump views the trade deficit as a scorecard, and he believes tariffs will reduce our $500 billion deficit with China (that's over 2 percent of gross domestic product; our China goods deficit was $540 billion last year, offset by a $40 billion surplus in services) 

for just the third quarter:

According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the United States' current account deficit totaled $124.8 billion in the third quarter of 2018, an increase from the second quarter of the same year. This means the U.S. continues to spend more on its imports than it is on its exports.

Clinton, Bush and obaMao talked about how they were going to fix it. But they took the easy political CYA way out. The only way to fix the problem, after the Chinese gov promised Pres Trump they'd stop the stealing of our tech, help fix the deficit, etc etc.... - they completely reneged on that promise. They left Pres Trump "holding the bag" for their broken promises, so he is trying to get them to come to the table and really fix the problems.

   And the dems are terrified he will succeed, and they will lose their chance to win the presidency, so they are fighting him over it.

Seriously?

   Laura Ingrahm had to CEO's on her show - one CEO staunchly defended Pres Trump - saying it's the only way to fix the unfair, extremely costly deal for America.

The other CEO, was of the American Apparel and Footwear Association. He said they lost 38,000 bucks because of the tariffs.

The stupid thing is - he would rather continue the deficit because they can send their contracts over to China, and have them made so much cheaper, and have a chance? of making money on the sales back over here.

The trouble is, a half trillion a YEAR? over ALL THESE YEARS? we can NOT continue like that. Pres Trump has the courage to solve the problem, if possible, but he has the corrupt dems fighting him, etc. Which encourages the Chinese to continue the problems, given the political pressure Pres Trump lives with his entire presidency so far -

    Yes, the tariffs are tough on some of our industries in the short term. But in the long term, once the problems are fixed, the benefit will be outstanding.

    But the chinese do NOT want to lose their advantage, and apparently the dirty corrupt dems and their hacks won't want the chinese to relent and actually solve the problems.

Like poverty - the corrupt dems do NOT want it fixed so they can fight a false fight vs Pres Trump on dirty political bases.

 

On 5/11/2019 at 10:44 AM, tiamat63 said:

Vote 3rd party

 

[LogicIsForSquares]

If the tariffs start pinching some of his supporters and they raise hell, Trump will either turn on his base or give in because he needs to be loved. Can be a coin flip.

[LogicIsForSquares]

How does Kim Kardashian feel about soy beans?

[Westside Steve]

This really is an example of one of those ridiculous situations that many of us attack from the right or the left and that is how the different parties switch hats on a regular basis. One side or the other will loudly Bang the Drum that the Chinese are taking advantage of us. Stealing our intellectual property and flooding the Market with cheaper goods than we can build. Then immediately turn around and cry that we have to give in to the Chinese or they will crush us.

The media loves a crisis and heck, they've already got the trade War graphics ready to air!

WSS

[OldBrownsFan]

1 hour ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

If the tariffs start pinching some of his supporters and they raise hell, Trump will either turn on his base or give in because he needs to be loved. Can be a coin flip.

One advantage a repressive communist country like China will always have over our country is they do not allow dissent. Even if the tariffs hurt them much worse than us they will have the ability to deal with that pain without protests or dissent. In our country however any pain felt will be met with both dissent and protests. I'm glad to see Trump try to fix some of the terrible trade deals but China is probably in a better position to handle any economic pain coming with tariffs.

[tiamat63]

9 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

this is dumb. "Vote third party" to have Pres Trump lose the elction. Seriously?

The trade deficit with China was way over 300 billion...a YEAR: ACtually, now that I brought his over - it is 500 billion a YEAR. A HALF TRILLION a YEAR. They talked about this on Fox news - on Ingram's show -

One reason for the trade war is that Trump views the trade deficit as a scorecard, and he believes tariffs will reduce our $500 billion deficit with China (that's over 2 percent of gross domestic product; our China goods deficit was $540 billion last year, offset by a $40 billion surplus in services) 

for just the third quarter:

According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the United States' current account deficit totaled $124.8 billion in the third quarter of 2018, an increase from the second quarter of the same year. This means the U.S. continues to spend more on its imports than it is on its exports.

Clinton, Bush and obaMao talked about how they were going to fix it. But they took the easy political CYA way out. The only way to fix the problem, after the Chinese gov promised Pres Trump they'd stop the stealing of our tech, help fix the deficit, etc etc.... - they completely reneged on that promise. They left Pres Trump "holding the bag" for their broken promises, so he is trying to get them to come to the table and really fix the problems.

   And the dems are terrified he will succeed, and they will lose their chance to win the presidency, so they are fighting him over it.

Seriously?

   Laura Ingrahm had to CEO's on her show - one CEO staunchly defended Pres Trump - saying it's the only way to fix the unfair, extremely costly deal for America.

The other CEO, was of the American Apparel and Footwear Association. He said they lost 38,000 bucks because of the tariffs.

The stupid thing is - he would rather continue the deficit because they can send their contracts over to China, and have them made so much cheaper, and have a chance? of making money on the sales back over here.

The trouble is, a half trillion a YEAR? over ALL THESE YEARS? we can NOT continue like that. Pres Trump has the courage to solve the problem, if possible, but he has the corrupt dems fighting him, etc. Which encourages the Chinese to continue the problems, given the political pressure Pres Trump lives with his entire presidency so far -

    Yes, the tariffs are tough on some of our industries in the short term. But in the long term, once the problems are fixed, the benefit will be outstanding.

    But the chinese do NOT want to lose their advantage, and apparently the dirty corrupt dems and their hacks won't want the chinese to relent and actually solve the problems.

Like poverty - the corrupt dems do NOT want it fixed so they can fight a false fight vs Pres Trump on dirty political bases.

 

 

Vote 3rd party because Fuck the Dems and Republicans - that's why.   This country needs capable, intelligent, compassionate and strong leadership invested in all our people's. Not a whiny man child nor a self righteous identity politics pandering has been. 

[OldBrownsFan]

3 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

Vote 3rd party because Fuck the Dems and Republicans - that's why.   This country needs capable, intelligent, compassionate and strong leadership invested in all our people's. Not a whiny man child nor a self righteous identity politics pandering has been. 

If you believe both parties are equally as bad (as you seem to)  it makes sense to vote third party but if you believe one party even with it's faults is still substantially better than the other I would disagree about voting third party.

[Westside Steve]

8 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

Vote 3rd party because Fuck the Dems and Republicans - that's why.   This country needs capable, intelligent, compassionate and strong leadership invested in all our people's. Not a whiny man child nor a self righteous identity politics pandering has been. 

Unfortunately that's more of a feel-good measure that it is a logical step toward what you might want in government. Depending on where you are one party or the other is going to be somewhat more aligned with your philosophy. Let's say they are at 45% each or thereabouts. What's just arbitrarily say that someone would lean left so he's going to vote for the third party candidate that's a little bit more left. That way you split the vote have the conservative wins the election.

Then you have four years to pretend you're above the fray by saying well I voted for XXX

WSS

[tiamat63]

5 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

If you believe both parties are equally as bad (as you seem to)  it makes sense to vote third party but if you believe one party even with it's faults is still substantially better than the other I would disagree about voting third party.

Then I would have to disagree with that persons logic and reason as both parties are demonstrably fiscally irresponsible, stuck-in-neutral, bloated leaches. 

[tiamat63]

1 minute ago, Westside Steve said:

Unfortunately that's more of a feel-good measure that it is a logical step toward what you might want in government. Depending on where you are one party or the other is going to be somewhat more aligned with your philosophy. Let's say they are at 45% each or thereabouts. What's just arbitrarily say that someone would lean left so he's going to vote for the third party candidate that's a little bit more left. That way you split the vote have the conservative wins the election.

Then you have four years to pretend you're above the fray by saying well I voted for XXX

WSS

No,  it's not. Voting for either major party believing we'll see this magical and badly needed significant change is "feel good".  Because as the definition of insanity goes...  That's what we keep getting. 

My vote is an endorsement for the person I see most right to lead our country.   Your logic doesn't hold up. 

[OldBrownsFan]

1 minute ago, tiamat63 said:

Then I would have to disagree with that persons logic and reason as both parties are demonstrably fiscally irresponsible, stuck-in-neutral, bloated leachesleaches. 

The logic is simply if the lesser of two evils is the only realistic option it is a better route to go. A half loaf is better than none.

[LogicIsForSquares]

2 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

The logic is simply if the lesser of two evils is the only realistic option it is a better route to go. A half loaf is better than none.

The problem comes when people accept their half loaf and tout how great it is, forgetting that it is a compromise. 

[tiamat63]

8 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

The logic is simply if the lesser of two evils is the only realistic option it is a better route to go. A half loaf is better than none.

Lesser of two evils and eventually all you have in office is evil.. 

As a Christian man I feel you would actually have appreciated my approach. 

But as a country we are unable to have a collective talk with one another on what we would really like to see, thus, we're continually handed shitty candidates.  Then time and time again we say "lesser of two evils" With that being incredibly subjective to some people.   I was told voting for Hillary was for the lesser evil.  I don't believe that. 

Most people are scared of meaningful change and tend to 'run home to Mommy' (if you will) with their vote when faced with having to process the gravity of an honest to god beneficial candidate for all.   

Being unable to shout "libtard" or "nazi!!" has people so freaked out that they'll fight to stay on a losing course. 

[Westside Steve]

15 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

No,  it's not. Voting for either major party believing we'll see this magical and badly needed significant change is "feel good".  Because as the definition of insanity goes...  That's what we keep getting. 

My vote is an endorsement for the person I see most right to lead our country.   Your logic doesn't hold up. 

Did you vote third party in 2016?

(actually, believing that a politician can make you happy is the true definition of insanity)

WSS

[tiamat63]

7 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

Did you vote third party in 2016?

(actually, believing that a politician can make you happy is the true definition of insanity)

WSS

I did.  After first liking Trump and his TPP/NAFTA stance, then he kept talking... 😭

Almost didn't vote until I found a slightly flawed yet decent candidate. 

[Westside Steve]

3 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

I did.  After first liking Trump and his TPP/NAFTA stance, then he kept talking... 😭

Almost didn't vote until I found a slightly flawed yet decent candidate. 

And who was it? I'm going to guess Gary Johnson rather than Jill Stein. But just a guess.

WSS

[OldBrownsFan]

18 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

Lesser of two evils and eventually all you have in office is evil.. 

As a Christian man I feel you would actually have appreciated my approach. 

But as a country we are unable to have a collective talk with one another on what we would really like to see, thus, we're continually handed shitty candidates.  Then time and time again we say "lesser of two evils" With that being incredibly subjective to some people.   I was told voting for Hillary was for the lesser evil.  I don't believe that. 

Most people are scared of meaningful change and tend to 'run home to Mommy' (if you will) with their vote when faced with having to process the gravity of an honest to god beneficial candidate for all.   

Being unable to shout "libtard" or "nazi!!" has people so freaked out that they'll fight to stay on a losing course. 

I believed Trump was the lesser of two evils over Hillary Clinton. He has rewarded Christians for their support by being the most pro life president since Roe, his strong support for Israel and standing for religious liberty. One way of thinking (and it is true) that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.  The flip side of that is being pragmatic that less evil is better than more. Let's remember there are very few saintly people in politics in general.  My candidate did not win the primary so I had a choice in the general between someone like Clinton who was so pro abortion she supports partial birth abortion and legalizing late term abortions up to time of delivery. Trump was taking the pro life position. On issue after issue I sided with positions taken by Trump over Clinton. That made voting for an imperfect Trump the reason he was worth voting for over the alternative Clinton. If I had voted for any other candidate who realistically had zero chance of winning I would be helping Clinton win who I viewed as being far worse on the issues.