Politics

SpaceNut · 2017-04-03 18:40:21

Trump lies so often that this image is most appropriate

http://politicaldig.com/politifact-just … nts-false/

Trump’s Latest Move On ‘Blind Trust’ Proves His Fraudulent Mind Has No Limits fact, the con-man-in-chief just devised a way to go around his so-called “blind trust,” allowing him to access funds from his business accounts whenever he likesfact, the con-man-in-chief just devised a way to go around his so-called “blind trust,” allowing him to access funds from his business accounts whenever he likes...

People Are Sick And Tired Of Trump Golfing Every Weekend. A group of people vandalized the Trump National Golf Club in Virginia this past weekend, where they dug holes into the fairway of the course’s 13th hole and spray painted the word “RESIST.” To which they should be punished for damaging property.

The Apple has not fallen far from the tree as President Trump has granted both daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner powerful positions in his administration. But they hold hundreds of millions in assets and continue to benefit from their business empire. So what steps have they taken (if any) to remove any conflicts of interest from there seats of power. Trump deserves to be impeached for his conflicts of interests and kicked out of the White House, as well as the rest of his family.

Americans’ Fears About Water Pollution Hit A 16-Year High a new Gallup poll, 63 percent of respondents said they worried “a great deal” about pollution of drinking water, while 57 percent of overall respondents also said they were concerned about pollution of rivers, lakes and reservoirs. A report released last year found that 5.2 million Americans’ drinking water supplies are tainted with cancer-linked synthetic chemicals. This will not get any better with the due to the Trump administration rolling back water protections.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-03 22:33:38

If your concerned about water pollution, take a look at this!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/graphene-sie … 00721.html
This is an example of nanotechnology!

The Apple has not fallen far from the tree as President Trump has granted both daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner powerful positions in his administration. But they hold hundreds of millions in assets and continue to benefit from their business empire. So what steps have they taken (if any) to remove any conflicts of interest from there seats of power. Trump deserves to be impeached for his conflicts of interests and kicked out of the White House, as well as the rest of his family.

Is it even possible to remove conflicts of interest? I think it is not without asking Trump to do something unreasonable like give up all his wealth and take a vow of poverty while he is President! There is no law that says all presidents must be poor, and if someone was poor, like say a bum off the street, I don't think it would be a good idea to make such a person President of the United States! President's should have a record of success before becoming President, if someone is a total loser, he shouldn't be elected President!

RobertDyck · 2017-04-04 03:18:16

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Is it even possible to remove conflicts of interest? I think it is not without asking Trump to do something unreasonable like give up all his wealth and take a vow of poverty while he is President! There is no law that says all presidents must be poor, and if someone was poor, like say a bum off the street, I don't think it would be a good idea to make such a person President of the United States! President's should have a record of success before becoming President, if someone is a total loser, he shouldn't be elected President!

The president receives a large salary. A billionaire like Trump may scoff at it, but regular people would see the 6-figure salary as very generous. In addition, the president gets many perks he doesn't have to pay for:

a giant house to live in, complete with full-time chef
helicopter to carry him from the yard of that house to the airport
private airplane. And not just a business jet, it's a private 747 (Air Force One).
second residence, with extremely large grounds and multiple "lodges", located in a national park (Camp David)
private limousine with driver

Most people would be extremely happy with the perks. But not Trump, he has to use Mar-a-Lago with profits to his own business.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-04 05:15:42

CEOs of large corporations get paid many times the salary of the President of the United States! Don't you think the salary of the President of the United States ought to be competitive to what many Fortune 500 companies are paying their CEOs? After all the United States has the largest economy in the World and is the sole World's superpower! You want some extraordinary person in the White House, you want someone who can do the job well. The Presidency is not a "lottery ticket" that someone can win! The Presidency is not for ordinary people, if a person is ordinary, he is not good enough for the job! If there is not some major accomplishment in his life before becoming President, he is not likely to be a good President, and I want to have a good President! Trump is not like me, that is why he would make a better President than I would, Obama on the other hand accomplished nothing out of his own hand, all he did was make speeches, there is not a single actual accomplishment he could point to before becoming President! At least Jimmy Carter fought in World War II!

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-04 05:25:21

kbd512 wrote:

I don't care if our President previously lived on the street or in a gold plated palace. All I care about is that our President has the right sort of policies for our country. I don't vote for people because they have a sliver tongue or based upon what their previous position in our government was, if any. I want to know that our new hires have the requisite motivation to do whatever the job requires and that they have demonstrated the ability to lead.

I do actually, if someone is not good enough to run a major Fortune 500 company, then he probably shouldn't be running our country! Why should the requirements to be an astronaut be higher than the requirements to be President? Now these are requirements the American People should hold their President too, that is we should have high standards for our President, we should not be electing someone because we feel sorry for him or because he is a member of an aggrieved minority, we should not be looking for a woman to elect, or a gay person. (that box was already checked by the way with President James Buchannan) Trivial facts about our Presidents don't matter, we should not be electing our President's because of them. If a US President is just like your next door neighbor, chances are, he wasn't a good President.

"America First" is absolutely the right policy to have. Our President is not the President of the World. That means he or she shall represent Americans first, the rest of the world second, and humanity always. The leader of the free world needs to value individual liberties, free market principles, and equality before the law. The man or woman selected must respect their fellow Americans as well as people from foreign countries, even people they don't like.
As I've stated previously, the government that governs best is not the government that governs most or least. The government that governs most effectively and efficiently governs best. We haven't had a government that's governed effectively or efficiently in quite some time. President Trump seems more than willing to listen to anyone willing to compromise, so long as that compromise is in the best interest of the American people.
Here's a list of things that are definitely not in the best interest of the American people:
1. An energy policy that increases energy costs for American families and companies
2. A trade policy that favors foreign products and services over domestic products and services
3. A taxation policy that incentivizes American companies to move their manufacturing operations to other countries
4. An education system that does not adequately prepare students to become globally competitive workers
5. A byzantine regulatory policy that is nearly impossible to comply with
6. A failing health care system that incentivizes immoral behavior from insurance providers
7. A military used for purposes other than defending our country and our allies
8. A procurement system that incentivizes irresponsible behavior on the part of government contractors
9. An infrastructure investment plan that does not improve the flow of people and products
10. A scientific investment plan that does not address the most pressing issues first, namely energy independence
If those issues are adequately addressed, then Americans will live long and prosper. President Trump has a herculean task set before him.

GW Johnson · 2017-04-04 13:18:11

The government exists to provide those things that private concerns either cannot or will not provide. It CANNOT be run like a business because it cannot BE a business. Only some of the management skills carry over. Some do, many do not. It is a more-or-less unique function. This is true at all levels, from local to national, and it applies whether a democracy or a dictatorship.

People skills, communication skills, and managing a group's budget carry over. Little else. As for business executives, the better ones I have seen almost invariably came from smaller organizations. There's just something about the anonymity of giant organizations that lets people do great evil to other people, so I rank people skills low with the majority I have seen. Communication is 50-50 good-bad, in my experience. Managing group budgets is usually pretty good, money being the only thing they care about in business schools (certainly not ethics).

So being "good at running a Fortune 500 company" has very little to do with running a well-functioning executive branch, in turn different from being a good legislator, and in turn yet again different from being a good jurist. Only some of the necessary skills are in common.

Given the bankruptcy record, there's some question whether Mr. Trump is actually any good at running Fortune 500 companies (a fact that will set Tom off again on another irrelevant tirade just because I mentioned it). But as I just said, that has little to do with running an executive branch of government.

We desperately need presidents who succeed. I hope he does more good than bad. But they ALL do both good and bad.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-04-04 13:28:05)

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-04 15:18:00

GW Johnson wrote:

The government exists to provide those things that private concerns either cannot or will not provide. It CANNOT be run like a business because it cannot BE a business. Only some of the management skills carry over. Some do, many do not. It is a more-or-less unique function. This is true at all levels, from local to national, and it applies whether a democracy or a dictatorship.

So only a hobo or a "community organizer" can run the government? You see people who do not know how to make money can certainly spend yours! Obama has absolutely no experience in making money, Trump does! But when someone can keep on reaching into your pocket, he doesn't need to know how to make money, all he has to do is steal yours!

People skills, communication skills, and managing a group's budget carry over. Little else. As for business executives, the better ones I have seen almost invariably came from smaller organizations.

Less successful organizations! That is like saying that the better athletes are the ones that do not earn bronze, silver, or gold medals.

There's just something about the anonymity of giant organizations that lets people do great evil to other people,

That's only true of middle management. Large organizations can have lots of screw ups and still keep on going for quite a long while, by the way the Government is a large organization, someone who runs a large organization, can probabky run government better than someone who has not that experience.

so I rank people skills low with the majority I have seen. Communication is 50-50 good-bad, in my experience. Managing group budgets is usually pretty good, money being the only thing they care about in business schools (certainly not ethics).

It is much easier to steal, not getting caught is the hard part, but one does not need business skills if one is simply going to steal money, people running the government can do it legally, I should know, I had my money stolen by the government many times! Last time was during the snow storm, you see I slept late, because I work late, my wife called me up saying they were towing my car. I walked up to the tow truck driver I said, "Okay, I'll move my car so you can plow the road, he said I needed to pay him $88 dollars and he'll unhitch he car. Well I didn't have $88 with me, and it didn't look like such hard work to unhitch the car, instead of spending time towing my car to the pound he could go on the next car and clear the road of cars that much faster so the road can be plowed, but he said he couldn't do that, so he towed the car and charged me $300 for all the hard work he did to steal it, now you know my weekly salary is around $600, it didn't take him long to tow the car to another part of the same town, that's an east $300 per car and there were a lot of cars they were towing, you know what I call that? Legalized theft! Government steals money, that is what they do!

So being "good at running a Fortune 500 company" has very little to do with running a well-functioning executive branch, in turn different from being a good legislator, and in turn yet again different from being a good jurist. Only some of the necessary skills are in common.
Given the bankruptcy record, there's some question whether Mr. Trump is actually any good at running Fortune 500 companies (a fact that will set Tom off again on another irrelevant tirade just because I mentioned it). But as I just said, that has little to do with running an executive branch of government.
We desperately need presidents who succeed. I hope he does more good than bad. But they ALL do both good and bad.
GW

RobertDyck · 2017-04-04 17:29:15

Tom, I'm in Canada. This argument of a businessman is "been there, done that". In 1984 a businessman won the nomination of the Conservative Party in Canada. He was CEO of a multi-billion company, so his supporters hoped he would know how to run a large organization, and would know how to manage money. They also hoped that since he wasn't a career politician, he would be honest, would do what he said he would do. He won the election, became Prime Minister of Canada. His election promises: eliminate the deficit, reduce the debt, reduce taxes. This would be accomplished by: reduce government spending, reduce the number of individuals hired in the civil service. Once elected what he did was: increase the deficit, triple the debt, increase taxes. He increased government spending, and increased the number of individuals in the federal civil service. To put numbers on that: on election day 1984 the deficit was $38 billion, the largest deficit in Canadian history...up to that point. On election day 1993 the deficit was $42 billion. In each case there was a change of government, so the deficit changed after the election, but that's what it was on election day. And the debt: on election day 1984 it was $150 billion, and election day 1993 it was $453 billion. I could cite sources for those numbers if you want.

The election of 1984 resulted in the largest majority in Canadian history. Actually, there were 2 elections previous that resulted in proportionately as many MPs, but it was equal to the previous all-time high, and the last one was in the 1950s so it was a generation since anyone saw a majority that large. But the total number of seats in the House had increased, so in terms of shear numbers of MPs (representatives) it was the largest majority ever. They got re-elected in 1988, still with a majority, but a reduced majority. But in 1993 they went from majority in Parliament to only 2 Members elected to the House. Under Canadian parliamentary rules, they were considered no longer to be a party.

At that time the party was known as "Progressive Conservative Party". In order to have any chance of getting elected, they had to merge with the Reform Party. The merged party is now know as the "Conservative Party of Canada".

So now you guys have Trump. Uh huh. From my perspective: been there, done that. The result in our case was one of the two parties major parties in Canada, one of the only two that had ever formed the federal government of Canada, had ceased to exist. Now you guys have Trump. I'm expecting Trump to kill the GOP. Just like Brian Mulroney killed the PC Party of Canada. The question is whether Trump will do it in one or two terms.

Another bit of Canadian history. Just a few months before the election of 1993, the PC Party convinced Mulroney to step down, let someone else lead their party in the 1993 election. Voters were highly skeptical, they pointed out that party may have changed leader, but the rest of the party cronies were the same. However, they were willing to hear what the new party leader had to say. The PC Party even selected a woman as their leader, the first time in Canadian history. But during the election campaign, she didn't say anything. Until one reporter cornered her, and asked her bluntly "What is this election about?" Her response was "An election is not a time to discuss policy. An election is a time to discuss personalities. We can discuss policy after I'm elected." Ohhhhhhhh, that was so bad! In reality the PC Party had no chance of winning that election, but that one statement was the difference between them losing the election vs losing their party.

And lastly: there were serious allegations that Brian Mulroney took kick-backs on deals to purchase military helicopters and aircraft. The helicopter deal was cancelled by the new government in 1994. However, it was too late to cancel the purchase of Airbus aircraft. The Canadian military still has those aircraft. Two are configured mid-air refuelling of Canadian fighter jets and other military jets, two more are configured as utility aircraft. They can be used as cargo aircraft for military logistics, or seats installed for troop transport, or hospital beds for mass MedEvac. The last aircraft is also utility, and can be configured for the same purposes, but it has one more "kit" that is usually installed. It's the Canadian equivalent to "Air Force One", with leather seats, bar, etc. The new government had the RCMP (Canadian federal police) investigate Brian Mulroney for kick-backs. However, he was lawyer, and hired high-priced corporate lawyers. He sued for slander. His lawsuit shut down the RCMP investigation. Not only did he get away with it, but the government was required to pay him $10 million in legal fees.

So now you have Trump. Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-04-04 20:51:35)

GW Johnson · 2017-04-04 18:47:57

I did not see one single thing in Tom's post #841 above that had anything at all to do with what I wrote in my post #840 above!

I did see some relevant stuff in RobertDyck's post #842 above, albeit tangential to what I was trying to say.

What I did see in Tom's post 841 above is confirmation of what I said in post 827 above, which is:

""What I see in your responses to things you don't like is (1) trying to divert attention with fake political facts like your "Lincoln = freedom caucus", and (2) trying to divert attention with false claims that I (or others) said something that we most certainly did not say.""

Both are symptoms of isolation in an "echo chamber", as I said in post 827 above. Political belief systems are simply not fact. As I have often said in these forums, I do not believe in either Democrat or Tom's Republican political belief systems. They are demonstrably BULLSHIT. There is no nicer way to put that observation. Sorry.

I suggest to the moderators of these forums that factual content should become another criterion for whether to delete something or not.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-04-04 19:09:11)

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-04 19:02:17

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom, I'm in Canada. This argument of a business man is "been there, done that". In 1984 a businessman won the nomination of the Conservative Party in Canada. He was CEO of a multi-billion company, so his supporters hoped he would know how to run a large organization, and would know how to manage money. They also hoped that since he wasn't a career politician, he would be honest, would do what he said he would do. He won the election, became Prime Minister of Canada. His election promises: eliminate the deficit, reduce the debt, reduce taxes. This would be accomplished by: reduce government spending, reduce the number of individuals hired in the civil service. Once elected what he did was: increase the deficit, triple the debt, increase taxes. He increased government spending, and increased the number of individuals in the federal civil service. To put numbers on that: on election day 1984 the deficit was $38 billion, the largest deficit in Canadian history...up to that point. On election day 1993 the deficit was $42 billion. In each case there was a change of government, so the deficit changed after the election, but that's what it was on election day. And the debt: on election day 1984 it was $150 billion, and election day 1993 it was $453 billion. I could cite sources for those numbers if you want.
The election of 1984 resulted in the largest majority in Canadian history. Actually, there were 2 elections previous that resulted in proportionately as many MPs, but it was equal to the previous all-time high, and the last one was in the 1950s so it was a generation since anyone saw a majority that large. But the total number of seats in the House had increased, so in terms of shear numbers of MPs (representatives) it was the largest majority ever. They got re-elected in 1988, still with a majority, but a reduced majority. But in 1993 they went from majority in Parliament to only 2 Members elected to the House. Under Canadian parliamentary rules, they were considered no longer to be a party.
At that time the party was known as "Progressive Conservative Party". In order to have any chance of getting elected, they had to merge with the Reform Party. The merged party is now know as the "Conservative Party of Canada".
So now you guys have Trump. Uh huh. From my perspective: been there, done that. The result in our case was one of the two parties major parties in Canada, one of the only two that had ever formed the federal government of Canada, had ceased to exist. Now you guys have Trump. I'm expecting Trump to kill the GOP. Just like Brian Mulroney killed the PC Party of Canada. The question is whether Trump will do it in one or two terms.
Another bit of Canadian history. Just a few months before the election of 1993, the PC Party convinced Mulroney to step down, let someone else lead their party in the 1993 election. Voters were highly skeptical, they pointed out that party may have changed leader, but the rest of the party cronies were the same. However, they were willing to hear what the new party leader had to say. The PC Party even selected a woman as their leader, the first time in Canadian history. But during the election campaign, she didn't say anything. Until one reporter cornered her, and asked her bluntly "What is this election about?" Her response was "An election is not a time to discuss policy. An election is a time to discuss personalities. We can discuss policy after I'm elected." Ohhhhhhhh, that was so bad! In reality the PC Party had no chance of winning that election, but that one statement was the difference between them losing the election vs losing their party.
And lastly: there were serious allegations that Brian Mulroney took kick-backs on deals to purchase military helicopters and aircraft. The helicopter deal was cancelled by the new government in 1994. However, it was too late to cancel the purchase of Airbus aircraft. The Canadian military still has those aircraft. Two are configured mid-air refuelling of Canadian fighter jets and other military jets, two more are configured as utility aircraft. They can be used as cargo aircraft for military logistics, or seats installed for troop transport, or hospital beds for mass MedEvac. The last aircraft is also utility, and can be configured for the same purposes, but it has one more "kit" that is usually installed. It's the Canadian equivalent to "Air Force One", with leather seats, bar, etc. The new government had the RCMP (Canadian federal police) investigate Brian Mulroney for kick-backs. However, he was lawyer, and hired high-priced corporate lawyers. He sued for slander. His lawsuit shut down the RCMP investigation. Not only did he get away with it, but the government was required to pay him $10 million in legal fees.
So now you have Trump. Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney

Business leadership[edit]
Mulroney took the job of executive vice president of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, a joint subsidiary of three major U.S. steel corporations. Mulroney earned a salary well into the six-figure range. In 1977, he was appointed company president. Drawing upon his labour law experience, he instituted improved labour relations, and, with commodity prices on the rise, company profits soared during the next several years. In 1983 Mulroney successfully negotiated the closing of the Schefferville mine, winning a generous settlement for the affected workers.[14] Under his leadership, the company was sold off to foreign interests. In the wake of his loss in the 1976 leadership race, Mulroney battled alcohol abuse and depression for several years; he credits his loyal wife Mila with helping him recover. In 1979, he permanently became a teetotaler. During his IOC term, he made liberal use of the company's executive jet, frequently flying business associates and friends on fishing trips.[3] Mulroney also maintained and expanded his extensive political networking among business leaders and conservatives across the country. As his business reputation grew, he was invited onto several corporate boards. He declined an offer to run in a Quebec by-election as a federal Liberal.

I don't see much similarity between Mulroney and Donald Trump. Donald Trump was never a lawyer for one thing, and I think his first job was as President of the United States. Mulroney is more comparable to Mitt Romney when one compares resumes. I don't think Donald Trump has much need for kickbacks.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-04 19:10:33

GW Johnson wrote:

I did not see one single thing in Tom's post #841 above that had anything at all to do with what I wrote in my post #840 above!
I did see some relevant stuff in RobertDyck's post #842 above, albeit tangential to what I was trying to say.
What I did see in Tom's post 841 above is confirmation of what I said in post 827 above, which is:
""What I see in your responses to things you don't like is (1) trying to divert attention with fake political facts like your "Lincoln = freedom caucus", and (2) trying to divert attention with false claims that I (or others) said something that we most certainly did not say.""

Was not the Abolitionists in Congress a "Freedom Caucus?" I think that was an accurate description of what it was. What you are trying to do is take the Democrats sins and blame the Republicans for them, Jefferson Davis was not a Republican, it wasn't Nixon's fault that Jefferson Davis believed in slavery and wanted to continue it.

Both are symptoms of isolation in an "echo chamber", as I said in post 827 above. Political belief systems are simply not fact. As I have often said in these forums, I do not believe in either Democrat or Tom's Republican political belief systems. They are demonstrably BULLSHIT. There is no nicer way to put that observation. Sorry.
I suggest to the moderators of these forms that factual content should become another criterion for whether to delete something or not.
GW

So you want the moderators to delete my posts so they can "win your arguments for you." I just disagree with you, the Republican PArty stands for Freedom, and has been pretty consistent with that principle. Are you a Jacksonian by the way

RobertDyck · 2017-04-04 22:18:50

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

I don't see much similarity between Mulroney and Donald Trump. Donald Trump was never a lawyer for one thing, and I think his first job was as President of the United States. Mulroney is more comparable to Mitt Romney when one compares resumes. I don't think Donald Trump has much need for kickbacks.

Mulroney was CEO of a large corporation. Trump is CEO of a large corporation. Mulroney hired a team of expensive corporate lawyers. Trump has already hired a team of expensive corporate lawyers to get him out of various things he did in business. Mulroney used the big aircraft (the one before purchase of Airbus) for things other Prime Ministers would use a less expensive Challenger business jet.

And you really think Trump isn't making a profit from being president? Seriously? What do you think all those weekends at Mar-a-Lago are all about? Do a quick Google for "Donald Trump Conflict of Interest". There are several websites that list them.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-06 00:01:05

RobertDyck wrote:

You know Tom, I posted before that we have to accept the fact Trump is president. Try to work with him. That makes sense, but your rants can only result in rabid opposition. Also realize Trump is still recovering from a massive loss from years ago. The reason he doesn't pay income tax is a massive carry-forward loss from 1990-something. He's not as rich as he claims to be, and has to find a lot of money to pay his debts.

Why? Donald Trump is 70 years old, if he completes two terms, he'll be 78 when he finishes! You know its entirely possible that someone can die without paying off all of his debts, and you know Trump can't take his money or his debts with him. I think Trump's money was a means to an end, that end is being President of the United States, what else is there after that? There is no debtor's prison, and his children can't inherit his debt, and his creditors can't come after him in his afterlife. I do not think Trump became President in order to make money. Compared to Trump, Obama is a young guy, he has some living left to do in his retirement, he may want to make some money.

And the election was extremely expensive. Any businessman would treat that kind of spending as an investment, and demand at minimum recovery of said investment.

These words Trump can say, "I don't care, I'm not a career politician, the Presidency is a one off for me, if you did not support me because of what I said, if you want something in return for your donation, your not getting it! So what are you going to do about that?"

That means finding a way to make money from being president.

As I keep saying, there is no political advantage to Trump paying back his contributors, he ran against people who cared more for the donors than for the voters, and its not like he is going to do anything political after the Presidency. After one has been President, usually the next thing is retirement. You can't go higher than President of the United States! So either he can look like a crooked politician and do quid pro quo, or he can do nothing, nothing costs less than doing quid pro quo, it will just lose him support among his voters. His contributors are not likely to be in any position to do him any favors in the future. Trump does not need them.

And not a little money, enough to pay for everything he spent during the election campaign. That's a lot. Making personal profit from being president is highly illegal, but a business perspective will demand it. Government ethics and business ethics are in direct conflict.

It takes ethics in the first place for him to want to pay back his creditors, so why would he do something unethical and illegal to pay back his creditors because he thought that was the right thing to do? That seems like a logical contradiction to me! You know early in he election, some of Trump's critics liked to compare him to PT Barnum. PT Barnum has a saying, "There is a sucker born every minute!" So maybe Trumps contributors were just suckers, is that possible? Trump has no reason to do anything illegal and unethical, and more importantly go to jail just to pay someone back because he feels he has a moral obligation to do so.

I'm not sure what will happen to the GOP after this. Will there be a GOP after Trump? But for now, he's President. He did sign a NASA reauthorization bill. Could we convince Trump to kick ass over SLS like he did with F-35? Get ULA to get it done faster, cheaper, and more reliable. And for God's sake, stop delaying SpaceX Dragon v2 behind Orion. The Orion is over priced and over weight, let SpaceX go first.

Yep, get rid of the GOP, and go back to the way things were in 1850!
No one is stopping SpaceX from going first, with its reusable rockets, SpaceX can fund itself, by undercutting its competition with rocket launches. SLS probably needs government support. Think of the SLS as an insurance policy.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2017-04-06 00:02:15)

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-06 00:06:07

SpaceNut wrote:

Trouble is under foot for Trump as Counselor Steve Bannon removed from National Security Council role, others added
With Russian spy Evgeny Buryakov deported from United States who posed as a New York banker
2013, Podobnyy attempted to recruit Carter Page, who later served as a foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump's presidential campaign, as an intelligence source.
The travel ban has also had several Lawyers subpoenas for emails and other records for if Trump tries to bring it to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear the case May 15. The relevant time period should start on June 16, 2015, when Trump declared his presidential candidacy, The state lawyers also asked for cooperation from the Justice Department should they seek to serve subpoenas on Trump, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, White House staff or witness with a federal security detail.
The more troubling thou is the attempts still going on to erase Obamacare such that House Prepares to Leave for Recess Without Health Care Deal for a two-week break without reaching an agreement.
The issues still separating them include insurance regulations. Conservative members want to get rid of regulations imposed on insurance companies that they say drive up the cost of health care but ensure that sick people maintain health care that covers an array of procedures and preventative care.
Moderates, meanwhile, are opposed to stripping the regulations, concerned that too many people would lose coverage and that the cost for sicker and older people would become too great.
Congress will return from recess with a crowded agenda that starts with the need to pass a funding measure to prevent a government shutdown. They'll also have to consider a debt ceiling increase and would like to also tackle tax reform.
April 28th is the end of the continuing resolution....
Not the proper place to do this as Upcoming U.S.-China summit at Mar-a-Lago burnishes Trump brand “The combination of a perceived abuse of office to enrich himself and the irony of it happening while he is recommending deep budget cuts for public services - I think resentment will build,” to which Trump can pocket money from businesses at any time, raising more ethics concerns
Just more money laundering.....

Trump is already rich, why would he need enriching? Trump is President of the United States, the most powerful man in the World! There is no favors Putin can do him other than see to it that Russia doesn't start any wars during his Administration. The idea of Putin bribing Trump is as fanciful as Trump bribing Putin.

RobertDyck · 2017-04-06 01:30:56

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
You know Tom, I posted before that we have to accept the fact Trump is president. Try to work with him. That makes sense, but your rants can only result in rabid opposition. Also realize Trump is still recovering from a massive loss from years ago. The reason he doesn't pay income tax is a massive carry-forward loss from 1990-something. He's not as rich as he claims to be, and has to find a lot of money to pay his debts.
Why? Donald Trump is 70 years old, if he completes two terms, he'll be 78 when he finishes! You know its entirely possible that someone can die without paying off all of his debts, and you know Trump can't take his money or his debts with him. I think Trump's money was a means to an end, that end is being President of the United States, what else is there after that? There is no debtor's prison, and his children can't inherit his debt, and his creditors can't come after him in his afterlife. I do not think Trump became President in order to make money. Compared to Trump, Obama is a young guy, he has some living left to do in his retirement, he may want to make some money.

Actually, creditors can go after inheritors of an estate. So if Trump dies, who ever inherits Trumps stuff, inherits his debt. And you're not thinking like a businessman. Something as expensive as running for president is not a luxury to be purchased, it's an investment that requires return. Elect a billionaire businessman and that's what you get. He will find a way to get money out of being President, at least enough to recover what he paid for the election campaign.

Besides, my grandparents lived into their late 80s or early 90s. And medicine is getting better; he can certainly afford the best healthcare. Why assume he'll die as soon as he finishes office? After he completes one term (I doubt he'll be re-elected) he could live another 2 decades.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

These words Trump can say, "...if you want something in return for your donation, your not getting it!"

We're not talking about political donations. Trump is unique, he paid for much of his election campaign with what he called his own money. This was not campaign donations. Yes, campaign donations are gone, they won't be paid back. But business loans and personal loans do have to be paid back.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

As I keep saying, there is no political advantage to Trump paying back his contributors

You keep assuming he had contributors. He bragged that most of his campaign was paid from his own money, not political donations. Besides, you keep talking as if he's a politician. He doesn't care about politics or voters. He's a businessman. What matters is business investors in his business ventures, not voters.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

It takes ethics in the first place for him to want to pay back his creditors, so why would he do something unethical and illegal to pay back his creditors because he thought that was the right thing to do? ... PT Barnum has a saying, "There is a sucker born every minute!" So maybe Trumps contributors were just suckers, is that possible? Trump has no reason to do anything illegal and unethical, and more importantly go to jail just to pay someone back because he feels he has a moral obligation to do so.

Again, you forget who you're talking about. Trump ran his entire business career with deceit and cheating business partners. He always exaggerated about what he had or what he could do. He often failed to pay bills or pay creditors. But declared bankruptcy many times, which means just not paying creditors. Eventually that caught up with him, he took a major loss and had to start over. But his ability to bilk creditors is limited; do it too much and investors will not loan you money, businessmen will stop doing business with you. More importantly, he paid for the election campaign with his own money. He's willing to renege on debts, but won't cheat himself. He will want his money back. One way or another, he will get his money back.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Yep, get rid of the GOP, and go back to the way things were in 1850!

You are willfully twisting what I said. I did not say the GOP should be destroyed. I'm saying the GOP will be damaged by Trump. And may be damaged so badly that it cannot recover.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

No one is stopping SpaceX from going first, with its reusable rockets, SpaceX can fund itself, by undercutting its competition with rocket launches. SLS probably needs government support. Think of the SLS as an insurance policy.

Yes there is. The FAA now regulates commercial spaceflight. And the FAA is looking to NASA for guidance. NASA will not allow SpaceX to fly their Dragon spacecraft with crew until after Orion flies. It's not about money, it's about regulation. And NASA is showing bias toward their traditional contractors. NASA has also strongly supported SpaceX when those contractors tried to squash SpaceX like bug. But NASA sees Orion is their baby, so won't let Dragon fly with crew until after Orion.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-06 08:47:23

That is a trivial matter, but if they can't get Orion to fly with a crew, I think Trump has limited patience, he will let SpaceX fly a crewed mission if he thinks the contractors are simply padding their bottom line Trump doesn't care about them, what he does is in order to get some cooperation from Congress. Congress cares about those contractors, Trump does not. Congress's willingness to fund SLS is limited, all SpaceX has to do is keep and launching and recycling its rockets, to show how congress is wasting Taxpayer's money, and eventually taxpayers will demand an accounting for the money spent. That is Musk's plan!

Trump by the way did not self fund his campaign, he spent very little of his own money, the money of his he did spend was spent frugally. Trump does not waste his own money, every dollar he spends as a specific purpose, he may like to build gawdy hotels, but he wouldn't build them if he didn't think he could earn a profit from them. Trump's apartment is designed to impress visitors, he has his own corner of it, that is more modestly furnished. People who waste their money do no usually stay billionaires for long.

I don't actually think Trump has to do much at all, he has billions, Trumps children are smart enough to capitalize on their father's fame, just like the Kennedy's did, they won't go without either. I wouldn't be surprised if any of the Trump children decide to run for political office as well, they don't need their father's wealth for that, they have their father's name, that is quite enough if they are smart! As I said before, Trump can't take it with him, he is not motivated by profit here, and his children are well taken care of, there is little Trump can do after he is dead anyway, if his children spendthrift it down to nothing and end their lives as destitute paupers, that is their decision, it is out of Trump's hands in that case! You know about Thomas Jefferson I suppose, he started out life inheriting plantation, used his position and influence to write the declaration of Independence, and was able to make himself President with his fame and his involvement in the American Revolution, but he died a poor man, he was not a good businessman!

RobertDyck · 2017-04-06 22:22:59

I keep seeing things that tell me others are reading what we post here on NewMars. Many in Canada were speculating about the current leadership race for the Conservative Party of Canada. That's Canadian equivalent to the Primary. Some media pundits have speculated that a couple Conservative candidates are the Canadian equivalent to Trump. I posted that it isn't the "next" leader, for us it's "been there, done that". I posted the Canadian equivalent is Brian Mulroney. So now the media is reporting the Liberal Party is talking to Brian Mulroney himself. That Mulroney is personal friends with Trump, so the Liberal Party of Canada is now using former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney as their liaison to Trump. Uh huh. Not only is he Conservative, he's the individual who killed the Progressive Conservative party. This guy?!? Really?!? This guy?!?

CBC: Brian Mulroney to address key Canada-U.S. cabinet committee
CBC: Brian Mulroney speaks to Liberal cabinet on NAFTA

Well. At least that tells me someone in the Canadian government is reading what I post.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-04-07 06:59:52)

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-07 09:10:46

RobertDyck wrote:

I keep seeing things that tell me others are reading what we post here on NewMars. Many in Canada were speculating about the current leadership race for the Conservative Party of Canada. That's Canadian equivalent to the Primary. Some media pundits have speculated that a couple Conservative candidates are the Canadian equivalent to Trump. I posted that it isn't the "next" leader, for us it's "been there, done that". I posted the Canadian equivalent is Brian Mulroney. So now the media is reporting the Liberal Party is talking to Brian Mulroney himself. That Mulroney is personal friends with Trump, so the Liberal Party of Canada is now using former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney as their liaison to Trump. Uh huh. Not only is he Conservative, he's the individual who killed the Progressive Conservative party. This guy?!? Really?!? This guy?!?
CBC: Brian Mulroney to address key Canada-U.S. cabinet committee
CBC: Brian Mulroney speaks to Liberal cabinet on NAFTA
Well. At least that tells me someone in the Canadian government is reading what I post.

Brian Mulroney may be friends with Trump, Trump makes it his personal business to make friends with local politicians to help him do business, but Brian Mulroney is nothing like Trump, for one thing Trump is a political outsider, while Brian Mulroney is a political insider, that is not to say there is anything wrong with Brian Mulroney, but they are not anything alike.

RobertDyck · 2017-04-07 09:13:59

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Brian Mulroney may be friends with Trump, Trump makes it his personal business to make friends with local politicians to help him do business, but Brian Mulroney is nothing like Trump, for one thing Trump is a political outsider, while Brian Mulroney is a political insider, that is not to say there is anything wrong with Brian Mulroney, but they are not anything alike.

When Mulroney started in 1984, he was just as much an outsider as Trump.

SpaceNut · 2017-04-07 22:59:35

Tom the Russia Trump connection is not fake and more and more connections are being found...

Intel Committee Explains: “People Will End Up In Jail” For Trump/Russia Scandal as some Americans are chanting “lock them up” for their treasonous behavior. Trump, Pence, Conway, Spicer, Bannon, Kushner, Sessions…every damn one of them. The Republicans are in the process of Making a Move To Protect Trump From Russian Scandal Investigation. This is the same group that Investigated Hillary Clinton for using a Private Email Server and potentially mishandling classified information, are not going to investigate the President and his staff, who have been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to have had illegal communication with Russian intelligence.

This is also looking like Mitch McConnell has also been Found to Be Deeply Involved in Russian Cover-up as the “Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.” With a former FBI Agent Exposes Russians Paid Thousands of People To Spread Lies on Hillary Clinton.

Mike Flynn’s Russia Ties Just Got Worse, More Money Trails Found as Flynn failed to disclose payments he received from Kremlin funded Television network RT and two other firms with deep Russia connections. $100 Million Russian Money Trail Found, 63 People Involved as Russians do have invests with Trump, which is yet another reason that Americans deserve to see Trump’s tax returns. Is collusion with Russians Trump’s main reason for refusing to release his tax returns?

Computer Scientist Explodes Trump’s Russian Bank Connection with New Records Investigators with the FBI are continuing to search for more information about server connections between computers from the Trump Organization and a Russian bank. There is still a lot to dig into and several dots to connected, but investigators are finding it “odd” that the server activity from a Russian Bank and the Trump Organization is happening at such a high frequency.

President Donald Trump's decision to launch airstrikes against a Syrian air base, saying the president "has an obligation to act." Republican SLAMS Trump for Striking Syrian Air Base, Says Trump ‘Violated’ the Constitution by going around Congress and order the strike without congressional approval. Rubio also affirmed the president's authority to act without seeking the approval of Congress, in contrast to the view of some of his Capitol Hill colleagues. Tillerson: Russia 'complicit' or 'incompetent' with Syria referring to Moscow's apparent inability to prevent the Syrian government from using chemical weapons earlier this week despite a 2013 agreement to remove them from the country.

Nancy Pelosi calls on GOP to immediately reconvene Congress after U.S. strikes “The President’s action and any response demands that we immediately do our duty,” Pelosi added. “Congress must live up to its Constitutional responsibility to debate an Authorization of the Use of Military Force against a sovereign nation.”
Russia outraged over U.S. missile strikes in Syria

Trump Voters’ Homes Ending Up on Mexico Side, “If I Have to Get a Lawyer, I Will” More and more people living near the proposed wall on the US/Mexico border are upset by how the plans are rolling out. A strong majority of these people are conservative Republicans, and many of them voted for Donald Trump for President, but more and more they’re regretting that decision. One such person is Pat Bell of River Bend, Texas house will end up on the Mexico side, and this is unacceptable to her.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-07 23:16:47

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Brian Mulroney may be friends with Trump, Trump makes it his personal business to make friends with local politicians to help him do business, but Brian Mulroney is nothing like Trump, for one thing Trump is a political outsider, while Brian Mulroney is a political insider, that is not to say there is anything wrong with Brian Mulroney, but they are not anything alike.
When Mulroney started in 1984, he was just as much an outsider as Trump.

You just stated that he has been in politics since 1984, that is a long time to be in politics! Mulroney climbed the political ladder, for Trump the first rung was the Presidency, and he is already past retirement age for most people, I don't think he plans to do anything else afterwards, it is all about his legacy, do you really think he would jeopardize that? Do you think you are smarter than Donald J. Trump?

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-07 23:30:27

SpaceNut wrote:

Tom the Russia Trump connection is not fake and more and more connections are being found...
Intel Committee Explains: “People Will End Up In Jail” For Trump/Russia Scandal as some Americans are chanting “lock them up” for their treasonous behavior. Trump, Pence, Conway, Spicer, Bannon, Kushner, Sessions…every damn one of them. The Republicans are in the process of Making a Move To Protect Trump From Russian Scandal Investigation. This is the same group that Investigated Hillary Clinton for using a Private Email Server and potentially mishandling classified information, are not going to investigate the President and his staff, who have been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to have had illegal communication with Russian intelligence.
This is also looking like Mitch McConnell has also been Found to Be Deeply Involved in Russian Cover-up as the “Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.” With a former FBI Agent Exposes Russians Paid Thousands of People To Spread Lies on Hillary Clinton.
Mike Flynn’s Russia Ties Just Got Worse, More Money Trails Found as Flynn failed to disclose payments he received from Kremlin funded Television network RT and two other firms with deep Russia connections. $100 Million Russian Money Trail Found, 63 People Involved as Russians do have invests with Trump, which is yet another reason that Americans deserve to see Trump’s tax returns. Is collusion with Russians Trump’s main reason for refusing to release his tax returns?
Computer Scientist Explodes Trump’s Russian Bank Connection with New Records Investigators with the FBI are continuing to search for more information about server connections between computers from the Trump Organization and a Russian bank. There is still a lot to dig into and several dots to connected, but investigators are finding it “odd” that the server activity from a Russian Bank and the Trump Organization is happening at such a high frequency.
President Donald Trump's decision to launch airstrikes against a Syrian air base, saying the president "has an obligation to act." Republican SLAMS Trump for Striking Syrian Air Base, Says Trump ‘Violated’ the Constitution by going around Congress and order the strike without congressional approval. Rubio also affirmed the president's authority to act without seeking the approval of Congress, in contrast to the view of some of his Capitol Hill colleagues. Tillerson: Russia 'complicit' or 'incompetent' with Syria referring to Moscow's apparent inability to prevent the Syrian government from using chemical weapons earlier this week despite a 2013 agreement to remove them from the country.

Congress doesn't have to approve every strike, Congress isn't competent to run a war, and the war has been going on since 2001, the authorization was already made after the 9/11 attack. Syria is in the area where we are fighting terrorism. When our enemies give up and stop attacking us, then the war is over. We can't just unilaterally declare the war over and say every new attack is a new war. The Enemy keeps the war alive, he attacks us at home, there is no place we can withdraw to where he will not follow! So you are saying the President needs special authorization to defend the American People, and that he should do nothing and let Americans be killed otherwise? The way I read the Constitution is that Congress must approve all wars that we start, the Enemy does not wait for Congress to approve their Jihad before attacking us and killing Americans.
Defending the American people after an attack is an automatic action, that includes going out and destroying the enemy. if there is no war and the US President wants to start one, the that requires Congressional Approval. Now we are helping some rebels attack ISIS, and the Syrian government just decided to attack those same rebels with Poison gas, and they are aligned with Iran, a country that has declared war on us many many times since 1979. Anyone who aligns with our Enemy is also our Enemy and has become part of the War, and we can thus attack them without Congressional Approval. There are very few instances where Amerian actually started a war, where there wasn't a war before.

Nancy Pelosi calls on GOP to immediately reconvene Congress after U.S. strikes “The President’s action and any response demands that we immediately do our duty,” Pelosi added. “Congress must live up to its Constitutional responsibility to debate an Authorization of the Use of Military Force against a sovereign nation.”
Russia outraged over U.S. missile strikes in Syria
Trump Voters’ Homes Ending Up on Mexico Side, “If I Have to Get a Lawyer, I Will” More and more people living near the proposed wall on the US/Mexico border are upset by how the plans are rolling out. A strong majority of these people are conservative Republicans, and many of them voted for Donald Trump for President, but more and more they’re regretting that decision. One such person is Pat Bell of River Bend, Texas house will end up on the Mexico side, and this is unacceptable to her.

The News media is showing lots of investigative activity, but no results. There are a lot of people actively looking for UFOs as well, but that doesn't mean they are out there.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-08 07:27:24

And to top it off, people can die if President Trump does not operate effectively! Give Trump a bad day as President of the United States and people often die to make that happen. So if a military operation comes off as a success, the Democrats groan, but if soldiers come home in body bags and their are lots of military funerals, then the Democrats cheer and say, "I told you so!"

Also the Democrats think the only choice besides Trump and the Republicans are themselves, that is incorrect. I think if the Republicans and Trump do a terrible job, the American people can turn to a third party. Many conservatives within the Republican Party are getting frustrated with their party elites. Trump has also surrounded himself with a lot of liberal democrats within his administration, some of them are family members, this means he can soak up Democratic voters at he expense of the Democrats, gain support from liberal Republicans within his own Party, the Conservative can start their own Party, the Tea Party and challenge him from the right, and the American People won't go back to the Democrats, as they have proved themselves as not interested in advancing America's agenda, but only their careers and their anti-American ideology at America's expense. Obama's father was a Marxist, he attended the Church of Reverend Wright for 20 years, and the Democrats thought that was swell and nominated him to be their Presidential candidate anyway, so the evidence is all there! Trump has shown a way to be liberal without being Anti-American, the Democrats have forgotten how to do this, so they follow the latest international trends in left-wing thinking and blame America for everything wrong in the World, which is not going to get them elcted to anything once the American people realize this!

Trump is closer to the political ideology of FDR, TR, and John F. Kennedy, than are the modern Democrats today. Trump could very well be challenged from the right, if the Democrats continue with their anti-America diatribe blaming America for all that is wrong with the world, that was Obama's ideology, and it made him a terrible President.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2017-04-08 07:40:49)

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-08 20:10:55

That generally happens when you are at war, and also not providing security, which is what Obama did, costs less that providing it. Obama labeled a number of domestic terrorist attacks as workplace violence, and you know what, we are not going to win the war on terrorism just by increasing security at the airports or building a wall, we are going to have to go out and defeat them where they live! $1 million a month is not a lot of money to spend to secure the wife and son of the had of state of the most powerful country on Earth, I would expect a lot of money to be spent on that, and if we are being cheap on our President's security, we are doing something wrong. The President of the United States, is at least the equal to any Emperor of any large state or Empire that has ever existed, and while he is in office, he should have as much security as he needs. Having a President or his family assassinated would cost the country more than just providing adequate protection.

kbd512 · 2017-04-08 21:43:49

SpaceNut wrote:

I hope you are going to like the new levels of costs for the security of this administration as its coming from all the cuts to agency fundings but its still going to cause the tax rates to increase for less services.

The security costs associated with protecting politicians do not come from the budgets of other agencies that are not already in the business of protecting our politicians and never have. This is a laughably poor attempt to try to suggest that the cost of President Trump's security detail detracts from the budgets of other governmental agencies. The US Secret Service doesn't quit working just because you don't like the President.

SpaceNut wrote:

The education security is costing about $1 million a month. The Marshals Service has hired about two dozen guards for her security detail. That includes 20 positions at from $95,000 to $123,000 each annually and two at an annual salary of $112,000 to $146,000.

President Obama's children also had dozens of agents assigned to their security details. Why didn't you complain about that?

There are two principle reasons why there protecting the President costs so much. The first is preventing kidnappings of family members by foreign countries or terrorists to use as bargaining chips. The second is assuring our ability to deliver nuclear weapons if we are attacked by a foreign country. Between the two, maintaining the continuous ability to deliver nuclear weapons makes the cost of the first hardly worth mentioning.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#626 2017-04-03 18:40:21

Re: Politics

#627 2017-04-03 22:33:38

Re: Politics

#628 2017-04-04 03:18:16

Re: Politics

#629 2017-04-04 05:15:42

Re: Politics

#630 2017-04-04 05:25:21

Re: Politics

#631 2017-04-04 13:18:11

Re: Politics

#632 2017-04-04 15:18:00

Re: Politics

#633 2017-04-04 17:29:15

Re: Politics

#634 2017-04-04 18:47:57

Re: Politics

#635 2017-04-04 19:02:17

Re: Politics

#636 2017-04-04 19:10:33

Re: Politics

#637 2017-04-04 22:18:50

Re: Politics

#638 2017-04-06 00:01:05

Re: Politics

#639 2017-04-06 00:06:07

Re: Politics

#640 2017-04-06 01:30:56

Re: Politics

#641 2017-04-06 08:47:23

Re: Politics

#642 2017-04-06 22:22:59

Re: Politics

#643 2017-04-07 09:10:46

Re: Politics

#644 2017-04-07 09:13:59

Re: Politics

#645 2017-04-07 22:59:35

Re: Politics

#646 2017-04-07 23:16:47

Re: Politics

#647 2017-04-07 23:30:27

Re: Politics

#648 2017-04-08 07:27:24

Re: Politics

#649 2017-04-08 20:10:55

Re: Politics

#650 2017-04-08 21:43:49

Re: Politics

Board footer