Trump Not Happy, Declares to End Relations with Traditional American Allies. (1 Viewer)

[Thales750]

I agree with some of what you have said - the Renaming, the if he could stick to facts and not hyperbole to some extent, and Musk creating problems by acting too impulsively.

Tariffs I think the jury is still out on. I'd rather wait a substantial amount of time on that to see the total cost/benefit analysis, big picture.

I think 99% of his speech, though, is very practical, down to earth, and said in a way that a normal person talks, rather than the typical politician corporate HR mumbo jumbo double-speak or worse yet, financial/legal jargon. I actually like that about him. He doesn't say things prepared to be written down and repeated, he talks like a normal person actually talks. The 1% is the unnecessary hyperbole that he could benefit by steering clear of

Would you really settle for a "normal" person running our nation? I would personally prefer an extraordinary person myself.

 

[Thales750]

I'd take about the same view - insulting is calling someone something mean and totally pointless, like stupid, idiot, ugly, etc.
And even there, not all insults are necessarily morally wrong.
When I hear about schools trying to teach 6 year olds about gender fluidity, I'd definitely call them idiots.
Jesus had a habit of calling people all kinds of names when the situation was drastic enough to warrant them.
To us, those words might seem a bit elegant and noble, but I'm pretty sure it was just words that were common in those days, and probably similar to us calling someone an idiot or a grifter or a liar.

I wasn't insulted. My trepidation generally comes from my evaluation of my own actions, and whether, or not, they move my life in the right direction.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Would you really settle for a "normal" person running our nation? I would personally prefer an extraordinary person myself.

I'd say no one can take a political hit job for years on end and end up being president once again. Don't think you will ever witness such a feat in our collective lifetime. Having learned a thing or two from the first terms shortfalls, he hit the ground running this time and I personally have never seen anything like it. Judging by the approval ratings, he is exceptionally extraordinary in accomplishment and he's just getting started.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Would you really settle for a "normal" person running our nation? I would personally prefer an extraordinary person myself.

Considering the person we had for the previous four years (and the person we almost had), even "normal" would be an extraordinary improvement.

 

[Thales750]

Considering the person we had for the previous four years (and the person we almost had), even "normal" would be an extraordinary improvement.

You guys are the same. Your only excuse for the lunatic in office is tom compare him to, what you consider, some worse.
Another example of how sad the Conservative Party is.

Go ahead, I'm waiting... "But the evil Dems and the Libtards do it"

So sad when it is the lessor of two weevils, over and over and over.

 

[Thales750]

even "normal" would be an extraordinary improvement.

Yeah, but we'll see if this old one can keep from soiling himself in public. I wonder what the Vegas odds are on that.

Update: I looked it up. They either don't exist, or they are not published.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The Dems lacked both a message and a messenger that’s how we got here. They still don’t know what to do. Their message going forward can’t be the same old, tired rhetoric about race, inequality, and the 1% not paying enough. Otherwise, they’re never going to win again. It has to be a forward looking message that’s positive for everyone.

 

[Pat Hartman]

To tell them that they are as polarized as they accuse others as being doesn't classify as an insult - in my opinion anyway. I would not intentionally insult someone unless I feel they deserved it and you certainly would not

The truth is always the best defense Snowflakes don't see it that way though.

 

[Isaac]

Would you really settle for a "normal" person running our nation? I would personally prefer an extraordinary person myself.

For me, a politician who talks like a normal person IS extraordinary. It shows they're not a real politician in the sense of curating every moment and word - they're saying what we're really thinking, ie., giving us a voice in government

 

[Pat Hartman]

I would personally prefer an extraordinary person myself.

We have one. We are quibbling about his style. To me, Trump is boring as a speaker and I rarely ever listen to "rally" speeches although I do listen to scripted speeches even though he is prone to going off script. Trump's normal style is repetitive and uses an 8th grade vocabulary. He also leaves gaps because he assumes you know what he's talking about. Even people who don't natively speak English should be able to understand most of what he says. His problem is usually with the "shortcuts". These always leave the press an opening to flagrently mis-interpret his meaning or simply omit parts of sentences which don't fit their narrative as they did (AND ARE STILL DOING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) with "Charlottesville".

 

[Thales750]

The Dems lacked both a message and a messenger that’s how we got here. They still don’t know what to do. Their message going forward can’t be the same old, tired rhetoric about race, inequality, and the 1% not paying enough. Otherwise, they’re never going to win again. It has to be a forward looking message that’s positive for everyone.

The dems put him in office. Soon though, even the most obtuse conservatives will start to understand that their party has been reverse Robbin Hooding them all along.

 

[Pat Hartman]

their party has been reverse Robbin Hooding them all along.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean since conservatives don't expect handouts from the government and they don't vote for members of Congress based on what they promise to give people.

I hate that Trump used the tactic in the past election but I guess if you can't beat 'em, you join 'em. SS when it was created was promised to be non-taxable. It wasn't until the 80's that that was changed - twice I think. The first time to tax it and the second time to raise the base that would be taxed. So, reverting SS to its original non-taxable status is fine. Everyone eventually benefits from that position. I don't like making tips non-taxable although it relieves one of the big jobs of the IRS which will allow us to reduce auditing headcount there since people with "tip" jobs are huge tax evaders and the IRS audits them with higher frequency than other job categories. But making OT non-taxable is downright stupid and Congress should refuse to act on that one.

 

[Isaac]

I am unshamedly in favor of the rich getting richer, even though I am not rich.
How can I possibly harbor such altruistic motives, you ask? Because I believe that fairness dictates everyone gets rewarded according to their work and smartness. When the rich have figured out how to get rich, I say let them get what they earn/deserve. This system motivates everyone to work hard.
Well, except welfare people , those who want to stay on welfare, at least. OR don't not want to badly enough to upskill and move up the ladder.

That's why the left has a hard time undertstanding conservatives. You assume that, because YOU vote on your own personal wallet, everyone else surely must too. Some people take a more transcendent view of the world. Guess what? We find out the rich are getting richer, IT DOESN'T BOTHER US. At all. We see that as the system working. Almost any poor person can do well if they make the smart decisions that are available to them to make. We vote in favor of that system even though we're not rich, not because it profits us personally, but because it's the right thing to do

 

[Pat Hartman]

The "system" is supposed to protect the little people from being cheated. Instead, the cheaters buy off Congress and so Congress allows CC companies to charge 25% interest rates on card balances and $35 late fees regardless of the late amount. Isn't 25% interest enough? Yep, that's protecting the little guy.

The rich can get richer honestly but not on the backs of everyone else and with the help of Congress.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The dems put him in office. Soon though, even the most obtuse conservatives will start to understand that their party has been reverse Robbin Hooding them all along.

The left repeatedly lands on the wrong side of the top 80/20 issues energizing their activist base but pushing away the broader electorate. Driven by ideological rigidity, they double down, ranting on street corners with their blue hair on fire.

 

[Thales750]

The left repeatedly lands on the wrong side of the top 80/20 issues energizing their activist base but pushing away the broader electorate. Driven by ideological rigidity, they double down, ranting on street corners with their blue hair on fire.

I concur. The radical voice of the Dems is designed to move the curve to the right, ensuring the capitalist pupet master have a better voice. As if owning the entire world's news organizations wasn't enough.

 

[Thales750]

I am unashamedly in favor of the rich getting richer, even though I am not rich.
How can I possibly harbor such altruistic motives, you ask? Because I believe that fairness dictates everyone gets rewarded according to their work and smartness. When the rich have figured out how to get rich, I say let them get what they earn/deserve. This system motivates everyone to work hard.
Well, except welfare people , those who want to stay on welfare, at least. OR don't not want to badly enough to upskill and move up the ladder.

That's why the left has a hard time understanding conservatives. You assume that, because YOU vote on your own personal wallet, everyone else surely must too. Some people take a more transcendent view of the world. Guess what? We find out the rich are getting richer, IT DOESN'T BOTHER US. At all. We see that as the system working. Almost any poor person can do well if they make the smart decisions that are available to them to make. We vote in favor of that system even though we're not rich, not because it profits us personally, but because it's the right thing to do

In the beginning, not that beginning, Cain still had to kill his brother. No, another beginning, after the fall of the Roman empire.
That's where you can find clear historical evidence of the consolidation of wealth at the very top. Eventually leading to the peoples of Europe, Russia and the Americas to having revolutionary wars with their European overlords.

They had consolidated all off the wealth (power) until there was no more left for the average person. That is what is happening in the US today. The explanation of supporting the concept of the people getting the reward they have earned is a construct. It is the central theme of Conservative Propaganda. Oh, they use religion, abortion laws, gun laws, and other irrelevant planks.

Here is a question. Once a mega corp has what can be arguably classified as infinite wealth, how do they increase earnings? Meaning what method are available to them?
I fixed some of your spelling errors above, you owe me for that.

 

[moke123]

When the rich have figured out how to get rich, I say let them get what they earn/deserve.

Bernie Madoff figured out how to get rich. Bankman-Fried too. Prison time?

 

[Isaac]

The "system" is supposed to protect the little people from being cheated. Instead, the cheaters buy off Congress and so Congress allows CC companies to charge 25% interest rates on card balances and $35 late fees regardless of the late amount. Isn't 25% interest enough? Yep, that's protecting the little guy.

The rich can get richer honestly but not on the backs of everyone else and with the help of Congress.

But again, those credit card companies employ hundreds of thousands of people so they provide us jobs and anyone is free not to use a credit card.

If people weren't okay with it then the market would create a new competitor with a lower interest rate

 

[Isaac]

Bernie Madoff figured out how to get rich. Bankman-Fried too. Prison time?

Yeah if it's illegal