Post: #61076

(04-03-2017 03:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Healthcare negotiations continue in the background. Here is Rand Paul's proposal: https://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/do...ctions.pdf

My opinion? It's amazing and balances libertarian ideals with moderate reforms. Of course, anything that is less than full communism for Blacks and Latinos will be rejected by the (Jewish controlled) Dems.

I like his plan too, specifically the uncapped HSA's, but I don't think it can work in the current climate. His solution could have worked pre-Obamacare. However, now, polls seem to indicate that more and more people are seeing healthcare as an entitlement. I'm not sure if we can move towards a free-market system.

Post: #61077

(04-03-2017 03:57 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 03:48 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  ^^Dude, it's fine that you type up nonsense, but can you do us a favor and condense your nonsense to one post instead of creating multiple consecutive posts? Nothing that you wrote is particularly deserving of having its own separate post.

....

Which part is nonsense?

The idea that something isn't a "big deal" because legalistically speaking, the deed followed a prescribed chain of command even though it was clearly an outrageous, politicized abuse of power. Under that logic, if Trump decided to launch a nuclear strike against Scotland in a fit of pique over their golf regulations that also wouldn't be a big deal because legalistically speaking, launching nukes is within the purview of the Commander in Chief. In other words, nonsense.

Or how about the idea that Trump donating his own money to a cause means nothing because he simultaneously wants to save taxpayer money across all federal departments. That's absolute nonsense.

Post: #61078

(04-03-2017 03:31 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  The Susan Rice story is literally nothing. Congrats to Mike for the scoop, but everything was done legally. Not much to this story. At all.

I disagreed. The Susan Rice story is literally something because it tells us:
* who the "leaker" is that has been giving classified information to the Liberal MSM reporter(s) - this is supposed to be *illegal* - without the White House's knowledge;
* what MSM outlets knew about this - hint: NYT (Maggie Haberman) and Washington Post;
* where did the reporter(s) and/or whoever else obtained the classified information from;
* how did the MSM outlets received the "leaked" classified information before the President, Congress, etc.;
* let's not forget that some of these MSM reporters are fucking Clinton/Obama operatives - remember the WikiLeaks' DNC emails?

But hey...that is just my two cents.

Meanwhile...

Source
Trump Donates His Salary To National Park Service

Quote:President Donald Trump donated his salary to the National Park Service (NPS), White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer announced in a press conference Monday.

Trump previously pledged during his first post-election TV interview to refuse the $400,000 salary he would earn as president. Spicer announced that Trump would donate his salary to a federal agency every quarter.

Trump made that same pledge during a campaign rally in September 2016.

Only John F. Kennedy and Herbert Hoover have declined to take the salary of the presidency, as they were both extremely wealthy.

The Parks Service really needs the money.

U.S. national parks and forests owe $17.2 billion in deferred maintenance and other backlogged expenses. Currently, NPS owes almost $12 billion in deferred maintenance and other backlogged expenses, meaning the agency would need to spend five times the amount it gets every year from Congress to fix its maintenance backlog, which is expected to grow each year. The U.S. Forest Service has a similar backlog of roughly $5.2 billion.

Much of the enormous backlog facing the two agencies is caused by expanding operations at the expense of basic maintenance. The NPS added 18 new units to the national parks system since 2009, costing the agency an enormous amount of money. As the mission of NPS expanded, the agency became increasingly unable to fund necessary maintenance projects.

The correlation between new park units and deferred maintenance is quite direct. The U.S. government has spent more than $10 billion acquiring new public lands, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Post: #61079

(04-03-2017 04:13 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  The idea that something isn't a "big deal" because legalistically speaking, the deed followed a prescribed chain of command even though it was clearly an outrageous, politicized abuse of power. Under that logic, if Trump decided to launch a nuclear strike against Scotland in a fit of pique over their golf regulations that also wouldn't be a big deal because legalistically speaking, launching nukes is within the purview of the Commander in Chief. In other words, nonsense.

Or how about the idea that Trump donating his own money to a cause means nothing because he simultaneously wants to save taxpayer money across all federal departments. That's absolute nonsense.

That's conjecture. How can you prove that it was politicized and not for natural security purposes? How is it a scandal for the National Security Advisor to request info on a matter of counterintelligence significance? It's not.

If he wants to save taxpayer money, why isn't he touching entitlements? Why is he wasting money on a wall? Why is he planning a $1 trillion dollar infrastructure spending plan? Donating $80,000 is awesome. But it's a PR stunt.

Post: #61080

(04-02-2017 05:52 PM)rotekz Wrote:  

I feel like this is Obama as this surveillance story unfolds:

Post: #61081

(04-03-2017 04:27 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  That's conjecture. How can you prove that it was politicized and not for natural security purposes? How is it a scandal for the Nation Security Advisor to request info on a matter of counterintelligence significance? It's not.

I have the funniest feeling that if you'd posted 3 days ago, you would've been telling us the idea that high-level government officials in the Obama administration were spying on Trump was just "conjecture".

Post: #61082

(04-03-2017 04:27 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  That's conjecture. How can you prove that it was politicized and not for natural security purposes? How is it a scandal for the Nation Security Advisor to request info on a matter of counterintelligence significance? It's not.

The Eli Lake Bloomberg article you referred to in a previous post states:

Quote:Indeed, much about this is highly unusual: if not how the surveillance was collected, then certainly how and why it was disseminated.

Trump's people are alleged to have colluded with the Russians to hack into the DNC, John Podesta's email account and apparently to run pro-Trump opinions on RT. There is zero evidence of this collusion. In lieu of evidence, innuendo and appearances of impropriety, generated from the precise surveillance which was collected AND disseminated in a "highly unusual" manner is what is buttressing this investigation which you say is being deflected.

Said differently, it's a politically driven witch hunt fueled by improperly handled surveillance, which was then leaked to the public, which far from "literally nothing" given there are felonies in that chain of events. The bottom line is, between Trump's claim and the premise of the Congressional investigation, there is far more evidence of the former than the latter, of which, again, there is none.

Post: #61083

(04-03-2017 04:42 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  I have the funniest feeling that if you'd posted 3 days ago, you would've been telling us the idea that high-level government officials in the Obama administration were spying on Trump was just "conjecture".

What spying? There still isn't any evidence of surveillance. All the articles detailing this Susan Rice story say as much. The "surveillance" I've read about consists of foreign people under surveillance discussing the new administration.

Post: #61084

(04-03-2017 04:27 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  ...
That's conjecture. How can you prove that it was politicized and not for natural security purposes? How is it a scandal for the former National Security Advisor to request info on a matter of counterintelligence significance? It's not.

If he wants to save taxpayer money, why isn't he touching entitlements? Why is he wasting money on a wall? Why is he planning a $1 trillion dollar infrastructure spending plan? Donating $80,000 is awesome. But it's a PR stunt.

Post: #61085

(04-03-2017 04:27 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 04:13 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  The idea that something isn't a "big deal" because legalistically speaking, the deed followed a prescribed chain of command even though it was clearly an outrageous, politicized abuse of power. Under that logic, if Trump decided to launch a nuclear strike against Scotland in a fit of pique over their golf regulations that also wouldn't be a big deal because legalistically speaking, launching nukes is within the purview of the Commander in Chief. In other words, nonsense.

Or how about the idea that Trump donating his own money to a cause means nothing because he simultaneously wants to save taxpayer money across all federal departments. That's absolute nonsense.

That's conjecture. How can you prove that it was politicized and not for natural security purposes? How is it a scandal for the Nation Security Advisor to request info on a matter of counterintelligence significance? It's not.

If he wants to save taxpayer money, why isn't he touching entitlements? Why is he wasting money on a wall? Why is he planning a $1 trillion dollar infrastructure spending plan? Donating $80,000 is awesome. But it's a PR stunt.

That's conjecture? Dude, we have a Democrat administration taking the highly unusual and atypical step of unmasking and widely disseminating the identities of American citizens, American citizens who just happen to be affiliated with said administration's number 1 political enemy. Who also happens to be running for president! Yeah, ok, so I'm engaging in "conjecture" by saying it may have been political. What exactly are you doing if not conjecture by saying it's "no big deal?" If it's conjecture to say it was political it's even bigger conjecture to say it wasn't political, given the context of the situation.

He wants to save money on things he promised to save money on, is that so hard to understand? He made it clear during the election he isn't touching entitlements and defense but that he's going to take an axe to everything else, and that's exactly what he's doing.

The wall is a waste of money?

Post: #61086

(04-03-2017 04:50 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  That's conjecture? Dude, we have a Democrat administration taking the highly unusual and atypical step of unmasking and widely disseminating the identities of American citizens, American citizens who just happen to be affiliated with said administration's number 1 political enemy. Who also happens to be running for president! Yeah, ok, so I'm engaging in "conjecture" by saying it may have been political. What exactly are you doing if not conjecture by saying it's "no big deal?" If it's conjecture to say it was political it's even bigger conjecture to say it wasn't political, given the context of the situation.

He wants to save money on things he promised to save money on, is that so hard to understand? He made it clear during the election he isn't touching entitlements and defense but that he's going to take an axe to everything else, and that's exactly what he's doing.

The wall is a waste of money?

Every single intelligence official I've read comment on this topic says there's nothing here. I don't know what to tell you other than this isn't much of a story and it's probably not going anywhere.

Yeah, his fiscal policy makes no sense. Increasing spending and cutting taxes. Worse than a liberal with money in that regard.

Yes, the wall is a waste of money. We have these things called Airplanes. You can just fly to an airport in the States and never leave. A wall does nothing.

Post: #61087

^ That's a real nice coat you're wearing.

Post: #61088

(04-03-2017 05:01 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 04:50 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  That's conjecture? Dude, we have a Democrat administration taking the highly unusual and atypical step of unmasking and widely disseminating the identities of American citizens, American citizens who just happen to be affiliated with said administration's number 1 political enemy. Who also happens to be running for president! Yeah, ok, so I'm engaging in "conjecture" by saying it may have been political. What exactly are you doing if not conjecture by saying it's "no big deal?" If it's conjecture to say it was political it's even bigger conjecture to say it wasn't political, given the context of the situation.

He wants to save money on things he promised to save money on, is that so hard to understand? He made it clear during the election he isn't touching entitlements and defense but that he's going to take an axe to everything else, and that's exactly what he's doing.

The wall is a waste of money?

Every single intelligence official I've read comment on this topic says there's nothing here. I don't know what to tell you other than this isn't much of a story and it's probably not going anywhere.

Yeah, his fiscal policy makes no sense. Increasing spending and cutting taxes. Worse than a liberal with money in that regard.

Yes, the wall is a waste of money. We have these things called Airplanes. You can just fly to an airport in the States and never leave. A wall does nothing.

First paragraph: appeal to (unnamed lewl) authority

Second paragraph: started this whole discussion by criticizing Trump for cutting spending, now says Trump's fiscal policy is bad because ofTrump's spendthrift ways. Make up your mind brah.

Third paragraph: wall is a waste of money because airplanes.


I'm done with this dude. The wall and airplanes thing is just too much.

Post: #61089

In a word:



To fly in and enter the US you first need a little piece of paper called a visa. Sure, there are overstays, but if someone is an overstay risk, they generally need to show proof of ties back home (such as a sizeable bank account, family, etc.) and or be sponsored by someone here, who could end up on the hook for the expenses. And if they overstay, the feds know about it because they were logged on entry.

Compare that to a porous border, where there are zero visas, zero documentation, anyone can enter - bad hombre or not - and any aid that illegal entrants require comes at the expense of taxpayers and legal immigrants.

Post: #61090

(04-03-2017 05:09 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 05:01 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  Yeah, his fiscal policy makes no sense. Increasing spending and cutting taxes. Worse than a liberal with money in that regard.

Yes, the wall is a waste of money. We have these things called Airplanes. You can just fly to an airport in the States and never leave. A wall does nothing.

First paragraph: appeal to (unnamed lewl) authority

Second paragraph: started this whole discussion by criticizing Trump for cutting spending, now says Trump's fiscal policy is bad because ofTrump's spendthrift ways. Make up your mind brah.

Third paragraph: wall is a waste of money because airplanes.


I'm done with this dude. The wall and airplanes thing is just too much.

First: The authority is the head of the CIA and the FBI, which lends weight to Zebra's argument although I disagree with his conclusion.

Second: Trumps fiscal proposals haven't made sense. Steve Mnuchin actually openly disagrees with pieces of Trump's rhetoric surrounding fiscal policy, which I take as a sign that Trump's rhetoric is posturing and he'll take a more pragmatic position as negotiations commence surrounding tax reform and spending projects. Most likely his proposals will end up being revenue neutral at worst given that we have no more money.

This means Zebra is at least partly correct in his critique on Trump's fiscal policy.

Third: Around half of our illegal immigrants are people who are staying in the United States on an expired visa, which means that Zebra is 50% correct since those people arrived here by plane.

Please read and critique my response if you think I'm wrong. Also, leave out the gifs and snarkiness in your response, I find it distasteful.

Post: #61091

(04-03-2017 05:09 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  First paragraph: appeal to (unnamed lewl) authority

Second paragraph: started this whole discussion by criticizing Trump for cutting spending, now says Trump's fiscal policy is bad because ofTrump's spendthrift ways. Make up your mind brah.

Third paragraph: wall is a waste of money because airplanes.


I'm done with this dude. The wall and airplanes thing is just too much.

John Schindler is one such name. Literally worked for the NSA and detests Susan Rice and he thinks nothing wrong with what occurred.

He's not a spendthrift. He's increasing spending. He's essentially a liberal.

I could have also mentioned that illegal immigration is down. But I suppose you would have found fault with that too.

If you want to end this talk, that's fine.

Post: #61092

^ I stand corrected in part based on the visa overstay stats above.

However, I maintain that those illegals are lower risk for the reasons I mentioned above; those are typically easier to track down, and are also (probably, based more on anecdote because I can't look up stats right now) more likely to return of their own volition.

Post: #61093

Visa overstays are being dealt with as we speak. The legal assault on sanctuary cities has begun last month and will continue for years. The wall is necessary to save Texas from being transformed into a blue state, and prevent the Mexican takeover of the American Southeast.

As for Susan Rice - you mean to tell me important information "magically" leaked out to the press (such as on General Flynn) and she had NOTHING to do with it? Give me a break. I'm a grown man, this woman needs to be fully investigated.

Post: #61094

(04-03-2017 05:20 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 05:09 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 05:01 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  Yeah, his fiscal policy makes no sense. Increasing spending and cutting taxes. Worse than a liberal with money in that regard.

Yes, the wall is a waste of money. We have these things called Airplanes. You can just fly to an airport in the States and never leave. A wall does nothing.

First paragraph: appeal to (unnamed lewl) authority

Second paragraph: started this whole discussion by criticizing Trump for cutting spending, now says Trump's fiscal policy is bad because ofTrump's spendthrift ways. Make up your mind brah.

Third paragraph: wall is a waste of money because airplanes.


I'm done with this dude. The wall and airplanes thing is just too much.

First: The authority is the head of the CIA and the FBI, which lends weight to Zebra's argument although I disagree with his conclusion.

Second: Trumps fiscal proposals haven't made sense. Steve Mnuchin actually openly disagrees with pieces of Trump's rhetoric surrounding fiscal policy, which I take as a sign that Trump's rhetoric is posturing and he'll take a more pragmatic position as negotiations commence surrounding tax reform and spending projects. Most likely his proposals will end up being revenue neutral at worst given that we have no more money.

This means Zebra is at least partly correct in his critique on Trump's fiscal policy.

Third: Around half of our illegal immigrants are people who are staying in the United States on an expired visa, which means that Zebra is 50% correct since those people arrived here by plane.

Please read and critique my response if you think I'm wrong. Also, leave out the gifs and snarkiness in your response, I find it distasteful.

First: I wouldn't ask the intelligence agencies their opinion on abuses of power by the intelligence agencies. I know what they would say before they say it, and it carries zero weight.

Second: "Zebra" is certainly at least half correct about Trump's fiscal policy, seeing as he at various points criticized Trump both for cutting spending and for increasing it. His assessment is half right, half wrong, and 100% idiotic.

Third: Are you fucking serious? I'm not going to write you an essay on the utility of walls, but feel free to read up on the hundreds of posts in this thread dealing with the Wall, the two threads on this subforum dedicated solely to the Wall, or for that matter contemporary and recorded history. If you still have questions after you do that about the utility of the Wall, come back and ask. Not snark, real advice.

Post: #61095

This will be a good week. Mike has proven himself an olympian.

We're now starting to actively punish and take scalps from these Deep State swamp rats. Gorsuch will be confirmed. The Russia bullshit is collapsing though the hysteria will still be pushed. The Rand Paul healthcare bill is way better and won't actively destroy the GOP like Ryan's piece of shit would have.

Spring has sprung. Now let's see what happens on tax reform. Hopefully Ryan doesn't take the lead.

Post: #61096

Still not seeing anything on CNN about the Susan Rice story. Amazing

Post: #61097

This John Schindler who was kicked out for sending dick picks?

Post: #61098

(04-03-2017 07:06 PM)kbell Wrote:  ...

This John Schindler who was kicked out for sending dick picks?

^^^^
And this is the same John Schindler who was a critic of a Navy SEAL Widow at POTUS Speech.





Meanwhile, White House has just released an official portrait of First Lady Melania Trump today.

Post: #61099

(04-03-2017 05:01 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  Yes, the wall is a waste of money. We have these things called Airplanes. You can just fly to an airport in the States and never leave. A wall does nothing.

Just to start the conversation

Drugs Crossing the borders




People Trafficking




Thousands of women murdered in the dessert

Post: #61100