The First 100 days

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, Nov 10, 2016.

  1. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    IMHO, Cruz is his own worst enemy and is incapable of correcting it.

    For the most part he has a solid grasp/views on the issues. The guy is engaging and surprisingly funny when winging it off the cuff and being himself.

    Then when it counts he always retreats into Harvard debate mode, changes his speech, and becomes a calculated, political speak robot.

    It just screams phony, calculated, and untrustworthy. The rub is the phony appearance is what is phony.

    His acceptance would skyrocket on the right if he'd ditch trying to game the audience, just be real, and let it rip.

    Hopefully he campaigns that way in 2018. We'll see if he learned anything or it's beyond his control to shape shift when political consequences are at stake.
     
  2. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I supported him over Spewhurst but not for the Presidency.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Agree and well stated. He is close to being a great candidate but his speaking style keeps him from taking the final step. That style is great for appellate courts but not for displaced union workers in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio. You are never going to inspire those voters with an appellate court demeanor. I think he would have lost to HRC and probably lost the electoral vote badly.

    It's kind of weird that such a personal strength (great appellate lawyer) is also such a weakness. But I think this, along with his waffling on immigration/amnesty/southern border, were his two biggest problems (after Trump being in the race I guess). So while almost all of his policy solutions were on par with Trump's, he would not have flipped the same states Trump flipped.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Here is something else BHO would never have done, or even considered doing

     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Cruz attacked Trump’s wife before the Utah primary.
     
  6. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    First, a super PAC attacked Melania. Cruz didn't. Second, the attack on Melania was on something she did. Attacking someone's deeds is a lot more defensible than attacking someone's looks.

    By the way, I don't agree with the criticism of Melania and always thought it was unfair. The cultural views and perceptions of nudity in Europe are very different from what they are in the US. Showing a boob just isn't that big of a deal over here, and I think it's only fair to take that into consideration in judging the photo shoot. Furthermore, even if we didn't consider that, the photos are old. It isn't as though she was posing nude 6 months ago. It's like going after Bush for a DWI from the '70s. However, none of that justified making fun of Heidi Cruz's looks or implicating his dad in an assassination.
     
  7. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    That's assuming Cruz was unaware the PAC was going to run that ad. Maybe that was the case, but I highly doubt it considering the circumstances.

    At that time the race was in a dead heat. Utah was HUGE for Cruz. Lose that one he was expected to win (religious vote) and he's in deep sh*t.

    I find it hard to believe the Cruz campaign wasn't extremely strategic and involved in how they wanted to pitch the Mormon vote. The guy is as calculated as they come. We're talking about Mr. "New York values" here.

    An ad like that was extremely controversial in a 'boom or bust' way. Alluding Trump's wife is a tramp unworthy of FLOTUS could possibly sway the Utah vote and every remaining primary if voters were to deem it an unthinkable attack.

    Just like DT, I concluded there's little chance Cruz's campaign wasn't consulted beforehand to offer their opinion on an attack that controversial with the potential to monumentally backfire and damage his remaining campaign.

    But unlike DT, I had the benefit of even thinking as my wife wasn't just portrayed as a lower class Tramp to the world. Heidi got off easy.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2017
  8. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Yet another tweak by Trump to improve transparency in DC and continue to chip away at the Swamp

    The Obama Era of the EPA circumventing the Constitution via "Sue and Settle" agreements is over. It's a big deal and something I would have done day one


    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3599458/posts

    ".... during President Barack Obama’s administration ... bureaucrats worked behind the scenes to collude with lobbyists from radical environmental groups to impose costly policies outside of the normal rulemaking process and expand the coffers of environmental groups using “sue-and-settle.”

    Sue-and-settle is a strategy used most often by environmental special-interest groups. The groups sue a federal agency, demanding the agency issue rules by a specific deadline, and the group and agency then enter into a private settlement that becomes legally binding for the agency. These agreements allow rules to be created without agencies having to go through the normal rulemaking channels, and there are no public comment periods.

    According to a May 2013 study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “between 2009 and 2012, [the Environmental Protection Agency] chose not to defend itself in over 60 lawsuits from special interest advocacy groups. … these cases resulted in settlement agreements and EPA publishing more than 100 new regulations.”

    * * *
    ... Scott Pruitt -- “The days of regulation through litigation are over,” Pruitt said in an October 2016 statement announcing the demise of sue-and-settle..... We will no longer go behind closed doors and use consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve lawsuits filed … by special interest groups where doing so would circumvent the regulatory process set forth by Congress,” ...."
     
  9. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Good column by Patrick Buchanon about the feud between Trump and the Bush/McCain Wing of the GOP Establishment -


    "..... Flake calls Trump “dangerous to our democracy.” But the real threat Trump represents is to the GOP establishment’s control of the party’s agenda and the party’s destiny.

    U.S. politics have indeed been coarsened, with Trump playing a lead role. Yet, beneath the savagery of the uncivil war in the party lies more than personal insults and personality clashes.

    This is a struggle about policy, about the future. And Trump is president because he read the party and the country right, while the Bush-McCain Republican establishment had lost touch with both.

    How could the Beltway GOP not see that its defining policies — open borders, amnesty, free trade globalism, compulsive military intervention in foreign lands for ideological ends — were alienating its coalition?

    What had a quarter century of Bushite free trade produced?

    About $12 trillion in trade deficits, $4 trillion with China alone, a loss of 55,000 plants and 6 million manufacturing jobs.

    We imported goods “Made in China,” while exporting our future.

    U.S. elites made China great again, to where Beijing is now challenging our strategic position and presence in Asia.

    Could Republicans not see the factories shutting down, or not understand why workers’ wages had failed to rise for decades?

    What did the democracy crusades “to end tyranny in our world” accomplish?

    Thousands of U.S. dead, tens of thousands of wounded, trillions of dollars sunk, and a Mideast awash in blood from Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, with millions uprooted and homeless. Yet, still, the GOP establishment has not repudiated the mindset that produced this....."

    http://buchanan.org/blog/trumps-party-now-2-127791
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2017
  10. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Trump's week

    -- 3% GDP
    -- Ended the EPA's "sue & settle" which was disguised regulation
    -- Made Swamp/CIA/State open the rest of the JFK files
    -- Opened HRC's e-mails



     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. I35

    I35 5,000+ Posts

    My first thought was “I need to go visit their culture.” But then I remembered they also have a culture of women with hairy armpits. :puke:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    That stereotype is a little like the stereotype that Texans wear cowboy hats and boots and drive big cars with bullhorns on the front. It's pretty dated and very overbroad. I've heard that things started to change in the late '80s as American culture continued its influence, and by the late '90s, unshaven armpits were the exception. Of course, also with that influence came a reduction in toplessness. I've seen topless women in parks and on beaches, but they were the minority, albeit a substantial one. You'll still see them, but they don't dominate like they used to. In addition, none that I've seen had hairy armpits. I've heard that in Eastern Europe, the hairy armpits are more common, but even there, they are becoming less common as those countries continue to "Westernize." (It's one of the few upsides of the EU.) So feel free to visit. Most likely, you'd enjoy the show.

    Of course, you can see why this is a problem for the Muslim man. If you come from a country in which showing ankle is considered risque and showing a knee is borderline obscene, seeing boobs in public is going to be quite a shock.

    Side note - is the hairy armpit always a deal breaker? If you met a girl, and she was hot, had a good body, and was a nice person, would you reject her for her armpit hair? Fortunately, Mrs. Deez didn't have the issue, but if she did, I wouldn't have rejected her. I may have tried to "influence" her on that issue, but I wouldn't have just written her off.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    You're making the strategic case for running the ad against Melania, but you have no basis to assume Cruz was involved in it, which would have been illegal. Furthermore, you're ignoring the distinction in the attacks. Attacking someone's conduct is a lot more defensible than attacking someone's appearance. For example, if you attack Obama for doing something stupid, that's fair. If you attack him for having a black father, that's not fair. Cruz's superpac did the former. Trump did the latter.
     
  14. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Cruz was aware. So no power player in the PAC informed a power player in the Cruz campaign of their intention to release an ad painting DT's wife as a floozy? :rolleyes1: Sure thing.
     
  15. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    This is a diversion from the real point, but I'll go with it, since that's where it want to go. So what is your evidence of Cruz's involvement?
     
  16. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Zodiac, grassy knoll, just another feather in the cap. :smile1:
     
  17. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    LOL. But this is the point. You're assuming guilt of a crime without evidence. Surely you can understand why that's a problem.
     
  18. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Decent article arguing that one of the main reasons Trump won was that he was the only candidate who understood the devastating effect on middle American due to bad trade deals

    "Like the hedgehog, Donald Trump understands only one thing that matters. His critics, such as George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Jeff Flake, who last week made three largely correct and inspiring speeches, seem to know everything but.

    They understand politics, policy, and the uses of etiquette, but seem deaf, dumb, and blind from the central great issue that drove Trump’s election: The top tiers of the country have been flourishing nicely, while those underneath have been taking a beating. And one reason is international trade.

    Like Hillary Clinton and the sixteen extremely well-qualified candidates who lost to Trump in the primary, these well-meaning, cultured, intelligent people seem unable to grasp what Roger Altman explained in the Washington Post this past weekend: that “the so-called American dream ... has ended for most of our citizens. Half of the young adults in this country will earn less over their lifetimes than their parents did. Indeed, the whole idea of rising living standards, which defined this country for so long, is a thing of the past.”

    Trump won, not because the country was racist or sexist, or because most in the country enjoyed his coarse language. He won because he was the only one who realized the problem existed.

    Trump was elected by people who didn’t much like him — 19 percent of his voters thought him unqualified — and by Obama voters in the upper Midwest whose communities had been devastated by job losses. The irony was that Bush, Flake, and Obama, while deploring Trump’s sins, still listed free trade as one of their paramount values, even though the evidence since has been more than abundant that embracing free trade beyond the limits of prudence was their founding and critical sin.

    On Oct. 10, 2000, on the advice of the experts, Bill Clinton signed a now-infamous trade deal with China, calling it a ‘win-win’ solution for both of the countries that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. It turned out the experts were wrong. It created job losses that were worse than expected. Workers didn’t ‘bounce back,’ as experts predicted, but remained unemployed. These losses fanned out in concentric circles of failure, as losses of wages led to failures of stores, restaurants, and local businesses in their localities, as entire districts fell into decline....."

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/and-thats-why-trump-won/article/2639035
     
  19. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  20. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  21. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    This issue is worth more to Trump as a political weapon than actually resolving it. Don't expect any resolution any time soon.
     
  22. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    You long?

     
  23. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    It's not easy to be this dumb
    It takes some work
    And these people vote

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  24. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    I have a hard time liking Trump as a person, but hard to disagree with his efforts to stop it. Unfortunately, his predacessors set this up and he has too much opposition from establishment politicians to correct what is wrong.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  26. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Christmas Card/Present idea

    (Should I be issuing a trigger warning before posting the word Christmas?)

    [​IMG]
     
  27. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  28. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    The State Department interactive website claims the number of refugee admissions in the first month of the new fiscal year 2018 to date have fallen from 9,945 (same month under Obama 2017) to 1,242 (–87%).

    http://www.wrapsnet.org/
     
  29. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  30. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    On this day ....

     

Share This Page