Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SnakePlissken wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
Christ on a crutch, this is the man that's currently whispering in the president's ear.[/url]

I'd like to see this in context.

Context we can all understand and enjoy

 infinite_array wrote:

 SnakePlissken wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
Christ on a crutch, this is the man that's currently whispering in the president's ear.[/url]

I'd like to see this in context.

Read the article.

I did..it was also just a few quotes from the wall of text...not the entire context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:

 SnakePlissken wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Yeah, Trump exists because, as Jon Stewart said (either in the video above or the next link I clicked on after that one), Republicans had a disconnect between their rhetoric and their actions.

I disagree with this statement. A large part of why Trump exists, is because people were upset with what Obama had been doing by ramrodding his agenda by executive fiat.

Can we get those executive order statistics by two-term presidents again, please?

Not all executive orders are created equal. You have to compare apples to apples, not necessarily volume.

 SnakePlissken wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 SnakePlissken wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
Christ on a crutch, this is the man that's currently whispering in the president's ear.[/url]

I'd like to see this in context.

Read the article.

I did..it was also just a few quotes from the wall of text...not the entire context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:

 SnakePlissken wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Yeah, Trump exists because, as Jon Stewart said (either in the video above or the next link I clicked on after that one), Republicans had a disconnect between their rhetoric and their actions.

I disagree with this statement. A large part of why Trump exists, is because people were upset with what Obama had been doing by ramrodding his agenda by executive fiat.

Can we get those executive order statistics by two-term presidents again, please?

Not all executive orders are created equal. You have to compare apples to apples, not necessarily volume.

Then please criticize on actual policy, not 'ramrodding by executive fiat'. That sounds more like you're attacking the method, rather than any particular goal.

Well... didn't expect this:

BREAKING: New York AG: In a "stunning reversal" by Pres.-elect Trump, a $25M settlement agreement has been reached in Trump Univ. case. pic.twitter.com/2AQkdbsSxb

— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) November 18, 2016

That's a hella admission of guilt.

I guess he didn't want to be compelled to take the witness stand...

 Spinner wrote:

 SnakePlissken wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 SnakePlissken wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
Christ on a crutch, this is the man that's currently whispering in the president's ear.[/url]

I'd like to see this in context.

Read the article.

I did..it was also just a few quotes from the wall of text...not the entire context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:

 SnakePlissken wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Yeah, Trump exists because, as Jon Stewart said (either in the video above or the next link I clicked on after that one), Republicans had a disconnect between their rhetoric and their actions.

I disagree with this statement. A large part of why Trump exists, is because people were upset with what Obama had been doing by ramrodding his agenda by executive fiat.

Can we get those executive order statistics by two-term presidents again, please?

Not all executive orders are created equal. You have to compare apples to apples, not necessarily volume.

Then please criticize on actual policy, not 'ramrodding by executive fiat'. That sounds more like you're attacking the method, rather than any particular goal.

Presidents can issue executive orders to revise how federal departments enforce exists laws but executive orders cannot create new laws. Obama tried to use executive orders to create new laws, that was clearly unconstitutional and an overreach of executive power. Those executive orders were challenged in court and the courts ruled against Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/immigration-supreme-court/

The Obama administration also lost a 9-0 SCOTUS ruling against his unconstitutional recess appointments.
http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/26/supreme-court-rules-obamas-recess-appointments-violated-constitution/

 whembly wrote:
Well... didn't expect this:

BREAKING: New York AG: In a "stunning reversal" by Pres.-elect Trump, a $25M settlement agreement has been reached in Trump Univ. case. pic.twitter.com/2AQkdbsSxb

— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) November 18, 2016

That's a hella admission of guilt.

I guess he didn't want to be compelled to take the witness stand...

He earned more than that from the scam.

Really, it's a tragedy. Trump was actually facing real charges of fraud, and getting elected pretty much gets him off of all of them. The New York AG had to settle. What is he gonna do? Bring the President of the United States into court? Once again big business has been sent the message that it can complain about the laws and regulations it doesn't follow, earn more money than it loses in courts, and people will let them. Regulations are supposed to protect the masses from being the unwitting victims of large bodies they have zero say in, but they continue to be little more than overhead costs for the business practices they're suppose to curtail.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... didn't expect this:

BREAKING: New York AG: In a "stunning reversal" by Pres.-elect Trump, a $25M settlement agreement has been reached in Trump Univ. case. pic.twitter.com/2AQkdbsSxb

— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) November 18, 2016

That's a hella admission of guilt.

I guess he didn't want to be compelled to take the witness stand...

He earned more than that from the scam.

Really, it's a tragedy. Trump was actually facing real charges of fraud, and getting elected pretty much gets him off of all of them. The New York AG had to settle. What is he gonna do? Bring the President of the United States into court?

Absolutely. Billy Clinton had to...

Once again big business has been sent the message that it can complain about the laws and regulations it doesn't follow, earn more money than it loses in courts, and people will let them. Regulations are supposed to protect the masses from being the unwitting victims of large bodies they have zero say in, but they continue to be little more than overhead costs for the business practices they're suppose to curtail.

Yeup. Toldya we'd be boned in this election.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... didn't expect this:

BREAKING: New York AG: In a "stunning reversal" by Pres.-elect Trump, a $25M settlement agreement has been reached in Trump Univ. case. pic.twitter.com/2AQkdbsSxb

— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) November 18, 2016

That's a hella admission of guilt.

I guess he didn't want to be compelled to take the witness stand...

He earned more than that from the scam.

Really, it's a tragedy. Trump was actually facing real charges of fraud, and getting elected pretty much gets him off of all of them. The New York AG had to settle. What is he gonna do? Bring the President of the United States into court? Once again big business has been sent the message that it can complain about the laws and regulations it doesn't follow, earn more money than it loses in courts, and people will let them. Regulations are supposed to protect the masses from being the unwitting victims of large bodies they have zero say in, but they continue to be little more than overhead costs for the business practices they're suppose to curtail.

Unfortunately, that's pretty common. Look at companies like BP or VW, who got fined a hefty fee, but still truck on pretty well.

 whembly wrote:
Well... didn't expect this:

BREAKING: New York AG: In a "stunning reversal" by Pres.-elect Trump, a $25M settlement agreement has been reached in Trump Univ. case. pic.twitter.com/2AQkdbsSxb

— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) November 18, 2016

That's a hella admission of guilt.

I guess he didn't want to be compelled to take the witness stand...

so did he pay the fine, or did his charity pay it? He probably he paid it with his left over campaign donations.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... didn't expect this:

BREAKING: New York AG: In a "stunning reversal" by Pres.-elect Trump, a $25M settlement agreement has been reached in Trump Univ. case. pic.twitter.com/2AQkdbsSxb

— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) November 18, 2016

That's a hella admission of guilt.

I guess he didn't want to be compelled to take the witness stand...

He earned more than that from the scam.

Really, it's a tragedy. Trump was actually facing real charges of fraud, and getting elected pretty much gets him off of all of them. The New York AG had to settle. What is he gonna do? Bring the President of the United States into court? Once again big business has been sent the message that it can complain about the laws and regulations it doesn't follow, earn more money than it loses in courts, and people will let them. Regulations are supposed to protect the masses from being the unwitting victims of large bodies they have zero say in, but they continue to be little more than overhead costs for the business practices they're suppose to curtail.

I imagine the settlement also has the basic "it's not an admission of guilt" component, so nothing to possibly impeach him on later like some people were hoping.

So the question is now, will the Trump Foundation pay for this settlement or the American Taxpayer? Cause he sure as hell isn't paying it himself

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So the question is now, will the Trump Foundation pay for this settlement or the American Taxpayer? Cause he sure as hell isn't paying it himself

That just makes him smart.

 infinite_array wrote:

 SnakePlissken wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
Christ on a crutch, this is the man that's currently whispering in the president's ear.[/url]

I'd like to see this in context.

Read the article.

Please ensure your posts abide by Rule 1. Thank you, motyak

ender502

 ender502 wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 SnakePlissken wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
Christ on a crutch, this is the man that's currently whispering in the president's ear.[/url]

I'd like to see this in context.

Read the article.

You can't expect republicans to read. So silly.

ender502

Wow rude.

So, Trump ran on a platform of economic protectionism, increased infrastructure spending and tax cuts for the rich. Clinto ran on a platform of tax increases on the rich, increased government support for education/traning.

What I am wondering is have we left the era of the free market? Have both parties basically ditched the idea that free trade is the best way to generate wealth?

The follow up is this...if so, does economic protectionism actually work to increase good paying jobs?

ender502

 ender502 wrote:


The follow up is this...if so, does economic protectionism actually work to increase good paying jobs?

ender502

Adam Smith says no

What I am really not surprised to see is that all the ruckus made on Clinton so called "scandal" and yellings about her being a criminal who needs to be put in jail suddenly disappeared. Trump himself said "it's not his priority".

And yet, this announcement about the Trump University scandal happens.

So, who is the real "criminal who should be put into jail", now? Oh wait, the Republican's candidate is now in charge, so it doesn't count anymore. No matter the lies, no matter the lies...

 sebster wrote:

The second part, which I already explained and that you cut when quoting me, is that looking to boost manufacturing output and assuming that will bring jobs with it is just plain wrong. Look at the wake of 2008, all the manufacturing jobs that were lost never came back. Manufacturing output recovered quite quickly, and is now larger than ever, but the jobs didn't come with it because the new manufacturing was built around highly automated factories.

China has also started heavily investing in automation (and is slowly shifting into a service economy like the rest of us). If factory jobs over there are getting eliminated or outsourced to neighbouring countries (even with all the cheap labour) then there's no chance of the USA getting a big boost of manufacturing jobs because Trump orders it.

The only reason you put a factory somewhere now is because the location benefits you in some way. China has manufacturing flexibility and adaptability working for itself, both of which in turn are useful and compensated by quick and cheap shipping to everywhere else in the world. And the only reason to employ people over using robots is because automaton of that step is not financially viable (at the moment).

If I remember correctly self-driving cars could (will?) eliminate 3.5 to 4 million truckers in the US (in the near future, like a decade or so) and these are also jobs that one can't force back (except with something like a Butlerian Jihad).

 ender502 wrote:

What I am wondering is have we left the era of the free market?

The "Free market" is a lie, it's high time you realize that. Even in the days of Adam Smith, governments had some hand in the economy, there's ALWAYS been rules as to what you can and cannot sell.

 sebster wrote:
So maybe the US textile industry would receive a nice boost, but other industries like aeronautics, pharmaceuticals, finance etc (the ones with the good jobs) would suffer a massive hit.

I hate to point this out but you seem to be equating working behind a desk with a job being 'good'. I see 'good' jobs as having a high rate of job satisfaction and a wage capable of keeping one at a decent standard of living.

I mean, stop and look at that list: the aeronautics companies that have been for all intents robbing the taxpayer, the pharmaceutical companies that have been overcharging the sick to high heaven compared to what the exact same drugs made and sold by those exact same companies go for in other countries, and the financial firms who's playing fast and loose with the rules brought ruin and destitution to so many. Do you think that a tear would be shed if they found themselves suffering for their sins?


California in and of itself is, depending on who you ask, either the 6th or 8th largest economy in the world. Texas isn't very far back behind it. Hell, Pennsylvania, not exactly a star player, has a GDP equal to Switzerland. (Numbers as of 2015)

So, looking at that, if Trump starts some protectionist policies, will foreign companies pack it in and just give up on being part of the largest economy on earth, or do you think they'll play ball? I think that Trump is gambling that they'll stay, and I don't think he's entirely wrong.

 Sarouan wrote:
What I am really not surprised to see is that all the ruckus made on Clinton so called "scandal" and yellings about her being a criminal who needs to be put in jail suddenly disappeared. Trump himself said "it's not his priority".

And yet, this announcement about the Trump University scandal happens.

So, who is the real "criminal who should be put into jail", now? Oh wait, the Republican's candidate is now in charge, so it doesn't count anymore. No matter the lies, no matter the lies...

You know what really pisses me off?

Donald "I Never Settle" Trump IMMEDIATELY SETTLED. The guy who's campaign manager said, during his campaigns, that settling WAS THE SAME AS ADMITTING GUILT.

How is it not painfully obvious that the man folds like wet cardboard whenever it becomes clear he's not operating in a position of power? We had this same gak going on when Trump caved in from of President Nieto during his visit to Mexico, then immediately ran back to his safe space rally to beat the war drums for the wall!

The campaign was just one contradiction and/or lie after another so why stop now?

Every lib rag is pimping that Bannon quote entirely out of context...it's pathetic and desperate. They should devote more energy to trying to understand the man...the Buzzfeed article was actually quite enlightening: https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world

In positive news, I'm excited for Flynn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_T._Flynn

He is one of the few Westerners brave enough to openly recognize the threat of Islam.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 ender502 wrote:

What I am wondering is have we left the era of the free market?

The "Free market" is a lie, it's high time you realize that. Even in the days of Adam Smith, governments had some hand in the economy, there's ALWAYS been rules as to what you can and cannot sell.

True to a point. Even Adam Smith said the government would have to help when competing against other nations government subsidized industries.

Though we have never had a truely "free" market it doesn't mean that we have a government controlled one like cold war communist countries. That doesn't make a free market ideaology a lie, only pragmatic. Capitalists will take every bit of help they can get....especially if someone else (the tax payer) is footing the bill.

The question remains; have both the parties abandoned free market capitalism in favor of a more federal government directed economy? If we have, is that a good thing?

ender502

Hillary should have listen to Bill about connecting more to the working class then attacking Trump. I saw three negative ad's on Trump before his first hit the wave putting him in a positive light.

 Spinner wrote:

 SnakePlissken wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 SnakePlissken wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
Christ on a crutch, this is the man that's currently whispering in the president's ear.[/url]

I'd like to see this in context.

Read the article.

I did..it was also just a few quotes from the wall of text...not the entire context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:

 SnakePlissken wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Yeah, Trump exists because, as Jon Stewart said (either in the video above or the next link I clicked on after that one), Republicans had a disconnect between their rhetoric and their actions.

I disagree with this statement. A large part of why Trump exists, is because people were upset with what Obama had been doing by ramrodding his agenda by executive fiat.

Can we get those executive order statistics by two-term presidents again, please?

Not all executive orders are created equal. You have to compare apples to apples, not necessarily volume.

Then please criticize on actual policy, not 'ramrodding by executive fiat'. That sounds more like you're attacking the method, rather than any particular goal.

He was attacking the method. He got caught peddling false fox newstalking points that don't stand up to a google search and then changed direction. Don't apologoze for being right.

ender502


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The settlement on the civil case.

Fascinating.

Remember the president is protected from criminal prosecution but not civil trials. That's what happened to Bill Clinton.

But that isn't why he settled. The testimony could have been used as evidence of a crime (even though he could not have been prosecuted) and used as the basis for articles of impeachment (Bill's lie under oath about Monnica was evidence of a misdemeanor he wouldn't be prosecuted for).

There is still a potential criminal proceeding in NYC on fraud related to trump U. If that gets filed the evidence in the hands of the attorney general could be used as impeachment fodder.

I'm not saying that is likely or would even be succesful. Just saying that is how it could go.

ender502

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Every lib rag is pimping that Bannon quote entirely out of context...it's pathetic and desperate. They should devote more energy to trying to understand the man...the Buzzfeed article was actually quite enlightening: https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world

So, in short: "WE NEED MORE JESUS IN AMERICA! JESUS WILL FIX OUR ECONOMY! MAXIMUM JESUS!"

This is hardly a reassuring article.

In positive news, I'm excited for Flynn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_T._Flynn

He is one of the few Westerners brave enough to openly recognize the threat of Islam.

Just what our secular government needs, someone who is willing to set aside the first amendment and our founding principles of separation of church and state to Do What Must Be Done against a religion we don't like.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Every lib rag is pimping that Bannon quote entirely out of context...it's pathetic and desperate. They should devote more energy to trying to understand the man...the Buzzfeed article was actually quite enlightening: https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world

In positive news, I'm excited for Flynn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_T._Flynn

He is one of the few Westerners brave enough to openly recognize the threat of Islam.

Islam isn't a threat. Not any more than Christianity was the problem in Nazi Germany.

The way that racism tries to pretend it is something other than racism is almost as sad as how easily it is exposed when confronted by facts. Like salt on a slug.

ender502

Mattis would be a brilliant SECDEF.

I look at it this way, any christian that supports the registry of muslims can never complain about freedom of religion again.