Sign in to follow this  
deicer

Trump 2.0 Continues

Recommended Posts

GOD: "NO, NO.  That's not what I said.  I said "Over my dead body will trump be president of the United States"  perhaps it was a poor choice of words"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Malcolm said:

Public schools are for education, not religious indoctrination."

Unless of course it’s the Islamic faith and live in Canada.

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/private-school-that-forced-muslim-students-to-pray-outside-unlawfully-discriminated-human-rights-tribunal-rules

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

Since 2001 the US has brought down the Governments of 3 countries, it has been hard on the civilian population and has left the countries in turmoil.

During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 31,000 civilian deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900 civilians have been wounded. Over 111,000 Afghans, including civilians, soldiers and militants, are estimated to have been killed in the conflict.

Iraq: The Iraq Body Count project (IBC) figure of Documented civilian deaths from violence is 173,686 – 193,965 as of April 2017. This includes reported civilian deaths due to Coalition and insurgent military action, sectarian violence and increased criminal violence.

Libya:  several thousand civilians killed and the country remains unstable

And Now

‎Today, ‎February ‎3, ‎2019, ‏‎20 minutes ago

U.S. President Donald Trump said that sending the military to Venezuela was "an option" and that he had turned down President Nicolas Maduro's request for a meeting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Malcolm said:

 

 

The problems with these kind of statistics is they only tell one side of a story.  We don’t  know what the numbers would have looked like had the US NOT intervened. IOW turned a blind eye like the world did with Hitler,  Stalin, Mussolini etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2019 at 6:03 AM, Jaydee said:

 

Absolutely Jaydee, good post.

Sean Hannity: Democrats disavow Northam but they don't want you to know about their racist past

As of Monday, most Democrats have called on Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam to resign over his alleged appearance in a racist photo showing two people, one in a KKK costume and the other in blackface, that appeared on his page in his medical yearbook more than 30 years ago.

But Northam was once endorsed by all of his party's key political players, including Sens. Mark Warner, Tim Kaine and Clinton hack Terry McAuliffe. He was even endorsed by President Obama, who claimed Northam would put an end to "divisive politics."

While Republicans are proud to represent themselves as the party of Abe Lincoln -- the Emancipation Proclamation, the 1960s civil right movement -- Democrats don't want you to know anything about their past conduct.

For example, 112 Democratic lawmakers voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed racism against minorities. Al Gore's father, a prominent Democratic senator, voted against the Civil Rights Act. One year later, 70 Democrats voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prevented racism at the ballot box.

The Democratic Party also largely opposed racial integration in schools. In 1959, 99 Democratic lawmakers signed off on the "Southern Manifesto," which was drafted to counter the historic Brown vs. the Board of Education Supreme Court decision. As governor, Democrat George Wallace, stood in the doorway of a Birmingham school to physically block racial integration.

Former President Bill Clinton called J. William Fulbright his mentor. Fulbright vigorously opposed all integration efforts. So, Clinton’s beloved mentor was a segregationist.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has said that Sen. Robert "KKK" Byrd was her mentor. Byrd was a lifelong Democrat. Before serving in Congress, Byrd was actually in the Klan. In the Senate, Byrd actually filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 14 hours. He later apologized for his racist past and KKK ties. But in 2001, Hillary Clinton's mentor sparked controversy when he used the N-word during an interview with Tony Snow.

Meanwhile, another prominent Democrat, former Vice President Joe Biden has also faced charges of racism. According to the Washington Examiner, in 1975, he opposed a policy called desegregation busing, which helped integrate public schools.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Crazy Uncle Joe has a long history of making dumb remarks. Remember when he referred to Obama as the "first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean" Or when he said, "You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent"?

Today, deflection is the name of the game in the Democratic Party. Every two and four years, the party actively avoids its racist past and claims that all Republicans are racist. I guess it shouldn't surprise anyone that the party of Robert Byrd, George Wallace and Al Gore Sr. is now using race as a political ploy.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sean-hannity-democrats-disavow-northam-but-they-dont-want-you-to-know-about-their-racist-past

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 10:11 AM, Malcolm said:

 

 

who elected the US world police.  Let Venezuela work it out

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't and they never will be, however,,,,

If Donnie continues with his 'temporary' fill in cabinet, they are well on their way to a dictatorship.  Just like Vlad wants it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, deicer said:

They aren't and they never will be, however,,,,

If Donnie continues with his 'temporary' fill in cabinet, they are well on their way to a dictatorship.  Just like Vlad wants it.

If nothing else we can always count on you for a good laugh 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

State of the Union 2019: Trump claims fact-checked

By Reality Check team BBC News
Image copyright AFP / Getty Images

US President Donald Trump's speech was filled with praise for the strong economy. But did his numbers add up?

1. "Wages are rising at the fastest pace in decades"

This is exaggerated. Last year, average hourly earnings increased by 85 cents, or 3.2%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This isn't the highest for decades though; it's the highest since 2009.

The wage growth does not take into account inflation (that's the rate at which prices for goods and services increases). The current inflation rate is 1.9% for the 12 months ending on December 2018, according to the US Labor Department.

Chart shows US wage growth over time

2. "We have created 5.3 million new jobs and importantly added 600,000 new manufacturing jobs"

This is another exaggeration. From Jan 2017 to Jan 2019, the US added 4.9 million jobs in total, including 454,000 in manufacturing, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

The president appears to have inflated his numbers by going from the date of the 2016 election, rather than the date he assumed office.

 

However, the economy is growing under the Trump administration - a trend that began under President Barack Obama.

3. "African-American unemployment has reached its 'lowest levels ever recorded"

This is true. In May 2018, unemployment for African Americans fell to 5.9%, the lowest figure since the 1970s (when the BLS started breaking down the figures by race). This followed on from a similar trend under the Obama administration. It was recorded as 6.8% in January 2019.

Some US media have highlighted some important caveats:

  • The figures tend to be volatile and vary from month to month
  • The rate is still statistically higher than for other ethnic groups
Women and African American unemployment rate

4. "Americans pay vastly more than people in other countries for the exact same drugs"

This is true. Many other countries directly negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to regulate the prices.

The US spent $1,443 per capita on pharmaceutical costs in 2016, compared to a range of $466 to $939 in 10 other high income countries, including the UK, Australia, Canada and Japan, according to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Both Democrats and Republicans want to reduce the costs.

5. "The United States is now the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world"

True - according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent energy statistical agency - it is the leading global oil and natural gas producer.

Output has risen beyond Russia and Saudi Arabia, which have been limiting production to boost prices.

The International Energy Agency predicts that by 2025 nearly every fifth barrel of oil and every fourth cubic metre of gas in the will come from the United States.

6. El Paso "was one of the most dangerous cities in the country"

President Trump made the claim while focusing on the "national crisis" of illegal immigration and called on Congress to back his plans for a border wall.

He said the Texan city of El Paso - on the Mexican border - "was one of the most dangerous cities in the country", until a barrier went up. This is false.

A stretch of fence was constructed there between 2008 and 2009, which appears to be the moment the president is referring to.

In the years immediately before the barrier went up, El Paso had one of the lowest crime rates among the 50 largest cities in the US, according to FBI statistics.

In 2007, there were 418 violent crimes per 100,000 people in El Paso. By comparison, in 2007, Detroit, Michigan, had 2,287 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

Since the fencing was completed, the violent crime rate in El Paso has gone down before rising slightly in 2016, but it's still one of the lowest out of the largest 50 US cities, according to the FBI statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, deicer said:

Well, the right has turned against Donnie....

Coulter represents no one but herself, her views count for less than nothing with most people. IMO she is a comedian and an entertainer, nothing more. 

The rest of your (general) position stands without merit until Liberals are willing to pay their bills. That's all I want to see... willingness.

At the risk of repeating myself here, to get my full support, you only need to collectively show yourself willing. Until you are, please stop voting for things that we (collectively) aren't willing to pay for.... it's getting expensive out there. By way of Canadian example, Toronto needs to raise taxes in order to pay its sanctuary city bill. I see no willingness or commitment here.... show me!

Price's Law is (almost) universally governing and a quick game of Monopoly will prove it so. I always hear about that 1% who are going to pay. It never happens and it won't. You and I will be the ones to pay. So, if you want to live in a sanctuary city, that's great and I applaud your generosity. But I don't want to live in one for a number of compelling legal and security reasons, why do you think I should pay for your decision and your values? Toronto entered into this of its own accord. 

That example is analogous to the (new) Democratic Party position in the US. Do you like what you see in Southern California enough to expand the concept both procedurally and geographically? I would vote against it, but once committed, I think we should pay the bill to do it right... or not undertake it in the first place. And please don't tell me it will all be paid for by a new tax on the "1%".... it won't, I know that because it never has. It might all be a moot point though, they seem to be running out of virtuous contenders:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/virginia-ag-mark-herring-admits-wearing-blackface-at-1980-college-party

Even the Hitler thing doesn't seem to be working for them anymore:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-teacher-faces-termination-after-post-misidentifying-a-covington-student-as-hitler-youth

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True ....False.....Tightening  noose ...who really GAF.....this is what counts regarding last nights speech regardless of how CNN tries to spin it!

26105A19-DC45-4037-ACC5-426CCF377405.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standby for tweetgasm...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/house-intelligence-transcripts-mueller/index.html

3 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

Coulter represents no one but herself, her views count for less than nothing with most people. IMO she is a comedian and an entertainer, nothing more. 

The rest of your (general) position stands without merit until Liberals are willing to pay their bills. That's all I want to see... willingness.

At the risk of repeating myself here, to get my full support, you only need to collectively show yourself willing. Until you are, please stop voting for things that we (collectively) aren't willing to pay for.... it's getting expensive out there. By way of Canadian example, Toronto needs to raise taxes in order to pay its sanctuary city bill. I see no willingness or commitment here.... show me!

Price's Law is (almost) universally governing and a quick game of Monopoly will prove it so. I always hear about that 1% who are going to pay. It never happens and it won't. You and I will be the ones to pay. So, if you want to live in a sanctuary city, that's great and I applaud your generosity. But I don't want to live in one for a number of compelling legal and security reasons, why do you think I should pay for your decision and your values? Toronto entered into this of its own accord. 

That example is analogous to the (new) Democratic Party position in the US. Do you like what you see in Southern California enough to expand the concept both procedurally and geographically? I would vote against it, but once committed, I think we should pay the bill to do it right... or not undertake it in the first place. And please don't tell me it will all be paid for by a new tax on the "1%".... it won't, I know that because it never has. It might all be a moot point though, they seem to be running out of virtuous contenders:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/virginia-ag-mark-herring-admits-wearing-blackface-at-1980-college-party

Even the Hitler thing doesn't seem to be working for them anymore:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-teacher-faces-termination-after-post-misidentifying-a-covington-student-as-hitler-youth

You are half right.

To pay for it, it should be fair.  Again it comes to taxes.  The 1% got their cut, but the average citizen is paying more.

Follow #taxes to see the reactions from the average American. They are waking up.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/taxes?lang=en

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, deicer said:

The 1% got their cut, but the average citizen is paying more.

And they will pay more still.

The Liberal answer is always the rich will pay for my ideas..... not me. Or someone else, not me. 

Until you are ready to pay for your own ideas and your own values, I submit they have no tangible value. I won't support your quest either until I see some commitment to walking the walk. Facta non verba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So until the 1% and corporations pay their proportionate share of taxes, instead of using loopholes to hide and offshore their money, the average Joe actually pays more.

You claim of paying for your own ideas rings true when the 1% pays for politicians to approve even more tax cuts for them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are on a quest that hasn't worked out too well in the past but I'm rooting for you. Battling the effects of Price's Law is what my grandfather would have called "thirsty work." If the idea has value and is worth pursuing , it must be worth paying for. As I recall, it wasn't large corporations demanding that Toronto become a sanctuary city and later balking at the cost of it all.

Who do you think has been paying for lofty Liberal values so far? Since your quest remains ongoing, I say you and I are the ones paying and I'm having a hard time getting you (this time I do mean you) to pay your share. Every time the bill comes due it's always someone called 1% who should pay it. We elected a government who promised a carbon tax.... really now, who did you think would be paying that one? As soon as Liberal voters found out it was them, the idea soured.

How about this, hold all of these expensive Liberal ideas and projects in abeyance until such time as the tax system is revamped and you have collected enough from the 1% to fully cost and pay for the project. I want to see results, fix the tax system first, then move on from there. Instead of saying "this project will be funded by taxing the rich" you can say "this project is now fully funded with money currently available from taxing the rich." See the difference? 

We can save the debate over actually surviving the effects of a socialist government for another time.... first things first. This approach would likely have saved us 133 pages and I would be saying "spend away" but only after pointing out the potential danger (and historical precedent) of capital fleeing the country. After it does, it will be back to you and I paying the bill again... historically, these things tend to be circular and don't end well.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again you use flowery language to avoid the main issue.

It isn't about having the 1% pay more.  As highlighted by the Panama Papers, it's about them paying their share instead of avoiding it.

Edited by deicer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To make it fair,  as you want,  would it be fairer if it was a flat tax of 10% for everyone, then a VAT on all purchases?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, deicer said:

Once again you use flowery language to avoid the main issue.

 

Thank you... first time I have been accused of "flowery language." 

Same same then, putting aside the current trend in Democratic taxation theory (somewhere at 90% for that 1%), once you have got them all trained and the cash is flowing, we can proceed with all of those great Liberal ideas. Do that first or join me at the checkout counter and open your wallet.

Don't confuse what I might want with the reality of what is because reality is a cruel beast that needs to be tamed before proceeding. Failure to do that will leave as all with nothing but flowery language and the habit of avoidance.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, deicer said:

To make it fair,  as you want,  would it be fairer if it was a flat tax of 10% for everyone, then a VAT on all purchases?

 

I think that is an idea worth exploring. It would have to be carefully costed against reality (say Hong Kong's example) but the idea has merit. My guess is it would be more like 15%....  

So yes, that evil regressive tax might prove more progressive than previously thought eh?

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 1% shouldn't pay "more" taxes than the rest of the unwashed masses.  Thats not how its supposed to work.  They should pay the same percentage as the rest of us.

What should be done is the loopholes that exist that allow the 1% to funnel their money out of the country without paying any taxes on it.  Thats where the problem is.

That's why I am a proponent of a flat rate Tax.  if we all have to pay it then say everyone from the bottom to the top pays say 20% - no deductions or anything. just 20%

so the guy that makes 10,000 a year pays his 20% and the guy that makes 1,000,000 pays his 20%. it a fair scheme.  That should be IT for any income based taxation (just a round number for demonstration purposes)

All other taxation should be based on consumption.  A reasonable tax on goods and services (sound familiar).  That way we are taxed on spending which is a better indicator of your participation in the economy.  you wouldn't be taxed on the money you saved.

The entire taxation system in this country is designed to be complex and confusing so the government can squeeze as much from you as possible without you really noticing how badly you are getting screwed.  We are double taxed all over the place and we have yet to see a tax revolt.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

boestar - An idea well worth pursuing IMO.

It has been floated before as you know but always seems to splash in flames because it is immediately branded as regressive. That said, I tend to agree with you and support the premise... deicer, you up for that?

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, boestar said:

the 1% shouldn't pay "more" taxes than the rest of the unwashed masses.  Thats not how its supposed to work.  They should pay the same percentage as the rest of us.

What should be done is the loopholes that exist that allow the 1% to funnel their money out of the country without paying any taxes on it.  Thats where the problem is.

That's why I am a proponent of a flat rate Tax.  if we all have to pay it then say everyone from the bottom to the top pays say 20% - no deductions or anything. just 20%

so the guy that makes 10,000 a year pays his 20% and the guy that makes 1,000,000 pays his 20%. it a fair scheme.  That should be IT for any income based taxation (just a round number for demonstration purposes)

All other taxation should be based on consumption.  A reasonable tax on goods and services (sound familiar).  That way we are taxed on spending which is a better indicator of your participation in the economy.  you wouldn't be taxed on the money you saved.

The entire taxation system in this country is designed to be complex and confusing so the government can squeeze as much from you as possible without you really noticing how badly you are getting screwed.  We are double taxed all over the place and we have yet to see a tax revolt.

 

 

I guess Justin could lead the way personally by eliminating any tax breaks enjoyed by his family trust.   😀

Justin Trudeau Net Worth

 

 

Net Worth: $10 Million

 

Statistics
  • Source of Wealth:

    Inheritance
  • Age:

    47
  • Birth Place:

    Ottawa, Canada
  • Weight:

    82 kg (181 lbs)
  • Marital Status:

    Married (Sophie Grégoire Trudeau)
  • Full Name:

    Justin Pierre James Trudeau
  • Nationality:

    Canadian
  • Date of Birth:

    25 December 1971
  • Ethnicity:

    Scottish, French Canadian
  • Occupation:

    Prime Minister, Teacher, Author
  • Education:

    McGill University
  • Children:

    3 (Xavier, Ella, Hadrien)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this