Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 331 to 360 of 392

Thread: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

  1. #331
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute"> AtlantaDan's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    5,297

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    We also think very highly of ourselves in terms of how much attention the rest of the world is paying to us on a daily basis. But if you look at what they're actually talking about in, say, Dublin or Johannesburg, it's not Americans and it's not Trump. Of course the loudest extremists overseas (mostly liberal) make a lot of noise about it, but everyone else has better things to worry about.
    The vast majority of farmers are opposed to a state visit to Ireland by US president Donald Trump, with an opinion poll also finding a majority of rural dwellers believing he will damage America’s global standing.

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakin...nd-806551.html

    Extremist liberal Irish farmers are the worst



  2. #332
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,177

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    No one sold 20% of the nations uranium reserves. That is just conspiratorial lunacy. I love how those that want to criticize liberal politicians so often have to resort to diabolical global conspiracies to make their points. Look Clinton sucks - no argument from me. But if she was the evil mastermind that most make her out to be and able to actually pull off even a third of the nefarious bullshit she gets accused of, we wouldn't be having this conversation because we would all be working in the rare metal mines of Global Emperor for Life Clinton.

    While I actually think Obamacare was better than the previous model (remember before Obamacare most US manufacturers were paying more in healthcare benefits to retiredworkers than they were in wages to current workers!) - it totally has a bunch of flaws and clearly was not written to be as clear and functional as it should have been. Legitimate debate can be had on how best to address the problems in the law, the needed modifications, and the portions that need torn down.

    But all the current Congress wants to do is to simply enact a massive wealth transfer. Cut billions from the healthcare section of the pie chart. Take those billions and give it to the wealthiest 3% of US households. That means that unless you were making over roughly 550 K in 2016 you get exactly jack and shit. Why? Because you don't make massive campaign donations to get these leeched elected over and over again.

    But, hey - at least the President put those mouthy NFL players in their place! C'mon man! This guy was going to "drain the swamp" right? Almost all of his appointees come from Wall Street or Fortune 500 boards. Those are the same cronies and crooks that got us into the mess in the first place.

    But at least everyone is going to stand for the anthem.

    The buying power of your and my wages has only risen 9% since 1979! For 25 years after WWII, wages rose 91%. That was the foundation of the American dream and for two generations now that dream has been increasingly impossible. But, hey no point in talking about that -- let's have some jet flyovers at the stadium!!!

    The disparity in wealth in this country is getting to be as bad or worse than it was during the "Robber Barons" era. That got so bad the government stepped in and changed the rules of capitalism.

    Left, Right, Center -- I really could care less. I just find it infuriating that the conversations our political "leaders" want us to have is based on nonsense rather than the fact that for most of us we are working our asses off and barely able to get by.

  3. #333
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,177

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    A final thought for all of us to gnaw over -- our Political leadership tells us that we must destroy Obamacare "root and branch" because it is a socialist affront to the purity of our free markets. Furthermore it represents a massive over-reach of governmental authority into a regulatory function it has no business taking on. Additionally, the government is terribly inefficient and should get out of the business of providing healthcare and leave that to flexible, adaptable, and efficient hard-working American business.

    Or something along those lines. It seems that every few weeks or months now a variety of prominent political figures get paraded before the camera to tell me to help them do away with the horrors of government funded and administered healthcare. Yet every time there is a "Repeal and Replace" measure put to Congress, guess who keeps their sweet government funded and administered healthcare? Yup - every last one of those lying sacks of shit in Congress. So while they construct a national healthcare policy out of kickbacks, cronyism, duct tape, and baling wire and each of us has to navigate that free-market wonderland; they get to sit back and know that they and their families will have a "cadallic" plan provided to them. Screw that! They should have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.

    Nest time your Senator or Representative pleads with you to help them get rid of government funded and administered healthcare - call their office and ask when they are switching to a plan on the open market they are attempting to create. See how fast you get hung up on.

  4. #334
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojouw View Post
    But all the current Congress wants to do is to simply enact a massive wealth transfer. Cut billions from the healthcare section of the pie chart. Take those billions and give it to the wealthiest 3% of US households. That means that unless you were making over roughly 550 K in 2016 you get exactly jack and shit. Why? Because you don't make massive campaign donations to get these leeched elected over and over again.
    So ... that's just a straight line of doctrine but not actually true at all. The same is said about every tax cut ever. Why? Because people LOVE to get riled up by the same set of cherry-picked numbers that are just the the nature of mathematics.

    Imagine five guys go out drinking every Friday - we'll call them Mr. Blue, Mr. Green, Mr. White, Mr. Blonde and Mr. Pink. They drink $100 worth of beer and split the tab as follows: Mr. Blue pays $80, Mr. Green pays $15, Mr. White pays $5, and they feel bad for Mr. Blonde and Mr. Pink who are down on their luck, so they cover their part of the bill entirely.

    One week, the bartender says he's cutting the price of beer by 20 percent! So they split the bill the same way. Now Mr. Blue pays $64, Mr. Green pays $12, Mr. White pays $4, and Mr. Blonde and Mr. Pink still pay the same amount, nothing.

    Mr. Green is pissed off. "Blue saved $16 but my bill only came down by 3 bucks!"

    Mr. White says, "Fuck you, Green! I earn even less than you, but the bartender cut your bill three times as much as mine!"

    Mr. Blonde and Mr. Pink are furious. They already drank for free, so they didn't save anything at all!

    They all turn to Mr. Blue and say "How is THIS fair? You can afford to pay more but you're saving the most! You really screwed us!"

    So eventually after several weeks of this, Mr. Blue says fuck it, I'll go to a different bar and these idiots can figure out how to pay for their own drinks.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the left's position on tax cuts explained.

    tl;dr version - they ignore the concept of scale to persuade others who also do not understand the concept of scale.
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  5. #335
    Senior Member Array title="Dwinsgames has a reputation beyond repute"> Dwinsgames's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    South Western Pa
    Gender
    Posts
    7,719

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojouw View Post
    No one sold 20% of the nations uranium reserves. That is just conspiratorial lunacy.
    believe what you want ( fyi it doesnt make it so )


    NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html




    - - - Updated - - -

    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-c...uranium-2015-4

    - - - Updated - - -

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...investors.html
    Kenny Pickett is who I though he was .. Eagles problem now

  6. #336
    Senior Member Array title="Dwinsgames has a reputation beyond repute"> Dwinsgames's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    South Western Pa
    Gender
    Posts
    7,719

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    So ... that's just a straight line of doctrine but not actually true at all. The same is said about every tax cut ever. Why? Because people LOVE to get riled up by the same set of cherry-picked numbers that are just the the nature of mathematics.

    Imagine five guys go out drinking every Friday - we'll call them Mr. Blue, Mr. Green, Mr. White, Mr. Blonde and Mr. Pink. They drink $100 worth of beer and split the tab as follows: Mr. Blue pays $80, Mr. Green pays $15, Mr. White pays $5, and they feel bad for Mr. Blonde and Mr. Pink who are down on their luck, so they cover their part of the bill entirely.

    One week, the bartender says he's cutting the price of beer by 20 percent! So they split the bill the same way. Now Mr. Blue pays $64, Mr. Green pays $12, Mr. White pays $4, and Mr. Blonde and Mr. Pink still pay the same amount, nothing.

    Mr. Green is pissed off. "Blue saved $16 but my bill only came down by 3 bucks!"

    Mr. White says, "Fuck you, Green! I earn even less than you, but the bartender cut your bill three times as much as mine!"

    Mr. Blonde and Mr. Pink are furious. They already drank for free, so they didn't save anything at all!

    They all turn to Mr. Blue and say "How is THIS fair? You can afford to pay more but you're saving the most! You really screwed us!"

    So eventually after several weeks of this, Mr. Blue says fuck it, I'll go to a different bar and these idiots can figure out how to pay for their own drinks.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the left's position on tax cuts explained.

    tl;dr version - they ignore the concept of scale to persuade others who also do not understand the concept of scale.

    Kenny Pickett is who I though he was .. Eagles problem now

  7. #337
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,177

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    So ... that's just a straight line of doctrine but not actually true at all. The same is said about every tax cut ever. Why? Because people LOVE to get riled up by the same set of cherry-picked numbers that are just the the nature of mathematics.

    Imagine five guys go out drinking every Friday - we'll call them Mr. Blue, Mr. Green, Mr. White, Mr. Blonde and Mr. Pink. They drink $100 worth of beer and split the tab as follows: Mr. Blue pays $80, Mr. Green pays $15, Mr. White pays $5, and they feel bad for Mr. Blonde and Mr. Pink who are down on their luck, so they cover their part of the bill entirely.

    One week, the bartender says he's cutting the price of beer by 20 percent! So they split the bill the same way. Now Mr. Blue pays $64, Mr. Green pays $12, Mr. White pays $4, and Mr. Blonde and Mr. Pink still pay the same amount, nothing.

    Mr. Green is pissed off. "Blue saved $16 but my bill only came down by 3 bucks!"

    Mr. White says, "Fuck you, Green! I earn even less than you, but the bartender cut your bill three times as much as mine!"

    Mr. Blonde and Mr. Pink are furious. They already drank for free, so they didn't save anything at all!

    They all turn to Mr. Blue and say "How is THIS fair? You can afford to pay more but you're saving the most! You really screwed us!"

    So eventually after several weeks of this, Mr. Blue says fuck it, I'll go to a different bar and these idiots can figure out how to pay for their own drinks.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the left's position on tax cuts explained.

    tl;dr version - they ignore the concept of scale to persuade others who also do not understand the concept of scale.
    I totally get that. I completely understand ratios and all that.

    My understanding of the current proposal is that it only offers relief to Mr Blue on the hope that he spends more at the bar.

    But we have decades of bar tabs that prove that Blue doesn't spend that money. Since the Eisenhower era the top tax rates have been lowered and that fiscal burden has largely been shifted to the working classes.

    I'm by no means am proposing some redistribution of wealth. Thia isn't a socialist screed. But I do think new and innovative approaches need to be attempted. But each Congress, regardless of Party majority, keeps. Trotting out the same old goods and telling me it's going to be different.

    Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #338
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute"> AtlantaDan's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    5,297

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    So ... that's just a straight line of doctrine but not actually true at all.
    It appears your analysis assumes all taxpayers will get a cut and it is just a matter of scale - perhaps not

    The Republican tax plan would deliver a major benefit to the top 1 percent of Americans, according to a new analysis by a leading group of nonpartisan tax experts that challenges the White House's portrayal of its effects.

    The plan would deliver far-more-modest tax cuts to most other households — an average cut of $1,700 for households in 2027, according to the report. But the results would be unevenly spread, with 1 in 4 households paying more in taxes.

    Despite repeated promises from Republican lawmakers that the plan is designed to provide relief to the middle class, nearly 30 percent of taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $150,000 would see a tax increase, according to the study by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. The majority of households that made between $150,000 and $300,000 would see a tax increase.
    Meanwhile, the study found that 80 percent of the tax benefits would accrue to those in the top 1 percent. Households making more than about $900,000 a year would see their taxes drop by more than $200,000 on average.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a0ca75505245

    The Republican plan to nearly double the standard deduction as part of a sweeping tax overhaul appears to be a windfall for average Americans because it would allow them to shield thousands of additional dollars from taxes.

    But don’t start planning how you’d spend those savings yet.

    Another un-touted proposed change that would eliminate personal exemptions would significantly reduce the benefit for some people and conceivably wipe it out for others....


    Experts said that until lawmakers decide on the other key tax plan details, it’s unclear if the larger standard deduction would put more money in people’s pockets.

    “There will be some low- and moderate-income people who will benefit from an increase in the standard deduction even if they lose their personal exemption. There are other people making the same amount of money who will lose in that trade-off just because of the structure of their family,”

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...928-story.html


  9. #339
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    11,821

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    If you guys honestly believe that either the Republicans or the Democrats are looking out for the common man, you are all snowballed. There is agenda for both parties and they are both steering this country toward those agendas. And to hell with you or anyone that gets in the way of that agenda. It's about money, it's always been about money, it will always be about money. Those in power control the money. And no, none of them want you to have it. Just keep arguing about which of them should have it.

  10. #340
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute"> AtlantaDan's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    5,297

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Steel View Post
    If you guys honestly believe that either the Republicans or the Democrats are looking out for the common man, you are all snowballed. There is agenda for both parties and they are both steering this country toward those agendas. And to hell with you or anyone that gets in the way of that agenda. It's about money, it's always been about money, it will always be about money. Those in power control the money. And no, none of them want you to have it. Just keep arguing about which of them should have it.
    Agreed - increasing the deficit through tax cuts or increased spending is a problem only when the other side is doing the increasing to take care of their interests

  11. #341
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,177

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by AtlantaDan View Post
    Agreed - increasing the deficit through tax cuts or increased spending is a problem only when the other side is doing the increasing to take care of their interests
    The interesting thing is that there are many economists, from all political orientations, that now believe that deficits don't matter. Essentially outside of total economic meltdown (Greece) or 100% employment with massive inflation, large national economies can simply carry deficits for an infinite amount of time.

    This is a gross over-simplification of a series of complexities that I am not certain I understand, but the point is that both sides use the fear of national debt as a political football when they are not in power, and then blithely ignore it when they are in power.

    I think the American public needs to stop being fooled by this conversation and tell the politicos to actually figure out how to fix things that matter - infrastructure, jobs, stagnant wages, spiraling healthcare and education costs, etc and to stop using "deficits" as an excuse to duck these issues for yet another Congressional cycle.

  12. #342
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,177

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by Secondaryconcerns View Post
    believe what you want ( fyi it doesnt make it so )


    NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html




    - - - Updated - - -

    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-c...uranium-2015-4

    - - - Updated - - -
    And wanting to believe your side of the coin doesn't make that true either. I know that critical thinking is hard and annoying and it is far easier to just repeat the slap-dash arguments of others that fit our preconceived notions. But....

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html
    All of these are essentially summary reports and minor extensions of claims made in a book (Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich) by Peter Schweizer who among a variety of other things is an editor at Breitbart. I think that whether or not we agree or disagree with the material published at Breitbart, reasonable people can agree that Breitbart is not an unbiased purveyor of information. So, already our critical thinking sense should be on a bit of an alert.

    Further reading of a variety of highly detailed articles (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...m-company.html) indicates that Secretary Clinton never actually sat on any of the State Dept. panels that approved the Uranium One deals. The individual who did has made repeated statements that Clinton never really dealt with the deal. This should further make us uneasy about the straight line connections of some sort of quid pro quo. Although, admittedly, anyone subordinate to Sec. Clinton can not be automatically assumed to have complete autonomy.

    Finally, none of this really matters because the company doesn't have an export license -- so none of the uranium can actually be moved. https://web.archive.org/web/20170129...010/10-211.pdf

    "Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported."

    This should be a critical blow to the cash for influence argument. Now it is entirely possible that the Russian company simply wants to make oodles of cash in the uranium markets. That alone has serious implications that need to be examined and put to the question. But the Breitbart style arguments that Russia now exerts direct control and authority over 20% of the US uranium reserves is not supported by the actual publicly available information. They can't move the stuff, legally, if they wanted to. I also suspect, but admittedly don't know, that it would likely be extremely difficult to illegally smuggle uranium out of Canada. Canada is not an overly friendly country to Russia and Uranium is a highly regulated material. This isn't some former Soviet satellite where the Russians can just muck about with impunity.

    Finally, to round out our discussion of critical thinking -- one needs to consider the other side of the coin. If we assume that Sec. Clinton is guilty of all of the shady financial and influence issues that have been leveled at her and the Clinton foundation and we then argue that these are criminal or at least offenses that disqualify her from holding high elected office -- then we must turn the same standards around on the other side.

    Multiple Constitutional experts have flatly stated that Trump and his family are in gross violation of several aspects of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Further, despite repeated claims that Trump has divested himself of authority and financial involvement in his company(s?) and passed them to his sons - repeated evidence has indicated that this is not the case. In fact, it appears that the only offered public evidence that this happened was a series of manila folders containing blank sheets of paper!

    Additionally, there is strong evidence that foreign leaders, governments, business, and other non-UW actors are funneling business and donations to the Trump brand around the world in an attempt to curry favor with the administration. Now, that has not yet been viewed as any sort of "pay for play" but it appears to walk the same line and be attempting to thread the same dangerous needle that the Clinton Foundation has been.

    Long story short, the evidence for the uranium claims does not totally hold up under any reasonable scrutiny. Even if we assume it does, the same standards applied to Trump find him in similar violations and miss-dealings.

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander? But I am assuming that if you have even read any of this, you have simply been shaking your head and muttering "stupid foolish liberal" and congratulating yourself on how you are able to see the truth while my vision is clouded by my liberal-ness and blind hatred for Trump. Which is wide of my point.

    My only point is that if the Clinton Foundation pisses you off, how does Trump INC not also piss you off?

  13. #343
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    11,821

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojouw View Post
    The interesting thing is that there are many economists, from all political orientations, that now believe that deficits don't matter. Essentially outside of total economic meltdown (Greece) or 100% employment with massive inflation, large national economies can simply carry deficits for an infinite amount of time.

    This is a gross over-simplification of a series of complexities that I am not certain I understand, but the point is that both sides use the fear of national debt as a political football when they are not in power, and then blithely ignore it when they are in power.

    I think the American public needs to stop being fooled by this conversation and tell the politicos to actually figure out how to fix things that matter - infrastructure, jobs, stagnant wages, spiraling healthcare and education costs, etc and to stop using "deficits" as an excuse to duck these issues for yet another Congressional cycle.
    Completely agree. In every other checkbook balance sheet, there is only one way to stop a rising deficit. You have to cut out 'luxuries' and spend only on 'necessities'. In the case of a country, that would involve cutting OFF most socialized programs, getting out of the arms race COMPLETELY, cutting military funding to BAREST essentials, grounding non-essential travel, and putting STATES in charge of their own infrastructure(roads, education, etc) that have mostly run on federal dollars. These steps would create panic, chaos, and total bank failure, so that's probably out. This country has to make it work under a deficit.

  14. #344
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    11,821

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojouw View Post
    All of these are essentially summary reports and minor extensions of claims made in a book (Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich) by Peter Schweizer who among a variety of other things is an editor at Breitbart. I think that whether or not we agree or disagree with the material published at Breitbart, reasonable people can agree that Breitbart is not an unbiased purveyor of information. So, already our critical thinking sense should be on a bit of an alert.

    Further reading of a variety of highly detailed articles (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...m-company.html) indicates that Secretary Clinton never actually sat on any of the State Dept. panels that approved the Uranium One deals. The individual who did has made repeated statements that Clinton never really dealt with the deal. This should further make us uneasy about the straight line connections of some sort of quid pro quo. Although, admittedly, anyone subordinate to Sec. Clinton can not be automatically assumed to have complete autonomy.

    Finally, none of this really matters because the company doesn't have an export license -- so none of the uranium can actually be moved. https://web.archive.org/web/20170129...010/10-211.pdf

    "Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported."

    This should be a critical blow to the cash for influence argument. Now it is entirely possible that the Russian company simply wants to make oodles of cash in the uranium markets. That alone has serious implications that need to be examined and put to the question. But the Breitbart style arguments that Russia now exerts direct control and authority over 20% of the US uranium reserves is not supported by the actual publicly available information. They can't move the stuff, legally, if they wanted to. I also suspect, but admittedly don't know, that it would likely be extremely difficult to illegally smuggle uranium out of Canada. Canada is not an overly friendly country to Russia and Uranium is a highly regulated material. This isn't some former Soviet satellite where the Russians can just muck about with impunity.

    Finally, to round out our discussion of critical thinking -- one needs to consider the other side of the coin. If we assume that Sec. Clinton is guilty of all of the shady financial and influence issues that have been leveled at her and the Clinton foundation and we then argue that these are criminal or at least offenses that disqualify her from holding high elected office -- then we must turn the same standards around on the other side.

    Multiple Constitutional experts have flatly stated that Trump and his family are in gross violation of several aspects of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Further, despite repeated claims that Trump has divested himself of authority and financial involvement in his company(s?) and passed them to his sons - repeated evidence has indicated that this is not the case. In fact, it appears that the only offered public evidence that this happened was a series of manila folders containing blank sheets of paper!

    Additionally, there is strong evidence that foreign leaders, governments, business, and other non-UW actors are funneling business and donations to the Trump brand around the world in an attempt to curry favor with the administration. Now, that has not yet been viewed as any sort of "pay for play" but it appears to walk the same line and be attempting to thread the same dangerous needle that the Clinton Foundation has been.

    Long story short, the evidence for the uranium claims does not totally hold up under any reasonable scrutiny. Even if we assume it does, the same standards applied to Trump find him in similar violations and miss-dealings.

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander? But I am assuming that if you have even read any of this, you have simply been shaking your head and muttering "stupid foolish liberal" and congratulating yourself on how you are able to see the truth while my vision is clouded by my liberal-ness and blind hatred for Trump. Which is wide of my point.

    My only point is that if the Clinton Foundation pisses you off, how does Trump INC not also piss you off?
    No, I cannot back this up with anything remotely non-conspiritus.(if that's even a word) However, the Clinton's are dirty. Maybe not as 'EVIL' as many think, but they are dirty. And Trump is a jerk, a bafoon and an embarrassment. The Clinton's have their hands in some dirty dealings and dirty politics. Like I said, I cannot back that up with anything substantial, it's just things I know.

  15. #345
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,177

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Steel View Post
    No, I cannot back this up with anything remotely non-conspiritus.(if that's even a word) However, the Clinton's are dirty. Maybe not as 'EVIL' as many think, but they are dirty. And Trump is a jerk, a bafoon and an embarrassment. The Clinton's have their hands in some dirty dealings and dirty politics. Like I said, I cannot back that up with anything substantial, it's just things I know.
    Oh, for sure. I never made claims otherwise. The Clintons are dirty like every major political figure ever is dirty. They peddle influence, cash, and favoritism right up to the line of illegality.

    I think Trump and his cronies are attempting to do the same thing, they are just so bad at it that the appear to have crossed the line into illegality.

  16. #346
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    11,821

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojouw View Post
    Oh, for sure. I never made claims otherwise. The Clintons are dirty like every major political figure ever is dirty. They peddle influence, cash, and favoritism right up to the line of illegality.

    I think Trump and his cronies are attempting to do the same thing, they are just so bad at it that the appear to have crossed the line into illegality.
    Right. So why do we keep electing people we know for a fact are dirty? The blanket, they are all dirty, doesn't work for me since I do know some state level representatives that are very much not dirty. The reason 'they are all dirty' is because WE keep letting it go on. It's hard to wade through the allegations from opposing candidates for a grain of truth, but it's not that difficult to use common sense and weed out the entitled crooks. A complete changing of the guard is needed, and soon.
    Just another naïve idealist rant.

  17. #347
    Senior Member Array title="Dwinsgames has a reputation beyond repute"> Dwinsgames's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    South Western Pa
    Gender
    Posts
    7,719

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    don't look now , nothing to hear , nothing to see , but there is an ongoing investigation by congress into uranium one deal ... but smoke never means fire ( sarcasm alert )
    Kenny Pickett is who I though he was .. Eagles problem now

  18. #348
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,177

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Steel View Post
    Right. So why do we keep electing people we know for a fact are dirty? The blanket, they are all dirty, doesn't work for me since I do know some state level representatives that are very much not dirty. The reason 'they are all dirty' is because WE keep letting it go on. It's hard to wade through the allegations from opposing candidates for a grain of truth, but it's not that difficult to use common sense and weed out the entitled crooks. A complete changing of the guard is needed, and soon.
    Just another naïve idealist rant.
    Exactly how I feel. And reason #1 that the ongoing "distraction" of the anthem protests piss me off so much. We aren't noticing how bad we are getting screwed because they continually get away with distracting us with bread and circuses!

  19. #349
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojouw View Post
    I totally get that. I completely understand ratios and all that.

    My understanding of the current proposal is that it only offers relief to Mr Blue on the hope that he spends more at the bar.

    But we have decades of bar tabs that prove that Blue doesn't spend that money. Since the Eisenhower era the top tax rates have been lowered and that fiscal burden has largely been shifted to the working classes.

    I'm by no means am proposing some redistribution of wealth. Thia isn't a socialist screed. But I do think new and innovative approaches need to be attempted. But each Congress, regardless of Party majority, keeps. Trotting out the same old goods and telling me it's going to be different.

    Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

    I'd be more like Mr. Green, but you know what, I'd be happier to have my $3 than to hand it over to the bartender. I don't really care what Mr. Blue does, you know why? Because what I do next to make sure I'm earning $30 and not $15 makes a hell of a lot more difference to my own well-being than how much some stranger is earning or how he spends it. And I have a hell of a lot more control over that, too. I guess I could demand that the bartender step in and tell Mr. Blue how to spend his money, but now I look like a jealous, delusional jerkoff, don't I?

    I think the real issue here is less one of taxation than of government spending. It's out of control. Under Obama they basically took $1 trillion a year in "temporary" spending and made it permanent. Not only is that $1 trillion in higher taxes, it's a $1 trillion drag on the economy; no coincidence that the recovery from 2008 was dragged out over several more years than normal and was not as robust either. When it comes down to it - has there ever been any time in history where you could point at a country and say "That country is not doing well because taxes are too low?" No, but you will sometimes hear "That country is doing OK despite high taxes or despite high government spending." (More often it's not doing OK.)

    It cracks me up to hear people say things like "take more money from the rich, they don't need it" or "if I was rich, I wouldn't care about paying 80% taxes, I'd give it away anyway!" No you fucking wouldn't. Every single person who finds their way into millions of dollars keeps enough of it to live comfortably. Every single one.

    Or how about this one: "Rich people are rich because they're greedy!" How does that even make sense? Nobody is any more likely to give you their money because you're greedy. Most rich people got rich by thinking of something that people wanted and then selling it to them. So somehow, that's now a dishonorable thing to do and a reason for contempt?

    I cannot believe some of the idiots out there. Screaming "Everyone deserves a chance at the American Dream!" out of one side of their mouths, and "If anyone actually achieves the American Dream, we should take it away!" out of the other. What a sad, jealous way to live your life. That's the crux of the matter - jealousy. People are angry that they don't have it for themselves, so they want Big Brother to step in and even the score. Not do better for themselves, just drag the other guy down. The government's social policies are not going to drastically improve things for anyone. (aren't the Democrats still complaining about inequality, social justice, the plight of the common man, and bitching that no one is any better off than they were several years ago? And this is after how many years of hard-left public policy? Shouldn't that tell you something?) Wanting more government is asking to enforce mediocrity on everyone just because you're not doing great. What ever happened to betting on yourself? Oh, right - that's too hard and people today are too lazy to actually DO what they need to get good results.

    In case it wasn't clear, I think the government's role should be to provide very basic things like roads and to ensure public safety, and then fuck off. Not to do social engineering or tell us how to act or what to believe. Probably about a tenth as much involvement in our daily lives as it has now. Maybe that's an extreme viewpoint in its own right, but one that makes a lot of sense to me.
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  20. #350
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,177

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by Secondaryconcerns View Post
    don't look now , nothing to hear , nothing to see , but there is an ongoing investigation by congress into uranium one deal ... but smoke never means fire ( sarcasm alert )
    Just as I suspected, you have no response to any of the substantive part of my posting - including the portions where I agreed with you. I can only suspect this is because Infowars and Breitbart have not yet posted a series of talking points to use when someone actually attempts to engage you in a serious conversation on the issue.

    But, I probably just get my opinions at the same time I pick up my check from Soros, right?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politi...eal/index.html

    Arguments that career "middle managers" and policy experts were the definitive word on the State Department's position on the Uranium One deal. Additionally, the article details how the central focus of the Congressional probe is on why Congress was not informed or briefed by the FBI/DOJ regarding investigations into one of the primary Russian investors. Last I checked that wasn't Clinton's portfolio.

    The Uranium One deal was primarily recommended by CFIUS -- https://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...s-members.aspx -- whose members are made up of a number of Cabinet level branches of government.

    CFIUS can advise and counsel but they BY LAW can not veto or block deals -- https://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...USGuidance.pdf -- only the President can.

    So, if you really want to raise a stink about the Uranium One deal, your ire should be focused on Obama, Commey (head of FBI) and whoever was running the racketeering investigation at DOJ. But that doesn't fit with the "Clinton Crime Family" narrative that makes Infowars and Breitbart foam at the mouth.

    Meanwhile, no mention of the current government officials being investigated for similar actions.

  21. #351
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,177

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    I'd be more like Mr. Green, but you know what, I'd be happier to have my $3 than to hand it over to the bartender. I don't really care what Mr. Blue does, you know why? Because what I do next to make sure I'm earning $30 and not $15 makes a hell of a lot more difference to my own well-being than how much some stranger is earning or how he spends it. And I have a hell of a lot more control over that, too. I guess I could demand that the bartender step in and tell Mr. Blue how to spend his money, but now I look like a jealous, delusional jerkoff, don't I?

    I think the real issue here is less one of taxation than of government spending. It's out of control. Under Obama they basically took $1 trillion a year in "temporary" spending and made it permanent. Not only is that $1 trillion in higher taxes, it's a $1 trillion drag on the economy; no coincidence that the recovery from 2008 was dragged out over several more years than normal and was not as robust either. When it comes down to it - has there ever been any time in history where you could point at a country and say "That country is not doing well because taxes are too low?" No, but you will sometimes hear "That country is doing OK despite high taxes or despite high government spending." (More often it's not doing OK.)

    It cracks me up to hear people say things like "take more money from the rich, they don't need it" or "if I was rich, I wouldn't care about paying 80% taxes, I'd give it away anyway!" No you fucking wouldn't. Every single person who finds their way into millions of dollars keeps enough of it to live comfortably. Every single one.

    Or how about this one: "Rich people are rich because they're greedy!" How does that even make sense? Nobody is any more likely to give you their money because you're greedy. Most rich people got rich by thinking of something that people wanted and then selling it to them. So somehow, that's now a dishonorable thing to do and a reason for contempt?

    I cannot believe some of the idiots out there. Screaming "Everyone deserves a chance at the American Dream!" out of one side of their mouths, and "If anyone actually achieves the American Dream, we should take it away!" out of the other. What a sad, jealous way to live your life. That's the crux of the matter - jealousy. People are angry that they don't have it for themselves, so they want Big Brother to step in and even the score. Not do better for themselves, just drag the other guy down. The government's social policies are not going to drastically improve things for anyone. (aren't the Democrats still complaining about inequality, social justice, the plight of the common man, and bitching that no one is any better off than they were several years ago? And this is after how many years of hard-left public policy?) Wanting more government is asking to enforce mediocrity on everyone just because you're not doing great. What ever happened to betting on yourself? Oh, right - that's too hard and people today are too lazy to actually DO what they need to get good results.

    In case it wasn't clear, I think the government's role should be to provide very basic things like roads and to ensure public safety, and then fuck off. Not to do social engineering or tell us how to act or what to believe. Probably about a tenth as much involvement in our daily lives as it has now. Maybe that's an extreme viewpoint in its own right, but one that makes a lot of sense to me.
    I can agree with much of that. Like I said, if you are going to cut one group's taxes by X % - then do it for all of us. If you are going to raise one groups taxes by Y % - then I guess you better do that for all of us also.

    What gets me angry is when tax policies appear to either unduly burden one segment of the population or unduly benefit another. I'm not angry at anyone's success and I am not looking to be given the results of others hard-work. I'm totally willing to bet on myself. But if we are going to play the game, then I would like the game to be the same for everyone. Not the lopsided, thumb on the scales, rigged system it appears to be currently.

  22. #352
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute"> AtlantaDan's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    5,297

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by Secondaryconcerns View Post
    don't look now , nothing to hear , nothing to see , but there is an ongoing investigation by congress into uranium one deal ... but smoke never means fire ( sarcasm alert )
    So GOP House investigates Clinton conduct again?

    Wow - did not see that coming

    Trey Gowdy admits how this works

    “Congressional investigations unfortunately are usually overtly political investigations, where it is to one side’s advantage to drag things out,” said Mr. Gowdy, who made his name in Congress as a fearsome investigator of Democrats. He added, “The notion that one side is playing the part of defense attorney and that the other side is just these white hat defenders of the truth is laughable.”


    http://www.steelersuniverse.com/foru...reply&p=612170

  23. #353
    Good Guys with Black Hats Array title="SteelMember has a reputation beyond repute"> SteelMember's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    2,418

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Wow, this tread is all over the place... Is this where I should bring it all back together by asking if the players should now "Kneel for Subsidies!". j/k


  24. #354
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute"> AtlantaDan's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    5,297

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelMember View Post
    Wow, this tread is all over the place... Is this where I should bring it all back together by asking if the players should now "Kneel for Subsidies!". j/k

    GOP House will reel it back in by announcing hearings on anthem protests

  25. #355
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,177

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelMember View Post
    Wow, this tread is all over the place... Is this where I should bring it all back together by asking if the players should now "Kneel for Subsidies!". j/k
    Kneel for Wealth Redistribution!

    Kneel for Tax Exemptions!

    We could really expand this into all kinds of things!

  26. #356
    Senior Member Array title="cubanstogie has a reputation beyond repute"> cubanstogie's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    2,082

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojouw View Post
    Just as I suspected, you have no response to any of the substantive part of my posting - including the portions where I agreed with you. I can only suspect this is because Infowars and Breitbart have not yet posted a series of talking points to use when someone actually attempts to engage you in a serious conversation on the issue.

    But, I probably just get my opinions at the same time I pick up my check from Soros, right?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politi...eal/index.html

    Arguments that career "middle managers" and policy experts were the definitive word on the State Department's position on the Uranium One deal. Additionally, the article details how the central focus of the Congressional probe is on why Congress was not informed or briefed by the FBI/DOJ regarding investigations into one of the primary Russian investors. Last I checked that wasn't Clinton's portfolio.

    The Uranium One deal was primarily recommended by CFIUS -- https://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...s-members.aspx -- whose members are made up of a number of Cabinet level branches of government.

    CFIUS can advise and counsel but they BY LAW can not veto or block deals -- https://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...USGuidance.pdf -- only the President can.

    So, if you really want to raise a stink about the Uranium One deal, your ire should be focused on Obama, Commey (head of FBI) and whoever was running the racketeering investigation at DOJ. But that doesn't fit with the "Clinton Crime Family" narrative that makes Infowars and Breitbart foam at the mouth.

    Meanwhile, no mention of the current government officials being investigated for similar actions.
    The Non disclosure agreement the informant had has been lifted so we shall see what it uncovers. I have no idea obviously but it has been confirmed the Clintons have received 134 million from Russians associated with the Uranium , The Russians payed Bill half mill to speak and appeared they paid Russians to get dirt on Trump. I am not saying guilty but I do want to see some fact finding. Something the liberal media doesn't do. They write crap and hope it sticks. Very little accountability, the only reason I say even a little because 3 cnn reporters resigned due to it.

  27. #357
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,177

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by cubanstogie View Post
    The Non disclosure agreement the informant had has been lifted so we shall see what it uncovers. I have no idea obviously but it has been confirmed the Clintons have received 134 million from Russians associated with the Uranium , The Russians payed Bill half mill to speak and appeared they paid Russians to get dirt on Trump. I am not saying guilty but I do want to see some fact finding. Something the liberal media doesn't do. They write crap and hope it sticks. Very little accountability, the only reason I say even a little because 3 cnn reporters resigned due to it.
    Liberal media, conservative media, conspiracy media - -whatever, they all kinda suck. The point is that if we all take a breath and use some reason, logic, and critical thinking skills it is readily possible to get the available facts of a given story laid out. Most of what I head about the Uranium One deal has a ton of yelling on both sides, but very little understanding of what actually happened, what the structure of the deal was, and what the regulatory and oversight responsibilities of the various entities involved in the deal where/are.

    And that is frustrating, because like 20 minutes of Google searching is all it takes to find out the basic facts. But, no one really ever wants to hear that.

  28. #358
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute"> AtlantaDan's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    5,297

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Long ESPN article on the anthem meetings in New York last week - interesting read

    Gaffes, TV ratings concerns dominated as NFL, players forged anthem peace

    Certain owners were kept out of the initial owners-players meeting

    Goodell had personally decided which owners would attend, and he had not invited Jones. The commissioner, sources say, wanted to prevent the players-owners meeting from devolving into an argument about whether a player should be benched if he kneels -- an argument that was more likely to break out if Jones attended....

    Most pro-stand owners, like Dan Snyder of the Washington Redskins, had been purposefully excluded from the players' meeting.

    Jerry Jones then behaved when all the owners met among themselves later that day

    Jones asked a pair of benign questions .... a far different occurrence than in the committee meetings three weeks earlier when, according to an owner, he had "hijacked" the protest discussion. Owners were stunned.

    The next day not so much - this is where Dan Rooney no longer being around has an impact - he could pull rank on Jones

    Jones stood and left no question that it was his floor. "I'm the ranking owner here," he said."

    Which was followed by this from Bob McNair

    McNair, a multimillion-dollar Trump campaign contributor, spoke next, echoing many of the same business concerns. "We can't have the inmates running the prison," McNair said....

    After the owners finished, Troy Vincent stood up. He was offended by McNair's characterization of the players as "inmates." Vincent said that in all his years of playing in the NFL -- during which, he said, he had been called every name in the book, including the N-word -- he never felt like an "inmate."

    After which nothing was decided

    An unofficial count had only nine owners in favor of a mandate, though the reasons for the opposition varied: Some owners had tired of Jones always commandeering such meetings; some were jealous of his power and eager to see him go down; some saw the players-must-stand mandate as bad policy to invoke in the middle of the season; some owners were angry with Jones' hard-line public stance on kneeling, feeling that it had backed them all into a corner.... one major sponsor had threatened to pull out if the NFL were to issue a mandate to stand.


    But Jerry Jones apparently is not done yet. Next round is scheduled for Halloween.

    For now, at least, he had nothing to sell. But there was a very real sense that he wasn't done fighting, not on the anthem, not on Goodell's contract and not on his worries about the NFL's future.


    http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_...eague-meetings

    Given how his father and grandfather operated I would bet AJRII is one of the owners who loathes Jerry Jones

    Wonder which major sponsor threatened to bolt if players were forced to stand - since that company presumably likes to make money it indicates how split folks are on this issue

  29. #359
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by AtlantaDan View Post
    Wonder which major sponsor threatened to bolt if players were forced to stand - since that company presumably likes to make money it indicates how split folks are on this issue
    I don't think it indicates anything about "how split" people are. It's one company out of dozens.

    If anything, that more or less reflects the reality of the situation among fans: A small micro-minority of a few percent who are vocally in favor of the protests; maybe a quarter who vigorously disapprove and say it shouldn't be allowed; another third who don't take particular offense to the protests but think a football game is no place for politics; and the rest who simply don't care.
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  30. #360
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute"> AtlantaDan's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    5,297

    Re: Trump's remarks about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    I don't think it indicates anything about "how split" people are. It's one company out of dozens.

    If anything, that more or less reflects the reality of the situation among fans: A small micro-minority of a few percent who are vocally in favor of the protests; maybe a quarter who vigorously disapprove and say it shouldn't be allowed; another third who don't take particular offense to the protests but think a football game is no place for politics; and the rest who simply don't care.
    Thanks - was unaware the NFL has "dozens" of major sponsors - link?

    Have not seen polling where a "small micro-minority" are all that support the protests- link?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •