CNN’s Angela Rye: Statues of Washington, Jefferson and Lee ‘All Need to Come Down’

[specsaregood]

Again, was not a fan, was very much opposed, did not vote for him.

But the facts are the facts.

Policy wise we are in a much better place than we would have been under Clinton.

and lets not forget Syria, it seems trump really did give up on that mess. no way would Clinton have done that.

 

[nikcers]

he has you doing it. Trump did INCREASE regulations.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You can keep this up all night, can't you?

Well I can't.

It's not a trick question or something. I'm simply asking you define what you mean you say he "reduced the rate of growth of the state." If I said "Tony Romo increased the awesomeness of the Cowboys by 51.74%" that would be a meaningless statement without defining "awesomeness," and in a quantifiable way.

If all you're talking about is the fact that fewer new regulations were implemented so far by Trump than were implemented by some of his predecessors over a comparable period in their terms, per the chart posted earlier, well fine, that's true, but then my response (to repeat myself) is BIG WHOOP. Adding a couple dozen fewer regulations than would otherwise have been added means nothing when you already have nearly 200,000 PAGES of regulations. Number of regulations isn't a very good metric to begin with (because different regulations have different effects: 1 regulation might cost 1000x more than 50 others), so it's only really useful for large scale changes. If you go from 200,000 to 150,000 pages of regs, odds are the total regulatory burden declined. If you go from 200,000 to 200,001, instead of from 200,000 to 200,003, that doesn't really tell you anything.

Bottom line: Trump hasn't really done anything, he's just maintained the status quo.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-an...gton-jefferson-and-lee-all-need-to-come-down/
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...alls-washington-jefferson-monuments-come-down

walmart, home depot, best buy, target,lowes,apple .......macys, jcpenny,sears.....etc. etc. need to come down, they sell slave labor chinese death camp made products.

 

[UWDude]

It's not a trick question or something. I'm simply asking you define what you mean you say he "reduced the rate of growth of the state." If I said "Tony Romo increased the awesomeness of the Cowboys by 51.74%" that would be a meaningless statement without defining "awesomeness," and in a quantifiable way.

If all you're talking about is the fact that fewer new regulations were implemented so far by Trump than were implemented by some of his predecessors over a comparable period in their terms, per the chart posted earlier, well fine, that's true, but then my response (to repeat myself) is BIG WHOOP. Adding a couple dozen fewer regulations than would otherwise have been added means nothing when you already have nearly 200,000 PAGES of regulations. Number of regulations isn't a very good metric to begin with (because different regulations have different effects: 1 regulation might cost 1000x more than 50 others), so it's only really useful for large scale changes. If you go from 200,000 to 150,000 pages of regs, odds are the total regulatory burden declined. If you go from 200,000 to 200,001, instead of from 200,000 to 200,003, that doesn't really tell you anything.

Bottom line: Trump hasn't really done anything, he's just maintained the status quo.

Under trump, as of a month ago, 96 regulations were removed, and 15 new ones implemented, which is better than his "2 regulations removed for every new regulation enacted" guideline.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/trump-eliminates-800-obama-regulations/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...new-one-crushing-2-for-1-goal/article/2629177

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/donald-trump-six-months-barack-obama-savings/2017/08/08/id/806522/

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Under trump, as of a month ago, 96 regulations were removed, and 15 new ones implemented

Wow!

At that rate, it'll only take about half a century to repeal the regulations issued in 2016!

 

[nobody's_hero]

Wow!

At that rate, it'll only take about half a century to repeal the regulations issued in 2016!

Nah, Trump's only gonna be in office, at most 8 years. Afterwards, we can start again rapidly going the wrong direction, instead of just moving very, very slowly in the right one.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Nah, Trump's only gonna be in office, at most 8 years. Afterwards, we can start again rapidly going the wrong direction, instead of just moving very, very slowly in the right one.

At the rate things are going right now, he'll be lucky to be alive 8 months from now.

 

[acptulsa]

It's not a trick question or something. I'm simply asking you define what you mean you say he "reduced the rate of growth of the state." If I said "Tony Romo increased the awesomeness of the Cowboys by 51.74%" that would be a meaningless statement without defining "awesomeness," and in a quantifiable way.

If all you're talking about is the fact that fewer new regulations were implemented so far by Trump than were implemented by some of his predecessors over a comparable period in their terms, per the chart posted earlier, well fine, that's true, but then my response (to repeat myself) is BIG WHOOP. Adding a couple dozen fewer regulations than would otherwise have been added means nothing when you already have nearly 200,000 PAGES of regulations. Number of regulations isn't a very good metric to begin with (because different regulations have different effects: 1 regulation might cost 1000x more than 50 others), so it's only really useful for large scale changes. If you go from 200,000 to 150,000 pages of regs, odds are the total regulatory burden declined. If you go from 200,000 to 200,001, instead of from 200,000 to 200,003, that doesn't really tell you anything.

Bottom line: Trump hasn't really done anything, he's just maintained the status quo.

This is the post that kicked off your seven hour cross examination of me. Did you read more than the first twenty-six words of it?

Nope. But...

I, like you, hate to grovel like a good little serf and thank Massah Donald for greatly slowing the rate of growth of the Octopus. I want it stopped. Indeed, I want it rolled back. I want it to shrink. It has not yet done that. It hasn't even completely stopped growing.

That said, he has dialed things back more than any other administration in my lifetime. It hasn't stopped growing yet, so I can't say we 're pointed the right direction at last. But some credit is due for retarding the growth, and no one does his credibility service by petulantly refusing to give that modicum of due credit.

Ron Paul he ain't. But it turns out there was an appreciable difference between him and the Wicked Witch of the West after all. That doesn't mean the 7D Chess Crowd deserves a pass when they say he's only threatening to conquer Venezuela to prevent McCain from nuking them and painting the stripes. Just means he might prove to have been the slightly lesser evil after all.

The Titanic is still accelerating toward the iceberg. But at least it's no longer accelerating toward the iceberg at full throttle. It ain't worth popping a champagne cork over. But one isn't remiss to pop the top on a Miller High Life.

Because you tied up all my time pissing me off with you silly-assed and more-than-mildly-irritating Socratic Interrogation just to drag me kicking and screaming to the very point I made in the very post that you used to kick this very odyssey off.

Now that I fully understand just how thorough a commie you are, and how little respect you have for my time and to what degree you consider it community property, that you would waste this much of it just to drag me kicking and screaming to a conclusion I reached years ago, I do hope you understand if the next time you ask me a question I completely ignore it.

I suggest you reread my original post, as many times necessary for you to understand the error of your ways.

This probably means a good dozen times.

Report back when you've completed your assignment.

What's good for the ganders is good for you, too, goose.

 

[LibertyEagle]

@Trumpcuck @dannno



That means most immigrants are rapists (contra "some" who are "good people).

Does Trump actually believe that? Who knows (he is very thick, of course...).

Did he say it to win the nationalists to his side? Probably (if there was any strategy behind the statement, this would have been it).

Did it have that effect? Definitely (he led the polls a month later, after doubling down on this theme)

Stop lying, Rev. Trump never said that. You are attempting to use Saul Alinsky tactics on the members of this forum. I have no idea why you have been permitted this long to continue.

 

[Madison320]

@Trumpcuck @dannno

No, he was referring to immigrants, as any non-Trumpcuck with a triple digit IQ can plainly see.

@Madison320

What is it you find incredible? That Trump said Mexicans are rapists, or that such rhetoric propelled his campaign?

Both.

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best," Trump said. "They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

I'm pro liberty and I see a lot of problems with Trump in this regard. You are not pro liberty. You are anti Trump. Trump's statements following the Charlottesville incident were one of the few times he's gotten it right yet even then you complain.

 

[Southron]

Had a little mini red terror last night where I live around Confederate statues. Citizens had to guard statues themselves. A few that were left for police to guard got defaced.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Both.

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best," Trump said. "They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Yes, that's what he said, as I quoted it earlier. Now let's try to figure out why you can't appreciate its meaning:

1. What group is Trump talking about in the first place? Is the "[people] Mexico sends" some special sub-group of immigrants which the Mexican government is encouraging to cross the border, or is it Mexican immigrants in general? It's Mexican immigrants in general. This "Mexico sends" language is typical of anti-immigrant types, ala "we're importing immigrants." It's meant to obscure the fact that the immigrants are people, making choices; anti-immigrants types would rather characterize them as pawns in someone's nefarious scheme.

2. And what does he say about Mexican immigrants? He says "[they] have lots of problems...They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." Now, if *some* are good people, what are the rest? He makes it quite clear: "they’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists."

That's about all the time I'm willing to devote to exegesis of this grade schooler's speech, so, if you still don't get it, I don't know what to tell you.

I'm pro liberty and I see a lot of problems with Trump in this regard.

Good

You are not pro liberty.

You are anti Trump.

As is every pro-liberty person, by definition.

Because you tied up all my time pissing me off with you silly-assed and more-than-mildly-irritating Socratic Interrogation just to drag me kicking and screaming to the very point I made in the very post that you used to kick this very odyssey off.

You seem confused by your own writing.

In your first post, which you just quoted, you said:

"he has dialed things back more than any other administration in my lifetime"

That is false, which is what I'm trying to "drag [you] kicking and screaming" to acknowledge.

Now that I fully understand just how thorough a commie you are, and how little respect you have for my time and to what degree you consider it community property, that you would waste this much of it just to drag me kicking and screaming to a conclusion I reached years ago, I do hope you understand if the next time you ask me a question I completely ignore it.

Fear not, there will be no such questions, about this or any other topic.

 

[Madison320]

That's about all the time I'm willing to devote to exegesis of this grade schooler's speech, so, if you still don't get it, I don't know what to tell you.

Do you at least agree that his initial response was correct? Where he basically blamed both sides? Or do you think he should've only condemned the alt right protestors?

 

[acptulsa]

You seem confused by your own writing.

In your first post, which you just quoted, you said:

"he has dialed things back more than any other administration in my lifetime"

That is false, which is what I'm trying to "drag [you] kicking and screaming" to acknowledge.

Instead of dragging me around and trying to piecemeal together a rebuttal out of this aspect of this administration and that aspect of another administration, try refuting the claim with overarching and irrefutable fact some time.

And good luck with that.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Do you at least agree that his initial response was correct? Where he basically blamed both sides? Or do you think he should've only condemned the alt right protestors?

It's true that both sides are monstrous and should be condemned. However, when you have a history of friendly relations with the one side, and it was that same side which just killed somebody, in the incident in question, playing the objective observer and blaming both sides is a joke - or, rather, a PR move. That statement was Trump simultaneously doing the "Presidential" dance and winking at his alt-right supporters. The same would be true if the shoe were on the other foot. Suppose there had been a right/left riot of some kind in 2015, in which the left killed one of the right. If Obama came out with a "well, everyone's to blame" comment, the right would have gone ballistic, and reasonably so.

P.S. Keep in mind, I don't care what Trump says, about any topic, at all, except insofar as it has real effects on things. I have no "moral outrage" over anything Trump said/didn't say re the riot, as the left pretends to have. My only interest in the whole affair is that the alt-right not be further emboldened, that it even retreat, so that we can regain lost ground in the GOP. That's the upshot of all this. Towards the culture war issues that everyone's hopped up about (muh racism, muh diversity, whatever), I give exactly zero (0) shits, one way or another. I think it's a giant waste of time and energy, which is why I want these people off the political stage.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It's true that both sides are monstrous and should be condemned. However, when you have a history of friendly relations with the one side, and it was that same side which just killed somebody, in the incident in question, playing the objective observer and blaming both sides is a joke - or, rather, a PR move. That statement was Trump simultaneously doing the "Presidential" dance and winking at his alt-right supporters. The same would be true if the shoe were on the other foot. Suppose there had been a right/left riot of some kind in 2015, in which the left killed one of the right. If Obama came out with a "well, everyone's to blame" comment, the right would have gone ballistic, and reasonably so.

P.S. Keep in mind, I don't care what Trump says, about any topic, at all, except insofar as it has real effects on things. I have no "moral outrage" over anything Trump said/didn't say re the riot, as the left pretends to have. My only interest in the whole affair is that the alt-right not be further emboldened, that it even retreat, so that we can regain lost ground in the GOP. That's the upshot of all this. Towards the culture war issues that everyone's hopped up about (muh racism, muh diversity, whatever), I give exactly zero (0) $#@!s, one way or another. I think it's a giant waste of time and energy, which is why I want these people off the political stage.

The truth is the truth, If both sides are at fault he SHOULD say it, Obummer would never have said it but if he had nobody should have complained.

 

[Madison320]

It's true that both sides are monstrous and should be condemned. However, when you have a history of friendly relations with the one side, and it was that same side which just killed somebody, in the incident in question, playing the objective observer and blaming both sides is a joke - or, rather, a PR move. That statement was Trump simultaneously doing the "Presidential" dance and winking at his alt-right supporters. The same would be true if the shoe were on the other foot. Suppose there had been a right/left riot of some kind in 2015, in which the left killed one of the right. If Obama came out with a "well, everyone's to blame" comment, the right would have gone ballistic, and reasonably so.

First of all there's good reason to believe the driver may have acted in self defense. Second we don't know his connection with the alt right. Imagine if a black guy was was driving towards a KKK mob, the KKK mob starts hitting the car with bats and the black driver took off into the crowd and killed someone. You think Obama should come out and condemn black violence?

I think the worst thing Trump did was during his followup news conference he called the driver a murderer. Do you think the president should be declaring someone guilty, before the trial? Especially in light of the evidence?

 

[Ender]

First, I'm not a fan of Johnson, he was a distant second choice after Rand. That said, what would Johnson have done? He would have TRIED to dismantle a large part of the federal government, and end foreign interventions, and reign in the police state. Would he have succeeded? Who knows. But TRUMP ISN'T EVEN TRYING; rather to the contrary.



He's more involved in Syria than Obama/Hillary was, so...



That is a grievous insult to Warren Harding.

That's definitely a grievous insult to Warren Harding. Harding was one of the best, and most forgotten, presidents of the 20th century.

Trump's a spoiled brat that can't keep his friggin' mouth shut about ANYTHING. His insane babble's intentions seems to be keeping everyone on "sides" and fighting each other so that everyone totally misses the big picture and what is really going on with the US, wars, and more & more freedom loss.

JMHPOV

 

[r3volution 3.0]

First of all there's good reason to believe the driver may have acted in self defense.

I see no reason to believe that.

Second we don't know his connection with the alt right.

He's second from the left in the first photo:

Another view:

So, he's standing with NAZIs, at a NAZI rally, in a NAZI uniform, carrying a NAZI shield.

There have since been reports that he openly expressed pro-NAZI views in highschool.

Conclusion? Yea, he's a NAZI.