drsmooth wrote:

td11 wrote:conservatism is a scourge the world over

words matter: there's nothing conservative about what's going on. drumpf is not conservative. conservatives should actively reject that equation - it will be very bad for them.

drumpf & his mob are reactionary grifters uninterested in the responsibilities of governing

that's fair, but it almost doesn't matter because Rs have accepted trump as their leader. whether you like it or not, trump/bannon/breitbart are the faces of conservatism in america. republicans were terrified that he would destroy the party right up until election night when he won, and now they can't stop licking his asshole. conservatives do the same shit wherever they are in power: maximize profits for private enterprise, deregulate, lower taxes (on the rich under the guise of "Everyone"), roll back social advances, etc etc.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:pretty confident bunch in here

??

td11 wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:pretty confident bunch in here

??

I believe that's called sarcasm.

drsmooth wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:And that one out of the three probably trends toward the least populated counties. It's definitely a problem

that is precisely my point, and it is not at all the problem that Senator #$!&@, with Price singing the chorus, were attempting to make it

I know. Just supplementing your post.

What's there to be positive about legislatively?

drsmooth wrote:

Brantt wrote:
The Republicans will get in line and do exactly what Trump tells them to............just like Little Marco yesterday.

Right - which won't be good for congressional Rs in 2 yrs, because drumpf's ready to spend like a drunken sailor, & plenty of Rs have made their careers opposing any spending, even spending that's paid for - and the kind of yuge infrastructure spending drumpf's all for won't be paid for. dems will insist it is, and they won't go for any privatization flimflam, & drumpf will get impatient at Rs resistance, and ultimately torch any slim chance he has of a 2nd term.

Unions win; drumpf and/or Rs lose.

We can go as slow on this stuff as you need us to.

Again, I would respond directly to your personal insults, but since you need/ask the moderators to protect you like you are a grade school child, I'd rather not deal with the hassle.

1. Trump will unveil a huge infrastructure plan hand in hand with the Dems

2. Nobody gives a shit about the national debt other than far right politicians and periodicals. The debt skyrocketed under GWB and it never hurt him. It skyrocketed further under Obama and it never hurt him. It will go up more under Trump. As we just saw through the entire Republican primary process, these "debt police" politicians have zero pull or say. None. They are legends in their own minds (like you). As long as more people are working and the economy is doing well, nobody cares about the national debt.

3. Trump won't run for a second term IMO. He'll be sick of it by then.

In terms of the 2018 cycle, LMAO at the suggestion Congressional Republicans will take a hit. It's almost impossible due to gerrymandering alone. 2018 is a bad map for the Dems all around. If the economy is doing well at that point they are poised for even worse losses.

Youseff wrote:yeah, this Trump isn't a Republican is such idiotic rhetoric.

I'm not convinced drumpf is homo sapiens, or even organic.

td11 wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:pretty confident bunch in here

??

was referring to doc and hawk's feeling that this will work out gloriously for Dems in 18

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

td11 wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:pretty confident bunch in here

??

was referring to doc and hawk's feeling that this will work out gloriously for Dems in 18

It's hysterical.

I could spend the rest of the day posting just complete and utter craziness doc posted over the last 18 months. For starters, he predicted Trump would lose 49 states. The guy has zero clue what he is talking about. He's like an old man yelling at a cloud. He is completely detached and out of touch from reality.

Actually the Dems are preparing their own infrastructure plan before Trump even has his plans in line. It's going to be way different than what his privatization crap was. It'll be interesting to see how he wiggles out of it. Trump doesn't do policy so the only policies he's enacting are boilerplate Republican ones. This is going to come to a head soon.

Also, no mod protected anyone. Complete falsehood. Have a great day.

52 swing districts, need to win 80% of them. It's not impossible, but we will need a continuation of Saturday going forward.

Saw a lady on her smoke break wearing her pink knitted hat.

Brantt wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Brantt wrote:
Union vote for this election was 51/43. Trump has a huge opportunity with unions that a Republican (well, Trump's not really a Republican) hasn't had in decades.

When drumpf doesn't deliver meaningful infrastructure dough - because congressional Rs will either have to completely abandon their deficit hypocricy OR block tax cuts to approve more than token projects -it seems likely that union voters, like non-union voters, will blame drumpf, or congressional Rs, or both. And their reaction to any schemes to "privatize" infrastructure projects may be even stronger.

The Republicans will get in line and do exactly what Trump tells them to............just like Little Marco yesterday.

agreed, but mindless devotion isn't a good thing. I'm sure you would at least agree with that

One positive thing that is clearly happening for the Democrats, given widespread opposition to Trump, and pretty energetic national mobilization is that it should be easy for the Democrats to nationalize Congressional elections in 2018. This worked for the Republicans in 1994 and 2010. I don't think gerrymandering is much worse now than it was in 2008.

I think it's curious that Trump's first order of business seems to be continuing with populist rhetoric regarding trade--this of course diminishes America's stature in the world. If he actually follows through with more than pulling out of TPP, it's likely to have all kinds of interesting ramifications. He talks about building factories in the US, but existing factories depend on imports for parts and supplies. If they can't access those materials, or if those materials suddenly become 35% more expensive, that's going to cause major economic disruptions and layoffs. Given the finance people Trump's mainly appointed, I don't think they care at all about this. They'll profit through likely currency swings all this brings about. But when Wal-Mart shoppers find that the new set of tires they need cost $350 each, they'll probably not like it.

brantt have you mastered all the adverbs in newspeak yet

Houshphandzadeh wrote:pretty confident bunch in here

yeh, i think it will be VERY hard to stop them. They have a built in advantage and unions have been decimated over the past few decades. They aren't going to spring forth fully-formed over night

TenuredVulture wrote:One positive thing that is clearly happening for the Democrats, given widespread opposition to Trump, and pretty energetic national mobilization is that it should be easy for the Democrats to nationalize Congressional elections in 2018. This worked for the Republicans in 1994 and 2010. I don't think gerrymandering is much worse now than it was in 2008.

I think it's curious that Trump's first order of business seems to be continuing with populist rhetoric regarding trade--this of course diminishes America's stature in the world. If he actually follows through with more than pulling out of TPP, it's likely to have all kinds of interesting ramifications. He talks about building factories in the US, but existing factories depend on imports for parts and supplies. If they can't access those materials, or if those materials suddenly become 35% more expensive, that's going to cause major economic disruptions and layoffs. Given the finance people Trump's mainly appointed, I don't think they care at all about this. They'll profit through likely currency swings all this brings about. But when Wal-Mart shoppers find that the new set of tires they need cost $350 each, they'll probably not like it.

I thought the 35% border tax was on production that was outsourced (which is like, most of it) and then the goods were re-imported, not raw materials. Or do I have that wrong?

Either way, wouldn't this essential ruin like every company?

he calls its a tax but it'd be a tariff, which would be on a product, not a company. it's unclear how you could differentiate between a product from one company to another unless you accuse someone of trying to 'manipulate' the market. that would probably lead to some lawsuits. the part i don't get is if you move a product overseas but not any jobs does it still get 'taxed'? and why would it?

i would think businesses could threaten to leave the US to get a sweetheart deal, as they do locally already.

Did the Walton family support Trump?

i think they supported clinton, actually. walmart is many things, but stupid they are not.