2016 Republican Thread

[Soxbadger]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...n_80_years.html

 

GOP strongest it has been since 1928 according to Real Clear Politics.

 

Hmm so 1928 was the height of Republican power, does anyone have a history book that could tell me what happened in 1929?

 

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

So Obama was elected in 2008, does anyone have a history book that could tell me what happened in 2009? I'll save you the time, #ItsDifferent.

 

What happened in 2009? The 2008 financial crisis?

[pettie4sox]

What happened in 2009? The 2008 financial crisis?

 

I get what he's doing. Let's be honest, whenever crisis truly hits, it's absolutely the fault of both parties.

[StrangeSox]

I really hate time traveling Obama

[southsider2k5]

Hmm so 1928 was the height of Republican power, does anyone have a history book that could tell me what happened in 1929?

 

So I could totally write a dissertation pointing out the velocity of money and the lack of true central banking in this era, and how even if you tried it would be nearly impossible to destroy the economy in a matter of under a year, but why bother, we got a meme here.

[illinilaw08]

So I could totally write a dissertation pointing out the velocity of money and the lack of true central banking in this era, and how even if you tried it would be nearly impossible to destroy the economy in a matter of under a year, but why bother, we got a meme here.

 

More relevant to today - SB making a comment about the Republican Party's control in 1928 and the ensuing stock market crash in 1929, or the fact that the Republicans have spent the last 8 years blaming the recession of 2008 on Obama...

[southsider2k5]

More relevant to today - SB making a comment about the Republican Party's control in 1928 and the ensuing stock market crash in 1929, or the fact that the Republicans have spent the last 8 years blaming the recession of 2008 on Obama...

 

Probably the opposite group of who blames the 2001 recession on GWB.

[caulfield12]

Yeah I just watched a group of pacifist liberals 10 minutes from my place beat the s*** out of a man and steal his belongings while stating their political motivations. Don't worry though, Caulfield is on the ground getting to the bottom of it!

 

Because 437 hate incidents against minorities in less than a week cancels out the

 

Because a 67% spike in anti-Muslim incidents in the last two years is (BIGLY OBVIOUSLY) Obama's fault, since the alt-right is always claiming he's a Muslim, isn't proud of American exceptionalism, apologizes for the US too much, wants to reinstitute Sharia Law, studied at a madrassa/terrorist training school in Indonesia for 3 1/2 years, has an Islamic middle name and wasn't even born in America.

 

Great that Rabbit, er, Breitbart...kept everyone so well informed the last month or so and hope that continues. Except he didn't actually have time to read/research any of the reality behind all those tweets and subtweets. So the Maria Bartiromo excuse.

 

And don't forget y'all, Save the Confederate Flag...States' Rights...Honor Our Ancestors and Heritage. Make sure to turn out for that parade December 3rd in North Carolina.

Edited November 17, 2016 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

More relevant to today - SB making a comment about the Republican Party's control in 1928 and the ensuing stock market crash in 1929, or the fact that the Republicans have spent the last 8 years blaming the recession of 2008 on Obama...

 

Seems that might have happened BEFORE the election.

 

Seems Romney was incredibly prescient about that Detroit bailout. Let 'em fail. Free markets and laissez faire will save the day.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-trump-sc...-150455889.html

 

Government intervention and regulation never works. If government does intervene, whatever goes wrong a decade later can always retroactively be blamed on the Clintons, Greenspan, Rubin, Dodd and Frank (Jews, gays, central bankers, corrupt politicians, philanderers).

Edited November 17, 2016 by caulfield12

[Soxbadger]

So Obama was elected in 2008, does anyone have a history book that could tell me what happened in 2009? I'll save you the time, #ItsDifferent.

 

President preceding Obama, Bush x2.

 

President preceding Hoover, Coolidge, Harding.

 

Notice how in each case the previous 8 years were Republican Presidents.

 

#History #Facts

[Soxbadger]

So I could totally write a dissertation pointing out the velocity of money and the lack of true central banking in this era, and how even if you tried it would be nearly impossible to destroy the economy in a matter of under a year, but why bother, we got a meme here.

 

Right which is why I was making a joke. If I wanted to give a history lesson I would have started 8 years earlier with another Republican President Harding.

 

Maybe you missed the inherent joke about Obama being blamed, which Rabbit stepped right into.

 

(edit)

 

And if I was being totally serious, I would say none of it really matters because the Republican Party/ Democratic Party from 1929 is not even comparable. Look at the map, the North was Republican and the South was Democrat. That period is somewhat of a transition for the parties.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

Romney is meeting with Trump about SecState

[southsider2k5]

The Sacramento Bee ‏@sacbee_news 24m24 minutes ago

 

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich won’t serve in the Trump administration, he confirmed to McClatchy on Thursday.

[Chisoxfn]

It is interesting to see all this panic over who is going to be in the Trump administration and all the chaos, when it has barely been two weeks. Obama announced his first cabinet member 3 weeks after winning (I believe) and that was faster then the 3 previous presidents by a lot.

[Soxbadger]

It is interesting but it is worth noting that it's a little different of a situation because it seems Trump is picking members with his team where President Obama had Citibank pick his cabinet.

 

Chisox,

 

The quote above is exactly why this country will be stuck in the mud. Because people just have to take arguments to the lowest level. People just cant sit down and discuss a topic, have a disagreement and move on. It becomes unending name calling "delicate snowflake" or "intolerant left".

 

I admit, I can slum it up in an argument with the best of them, honestly I can probably do it better than most. But to what end? Is anything really going to change if I meme the hell out of my opponent, if I zing them witch catchy one liners that are great sound bytes but have no substance?

 

The answer is no.

 

But this is where we are. I asked Rabbit the other day if he had a problem that a member of the media who strongly supported Trump was being given a high ranking position. He never answered, because substance doesnt matter anymore. All that matters is "lyin" Ted, "crooked" Hillary.

 

I wouldnt let my 3 year old argue like that. You show your opponent respect, you debate on the merits, you win some, you lose some. But you do them with class and dignity.

[Soxbadger]

Argues that people can't just sit down and have a conversation without arguing or insulting, quotes a post with neither of those things happening as support, proceeds to name calling and weaves in, "I can slum it up in an argument with the best of them, honestly I can probably do it better than most." You're really awesome. Thanks for letting everyone know! Next time save us the self masturbatory post and support your baseless argument instead.

 

You said Obama's cabinet was picked by Citibank. It has absolutely no relevance to any discussion on Trump's cabinet. Its nothing more than sniping/name calling/insulting whatever you want to call it.

 

Or did you forget that part of your post?

[Soxbadger]

I responded to a post referring to President Obama's cabinet selection?

 

Are you reading any of the posts you're referring to?

 

I read the posts. The statement was about the expediency of Trump picking his cabinet. What does Obama have to do with how quickly Trump is getting his together? The comment about Citibank was merely a partisan attack to try and paint Obama in a negative light.

 

Not to mention, I have no idea how many other people sent Obama lists of names. The one list I saw was 6 pages long.

[Soxbadger]

So far I've been accused of

 

Name calling: didn't happen

Arguing with someone for the sake of arguing: The evidence was me agreeing with a post

Bringing up President Obama when he was irrelevant to Trump: the post I responded to brought up President Obama

 

Maybe you're the one just arguing for the sake of arguing, after all, you can slum with the best of 'em as you told us!

 

 

I didnt accuse you of name calling, I said that "people" and I used specific quotes attributed to Shapiro. I used your post to show unnecessary sniping to avoid actual discussion on Trump's cabinet. Instead of discussing Bannon, you turn it back to Obama.

 

And I just want to know your opinion on Bannon. Do you think there is any problem with someone who is affiliated with a newspaper that gives a candidate overwhelming support being on a cabinet?

 

You constantly talk about the media and bias. So here we have a really great example of the media being given a "benefit" for giving "positive" coverage, and I am just wondering if you have any problem with it.

 

Youve avoided the question for so long, I am just trying to see if there is any substance behind your media criticism, or if its merely partisan.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

I'd prefer to keep this short and not broaden the topic. You accused me of calling names and arguing just to argue in response to a post where I did neither accusation. So why the need for baseless accusations?

 

Then you went on and ripped me for bringing up President Obama when ChiSoxfn, the poster who I responded to, brought up the President. Why aren't you going at ChiSoxfn for bringing up the President? You went at me for doing when I didn't even do it.

 

ChiSoxfn brought up the process of picking cabinets. ChiSoxfn brought up the precedent for prior selection processes. Which is entirely sensible thing to do on that topic. Just because it bothers your that CitiBank sent Senator Obama the list of his cabinet that President Elect Obama eventually put in action doesn't mean it's partisan. Facts can't be written off because they can be misconstrued as partisan. I know you would take exception to me saying you attacking the selection of Bannon is partisan so what gives? You can't have it both ways.

 

Ill try this one time. Its not about bringing up Obama. You want to discuss how long it took Obama to pick his cabinet, no problem. You want to discuss Obama's policies, go for it. You want to argue why Obamacare is good/bad/indifferent, feel free.

 

The issue, is that you take a headline about the Citibank email, and you misconstrue it. A member of citibank sent Obama a list that was over 6 pages long, it contained 50-100 names.

 

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8190

 

You keep saying "Citibank" it was someone who worked at Citibank. That person, Mike Froman, was a member of department of treasury and was eventually chief of staff to Robert Rubin. Robert Rubin and Froman then went to Citibank. Also, Froman was a classmate of Obama.

 

If you think there is something bad about Mike Froman a friend of Obama sending Obama ideas for the cabinet, that is fine. But you keep implying that it was "Citibank" and you either are unaware or purposefully not informing people that Mike Froman knew Obama 20 years prior to the election.

 

 

 

1.) Again, ChiSoxfn brought up Obama, I responded to his post.

2.) I had no idea who Bannon was until the other day. Since the other day, I have done zero research on him. That's why I won't talk about him. So you can keep trying to set up traps for me to walk in but I don't talk on things I don't know about. I am not avoiding questions, you're directing questions at me that have no relevance to me. I know this is how you're trying to "get me" so sorry, I am avoiding your question on a person I haven't even broached the merits of on this board and know next to nothing about in general.

 

Maybe you should take some time to look into the people who you support then.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

Hey, pretty topical.

 

I agree with something Jon Stewart says:

 

“I thought Donald Trump disqualified himself at numerous points,” Mr. Stewart said. “But there is now this idea that anyone who voted for him has to be defined by the worst of his rhetoric.

 

“Like, there are guys in my neighborhood that I love, that I respect, that I think have incredible qualities who are not afraid of Mexicans, and not afraid of Muslims, and not afraid of blacks. They’re afraid of their insurance premiums,” he continued. “In the liberal community, you hate this idea of creating people as a monolith. Don’t look as Muslims as a monolith. They are the individuals and it would be ignorance. But everybody who voted for Trump is a monolith, is a racist. That hypocrisy is also real in our country.”

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/n...for-branding-d/

[Soxbadger]

Rabbit,

 

Despite your posts, I have no ill will nor anger. I never have personally attacked you, your post just happened to be there and it was a good example of why its hard to have a real discussion about current issues. Instead of discussing Trump's cabinet, looking into Bannon, we are now diving down a rabbit (pun intended) hole about what happened with Obama 8 years ago.

 

There is definitely a possibility that a conflict of interest occurred back in 2008, but that was 2008. There is really nothing that can be done.

 

Which was the whole point about why it seems hard, if not impossible, to discuss current issues. Instead of discussing what is going on right now, people spend hours searching for ways to blame someone from the past. The bank bailout is over, those issues are long gone, its the equivalent of arguing about Bush invading Iraq.

 

Good research though, just brings me back to the original issue, if you are so eager to find conflicts of interest, crony capitalism, why do you refuse to look into what is going on today, which will actually impact our future. Maybe thats my biggest issue, that you dont even take the time to actually look into someone else's position. Whether I agree or disagree, when you posted the Obama citibank comment, I looked it up. I found out what you were talking about so I could be informed. That doesnt necessarily mean that I will agree with a conclusion, but how can I even begin to discuss, if I dont take the time to look into what other people are saying.

 

Nothing personal.

[iamshack]

Very interesting stuff...what I would say is when you start looking at the big time players in politics, business, entertainment, sports, etc...the elite basically...they ALL know one another or have these six degrees of separation type of relationships. If anyone thinks for one minute that these types of deals aren't being brokered that screw us all, you may as well just remain blissfully ignorant.

[greg775]

You know, even though I despise Hillary and didn't want her to win, I conceded on here and was looking ahead to impeachment hearings ASAP. Now that Trump is president (I didn't vote for either) I'm not against the same scrutiny and impeachment ASAP. I mean Drain the Swamp means Drain the Swamp. If Trump deserves impeachment for any reason, I'm not against a new era of impeaching every one of these people that become President.

 

[caulfield12]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/11/trumps-t...ish-government/

 

Here's a typical "present" example, Trump's top military advisor General Flynn, soon to be named to a cabinet post, who APPEARS already has a clear conflict of interest over the Turkey issue.

 

Is that crony capitalism?

 

I'm sure you could find strong examples that tie higher-ups in the Bush Administration with the decisions of which banks to save or not, starting very obviously with Henry Paulson. Last time I checked, nobody had been successfully prosecuted as a result of 2008-09, not even Mozilo from Countrywide.

 

So everyone who received bonuses/golden parachutes, on the Republican (and typically, 60-65% of the Wall Street money used to flow to GOP coffers) and Democratic side...we can surely tie them into one administration or another.

 

It's one thing to give historical backgrounds and "coincidences/conspiracy theories," but proving collusion/bribery/insider trading is an extremely different bar or standard to get over. Why would someone with all the power in the world (at the time Obama was elected, he definitely had a mandate) jeopardize his new government (and moral bully pulpit) over amounts in the single digits of millions of dollars? It doesn't make any sense.

 

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

You know, even though I despise Hillary and didn't want her to win, I conceded on here and was looking ahead to impeachment hearings ASAP. Now that Trump is president (I didn't vote for either) I'm not against the same scrutiny and impeachment ASAP. I mean Drain the Swamp means Drain the Swamp. If Trump deserves impeachment for any reason, I'm not against a new era of impeaching every one of these people that become President.

 

 

 

 

 

That would be terrible, though.

 

Nixon and the 1960's decreased people's trust in government by a factor of 50%.

 

The last thing the country needs is for Trump to be impeached and to make the United States look like a complete joke and banana republic.

 

At any rate, any president in that position in the coming years would likely resign from office before formal impeachment hearings could begin, especially Trump, because he's got to be equally concerned with the fallout in terms of his business empire and what he's leaving behind for his children and grandchildren.

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/take-a-look...-201953466.html

Someone who has a $100 million penthouse is not interested in fighting the government if there's no financial benefit to be gained from it. It took the Clinton Foundation a good number of years just to get up to the $100 million market in TOTAL endowment. THIS just one of his 3-4 houses in the US, it's like pocket change to him.

 

 

 

 

http://www.app.com/story/money/business/ma...ounty/82551016/

Of course, America also elected Jared Kushner to be one of the top advisors to the president. I thought we outlawed nepotism after the JFK administration (of course, RFK is probably the main reason the JCS weren't able to start a nuclear war).

 

Racketeering/RICO/corruption charges against the father? Insider ties to Wall Street and media control/influence?

 

Check and Check.

 

I wonder how many Americans who voted for Trump would still check that box less than two weeks later? I really thought America was running away from the direction of family dynasties (Bush/Clinton), but it's going to be worse actually with the 3 Trump kids and Kushner IMO.

 

Kind of funny, it's such a puff piece that after reading that article, you'd much prefer Kushner to be president. That said, real estate developers and the Rust Belt blue collar working class aren't usually aligned together in terms of financial interests.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by caulfield12