The General
Footballguy
Trump deployed very powerful, strong robotic loggers like you have never seen beforeGuess you missed the part where no one was there
Trump deployed very powerful, strong robotic loggers like you have never seen beforeGuess you missed the part where no one was there
And then some people said they did a very beautiful job of raking the forestTrump deployed very powerful, strong robotic loggers like you have never seen before
Many people are sheep. Some are wolves. A few are sheep dogs.Trump’s indomitable will is pretty much saving this country in spite of everything thrown at him How could anyone even think about voting for Biden?
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2020/07/01/private-payrolls-estimated-to-rise-by-2-37-million-in-june-may-revised-up-by-5-2-million/
Where is this indomitable will? We really need it right about now.Trump’s indomitable will is pretty much saving this country in spite of everything thrown at him How could anyone even think about voting for Biden?
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2020/07/01/private-payrolls-estimated-to-rise-by-2-37-million-in-june-may-revised-up-by-5-2-million/
Tim, it's all about the triumph of the will, it should be obvious by now.Where is this indomitable will? We really need it right about now.
ALWAYS a state decision.Thankfully many governors stepped in and put lockdowns in place.
Why? Aren't we able to make our own decisions? Why this deep desire to be led? I don't understand that.Where is this indomitable will? We really need it right about now.
Agreed. Lockdowns were by far the most important steps we took to save lives. This was the potential 2 million deaths that @knowledge dropper referenced that were avoided. I believe this is from the task force worst case projections if we did nothing.ALWAYS a state decision.
The lockdowns slowed the spread of covid, I do agree with that.Agreed. Lockdowns were by far the most important steps we took to save lives. This was the potential 2 million deaths that @knowledge dropper referenced that were avoided. I believe this is from the task force worst case projections if we did nothing.
Those were the difficult decisions being made by governors.
Trump was critical of them, for them, for them but not as much. He was all over the place.
Didn’t see a lot of leadership there in that regard.
I don’t remember the thread we talked in, but that bar in East Lansing you linked pics of the line outside when MSU classes closed is now closed because of a covid outbreak linked to there (since reopen, 100+ cases).The lockdowns slowed the spread of covid, I do agree with that.
Yeah I don't remember that one either---feels like a thousand years agoI don’t remember the thread we talked in, but that bar in East Lansing you linked pics of the line outside when MSU classes closed is now closed because of a covid outbreak linked to there (since reopen, 100+ cases).
Honestly do you think we survive the Civil War without Abraham Lincoln? Do the British survive World War II without Churchill?Why? Aren't we able to make our own decisions? Why this deep desire to be led? I don't understand that.
Said it before...that seems to be a more liberal stance. The desire for leaders. And the feeling that somehow our elected folks are those leaders. Which I soundly reject.
In BOTH of those situations I absolutely positively do think we survive. It's utterly ludicrous to suggest otherwise.Honestly do you think we survive the Civil War without Abraham Lincoln? Do the British survive World War II without Churchill?
In times of crisis we need good leadership. That’s not a “liberal stance” it’s a “common sense” stance.
Well, all I can say is that most of my favorite historians (in particular William Manchester and Martin Gilbert on Churchill, Shelby Foote, James McPherson and Doris Kearnes Goodwin on Lincoln) fall on the “utterly ludicrous” side of things.In BOTH of those situations I absolutely positively do think we survive. It's utterly ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
And what's your point?Well, all I can say is that most of my favorite historians (in particular William Manchester and Martin Gilbert on Churchill, Shelby Foote, James McPherson and Doris Kearnes Goodwin on Lincoln) fall on the “utterly ludicrous” side of things.
That individual leaders have a profound effect on history. That in times of crisis a Churchill can win you a war and a Chamberlain can lose you a war (or for American purposes an Abraham Lincoln can save your nation and a James Buchanan or George McClellan can lose it.) That Donald Trump has refused to take leadership and the result has been disastrous for our country, and we will suffer for years because of it.And what's your point?
And sorry Tim, but I have seen your postings here long enough to be able to confidently say I'm not sure your favorite authors or your opinion on things come from a strong position. You are wrong more than you're right.Well, all I can say is that most of my favorite historians (in particular William Manchester and Martin Gilbert on Churchill, Shelby Foote, James McPherson and Doris Kearnes Goodwin on Lincoln) fall on the “utterly ludicrous” side of things.
Thats 100% NOT what I said.That individual leaders have a profound effect on history. That in times of crisis a Churchill can win you a war and a Chamberlain can lose you a war (or for American purposes an Abraham Lincoln can save your nation and a James Buchanan or George McClellan can lose it.) That Donald Trump has refused to take leadership and the result has been disastrous for our country, and we will suffer for years because of it.
“You’ve been wrong on other things before so you must be wrong this time too” is not a very compelling argument.And sorry Tim, but I have seen your postings here long enough to be able to confidently say I'm not sure your favorite authors or your opinion on things come from a strong position. You are wrong more than you're right.
Oh not "must" be wrong, but certainly more likely based on your record.“You’ve been wrong on other things before so you must be wrong this time too” is not a very compelling argument.
You questioned why, in times of crisis, strong leadership was necessary and suggested it was a liberal stance. I take issue with that and tried to offer historical examples. I’m glad you agree with me. My overall point is that we need strong leadership now and we’re not getting it.Thats 100% NOT what I said.
But if you want to change the narrative I will agree with you. Individuals have had a strong influence on history.
I don’t think I’ve been wrong very often, but either way it’s really not relevant to this issue.Oh not "must" be wrong, but certainly more likely based on your record.
No no no...I did not. i questioned why liberals seem to NEED leadership. And I don't understand this.You questioned why, in times of crisis, strong leadership was necessary and suggested it was a liberal stance. I take issue with that and tried to offer historical examples. I’m glad you agree with me. My overall point is that we need strong leadership now and we’re not getting it.
Agreed.I don’t think I’ve been wrong very often, but either way it’s really not relevant to this issue.
Presidents have a bigger job. In times of crisis they need to take charge and protect the nation as best they can.No no no...I did not. i questioned why liberals seem to NEED leadership. And I don't understand this.
I do NOT, have not and will not ever elect someone to lead me. I vote for people so they act as my representative. They enact or repeal laws that I want them to. That's their job.
In your opinion. You are a liberal..And liberals need to be led.Presidents have a bigger job. In times of crisis they need to take charge and protect the nation as best they can.
Well it’s an interesting perspective.In your opinion. You are a liberal..And liberals need to be led.
If the resident does the job he was elected to do, then I'm satisfied with that
I just get this feeling..WAY TOO OFTEN from my liberal friends and family, that they are sitting around, waiting for Trump to tell them what to do, how to think etc. And it's funny to me because of their hate for Trump.Presidents have a bigger job. In times of crisis they need to take charge and protect the nation as best they can.
Ugh..It wasn't leadership. See what I mean? This is exactly what I mean.Well it’s an interesting perspective.
But I’m curious: why do you think that, after Jimmy Carter and the Iran hostage crisis, so many Americans were relieved at the strong leadership of Ronald Reagan? Was it because Carter was a conservative and Reagan a liberal?
Yeah, like back when Kobe was news...Yeah I don't remember that one either---feels like a thousand years ago
I get what he’s saying. You seriously don’t?Can I get an explanation here?
What does this mean:
”I support it, but it has to be done properly,” Trump said when asked whether he wanted more direct payments to individuals. “I support actually larger numbers than the Democrats, but it’s got to be done properly. We had something where it gave you a disincentive to work last time.”
No I don’t know what he’s saying. How do you do this?I get what he’s saying. You seriously don’t?
Whether or not you agree or think it’s BS, Trump is saying he wants to give more money to people than the democrats do but there needs to be a better way to actually do that because it was working out that it was better not to work and take the government’s money and he doesn’t want a repeat of that.
Trust me de doesnt. And God knows why he asks in here. But to just not respond to him.I get what he’s saying. You seriously don’t?
Whether or not you agree or think it’s BS, Trump is saying he wants to give more money to people than the democrats do but there needs to be a better way to actually do that because it was working out that it was better not to work and take the government’s money and he doesn’t want a repeat of that.
Dude. I think your "feelings" may need a recalibration.I just get this feeling..WAY TOO OFTEN from my liberal friends and family, that they are sitting around, waiting for Trump to tell them what to do, how to think etc. And it's funny to me because of their hate for Trump.
I
Yeah I really don’t understand this “I don’t expect our elected leaders to lead” thing.Dude. I think your "feelings" may need a recalibration.
Per usual no real answers. Just talk, no details.Trust me de doesnt. And God knows why he asks in here. But to just not respond to him.
It’s almost over.Per usual no real answers. Just talk, no details.
I’d figure a Trump person would know the details of their guy.
This would literally mean someone wants to give less money....Trump is saying he wants to give more money to people than the democrats do but there needs to be a better way to actually do that because it was working out that it was better not to work and take the government’s money and he doesn’t want a repeat of that.
The goalposts that were previously removed have had their function redefined: now, missing a field goal is irrelevant, and has no bearing on the outcome of the game.This thread has people arguing for no leadership needed for the POTUS position, just to come to the defense of Trump.
The talk makes sense, at least to me. Putting it into play is admittedly another issue, but just giving money to give it does disincentivize people from trying to earn their own money.The General said:Per usual no real answers. Just talk, no details.
I’d figure a Trump person would know the details of their guy.
No, it literally doesn’t mean that. I haven’t even heard what he said but in just reading the responses to what was quoted in this thread, it seems obvious that some folks want to find issue with anything he says.SaintsInDome2006 said:This would literally mean someone wants to give less money.
For example: "I want to give less money to people than the democrats do because it was working out that it was better not to work and take the government’s money and I doesn’t want a repeat of that." That makes sense.
The way Trump has it framed he contradicts himself within the same statement. It's like saying "I'd like more of this wine because it tastes horrible."
They are NOT silent.The silent majority
They go to workThey are NOT silent.
They certainly vote much better. As a %.
They certainly do give more money to politics and politicians.