TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great Place

[supermike80 1,430]

Just now, timschochet 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. 

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.  

[timschochet 33,350]

1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

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. 

“You’ve been wrong on other things before so you must be wrong this time too” is not a very compelling argument. 

[supermike80 1,430]

Just now, timschochet said:

“You’ve been wrong on other things before so you must be wrong this time too” is not a very compelling argument. 

Oh not "must" be wrong, but certainly more likely based on your record.  

[timschochet 33,350]

1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

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.  

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. 

[timschochet 33,350]

1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

Oh not "must" be wrong, but certainly more likely based on your record.  

I don’t think I’ve been wrong very often, but either way it’s really not relevant to this issue. 

[supermike80 1,430]

Just now, timschochet said:

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. 

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.  

 

[supermike80 1,430]

Just now, timschochet said:

I don’t think I’ve been wrong very often, but either way it’s really not relevant to this issue. 

Agreed.

[timschochet 33,350]

2 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

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.  

 

Presidents have a bigger job. In times of crisis they need to take charge and protect the nation as best they can. 

[supermike80 1,430]

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Presidents have a bigger job. In times of crisis they need to take charge and protect the nation as best they can. 

In your opinion.  You are a liberal..And liberals need to be led.

If the President does the job he was elected to do, then I'm satisfied with that.  I do not vote for a President to be my "leader"

Edited July 1, 2020 by supermike80

[timschochet 33,350]

1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

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

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? 

[supermike80 1,430]

5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Presidents have a bigger job. In times of crisis they need to take charge and protect the nation as best they can. 

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

[supermike80 1,430]

5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

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? 

Ugh..It wasn't leadership.  See what I mean?  This is exactly what I mean.

It was because Republicans voted out a weak President that didn't reflect their feeling that the nation needed to be tougher(not the only reason of course, but one for sure) So folks(not me because I was still not able to vote yet) elected a representative that shared that vision ane expected him to implement that vision when in office. Again doing what he was elected to do.

Once you stop looking to elected representatives as leaders you might be able to self determine better.

There is absolutely NOTHING that makes an elected person any smarter or a better leader than anyone on this board..They just won an election. 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by supermike80

[tonydead 7,539]

Just put him on ignore.  Seriously, there isn't any reason to argue 2+2 doesn't equal 5 over and over.

[Snorkelson 4,092]

2 hours ago, supermike80 said:

Yeah I don't remember that one either---feels like a thousand years ago

Yeah, like back when Kobe was news...
My boss told me last week that he thought I was crazy when I was insisting on different protocols and telling him we would be shut down back in late February, but is happy our name isn’t in the news right now. 

[The General 24,234]

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.”

[T J 640]

3 hours ago, The General said:

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.”

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. 

[The General 24,234]

5 minutes ago, T J said:

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. 

No I don’t know what he’s saying. How do you do this?

[tonydead 7,539]

34 minutes ago, T J said:

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. 

[Herb 1,771]

6 hours ago, supermike80 said:

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

Dude. I think your "feelings" may need a recalibration. 

[dkp993 6,999]

1 minute ago, Herb said:

Dude. I think your "feelings" may need a recalibration. 

Yeah I really don’t understand this “I don’t expect our elected leaders to lead” thing.  

[The General 24,234]

37 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Trust me de doesnt. And God knows why he asks in here. But to just not respond to him. 

Per usual no real answers. Just talk, no details.

I’d figure a Trump person would know the details of their guy. 

[timschochet 33,350]

51 minutes ago, 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. 

It’s almost over. 

[SaintsInDome2006 47,463]

2 hours ago, T J said:

...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. 

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."

Edited July 2, 2020 by SaintsInDome2006

[BigSteelThrill 5,359]

This thread has people arguing for no leadership needed for the POTUS position, just to come to the defense of Trump. 

🙈

 

[The Future Champs 2,587]

1 hour ago, BigSteelThrill said:

This thread has people arguing for no leadership needed for the POTUS position, just to come to the defense of Trump. 

🙈

 

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. 

[knowledge dropper 6,428]

But the polls say nobody supports Trump.  The silent majority speaks with cash and votes not bricks and tik tok   

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/01/trump-campaign-rnc-raise-record-266-million-in-second-quarter/

[T J 640]

7 hours ago, 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. 

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. 
 

And it’s not a “Trump person” thing. It’s a “conservative” thing. Very different. Just because a person agrees with a thought or policy he pursues does not make them a “Trump person”. It means you agree with that specific thing. I agree with a good bit of his policies but don’t care for him at all. He’s a very unlikeable president but ya, he does represent my mindset certainly moreso than anyone on the democratic side - especially with how far left democrats are going right now. 

[T J 640]

6 hours ago, 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."

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. 
 

Again, you can think he’s full of it or completely disagree, but the semantics of what he said reason out with me. It reads to me that he wants to give more money but differently than before where it was just a check that was sent. I suppose that could mean some sort of pay for community service or whatever. Basically, we’ll give you more money, but at least do something productive for it. That’s how I read it. I don’t see the harm in that.  Didn’t Roosevelt do something similar coming out of the Great Depression? 

[Endowed 308]

16 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

The silent majority 

They are NOT silent.  

They certainly vote much better. As a %.

They certainly do give more money to politics and politicians.

[knowledge dropper 6,428]

21 minutes ago, Endowed said:

They are NOT silent.  

They certainly vote much better. As a %.

They certainly do give more money to politics and politicians.

They go to work

They don’t protest and riot

They don’t whine incessantly about perceived injustice 

They don’t sit on social media all day

They do buy guns and they do vote.  

[The General 24,234]

51 minutes ago, T J said:

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. 
 

Again, you can think he’s full of it or completely disagree, but the semantics of what he said reason out with me. It reads to me that he wants to give more money but differently than before where it was just a check that was sent. I suppose that could mean some sort of pay for community service or whatever. Basically, we’ll give you more money, but at least do something productive for it. That’s how I read it. I don’t see the harm in that.  Didn’t Roosevelt do something similar coming out of the Great Depression? 

Ok. Trump often says things like “we will have wonderful, strong beautiful health care”. That as far as I know is literally the only details he has ever given for his plan. So skeptical when he talks about something like this.

I posted the quote and the article above regarding the Covid relief payments. The extra money that was being given away is set to expire in a few weeks. 

As far as I’m aware there is no plan and this was the first I have heard of this “smarter way”.

Democrats are saying it needs to be extended, Mitch has said they were a bad idea in the first place.

I definitely may have missed details on this debate and where it is in Congress so anyone can correct me on any of this.

I do think this is a ticking bomb. People can’t go back to work because of restrictions, and if nothing is done will start having a lot less money. Rent, loans, debt, etc start not getting paid.

[The General 24,234]

1 hour ago, knowledge dropper said:

But the polls say nobody supports Trump.  The silent majority speaks with cash and votes not bricks and tik tok   

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/01/trump-campaign-rnc-raise-record-266-million-in-second-quarter/

 

55 minutes ago, Endowed said:

They are NOT silent.  

They certainly vote much better. As a %.

They certainly do give more money to politics and politicians.

Biden raises more than Trump 2nd consecutive month

The former vice president, in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee, announced a massive fundraising haul for June, raising $141 million, and $282.1 million last quarter, both record sums that outpace the numbers released by President Donald Trump’s reelection effort earlier Wednesday night.

[Endowed 308]

41 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

They go to work

That is pretty ####### insulting. 

That voting block is a majority of registeted Americans. 

[timschochet 33,350]

51 minutes ago, Endowed said:

That is pretty ####### insulting. 

That voting block is a majority of registeted Americans. 

It’s been a conservative meme for years: conservatives work, they don’t whine, they never protest (except, I guess, against public health measures). They’re responsible. Liberals are lazy whiners who live off the government. 

[Snotbubbles 882]

Nice jobs report. 

[knowledge dropper 6,428]

1 hour ago, Endowed said:

That is pretty ####### insulting. 

That voting block is a majority of registeted Americans. 

My comment was not meant to trigger you.  Please point to my comment that the unsilent minority does not go to work.  

[Kal El 3,691]

9 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It’s been a conservative meme for years: conservatives work, they don’t whine, they never protest (except, I guess, against public health measures). They’re responsible. Liberals are lazy whiners who live off the government. 

It's really easy to vilify political opponents by accusing them of being lazy.

[SaintsInDome2006 47,463]

2 hours ago, T J said:

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. 
 

Again, you can think he’s full of it or completely disagree, but the semantics of what he said reason out with me. It reads to me that he wants to give more money but differently than before where it was just a check that was sent. I suppose that could mean some sort of pay for community service or whatever. Basically, we’ll give you more money, but at least do something productive for it. That’s how I read it. I don’t see the harm in that.  Didn’t Roosevelt do something similar coming out of the Great Depression? 

Thanks for your response. I see your point now, and I think that would mean something more like Clinton, like workfare. Roosevelt was about direct mass employment by the government.

I think my point had to do with the (IMO) fact that any sort of benefits would just have to be immediate and generous with no strings attached. I realize what you say is indeed a kind of welfare concept but we really don't have time for that. It's an idea that requires extensive government workforce to even monitor and a large dedication of effort by the states, and it would take time to implement, as opposed to just sending checks. The idea of doing anything else, besides either granting money or just plainly not, isn't a realistic option.

The other thing I'll say for those interested in law and order - the no. 1 thing we can do right now to quell the protests and discord in the streets and the extremism in our election is to ease people's fears. People are widely and wildly worried. This has been a dramatic, seismic shift. Ease people's minds that help is on the way immediately and will bridge the gap while we get through this thing. Europe and good chunks of the western and even undeveloped world are already passing through this thing and we are looking at months more of it.

Edited July 2, 2020 by SaintsInDome2006

[timschochet 33,350]

18 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

Nice jobs report. 

But his speech about it was completely tone deaf. Once again acting like the crisis is over. 

[quick-hands 363]

Am I in the wrong thread?

[knowledge dropper 6,428]

Looks like Trump’s FBI is closing down the global pedifile ring.   

[SaintsInDome2006 47,463]

1 minute ago, knowledge dropper said:

Looks like Trump’s FBI is closing down the global pedifile ring.   

Well, of course, that explains Trump's firing of the US Attorney for SDNY and trying to replace him with the head of the SEC just last week.

[tonydead 7,539]

1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

Nice jobs report. 

  5 million people pick up a job in June.   Nice to get back to opening up.  Let's not let the left use the Covid scare tactics to slow it down.  Propaganda media is on overdrive. 

[tonydead 7,539]

1 hour ago, quick-hands said:

Am I in the wrong thread?

They've made it so you have to put 3 or 4 of the regulars on ignore to even be able to read this thread.  It's textbook trolling, but somehow that's AOK in the PSF.

[knowledge dropper 6,428]

38 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Well, of course, that explains Trump's firing of the US Attorney for SDNY and trying to replace him with the head of the SEC just last week.

The attorney was part of the ring Trump is taking out?  

Edited July 2, 2020 by knowledge dropper

[knowledge dropper 6,428]

NASCAR trying to save their sport.  I may even watch to root for AMERICA’S CAR.  
 

NASCAR driver Corey LaJoie's No. 32 car will have 'Trump 2020' paint scheme for 9 races
Beginning this Sunday at the Brickyard 400 in Indianapolis, NASCAR driver Corey LaJoie's Cup Series car will sponsored by a pro-Donald Trump PAC.

Read in USA TODAY: https://apple.news/AeedbTo9gSw-dovDgFNJnTA

[Opie 1,983]

6 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

NASCAR trying to save their sport.  I may even watch to root for AMERICA’S CAR.  
 

NASCAR driver Corey LaJoie's No. 32 car will have 'Trump 2020' paint scheme for 9 races
Beginning this Sunday at the Brickyard 400 in Indianapolis, NASCAR driver Corey LaJoie's Cup Series car will sponsored by a pro-Donald Trump PAC.

Read in USA TODAY: https://apple.news/AeedbTo9gSw-dovDgFNJnTA

Oh god....if this car trades paint in ANY way with the BLM car....it will be an impeachable offense!!!

[SaintsInDome2006 47,463]

20 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

The attorney was part of the ring Trump is taking out?  

You're thinking of Epstein's former lawyer and the ex Secretary of Labor, hired by Trump knowing full well he represented Epstein. When it was publicly exposed on a wide scale Trump of course dumped him. And Trump hired a second Epstein lawyer, Dershowitz, for his own cover-up. Epstein died under Barr's watch too. Bad road to go down for Trump supporters, let's leave it there.

Edited July 2, 2020 by SaintsInDome2006

[tonydead 7,539]

28 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

NASCAR trying to save their sport.  I may even watch to root for AMERICA’S CAR.  
 

NASCAR driver Corey LaJoie's No. 32 car will have 'Trump 2020' paint scheme for 9 races
Beginning this Sunday at the Brickyard 400 in Indianapolis, NASCAR driver Corey LaJoie's Cup Series car will sponsored by a pro-Donald Trump PAC.

Read in USA TODAY: https://apple.news/AeedbTo9gSw-dovDgFNJnTA

There better be Trump - BLM matchup bet options.  

[knowledge dropper 6,428]

22 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

You're thinking of Epstein's former lawyer and the ex Secretary of Labor, hired by Trump knowing full well he represented Epstein. When it was publicly exposed on a wide scale Trump of course dumped him. And Trump hired a second Epstein lawyer, Dershowitz, for his own cover-up. Epstein died under Barr's watch too. Bad road to go down for Trump supporters, let's leave it there.

Closing down a global pedifile ring is a bad road to go down?  Oof.