Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

He now likes the ExIm Bank too

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-says ... -headlines


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And NATO is no longer obsolete...like it was last week.

CID's words of statism and Lavrov are ringing in my ears...

President Bannon is out of power. These are the words of Cuck in Chief Kushner.

kalm wrote:And NATO is no longer obsolete...like it was last week.

CID's words of statism and Lavrov are ringing in my ears...

It just goes to show that my cautious optimism on Trump was wrong:

There was no daylight between Trump and Clinton. None

(I held out hope he'd stick to his guns on NATO and the US being world police)

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:And NATO is no longer obsolete...like it was last week.

CID's words of statism and Lavrov are ringing in my ears...

It just goes to show that my cautious optimism on Trump was wrong:

There was no daylight between Trump and Clinton. None

(I held out hope he'd stick to his guns on NATO and the US being world police)

I'm right there with you. I've kept an open mind while reminding liberal friends of who lost the election. It's an uphill battle and I don't see it improving.

Given the rates at which Muzzie's are being taken in by Europe and European Muzzie birth rates, NATO will be obsolete in a couple of generations.

The greatest threat to western Europe isn't in Moscow -- it's already in western Europe.

Actually, on second thought, (a) I love NAFTA as is, (b) TPP should be brought back, (c) Planned Parenthood should go forward with full funding, (d) Obamacare ain't half bad, and (e) I have ED real bad.

Ivytalk wrote:Actually, on second thought, (a) I love NAFTA as is, (b) TPP should be brought back, (c) Planned Parenthood should go forward with full funding, (d) Obamacare ain't half bad, and (e) I have ED real bad.

Don't forget that Trump now supports NATO.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/politics/ ... o-centcom/

We strongly support NATO," Trump said at the headquarters of US Central Command in Florida. "We only ask that all of the NATO members make their full and proper financial contributions to the NATO alliance, which many of them have not been doing. Many of them have not been even close. And they have to do that."

I hate to defend the guy, and I'm probably wrong, but wasn't his beef all along just that the other members were deadbeats?

Grizalltheway wrote:I hate to defend the guy, and I'm probably wrong, but wasn't his beef all along just that the other members were deadbeats?

And that NATO is obsolete. That's what he seems to have had a change of heart on.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:And NATO is no longer obsolete...like it was last week.

CID's words of statism and Lavrov are ringing in my ears...

It just goes to show that my cautious optimism on Trump was wrong:

There was no daylight between Trump and Clinton. None

(I held out hope he'd stick to his guns on NATO and the US being world police)

I've got a little secret,
The half dozen Goldman Sachs appointees kinda gave it away for me

Because what I always thought was this:

"You know what America needs..?
"I'll tell you what, America needs
"America needs more Goldman Sachs executives running the government.."

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
It just goes to show that my cautious optimism on Trump was wrong:

There was no daylight between Trump and Clinton. None

(I held out hope he'd stick to his guns on NATO and the US being world police)

I've got a little secret,
The half dozen Goldman Sachs appointees kinda gave it away for me

Because what I always thought was this:

"You know what America needs..?
"I'll tell you what, America needs
"America needs more Goldman Sachs executives running the government.."

that wasnt an indicator for me - in terms of our interventionist posture in 3rd world sh1tholes with zero strategic (or financial) interests to the US

That was more along the lines of yours and klam's pet peeves


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
I've got a little secret,
The half dozen Goldman Sachs appointees kinda gave it away for me

Because what I always thought was this:

"You know what America needs..?
"I'll tell you what, America needs
"America needs more Goldman Sachs executives running the government.."

that wasnt an indicator for me - in terms of our interventionist posture in 3rd world sh1tholes with zero strategic (or financial) interests to the US

That was more along the lines of yours and klam's pet peeves

Lets just say I saw it as a hint of what was to come...

Trump's only consistency is being pro-Trump.

In a few months he might be going in a different direction. Whether it's in the campaign or the presidency whenever things look bad he throws underlings under the bus and changes course (e.g. Corey Lewandowski and Steven Bannon). It won't be long before he does that again.

Pwns wrote:Trump's only consistency is being pro-Trump.

In a few months he might be going in a different direction. Whether it's in the campaign or the presidency whenever things look bad he throws underlings under the bus and changes course (e.g. Corey Lewandowski and Steven Bannon). It won't be long before he does that again.

one of these days he's going to throw someone under the bus who knows where the Russian cooperation skeletons are buried

one of these days


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CAA Flagship wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:I hate to defend the guy, and I'm probably wrong, but wasn't his beef all along just that the other members were deadbeats?

Skjellyfetti wrote:And that NATO is obsolete. That's what he seems to have had a change of heart on.

Someone probably told him you can't continue to call NATO obsolete at the same time as you're telling other countires that they need to pay more. After all, who wants to invest more in an 'obsolete' organization..

Now whether the new tact of "we strongly support NATO..now PAY UP."..

Really it doesn't matter what he says about NATO if he would just end the overseas adventurism/world police. Bombing the shit out of ISIS is fine, bombing Syria now no...

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:And NATO is no longer obsolete...like it was last week.

CID's words of statism and Lavrov are ringing in my ears...

It just goes to show that my cautious optimism on Trump was wrong:

There was no daylight between Trump and Clinton. None

(I held out hope he'd stick to his guns on NATO and the US being world police)

Maybe so foreign policy wise. But at least there's a big differnece with judges. We have Gorsuch instead of Garland.

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
that wasnt an indicator for me - in terms of our interventionist posture in 3rd world sh1tholes with zero strategic (or financial) interests to the US

That was more along the lines of yours and klam's pet peeves

Lets just say I saw it as a hint of what was to come...

Chizzang, you'll grow up to be the Tom Hanks character in The Circle.

BDKJMU wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
It just goes to show that my cautious optimism on Trump was wrong:

There was no daylight between Trump and Clinton. None

(I held out hope he'd stick to his guns on NATO and the US being world police)

Maybe so foreign policy wise. But at least there's a big differnece with judges. We have Gorsuch instead of Garland.

That's true- a conservative leaning court would be good

I worry though that he'll appoint a hardass now that the filibuster is gone. And a hard right court (as well as a hard left court) erodes respect for the institution. It could also push everyone further out left or right

SCOTUS has, overall, been a moderating force. We risk losing that if Trump puts a nut on the court


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, if he'd have really acted like he gave the impression that he was going to act like with China it would've been a disaster so I guess it's good that we're now seeing that he's not going to do that. At least not for now. I guess that's a silver lining. Of course we're also seeing that there is not an honest bone in the guy's body and that he just says crap out of his rectum when he thinks it's advantageous at the time. You know, as Fareed Zakaria noted, a complete bullshit artist (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... c101cb0e09). Not that any person with above a 60 IQ shouldn't have known that already.

Also there is the problem is that he's still an emotionally immature and unstable individual and that could cause huge problems at any time.

He still mad bros.

CID1990 wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Maybe so foreign policy wise. But at least there's a big differnece with judges. We have Gorsuch instead of Garland.

That's true- a conservative leaning court would be good

I worry though that he'll appoint a hardass now that the filibuster is gone. And a hard right court (as well as a hard left court) erodes respect for the institution. It could also push everyone further out left or right

SCOTUS has, overall, been a moderating force. We risk losing that if Trump puts a nut on the court


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anyone who favors corporate personhood is a nut.

CID1990 wrote:
SCOTUS has, overall, been a moderating force. We risk losing that if Trump puts a nut on the court

I dunno. I think that many times the Supreme Court has been a radical force that has dramatically changed the society. Wickard v. Filburn is a huge example that opened the door to radical expansion of Federal power. Brown vs. Board of Education is an example. Roe Vs. Wade is an example. More recently Obergefell v. Hodges is an example. In those cases the Court removed questions from debate in the political realms and imposed the will of the Judicial oligarchy. You can agree or disagree with whether or not what the Court did such cases was right or wrong. But such actions do not represent a moderating force.

93henfan wrote:He still mad bros.

It's not a matter of emotions such as anger. It's a matter of objective assessment. We have an extremely dishonest, emotionally immature, and emotionally unstable person in the position of President right now. That introduces substantial risk of very adverse consequences. You don't have to be angry to realize that. You just need to be objective.