LaxPower Back-Up Stick

The shame is that R's who support Trump and dismiss 'foreign meddling' would be screaming from the roof tops if the shoe was on the other foot. The hypocrisy is appalling.

A pox on all the hypocrites, regardless of party.

I had an interesting conversation with a good friend, neighbor, who owns a large, highly successful, very well run trucking business. He says he's "responsible for 2,000 families"...and Trump has been very, very good for his business. His workers have had back to back 7% raises.

I didn't debate him, but I recall during the Obama post-2010 years he'd been bemoaning the difficulty of getting enough good drivers without criminal or drug or driving violation records...had to pay top pay rates to keep good people (which was important to his business model)...so the pressure had been building and building for higher pay rates. It's interesting that this smart fellow is giving Trump credit for the 'economy' despite the prior trajectory.

I did point out that there are sectors, like farming, in which they certainly would not agree about the Trump effect, realize that they will not be able to fully recover to the pre trade war debacle given all the new production capacity brought online win Brazil, Russia, etc. He understood but was focused on his sector.

He thinks Trump is a disgusting human being, but he's focused on his "responsibility" to those "2,000 families". So, still supports him. Thinks the Dems and media have been out to over turn the election (and god forbid Hillary had won) since day 1 and this is just more of the same.

It's pretty clear that if there was an alternative to Trump who didn't threaten his sense of where the economy would go over the long term, he'd be happy to dump Trump. But Warren looks dangerous.

So here we are, on the eve of impeaching a president on the basis of disgruntled White House staffers, whose rumors in secondhand and thirdhand fashion were passed on to a “whistleblower” who worked hand in hand with partisan lawyers and Adam Schiff to circumvent the normal whistleblower protocols and smear a president.

And we will all shrug and grow quiet — at least until the next Blasey Ford, Michael Avenatti, Jussie Smollett, Nathan Philipps, dream-team, all-star star chamber, James Comey, or “anonymous” crusading “whistleblower” comes forth to seek notoriety and do his yeoman’s work to rid the country of Trump and all his odious henchmen.

Meanwhile, they have no idea of the wreckage they have inflicted on the intelligence agencies, the media, the Democratic party, themselves, and the country — or much less why a growing number of Americans are sick of them all.——Victor Davis Hanson

What he said!

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:36 am

I am unaware of any one person's vote that changed from D to R because of 'foreign meddling'.

Come on PB -- lame partisan talking points don't cut it on this board. Up your game.

The interference wasn't hacking the voting machines (as far as we know). The interference was advertising and marketing.

So are you saying that in your businesses advertising is completely worthless? It never changes customer behavior? Just a complete and total waste of money? If that's true, why do businesses spend so much money on advertising?

Political campaigns spend lots of money on ads and signs and buttons and speeches. Why would they do that if those activities don't change anyone's voting behavior? Presumably, the political pros do these things because they believe they do influence votes. And if it influences votes, foreigners are not allowed. That's the law.

I think that advertising cuts both ways, and most Americans if not all are basically settled on their political bent. I respect the voter and never call into question if they are so dense as to be swayed by an internet cafe in Moscow. The issue imo comes down to who has a message, for better or worse, which compels that % of their base to actually visit a poll booth.

I don't know. Perhaps you are correct and I am not. I just don't pay any mind to this line of discussion. And of course, America has been at this game for far longer than other countries.

holmes435 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:10 am It's not hysteria-laden and it's not overplayed. It's worthy of discussion and concern and for some reason Republicans in charge are refusing to do much to stop the interference. If they affected just 77,000 people, or 0.06% of the total vote, then they changed the outcome of election. That's pretty worthy of attention, would you say so?

What I'd say is if Hillary had visited three additional states and not simply assumed a victory, this discussion would not even be a discussion.

We find excuses to overlook the obvious sometimes.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:54 am It's pretty clear that if there was an alternative to Trump who didn't threaten his sense of where the economy would go over the long term, he'd be happy to dump Trump. But Warren looks dangerous.

It's a tricky debate. I like the economy...I feel like there is indeed an embedded political class which needs to be uprooted. And I find Trump to be personally detestable.

But in no universe would I risk anything to Elizabeth Warren. Sorry but not sorry. She actually believes her message, and that makes her ironically the worst alternative possible. That sounds so pathetic, but it is cold truth. You want to freeze the economy: raise income tax rates dramatically with no offsetting deductions (as she wants) and oh by the way pass a wealth tax.

If you gave me Nikki Hailey, whom I positively love, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. Biden is good, but I do not think he will survive the Dem primary, and I definitely don't think he will survive Trump.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:39 am But in no universe would I risk anything to Elizabeth Warren. Sorry but not sorry. She actually believes her message, and that makes her ironically the worst alternative possible. That sounds so pathetic, but it is cold truth. You want to freeze the economy: raise income tax rates dramatically with no offsetting deductions (as she wants) and oh by the way pass a wealth tax.

I don't like Warren, but what makes you think raising taxes would freeze the economy?

How much corporate and 1%er cash is sloshing around, looking for somewhere to go? That's who she wants to tax. It would have a nothing effect on the economy.

Not to mention, she's not running for King. She can't pass tax law by herself.

I don't know. Perhaps you are correct and I am not. I just don't pay any mind to this line of discussion.

Then why are you commenting? Since your admitted position (I don't pay it any mind) means your are intentionally ignoring relevant facts. We're into INFORMED discussion around here, PB.

You know who thought that advertising/marketing would make a difference?

Putin. Because I don't think Putin does stuff like that for no reason.

You want to freeze the economy: raise income tax rates dramatically with no offsetting deductions (as she wants) and oh by the way pass a wealth tax.

Yup, the economy always sucks when Dems are in office and gouging us with those high taxes.

Clinton stock market return 210%. Obama 182%. Reagan 118%. W -40%.

Stock market also did well under Eisenhower -- sky high tax rates back then.

P.S. Deficits also go down when Dems are in the WH (when bundled with GOP control of at least one house of Congress). Because that combo restrains spending increases (bad) and also restrains tax cuts (also bad).

P.P.S. Please explain what was gained by dialing back the estate tax? Do we really think the big problem was that rich kids could ONLY inherit $11.2 million tax free from their parents? Now they can receive $22.4 million tax free.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:23 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:39 am But in no universe would I risk anything to Elizabeth Warren. Sorry but not sorry. She actually believes her message, and that makes her ironically the worst alternative possible. That sounds so pathetic, but it is cold truth. You want to freeze the economy: raise income tax rates dramatically with no offsetting deductions (as she wants) and oh by the way pass a wealth tax.

I don't like Warren, but what makes you think raising taxes would freeze the economy?

How much corporate and 1%er cash is sloshing around, looking for somewhere to go? That's who she wants to tax. It would have a nothing effect on the economy.

Not to mention, she's not running for King. She can't pass tax law by herself.

Please just quit your complain*n, write a check and send it in. The IRS always accepts gifts.

No, upon reconsideration, I prefer your path.

Let our grandkids pay for the stuff we're getting in 2019. Sounds like a plan.

Heck, let's cut taxes in half again. Why not? We're not man enough to pay our own bills, right? Might as well go all the way.

I'm sure our grandkids can figure out how to keep the lights on while they pay for all the stuff you and I got for free, right?

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:46 am No, upon reconsideration, I prefer your path.

Let our grandkids pay for the stuff we're getting in 2019. Sounds like a plan.

Heck, let's cut taxes in half again. Why not? We're not man enough to pay our own bills, right? Might as well go all the way.

I'm sure our grandkids can figure out how to keep the lights on while they pay for all the stuff you and I got for free, right?

Don't change the subject. You got it. You believe it. Send it in.

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:27 am

I don't know. Perhaps you are correct and I am not. I just don't pay any mind to this line of discussion.

Then why are you commenting? Since your admitted position (I don't pay it any mind) means your are intentionally ignoring relevant facts. We're into INFORMED discussion around here, PB.

What I mean is I don't accept your supposed 'facts', therefore I pay it no mind other than curiosity.

Putin-phobia remains an interesting dialogue nonetheless. Understanding what compels large groups of people to buy self-evidently nonsensical hysteria is as important as anything we can and should do every day.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:53 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:46 am No, upon reconsideration, I prefer your path.

Let our grandkids pay for the stuff we're getting in 2019. Sounds like a plan.

Heck, let's cut taxes in half again. Why not? We're not man enough to pay our own bills, right? Might as well go all the way.

I'm sure our grandkids can figure out how to keep the lights on while they pay for all the stuff you and I got for free, right?

Don't change the subject. You got it. You believe it. Send it in.

there is a difference between thinking a SYSTEM will/could work and throwing money into an abyss. I am as anti-tax as the next guy, but the quip - "send them a check" - is disingenuous and ads nothing to the discussion.

The only way any of "this" works is if everyone does their part. There are too many people (like Trump and most people with a net worth between $50 million and $2 billion (in my experience) that want all the advantages of this country but tell it to F-off in terms of letting an extra penny out of their hands.I have come full circle on the estate tax issue over the course of my life. Tax the crap out it. First $5 million is free - then tax the rest at 80%. You don't like it, move. You move for tax, then get the heck out completely and don't take advantage of everything else the US has to offer. talk about ungrateful for what they have..... And then you get "christian's" supporting this garbage - what did Jesus say about a rich man's chances of getting into heaven...?

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:39 pm

Your post brings to mind this saying, which I repeat often:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

Would you say this (fool and fanatic) applies top Trump as well....simply based on what he has said about himself (he never has any doubts).

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:09 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:39 pm

Your post brings to mind this saying, which I repeat often:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

Would you say this (fool and fanatic) applies top Trump as well....simply based on what he has said about himself (he never has any doubts).

don't know about PB - but I would.

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:09 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:39 pm

Your post brings to mind this saying, which I repeat often:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

Would you say this (fool and fanatic) applies top Trump as well....simply based on what he has said about himself (he never has any doubts).

Trump is, charitably speaking, a strange guy. He has mostly bluffed his way to a fortune, but as the other saying goes, You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. There is something underneath the bluster and I believe that there's always a reason for whom we elect; you tell me.

Anyway, yes, he's not a trustworthy guy interpersonally. I am not so sure he's a fanatic though. He has held off (so far) on warmongering, unlike almost every other candidate known to man so far in my life. That to me is refreshing.

Between Warren and Trump, I am afraid to tell my rather sober and smarter LaxFan friends, I apologize, but Trump is my choice.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:59 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:09 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:39 pm

Your post brings to mind this saying, which I repeat often:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

Would you say this (fool and fanatic) applies top Trump as well....simply based on what he has said about himself (he never has any doubts).

Trump is, charitably speaking, a strange guy. He has mostly bluffed his way to a fortune, but as the other saying goes, You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. There is something underneath the bluster and I believe that there's always a reason for whom we elect; you tell me. Tell you what?

Anyway, yes, he's not a trustworthy guy interpersonally. I am not so sure he's a fanatic though. He has held off (so far) on warmongering, unlike almost every other candidate known to man so far in my life. That to me is refreshing.

Between Warren and Trump, I am afraid to tell my rather sober and smarter LaxFan friends, I apologize, but Trump is my choice.

So you say, he is a liar, but not a fanatic. I would agree with that.

How about the fool part? When was the last time Trump admitted he made a mistake...or said he was sorry?

You lost me when you tacked to war mongering....

What about Bill Weld? Fiscal conservative, 2nd supporter and libertarian on social issues.

Come on PB.

An election is like a basketball game. Every single shot made or missed contributes to the outcome.

Did Hillary not going to those states have an impact? Did Comey's Weiner lap top announcement have an impact? Did Access Hollywood have an impact? Did Putin's interference have an impact?

Of course all of them had an impact. Plus many other factors too. I assume you'd agree?

If you do agree, then why so many deflections/diversions:

"I am unaware of any one person's vote that changed from D to R because of 'foreign meddling'."

" I just don't pay any mind to this line of discussion."

"What I'd say is if Hillary had visited three additional states and not simply assumed a victory, this discussion would not even be a discussion."

How about you say instead Putin meddled, meddling had an impact, and foreign meddling is illegal.

How much of an impact? No one can quantify the impact of any one thing. That's not the same as no impact.

https://youtu.be/m7XZmugtLv4


CNN tried to expose Trump
Project Veritas exposes CNN

What a complete joke of an organization where all you liberals on here get your lies and fake news from.
Good luck in 2020. You’re gonna need it! MAGA KAG to all you leftist loons!

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:09 pm Come on PB.

An election is like a basketball game. Every single shot made or missed contributes to the outcome.

Did Hillary not going to those states have an impact? Did Comey's Weiner lap top announcement have an impact? Did Access Hollywood have an impact? Did Putin's interference have an impact?

Of course all of them had an impact. Plus many other factors too. I assume you'd agree?

If you do agree, then why so many deflections/diversions:

"I am unaware of any one person's vote that changed from D to R because of 'foreign meddling'."

" I just don't pay any mind to this line of discussion."

"What I'd say is if Hillary had visited three additional states and not simply assumed a victory, this discussion would not even be a discussion."

How about you say instead Putin meddled, meddling had an impact, and foreign meddling is illegal.

How much of an impact? No one can quantify the impact of any one thing. That's not the same as no impact.

Lol Obama was President then. If you actually believe Russian collusion you are seriously deranged and have no merit in any point you make.