Trump vs. Republicans

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
riverman said:
back atcha! you're the poll worshiper around here....I've read about and studied the Reagan era quite a bit...he escalated our military beyond any president ever in history......he changed the way we conduct diplomacy around the globe from peace to military intimidation. Trump now wants to make the military even bigger.....BIG mistake from my view. I'm not a hawk....
Click to expand...

FDR escalated our military beyond any president ever in history. He ran up enormous debts to pay for it. The highest debts in our history, as a % of GDP. FDR turned our peacetime factories (auto makers, airplanes, etc.) into war materiel factories. He had 300,000+ military airplanes alone.

As a % of GDP, Reagan's military was on the smaller side. Much less than the 6% of GDP that JFK urged congress to authorize. The spending was needed because Carter gutted the military, making it embarrassingly ineffective (see the rescue of the Iranian hostages that failed).

Reagan changed the way we conduct diplomacy, alright. Made peace with the USSR and made its collapse imminent. The intimidation thing was always there. We beat up on nations in our hemisphere and put missiles in Europe to threaten the USSR. JFK made a deal to end the cuban missile crisis by agreeing to remove some of those missiles. Kinda before Reagan's time. Reagan didn't start the cold war, he ended it. The massive decrease in nukes was started on his watch.

I don't think that growing the military is good or bad. It depends on if it gets used. Reagan didn't use it.

During the 80s, with all that military spending, spinoffs like the Internet, the microprocessor and PC, were developed. And the economic growth kicked ass for main street and the middle class. 24M+ jobs.

For those who don't want to go to college, or want a way to pay for it, joining the military is a fine way to go. It's as honorable, if not more so, profession than teaching or any other government job.

Whether you liked it or not, the $11B (peak yearly spending) on Star Wars did bring the Russians to the bargaining table and was a defensive idea. Not a sword but a shield. Too bad the science community were so defeatist about it, when they went all out given a similar challenge to land a man on the moon at a time we had near zero concept how to do it or the technology.

Finally, your spin chart isn't a poll. It's deliberately misleading.

If he had increased spending not at all, he would have spent $3T x 8 years = $24T. Since he increased it to $3.8T year 1, he spent at least $30.4T even if he increased the budget by $0 each year. If we're going to measure spending, the $30.4T and $6.4T increase are the true measure.
 
riverman said:
I don't make charts Denny....I just cut and paste them to prove a point..there are so many to choose from
Click to expand...

Choose one that makes your point that isn't spin. You posted it, you "own" it.

Yes it's true he didn't raise spending year over year that much, but that's not a great thing considering the overall amount he did spend beyond the budget he was handed.
 
I love when DennyAnne starts posting fresh from a nap.
 
Denny Crane said:
You posted it, you "own" it.
Click to expand...
bullshit....I post information that contradicts a point to support my views....I can post a picture of the Hearst Castle...doesn't mean I own it...you post so many charts and graphs and polls.....all from your magazine rack....there's a documentary about Reagan that supports my view of his escalation of American military expansionism around the world.....Gorbachev didn't use weapons....he was the hero of the times...since Star Wars, we've been entrenched with missle bases and military bases all over the planet...no other country on earth has done that in modern history....started with Truman but really pumped up under Ronnie...believe it or not
 
riverman said:
bullshit....I post information that contradicts a point to support my views....I can post a picture of the Hearst Castle...doesn't mean I own it...you post so many charts and graphs and polls.....all from your magazine rack....there's a documentary about Reagan that supports my view of his escalation of American military expansionism around the world.....Gorbachev didn't use weapons....he was the hero of the times...since Star Wars, we've been entrenched with missle bases and military bases all over the planet...no other country on earth has done that in modern history....started with Truman but really pumped up under Ronnie...believe it or not
Click to expand...
Or not.
 
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/Ref...76200015&zid=b582f79f2ad42bb9cec171187322a220

U.S. military spending rose to 27 percent of the federal budget under Reagan; just to stay even the Soviets needed to spend 60 percent of their budget. The fact that the Soviets had fallen behind U.S. technology partly contributed to this spending difference. Reagan knew of the disparities in development. Rather than an all-out military buildup of weaponry, he emphasized the development and deployment primarily of technologically advanced weapons. Although conventional weapons were not neglected, the B-l bomber, M-l Abrams tank, and F-15 fighter bombers received the majority of resources for development. New technologies needed to integrate these weapons into the command-and-reconnaissance structure demanded development. The president also ordered added restrictions on technology transfers to foreign countries, thereby increasing the cost for the Soviets to keep pace.​

And that is how the Cold War was won.
 
Denny Crane said:
FDR escalated our military beyond any president ever in history. He ran up enormous debts to pay for it. The highest debts in our history, as a % of GDP. FDR turned our peacetime factories (auto makers, airplanes, etc.) into war materiel factories. He had 300,000+ military airplanes alone.

As a % of GDP, Reagan's military was on the smaller side. Much less than the 6% of GDP that JFK urged congress to authorize. The spending was needed because Carter gutted the military, making it embarrassingly ineffective (see the rescue of the Iranian hostages that failed).

Reagan changed the way we conduct diplomacy, alright. Made peace with the USSR and made its collapse imminent. The intimidation thing was always there. We beat up on nations in our hemisphere and put missiles in Europe to threaten the USSR. JFK made a deal to end the cuban missile crisis by agreeing to remove some of those missiles. Kinda before Reagan's time. Reagan didn't start the cold war, he ended it. The massive decrease in nukes was started on his watch.

I don't think that growing the military is good or bad. It depends on if it gets used. Reagan didn't use it.

During the 80s, with all that military spending, spinoffs like the Internet, the microprocessor and PC, were developed. And the economic growth kicked ass for main street and the middle class. 24M+ jobs.

For those who don't want to go to college, or want a way to pay for it, joining the military is a fine way to go. It's as honorable, if not more so, profession than teaching or any other government job.

Whether you liked it or not, the $11B (peak yearly spending) on Star Wars did bring the Russians to the bargaining table and was a defensive idea. Not a sword but a shield. Too bad the science community were so defeatist about it, when they went all out given a similar challenge to land a man on the moon at a time we had near zero concept how to do it or the technology.

Finally, your spin chart isn't a poll. It's deliberately misleading.

If he had increased spending not at all, he would have spent $3T x 8 years = $24T. Since he increased it to $3.8T year 1, he spent at least $30.4T even if he increased the budget by $0 each year. If we're going to measure spending, the $30.4T and $6.4T increase are the true measure.
Click to expand...

:biglaugh: and you claim to be non-partisan. Wolf in sheep's clothing to the extreme.
 
MickZagger said:
You have in the past. You're about as big of a conservative in this joint.
Click to expand...
Not at all.

I can't stand progressives and the authoritarian society they want.

I'm no fan of the republicans. They talk a good game: smaller government, etc. But they don't deliver. I don't agree with any of their social agenda, at all.

I liked Reagan, as he was a libertarian. The rest of the republicans in my lifetime, not so much.

You don't see me saying Paul Ryan is great or any other republicans in congress, except for Ron Paul. A handful of republican governors are O.K. Mitch Daniels, and Kasich. But I also think governor Moonbeam is a fine man, decent governor, and was brilliant as mayor of Oakland. I voted for Harry Reid when I lived in Nevada, but that was a huge mistake.

I don't say republicans are good. I do say democrats aren't. You shouldn't confuse that for support of republicans.

In fact, I've said if Trump wins that I'd prefer a Democratic senate.

But you know my views better than I do. Or something.
 
Denny Crane said:
Not at all.

I can't stand progressives and the authoritarian society they want.

I'm no fan of the republicans. They talk a good game: smaller government, etc. But they don't deliver. I don't agree with any of their social agenda, at all.

I liked Reagan, as he was a libertarian. The rest of the republicans in my lifetime, not so much.

You don't see me saying Paul Ryan is great or any other republicans in congress, except for Ron Paul. A handful of republican governors are O.K. Mitch Daniels, and Kasich. But I also think governor Moonbeam is a fine man, decent governor, and was brilliant as mayor of Oakland. I voted for Harry Reid when I lived in Nevada, but that was a huge mistake.

I don't say republicans are good. I do say democrats aren't. You shouldn't confuse that for support of republicans.

In fact, I've said if Trump wins that I'd prefer a Democratic senate.

But you know my views better than I do. Or something.
Click to expand...
I liked this for the reality check, I don't for the life of me understand why they think you are some right wing extremist. Do brainwashed people just think anyone who isn't 100 percent for them is 100 percent for the opposite?

Oh, and I'm glad you're sorry for Harry Reid. You should feel terrible.
 
I also think republicans who claim to channel Reagan do him a great disservice. Ron Paul is the closest thing to Reagan. The rest are very different animals. Neo conservatives, religious nuts, war mongers. They promised term limits in 1994, but couldn't even keep their most important promise.

Either you believe in citizen government, or you're a statist.
 
Denny Crane said:
I also think republicans who claim to channel Reagan do him a great disservice. Ron Paul is the closest thing to Reagan. The rest are very different animals. Neo conservatives, religious nuts, war mongers. They promised term limits in 1994, but couldn't even keep their most important promise.

Either you believe in citizen government, or you're a statist.
Click to expand...

I actually was a Ron Paul fan. True anti-establishment. I'm positive he thinks Trumps a clown.
 
Denny Crane said:
All the fake news and hate for Trump translates into...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/...ite-house-keep-cable-news-ratings-strong.html

MSNBC nearly tied CNN in total viewers in prime time, with an average of about 1.2 million viewers. Though Fox and MSNBC both had gains in prime time for the month versus last year, CNN slipped 7 percent in viewers compared with its 2016 averages.

:lol:
Click to expand...

I'm a Democrat who watches more Fox News than I do any other news outlet. Mainly for shits and giggles. Let me tell you brother Comedy Central is lacking behind that bombastic outlet.
 
Ron Paul Liberty Report.

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/what-trump-could-do

The Left views Trump’s election as an absolute calamity, despite his support for unions and protectionist trade policies, despite his identity as a New York elite rather than some despised red state politician, and despite his ambivalence toward the social issues that animate Christian conservatives. One would think Democrats would be relieved not to suffer an ideologue like Santorum or Cruz in the White House. Yet their hysteria and lack of self-awareness prompt them to attack the Electoral College, of all things.

Progressives bear direct responsibility for Trump’s victory. They grossly miscalculated in nominating Mrs. Clinton, an avaricious and humorless technocrat who utterly failed to engage ordinary people. They abandoned populist economic themes and union halls in favor of global trade deals. They stayed silent while the Obama administration spent two full terms at war. They excused Obama’s NSA scandals. They cheered the growth of an imperial presidency and an activist judiciary, both of which they are now shocked to imagine outside their control.

But worst of all, progressives have poisoned America with vicious identity politics and a deeply false narrative of racism, sexism, xenophobia, and privilege. How could a backlash not result? By demonizing history, religion, traditional families, and middle America, they deliberately politicized whole areas of life that should be off limits to government. Politics is war, but it is also sales.
 
Denny Crane said:
Ron Paul Liberty Report.

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/what-trump-could-do

The Left views Trump’s election as an absolute calamity, despite his support for unions and protectionist trade policies, despite his identity as a New York elite rather than some despised red state politician, and despite his ambivalence toward the social issues that animate Christian conservatives. One would think Democrats would be relieved not to suffer an ideologue like Santorum or Cruz in the White House. Yet their hysteria and lack of self-awareness prompt them to attack the Electoral College, of all things.

Progressives bear direct responsibility for Trump’s victory. They grossly miscalculated in nominating Mrs. Clinton, an avaricious and humorless technocrat who utterly failed to engage ordinary people. They abandoned populist economic themes and union halls in favor of global trade deals. They stayed silent while the Obama administration spent two full terms at war. They excused Obama’s NSA scandals. They cheered the growth of an imperial presidency and an activist judiciary, both of which they are now shocked to imagine outside their control.

But worst of all, progressives have poisoned America with vicious identity politics and a deeply false narrative of racism, sexism, xenophobia, and privilege. How could a backlash not result? By demonizing history, religion, traditional families, and middle America, they deliberately politicized whole areas of life that should be off limits to government. Politics is war, but it is also sales.
Click to expand...
But.....but.....you said Obama surrendered. More fake news?????
 
I think this administration will accomplish one thing for sure.....Rock and Roll will get real again and have substance instead of pop fluff that's popular. Trump will inspire a lot of protest songs
 
riverman said:
I think this administration will accomplish one thing for sure.....Rock and Roll will get real again and have substance instead of pop fluff that's popular. Trump will inspire a lot of protest songs
Click to expand...
Make Neil Young Great Again!!!!
 
Denny Crane said:
Ron Paul Liberty Report.

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/what-trump-could-do

The Left views Trump’s election as an absolute calamity, despite his support for unions and protectionist trade policies, despite his identity as a New York elite rather than some despised red state politician, and despite his ambivalence toward the social issues that animate Christian conservatives. One would think Democrats would be relieved not to suffer an ideologue like Santorum or Cruz in the White House. Yet their hysteria and lack of self-awareness prompt them to attack the Electoral College, of all things.
Click to expand...

The rest of your post was your typical BS. So, I'll focus on this part. He's already had it out with a Union boss in Indiana. He's been in office for what? 2 weeks. Give him a minute, he'll sign off on the 'right to work' legislation that comes his way. 'Right to work' is Republican's way of trying to break unions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top