President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

[SpaceCoastVol]

The sad thing is you actually believe that.

No, what's sad is that you would rather go back to the Biden/Harris/Obama ways.

I prefer winning.

 

[OrangeTsar]

It's classic negotiating. Set up something so extreme that the other side comes back to the "middle" that you've set which is actually exactly all that you want.

I don't get how these leftoids don't get it. They've been doing the same thing, societally, by pushing the Overton window so far to one extreme that we're unrecognizable from what we were even 20 years ago.

It is actually a multipurpose strategy. Not only is it designed as bargaining leverage; it simultaneously is designed to trigger the democrat reflex to automatically respond and expend time and energy.
The brilliance of Trump’s first three weeks has been flooding the zone with a mixture of both serious and unserious initiatives. The democrat mindset is so broken that they are unable to overlook any of them and they must go bat guano crazy over each and every one. And as a wise strategist once said “He who defends everything defends nothing”. Plus, he is simply EXHAUSTING the opposition. There is no way they can continue this level of hysteria for over 1400 days.

 

[lawgator1]

No, what's sad is that you would rather go back to the Biden/Harris/Obama ways.

I prefer winning.

I'd prefer Obama, yes. Not Biden or Harris, except relative to Trump that's true.

Surely, there is some middle ground of fiscally conservative and just getting government out of social issues.

Take the trans issues. I don't think the government should fund gender reassignment, but I also don't think there is any value to officially proclaiming there to be two and only two genders. I just don't see how government has a role in that.

We spend too much, but its not too much just in one area. And we collect too little. The tax code needs to be simplified. But not with the purpose of helping people avoid paying taxes equitably owed.

What Trump did after the 2020 election, including but not exclusively 1/6, disqualified him. I cannot get past that, I admit it.

 

[VOLS INC.]

I'd prefer Obama, yes. Not Biden or Harris, except relative to Trump that's true.

Surely, there is some middle ground of fiscally conservative and just getting government out of social issues.

Take the trans issues. I don't think the government should fund gender reassignment, but I also don't think there is any value to officially proclaiming there to be two and only two genders. I just don't see how government has a role in that.

We spend too much, but its not too much just in one area. And we collect too little. The tax code needs to be simplified. But not with the purpose of helping people avoid paying taxes equitably owed.

What Trump did after the 2020 election, including but not exclusively 1/6, disqualified him. I cannot get past that, I admit it.

You prefer Obama because he made you FEEL some type of way. You essentially have the maturity of a teenage girl. Obama could give an inspiring speech with lofty rhetoric and your little gator tip would tingle. Then he would retire to his office for the night and murder American citizens via drone strikes, or spy on journalists, etc. but it didn’t matter. What mattered is how he made you FEEL.


Trump>Obama.

And it’s not even close.

 

[GAVol]

I agree that some of the left take such things too far. I roll my eyes at the annex Canada nonsense, but I know it cannot be serious.

The Gaza comments, and his doubling and then tripling down, are far more remarkable to me. Its as though the deal is showing a 10 and Trump drunk off his azz has 5 - 5, and he splits them and get another 5 and splits again.

Yeah but… you know he’s just moving the goal posts to the far end of the field to make Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc. come to the table. He’s a walking gaffe, but to default everything that comes out of his mouth to “He’s crazy” is not a winning strategy.

 

[LouderVol]

I'm not sure why you referred to it as an insurrection, I would support calling it criminal trespassing if entrance/exits were blocked

where did I call it insurrection?

amongst some on this board I am infamous for not calling 1/6 an Insurrection. I certainly didn't call this an insurrection.

As with both, I think the violent should be arrested and face their time in court, the rest should have been shoo'd away and let go peacefully. and yes that includes the violent that Trump pardoned, they should still be in jail/facing sentencing or wherever they were in the process.

 

[GAVol]

We spend too much, but it’s not too much just in one area. And we collect too little.

How have we come to a time when those two sentences can be typed back to back?

 

[lawgator1]

How have we come to a time when those two sentences can be typed back to back?

The debt cannot be repaid by just one or the other. It will take both.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I'd prefer Obama, yes. Not Biden or Harris, except relative to Trump that's true.

Surely, there is some middle ground of fiscally conservative and just getting government out of social issues.

Take the trans issues. I don't think the government should fund gender reassignment, but I also don't think there is any value to officially proclaiming there to be two and only two genders. I just don't see how government has a role in that.

We spend too much, but its not too much just in one area. And we collect too little. The tax code needs to be simplified. But not with the purpose of helping people avoid paying taxes equitably owed.

What Trump did after the 2020 election, including but not exclusively 1/6, disqualified him. I cannot get past that, I admit it.

Yes, you prefer Obama, Biden and Harris which is why you came out here lied about it multiple times. I have to admit, you have quite the ability to ignore getting caught lying on a random board and pretending it never happened.

 

[utvolpj]

The debt cannot be repaid by just one or the other. It will take both.

There's no need to collect more until spending is understood and under control. It's called a budget

 

[lawgator1]

There's no need to collect more until spending is understood and under control. It's called a budget

Both. At the same time. That's the only way it can happen.

 

[utvolpj]

Both. At the same time. That's the only way it can happen.

You can't collect to an unknown target. It's what we're currently doing and it's a failure. Revenue is higher than it's ever been and the previous admin was running deficits at $2T. We simply don't have a revenue problem if there was limited govt

 

[hog88]

Both. At the same time. That's the only way it can happen.

We've never had a revenue problem.

 

[LouderVol]

Both. At the same time. That's the only way it can happen.

then you are always chasing your tail.

as long as you are spending too much its doesn't matter how much you bring in.

expenditures have to be tied to incoming money. trying to split the difference is never going to work.

 

[lawgator1]

You can't collect to an unknown target. It's what we're currently doing and it's a failure. Revenue is higher than it's ever been and the previous admin was running deficits at $2T. We simply don't have a revenue problem if there was limited govt

We need to run annual budget surpluses for years, likely many years, to reduce the debt. Would love a candidate to come forward with a 30 year plan -- the same as the usual mortgage pay off. That would make sense and spread the method over a reasonable period that would not result in a massive economic hit to the economy in any given year.

 

[hog88]

We need to run annual budget surpluses for years, likely many years, to reduce the debt. Would love a candidate to come forward with a 30 year plan -- the same as the usual mortgage pay off. That would make sense and spread the method over a reasonable period that would not result in a massive economic hit to the economy in any given year.

No presidential candidate is going to come forward with a 30 year plan, this country is run on 4 year election cycles and no candidate is looking further ahead than that.

The first step in reducing the debt is to forbid the government from creating money (basically end the federal reserve) outside of a congressional declaration of war or national emergency. Do that and I'll listen to your ideas about taxes.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Both. At the same time. That's the only way it can happen.

LG, you're about to learn, like a lot of things you have believed, that isn't true.

 

[LSU-SIU]

LG, you're about to learn, like a lot of things you have believed, that isn't true.

I disagree, he isn't going to learn a damn thing.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

The Communist Democrats strike again. They're trying to barge into the DOE building.
They have been stopped at the front door & not allowed to enter the building.
They are hollering & screaming bloody murder as usual outside the door right now.
Crazy Maxine Waters is verbally attacking the guy standing at the door pointing at him.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

The debt cannot be repaid by just one or the other. It will take both.

The government takes enough. They don't need nor deserve any more. Feel free to add more to your payment though. My goal in retirement is to pay $zero and to take back absolutely as much as possible, thru any legal means.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

The Communist Democrats strike again. They're trying to barge into the DOE building.
They have been stopped at the front door & not allowed to enter the building.
They are hollering & screaming bloody murder as usual outside the door right now.

INSURRECTION! INSURRECTION! INSURRECTION!

 

[lawgator1]

No presidential candidate is going to come forward with a 30 year plan, this country is run on 4 year election cycles and no candidate is looking further ahead than that.

I am saying I wish a candidate would run and offer such a plan. I do think it would be a very popular concept, don't you? In fact, I think such a candidate making your point -- that to that point no one had done it because they were thinking only four years -- would be a major selling point in favor of such a candidate.

The first step in reducing the debt is to forbid the government from creating money (basically end the federal reserve) outside of a congressional declaration of war or national emergency. Do that and I'll listen to your ideas about taxes.

I'd be interested in that. Don't think it can happen all at once, would be massively inflationary, it seems to me, a major disruption. How about a plan to scale it back over 20 years along with a 30 year debt reduction plan.

 

[n_huffhines]

Why are we the way that we are?

 

[hog88]

I am saying I wish a candidate would run and offer such a plan. I do think it would be a very popular concept, don't you? In fact, I think such a candidate making your point -- that to that point no one had done it because they were thinking only four years -- would be a major selling point in favor of such a candidate.




I'd be interested in that. Don't think it can happen all at once, would be massively inflationary, it seems to me, a major disruption. How about a plan to scale it back over 20 years along with a 30 year debt reduction plan.

It would be popular with a select few but most wouldn't GAF. They know any plan longer than 4 years is BS.

Nope, 20 years is 2-3 different administrations who would scrap the plan in order to make promises of free chit.

 

[GroverCleveland]

I disagree, he isn't going to learn a damn thing.

You're right. Would have been more accurate to say, "you're about to see that isn't true."