You still like Trump?

[Neveragain]

I think younger generations have lost this understanding of what the American Dream really is. It has very little to do with being rich and owning things, it turned into this idea of owning a home and having 2 cars in the driveway etc. that's just not what it is.


America is a permanent protest against the rest of the world, and particularly against Europe.… This faith, like all faiths, does not engender a passive attitude toward the rest of the world. Americans are tolerant of all creeds and to all convictions, but few people express their distrust and indignation with more vigor whenever some of their beliefs are offended. Few people are more conscious that ideas may be more destructive than guns. ~ Raoul De Roussy De Sales ~ What makes an American

We used to pride ourselves on this grittiness, taking assistance from others was almost shameful, yet we were the first to help each other at the worst of times without the need of some governing hand. The idea was to be free to make your own way and if you failed you got back up and kept trying. This is what made us the envy of the world, not our wealth.

[Neveragain]

Folks, Neveragain doesn't even understand how insurance works. Good luck getting him to understand economic systems.

No I understand how insurance works, you just can't prove me wrong that it inflates prices.

You want free stuff, I get it. It's why you vote Democrat.

[Methais]

This stood out to me. How do you expect businesses to make money owning and paving a road for everyday public use?

(most government-owned roads are actually paved by contractors)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcI0TJixars

Only works if it's Willie in the booth.

[Kembal]

The ability to transfer goods and services. Had we not made roads it's probably a good bet that over time business's would have either independently made roads or joined with other business to make them. Don't get me wrong, I like roads. You also have to understand that part of the reason for our interstate system is for military use in times of a national emergency, primarily for the speedy evacuation of cities in case of a nuclear attack.

http://www.history.com/topics/interstate-highway-system

Ok, you can go back into history to see how the interstate highway system was developed, but can't see how privately built roads might not provide all the road infrastructure we need? You have a very blinkered view of how businesses would operate. Not to mention the tremendous inefficency of having businesses band together to build roads, as opposed to just paying taxes and letting the government figure it out.

Your approach would drive up land prices significantly, since businesses would prefer to cluster where there is already built infrastructure.

[Kembal]

No I understand how insurance works, you just can't prove me wrong that it inflates prices.

You want free stuff, I get it. It's why you vote Democrat.

Insurance lowers prices. When I have insurance, I no longer have to jack up my prices to put up reserves to account for unforeseen dangers that could wipe out my entire business.

(And health insurance lowers prices via pooling buying power.)

[Neveragain]

Insurance lowers prices. When I have insurance, I no longer have to jack up my prices to put up reserves to account for unforeseen dangers that could wipe out my entire business.

(And health insurance lowers prices via pooling buying power.)

Don't you have to increase your prices for your insurance costs? Doesn't an insurance company have to increase its pricing as more claims are made?

If there is no inflation wouldn't insurance prices go down over time? If it's cost neutral how are they making money?

My youngest daughter works as a claims adjuster for an insurance company, she says the waste is massive. She says there's all kinds of price gouging taking place.

[Neveragain]

Ok, you can go back into history to see how the interstate highway system was developed, but can't see how privately built roads might not provide all the road infrastructure we need? You have a very blinkered view of how businesses would operate. Not to mention the tremendous inefficency of having businesses band together to build roads, as opposed to just paying taxes and letting the government figure it out.

Your approach would drive up land prices significantly, since businesses would prefer to cluster where there is already built infrastructure.

You do know we're about 19 trillion in debt and our bridges and roads are crap ? Are you also saying the government is good at handling tax payers money?

Those land prices are going up either way, the land doesn't care where the money comes from. Probably actually paying more for the convenience of a business not taking on the responsibility themselves, convenience tends to add cost.

[Neveragain]

8346

Today most of us look at this and think how terrible and these people are in destitute. At the time of the photo these people didn't feel like they were in destitute at all, they took these pictures to display their achievements they had gained from the sweat of their brow.

Personally I have a hell of a lot more respect for the family living in the shitty trailer with the POS in their driveway, who wake up every day to go to their shitty job to pay their own way. I will never have that kind of respect for the rich fuck in his ivory tower pretending they give two shits about the family living in that shit trailer as they virtue signal and call for the government to assist.

[drauz]

8346

Today most of us look at this and think how terrible and these people are in destitute. At the time of the photo these people didn't feel like they were in destitute at all, they took these pictures to display their achievements they had gained from the sweat of their brow.

Personally I have a hell of a lot more respect for the family living in the shitty trailer with the POS in their driveway, who wake up every day to go to their shitty job to pay their own way. I will never have that kind of respect for the rich fuck in his ivory tower pretending they give two shits about the family living in that shit trailer as they virtue signal and call for the government to assist.

Most people look at that picture and think, How the fuck did that cow get on the roof?!

[tyrant-201]

8346

Today most of us look at this and think how terrible and these people are in destitute. At the time of the photo these people didn't feel like they were in destitute at all, they took these pictures to display their achievements they had gained from the sweat of their brow.

Personally I have a hell of a lot more respect for the family living in the shitty trailer with the POS in their driveway, who wake up every day to go to their shitty job to pay their own way. I will never have that kind of respect for the rich fuck in his ivory tower pretending they give two shits about the family living in that shit trailer as they virtue signal and call for the government to assist.

Glad to hear you don't have any respect for Trump either.

[Godsanvil]

I don't care who the president is. I think you are all pretty god damn stupid arguing with each other over people who don't give a peanut in their last log of shit about you. I will say after seeing the group of people on TV attack people with sticks and crap with their faces covered just for disagreeing with them. IF you support that shit, you are a piece of shit. You bring that shit around where I live... and we will send you home with your cowardly ass in a sling.

Also when the hard right get sick of your shit and lead starts coming down range. I am sure your candy asses will be lined up going on about how fucking horrible they are. So remember this stick bullshit and this setting shit on fire that doesn't belong to you. Remember how tough you are in your big group with your masks on and pepper spray and fire. Don't come crying to us when the gun nuts come for your stupid asses.

[Neveragain]

Glad to hear you don't have any respect for Trump either.

More respect for him than anyone that has made a career out of being a politician or people calling for Democratic Socialism and tolerance, who go on to silence any dissenting opinion and riot in the streets when their ideals have been rejected.

[tyrant-201]

I don't care who the president is. I think you are all pretty god damn stupid arguing with each other over people who don't give a peanut in their last log of shit about you. I will say after seeing the group of people on TV attack people with sticks and crap with their faces covered just for disagreeing with them. IF you support that shit, you are a piece of shit. You bring that shit around where I live... and we will send you home with your cowardly ass in a sling.

Also when the hard right get sick of your shit and lead starts coming down range. I am sure your candy asses will be lined up going on about how fucking horrible they are. So remember this stick bullshit and this setting shit on fire that doesn't belong to you. Remember how tough you are in your big group with your masks on and pepper spray and fire. Don't come crying to us when the gun nuts come for your stupid asses.

You're raging over a few select people who likely don't give a shit about anything. They're likely more anarchist than anything.

You'll never hear me excuse that behavior. Those people deserve to get their asses beat.

[Kembal]

Don't you have to increase your prices for your insurance costs?

You're making the assumption that if insurance didn't exist, then I wouldn't increase my prices to create cash reserves to handle an unforeseen disaster or lawsuit, which would be insane. Annual corporate insurance premiums are a lot less than the building of a cash reserve. (which would be a massive reserve given all potential risks to the business) Insurance allows a business to price its risks appropriately.


Doesn't an insurance company have to increase its pricing as more claims are made?

An insurance company is pooling risk - its actuaries make assumptions based on statistical data to determine what the expected claim level would be, and price the premiums based on the underwriting profile of each customer. If the insurance company gets lucky and less claims are made than expected, then it makes money on underwriting, and it may be able to reduce the pricing of certain customers the next year, if their underwriting justifies it. If more claims are made than expected, then it's probably increasing prices the next year to most or all of its customers, unless their underwriting profile has changed drastically.

And before you say there's no decreases, on health insurance alone, over the past 5 years, 3 of them have seen premium decreases for our company. On the rest of our corporate insurance, certain packages have increased in pricing (b/c our sales have gone up, or because we made a claim in a prior year to defend lawsuit), others have gone down (such as our environmental liability insurance).


If there is no inflation wouldn't insurance prices go down over time? If it's cost neutral how are they making money?

Insurance pricing goes up and down with claims. Obviously, inflation causes pricing to go up, but it does that for all goods and services. Insurance by itself doesn't cause additional inflation.

Insurance makes money when it does better than expected on underwriting, and by investing its cash reserves and getting a return (which is its primary source of making money).


My youngest daughter works as a claims adjuster for an insurance company, she says the waste is massive. She says there's all kinds of price gouging taking place.

Does your daughter work in auto insurance? That's fairly normal in auto. Health insurance has some too, but that's regionally dependent - urban areas have less ability to gouge than rural areas. However, claims is only one side of the insurance business - underwriting gives a much a different picture.

[Godsanvil]

You're raging over a few select people who likely don't give a shit about anything. They're likely more anarchist than anything.

You'll never hear me excuse that behavior. Those people deserve to get their asses beat.

Yeah I am raging. I'd love to get a piece of one of them. I know they are few select people. Well I'm starting to think maybe not so few. It makes me mad because they are going to push the wrong people to far. Good People will die and all of these cowards will run and hide like cock roaches. They think they are playing a game. They aren't even protesting they don't see, to stand for anything.. Anarchists lol Don't they realize if anarchy really happened they'd last about how ever long it took all the red neck to lurk up out of the woods and swamps around America and round them up as breeding stock, food or what ever Mad Max type shit they decided to do with them. LOL Anarchists. Fuuuck

[Kembal]

You do know we're about 19 trillion in debt and our bridges and roads are crap ? Are you also saying the government is good at handling tax payers money?

Our bridges and roads are crap because we don't spend enough to maintain and repair them. My company is in water/wastewater infrastructure - exact same problem happens there. Here, the legislative branch has failed, because they have not taken the politically hard route of explaining the need to spend money on infrastructure. Instead they've promised tax cuts or other politically easy measures.

I'm saying the government (in this case, specifically agencies in the executive branch) does a much better job of planning out infrastructure expansion than any business or consortium of businesses would.


Those land prices are going up either way, the land doesn't care where the money comes from. Probably actually paying more for the convenience of a business not taking on the responsibility themselves, convenience tends to add cost.

Supply and demand. If government builds out infrastructure that allows expansion to outlying areas, then certain pieces of land closer in are in less demand. If everything is clustered together, then those pieces of land are in higher demand.

[Neveragain]

You're making the assumption that if insurance didn't exist, then I wouldn't increase my prices to create cash reserves to handle an unforeseen disaster or lawsuit, which would be insane. Annual corporate insurance premiums are a lot less than the building of a cash reserve. (which would be a massive reserve given all potential risks to the business) Insurance allows a business to price its risks appropriately.



An insurance company is pooling risk - its actuaries make assumptions based on statistical data to determine what the expected claim level would be, and price the premiums based on the underwriting profile of each customer. If the insurance company gets lucky and less claims are made than expected, then it makes money on underwriting, and it may be able to reduce the pricing of certain customers the next year, if their underwriting justifies it. If more claims are made than expected, then it's probably increasing prices the next year to most or all of its customers, unless their underwriting profile has changed drastically.

And before you say there's no decreases, on health insurance alone, over the past 5 years, 3 of them have seen premium decreases for our company. On the rest of our corporate insurance, certain packages have increased in pricing (b/c our sales have gone up, or because we made a claim in a prior year to defend lawsuit), others have gone down (such as our environmental liability insurance).



Insurance pricing goes up and down with claims. Obviously, inflation causes pricing to go up, but it does that for all goods and services. Insurance by itself doesn't cause additional inflation.

Insurance makes money when it does better than expected on underwriting, and by investing its cash reserves and getting a return (which is its primary source of making money).



Does your daughter work in auto insurance? That's fairly normal in auto. Health insurance has some too, but that's regionally dependent - urban areas have less ability to gouge than rural areas. However, claims is only one side of the insurance business - underwriting gives a much a different picture.

Yes she works in auto insurance.

I do appreciate your time, effort and ability to communicate your knowledge of the subject.

I'm not so sure I'm completely convinced that insurance doesn't add to inflation strictly on the grounds of the affects that having insurance has on behavior. The theory is that a person is apt to take greater risk when they know they have a cushion to soften the sting of bad decision making or the ability to charge higher prices to the consumer that would not otherwise be able to afford an inflated price. Obviously this is a difficult thing to prove or disprove without having a control group.

Will have to agree to disagree for the time being.

[Neveragain]

Our bridges and roads are crap because we don't spend enough to maintain and repair them. My company is in water/wastewater infrastructure - exact same problem happens there. Here, the legislative branch has failed, because they have not taken the politically hard route of explaining the need to spend money on infrastructure. Instead they've promised tax cuts or other politically easy measures.

I'm saying the government (in this case, specifically agencies in the executive branch) does a much better job of planning out infrastructure expansion than any business or consortium of businesses would.



Supply and demand. If government builds out infrastructure that allows expansion to outlying areas, then certain pieces of land closer in are in less demand. If everything is clustered together, then those pieces of land are in higher demand.

I have to somewhat disagree here, I'm not seeing any reason that these government agencies would not be replaced by business's that specialize in providing these services adding competition to the "formula" which is always a good thing. Infrastructure I can certainly understand being in the hands of government (cringe) which as you stated previously, uses private contractors. Really my only problem with the infrastructure aspect is government won't always choose the best contractors because of "special favors". Things like the post office and yes schools, I believe would be better off in private hands using the voucher system for the poor so they have the same access to these schools. More money is not always the answer, I can look at 8th grade graduation tests from the early 1900's, when we were using 1 room school houses, that I don't think most 4 year college grads could pass these days.

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/1895exam.asp

[Neveragain]

Yeah I am raging. I'd love to get a piece of one of them. I know they are few select people. Well I'm starting to think maybe not so few. It makes me mad because they are going to push the wrong people to far. Good People will die and all of these cowards will run and hide like cock roaches. They think they are playing a game. They aren't even protesting they don't see, to stand for anything.. Anarchists lol Don't they realize if anarchy really happened they'd last about how ever long it took all the red neck to lurk up out of the woods and swamps around America and round them up as breeding stock, food or what ever Mad Max type shit they decided to do with them. LOL Anarchists. Fuuuck

The first ten minutes or so of this gives a good explanation of these anarchists, some of their ideas are completely void of any logic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPvN5o2aRNs&t=938s

[Geijon Khyree]

I'd say this is what chaos looks like, but Ill wait another week or two first. It feels like he'll declare a war with Saudi Arabia or something equally insane.

[Tgo01]

Yes I still like Trump. Standing up to the media who for the most part gave Obama a pass for 8+ years but has been constantly giving Trump shit and blowing things out of proportion at every little thing he does isn't going to sway me away from Trump.

Let me know when he does something serious or starts breaking the law.

[Parkbandit]

I'd say this is what chaos looks like, but Ill wait another week or two first. It feels like he'll declare a war with Saudi Arabia or something equally insane.

LOL.

You're really a special kind of idiot.

But seriously though.. thank you for waiting a week or two until you declare this is what chaos looks like.

Really.

[Thondalar]

Besides DeVos (which I'm hoping he chose only because the Dept. of Education will be shutting down anyway), and the idiotic way the first travel ban executive order was implemented...I really don't have any issues so far.

[Geijon Khyree]

The media is going to be a factor. One term President for sure though.

[Tgo01]

The media is going to be a factor. One term President for sure though.

Does the yet to be announced Democrat candidate also have a greater than 99% chance of winning?

[Geijon Khyree]

Does the yet to be announced Democrat candidate also have a greater than 99% chance of winning?

Trump won with 46.3%. It wont take anywhere close to that. #mathbro #youranobviousprick

[Tgo01]

Trump won with 46.3%. It wont take anywhere close to that.

That has nothing to do with what I said but okay.

[Tenlaar]

Let me know when he does something serious

Publicly questioning the validity of judges who don't agree with him.

Saying that news outlets he doesn't like are the enemy of the American people.

Using the position of POTUS to rail against companies that stop carrying his daughter's products.

Having campaign-style rallies starting a month into his presidency.

Betsy. Fucking. DeVos.

Campaigned saying that he would protect LGBT rights and now has begun stripping them.

On Wednesday, the removing of the trans protections was justified by saying that Trump is a firm believer in states' rights. On Thursday, Trump thinks that the DOJ needs to go after recreational marijuana use in states that have decided that they want it.

You really haven't seen anything "serious" yet?

[Tgo01]

Publicly questioning the validity of judges who don't agree with him.

You mean like when Obama took time out of the state of the union to address the entire supreme court seated before him to bitch and moan about the Citizen's United decision they reached? You were so appalled you called for Obama to be impeached right then and there, right? Or were you too afraid of being called a racist so you didn't speak up?

How fucking lame that this is the first thing on your list. Like presidents have never bitched about court decisions before.


Saying that news outlets he doesn't like are the enemy of the American people.

You mean like how Obama spent his entire time in office (and while running in 2008) blaming Fox for everything and insisting their views don't match the rest of the country? Again, let me guess, you didn't say shit because you were so afraid of being called a racist, right?


Using the position of POTUS to rail against companies that stop carrying his daughter's products.

So more fake news bullshit? Let me guess, you have a CNN article to link to?


Having campaign-style rallies starting a month into his presidency.

Seriously, you're bitching about this after Obama, the man who never really stopped campaigning? You're not being serious, right? You just trolling me? You had me going there, Tenlaar, you pedophile you!

[Parkbandit]

The media is going to be a factor. One term President for sure though.

Oh prediction time...


Florida goes blue we can turn off the TV. He loses Ohio next. Ultimate defeat. Otherwise, he losses my state by the highest margin like 81 to 19pct on 6 million votes.

Yea.. this was at 8PM election night.. when you proclaimed his "ultimate defeat".

[Parkbandit]

Trump won with 46.3%. It wont take anywhere close to that. #mathbro #youranobviousprick

#Trump306Hillary232
#Electionbro
#itsyoureyoufuckingretard

[Parkbandit]

Publicly questioning the validity of judges who don't agree with him.

Saying that news outlets he doesn't like are the enemy of the American people.

Using the position of POTUS to rail against companies that stop carrying his daughter's products.

Having campaign-style rallies starting a month into his presidency.

Betsy. Fucking. DeVos.

Campaigned saying that he would protect LGBT rights and now has begun stripping them.

On Wednesday, the removing of the trans protections was justified by saying that Trump is a firm believer in states' rights. On Thursday, Trump thinks that the DOJ needs to go after recreational marijuana use in states that have decided that they want it.

You really haven't seen anything "serious" yet?

You're still salty AF.

Thank you for the continued tears.

[rolfard]

Trump 304?

[Tenlaar]

You mean like when Obama took time out of the state of the union to address the entire supreme court seated before him to bitch and moan about the Citizen's United decision they reached? You were so appalled you called for Obama to be impeached right then and there, right? Or were you too afraid of being called a racist so you didn't speak up?

How fucking lame that this is the first thing on your list. Like presidents have never bitched about court decisions before.

Not remotely the same thing as publicly planting the idea that they aren't really judges because you don't like their decisions.


You mean like how Obama spent his entire time in office (and while running in 2008) blaming Fox for everything and insisting their views don't match the rest of the country? Again, let me guess, you didn't say shit because you were so afraid of being called a racist, right?

Not remotely the same thing as publicly stating that specific news outlets are the enemy of the American people.


So more fake news bullshit? Let me guess, you have a CNN article to link to?

Nope, just one link. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump


Seriously, you're bitching about this after Obama, the man who never really stopped campaigning? You're not being serious, right? You just trolling me? You had me going there, Tenlaar, you pedophile you!

Do you have a response to anything that isn't "but Obama?" Do you not see that you defend "bad" things that Trump does by saying that Obama did it too and it was bad then so it's okay now? How does this even make sense in your own head?

[Tgo01]

Not remotely the same thing as publicly planting the idea that they aren't really judges because you don't like their decisions.

No you're right, it's just planting the idea that the supreme court isn't to be trusted because they made a decision that is going to fuck with elections for years to come. It's different when my party does it! Oh right, tell me again how you're not partisan.


Not remotely the same thing as publicly stating that specific news outlets are the enemy of the American people.

That's fucking exactly what Obama was doing in regards to Fox, he just didn't have the balls to use those exact words. You're giving Obama a pass because he's a pussy? Please.


Do you have a response to anything that isn't "but Obama?"

No because my entire point (you know, the post you responded to) was that it would take a hell of a lot more than this stupid news shit for me to be turned off Trump, and I asked for when he does something major or illegal. So far all you've done is rehash shit that Obama himself did. I gave Obama a lot of shit, I thought he was a pretty shitty president, but I never once thought he wasn't qualified for president, nor thought he should be impeached, nor thought he did something so outrageous that it proves he's the next Hitler, nor thought he even did anything illegal. I even gave him a pass for murdering that American citizen terrorist in Yemen or where ever it was when even our more liberal minded posters were giving him shit for that.

So if the best you have is "This shit that Obama also did!" then you're gonna have to try harder.

[Parkbandit]

Trump 304?

No, 306.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

ETA: I forgot.. 5 electors decided to vote for someone other than Hillary.. so she didn't get 232, she only ended up with 227

[Androidpk]

I'm pretty sure Obama never called the media the enemy of the American people. Derp

[Tgo01]

I'm pretty sure Obama never called the media the enemy of the American people. Derp


"Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We've got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It's a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world."


"But I have laid out my ideas to create more jobs and grow more wages. A true opposition party should have the courage to lay out theirs. There’s a reason fewer Republicans are preaching doom on deficits – because they’re now manageable. There’s a reason fewer are running against Obamacare – because while good, affordable health care might still be a fanged threat to freedom on Fox News, it’s working pretty well in the real world."


"I want to repeat -- because somehow this never shows up on Fox News. I want to repeat -- because I’ve said it a lot, unwaveringly, all the time: Our law enforcement officers do outstanding work in an incredibly difficult and dangerous job. They put their lives on the line for our safety. We appreciate them and we love them."


"It’s interesting, because we’re talking in Iowa; people always, I think, were surprised about me connecting with folks in small-town Iowa. And the reason I did was, first of all, I had the benefit that at the time nobody expected me to win. And so I wasn’t viewed through this prism of Fox News and conservative media, and making me scary. At the time, I didn’t seem scary, other than just having a funny name. I seemed young. Sometimes I look at my pictures from then and I say, I can’t believe anybody voted for me because I look like I’m 25."


"The problem is we’ve got all these filters. Look, if I watched Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me either because you’ve got this screen—this funhouse mirror—through which people are receiving information. How to break through that is a big challenge."


"In this election, [they] turned out in huge numbers for Trump. And I think that part of it has to do with our inability, our failure, to reach those voters effectively. Part of it is Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country, but part of it is also Democrats not working at a grassroots level, being in there, showing up, making arguments."

Stop giving Obama a pass because he didn't literally use the words "Fox is the enemy of the American people."

He did everything in his power to imply that.

[Thondalar]

I'm pretty sure Obama never called the media the enemy of the American people. Derp

Of course not, they were on his side.

[Tenlaar]

http://i.imgur.com/dXyZQUd.jpg?1

Yup, totally the same thing going on here.

[Tgo01]

http://i.imgur.com/dXyZQUd.jpg?1

Yup, totally the same thing going on here.

So saying Fox news is "destructive" to our country is totally different?

Or saying that Fox news feels it's a "threat to freedom" when they disagree with Obama on something?

[Androidpk]

Ultimately all this does is confirm that Trump has extremely thin skin and can't stand any sort of criticism. I bet he'd get along great with Erdogan.

[Tgo01]

Ultimately all this does is confirm that Trump has extremely thin skin and can't stand any sort of criticism.

I won't deny that at all.

But honestly it's refreshing in a sense. So often Republicans are expected to call out the bad behavior of fellow Republicans, and they are supposed to feel ashamed when they do shit like this. Meanwhile Democrats who do the exact same shit get a pass and even get defended by their fellow Democrat politicians, most of the media, and by their sycophants like time4fun.

So yeah, I'm kind of glad to see a Republican giving Democrats the same shit they've been dishing out for the past 8 years.

Honestly Democrats y'all sounding a bit racist. It's because Trump is white, isn't it?

[drauz]

Ultimately all this does is confirm that Trump has extremely thin skin and can't stand any sort of criticism. I bet he'd get along great with Erdogan.

I don't think there is any doubt Trump has some pretty thin skin. He also has a problem with not responding, he is a trolls wet dream.

[Geijon Khyree]

No, 306.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

ETA: I forgot.. 5 electors decided to vote for someone other than Hillary.. so she didn't get 232, she only ended up with 227

You have a unique thought in your brain besides #retarded. Come on with better heat #over70

[Shaps]

Ultimately all this does is confirm that Trump has extremely thin skin and can't stand any sort of criticism. I bet he'd get along great with Erdogan.

Lol.. what it confirms is that a Democrat for 70 years+.. got elected to the GOP ticket.. so every liberal/democrat turned on him.. but he still uses the same techniques that Democrats have used for years.. and now he's an ass.. it's great to watch..

[Parkbandit]

You have a unique thought in your brain besides #retarded. Come on with better heat #over70

#Hurtyourfeelings
#Fuckoffretard
#UROLDisnotbetterheat
#Youreaspecialkindofstupid

[Androidpk]

Stop giving Obama a pass because he didn't literally use the words "Fox is the enemy of the American people."

He did everything in his power to imply that.

Wrong, try again.

[Androidpk]

Republicans blocked a bill that would have forced the release of Trump's tax returns.

[Thondalar]

Republicans blocked a bill that would have forced the release of Trump's tax returns.

That's a pretty stupid thing for Congresspersons to be making bills about.

[Thondalar]

Lol.. what it confirms is that a Democrat for 70 years+.. got elected to the GOP ticket.. so every liberal/democrat turned on him.. but he still uses the same techniques that Democrats have used for years.. and now he's an ass.. it's great to watch..

Much truth here...under any other circumstances Dems should be totally stoked a life-long Dem, inner-circle member of the Clintons most of his life, gets elected on the "enemy's" ticket...

What changed? Gotta ask yourself.

[Androidpk]

That's a pretty stupid thing for Congresspersons to be making bills about.

Also pretty stupid that we can't see his tax returns. His excuse of being audited is pathetic.

[Kembal]

That's a pretty stupid thing for Congresspersons to be making bills about.

Privileged resolution of inquiry. Not a bill, actually. House Ways and Means has the power to get the returns, but the GOP does not wish to utilize. Inquiry resolution would've forced it to, if I remember all of this correctly.

[Parkbandit]

Privileged resolution of inquiry. Not a bill, actually. House Ways and Means has the power to get the returns, but the GOP does not wish to utilize. Inquiry resolution would've forced it to, if I remember all of this correctly.

I thought candidates giving their tax returns was more of a modern tradition than an actual law. There are already financial disclosures that each candidate has to comply with in order to run for President.

[Kembal]

I thought candidates giving their tax returns was more of a modern tradition than an actual law. There are already financial disclosures that each candidate has to comply with in order to run for President.

That is correct. What this refers to is that House Ways and Means Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation each have power under US law to request from the IRS any individual's income tax return for examination, and can then release it to the full House (and thus the public) by majority vote of the requesting Committee.

It's never been used for this specific scenario, but Ways and Means did utilize this power a few years ago (after 2010, iirc) to release some confidential data regarding US taxpayers stashing money in overseas accounts. Don't remember if it specifically identified the taxpayers, though.

[Parkbandit]

That is correct. What this refers to is that House Ways and Means Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation each have power under US law to request from the IRS any individual's income tax return for examination, and can then release it to the full House (and thus the public) by majority vote of the requesting Committee.

It's never been used for this specific scenario, but Ways and Means did utilize this power a few years ago (after 2010, iirc) to release some confidential data regarding US taxpayers stashing money in overseas accounts. Don't remember if it specifically identified the taxpayers, though.

It's up to the candidate to decide if they want to release their tax returns or not. It's not up to the US House of Representatives.

It'll never happen.. and if it does, we should all be outraged.

[Androidpk]

Maybe, but we should be outraged that a candidate doesn't want the American people to see his/her returns.

[Parkbandit]

Maybe, but we should be outraged that a candidate doesn't want the American people to see his/her returns.

I'm not.

If you want to force future candidates to do this, then pass a law forcing them to do this. We already have laws pertaining to people running for President and they must file the proper financial disclosure forms in order to do so.

If you believe that getting their tax returns released to the public is a necessary part of this process, then pass a law mandating it. If it's up to the candidate whether he/she releases them, then don't be upset when he/she decides not to.

[Tgo01]

I think it's bullshit that Democrats want to in a sense force Trump to do something for no other reason than because it's Trump. If this were a law in place BEFORE Trump took office but Trump wasn't forthcoming with his tax returns, then fine, let the House release the returns.

I think it's a stupid tradition to begin with and I don't blame Trump one bit for not wanting to participate in said tradition. I just wish he would have come right out and said that rather than the whole audit thing, it's not like Democrats would have accepted either answer.

[Warriorbird]

If Bloomberg were a Democratic President I'd want to see his returns.

[Androidpk]

I think it's bullshit that Democrats want to in a sense force Trump to do something for no other reason than because it's Trump. If this were a law in place BEFORE Trump took office but Trump wasn't forthcoming with his tax returns, then fine, let the House release the returns.

I think it's a stupid tradition to begin with and I don't blame Trump one bit for not wanting to participate in said tradition. I just wish he would have come right out and said that rather than the whole audit thing, it's not like Democrats would have accepted either answer.

I'm not a Democrat and I have no problem with Trump being forced to have his tax returns shown. It should be mandatory.

[Tgo01]

If Bloomberg were a Democratic President I'd want to see his returns.

I wouldn't. What do people think they are going to learn from a tax return?

I've seen tards say Trump's returns will prove he was paid off by the Russians and shit. People are really this retarded.

[Tgo01]

I'm not a Democrat and I have no problem with Trump being forced to have his tax returns shown. It should be mandatory.

Our laws are not supposed to be retroactive like this. If Democrats want to find their balls again, stop blaming everything on Trump and Russia so they can regain control of Congress again and want to somehow push through legislation making it a law for all future presidents/candidates so Trump would have to comply in 2020 then fine. Making it retroactive because they are a bunch of sore losers who don't know how to accept defeat and better themselves from it then fuck them.

[Androidpk]

I wouldn't. What do people think they are going to learn from a tax return?

I've seen tards say Trump's returns will prove he was paid off by the Russians and shit. People are really this retarded.

it's called transparency

[Parkbandit]

I'm not a Democrat and I have no problem with Trump being forced to have his tax returns shown. It should be mandatory.

Then let's make it mandatory.

Currently, it's not. It wasn't in 2016 for the election either.

Let's save future generations this grave injustice and make it a law!

[Parkbandit]

it's called transparency

It's called sour grapes.

:(

[Tgo01]

it's called transparency

It's his personal life, shit that happened before he even announced he was running for president. Since when did any government official lose their right to privacy once they were sworn into office?

This is like saying we need cameras in the White House bathrooms so we can be sure the president is being "transparent" about the size of his dick.

[Androidpk]

It's his personal life, shit that happened before he even announced he was running for president. Since when did any government official lose their right to privacy once they were sworn into office?

This is like saying we need cameras in the White House bathrooms so we can be sure the president is being "transparent" about the size of his dick.

Right to privacy... since when do republicans care about that?

[Gelston]

Right to privacy... since when do republicans care about that?

After the Democrats increasingly eroded it over the last 8 years.

[Warriorbird]

After the Democrats increasingly eroded it over the last 8 years.

I am so glad that Barack Obama made the Patriot Act and executed the first 8 or so years of NSA hyper empowerment. The Republicans are TOTALLY changing stuff too.

[Gelston]

I am so glad that Barack Obama made the Patriot Act and executed the first 8 or so years of NSA hyper empowerment.

He expanded it. He also killed US citizens with drone strikes. He also signed the National Defense Authorization Act that allowed the permanent detention of US Citizens without trial by the military. Obama took everything Bush did, called him a n00b, and did it 10x. None of you cared because you were all "OBAMA BEST PREZ EVER!!!!!!!!!"

Wait, my bad, Trump is the one that is closest to Hitler though, because he says mean things.

[Warriorbird]

He expanded it. He also killed US citizens with drone strikes. He also signed the National Defense Authorization Act that allowed the permanent detention of US Citizens without trial by the military. Obama took everything Bush did, called him a n00b, and did it 10x. None of you cared because you were all "OBAMA BEST PREZ EVER!!!!!!!!!"

Wait, my bad, Trump is the one that is closest to Hitler though, because he says mean things.

Obama did all sorts of stuff that pretty much none of you complained about... because absolutely nothing is going to change. Presidents like this don't reject executive power.

[Androidpk]

He expanded it. He also killed US citizens with drone strikes. He also signed the National Defense Authorization Act that allowed the permanent detention of US Citizens without trial by the military. Obama took everything Bush did, called him a n00b, and did it 10x. None of you cared because you were all "OBAMA BEST PREZ EVER!!!!!!!!!"

Wait, my bad, Trump is the one that is closest to Hitler though, because he says mean things.

Obama was basically GWB's third and fourth term.

[Warriorbird]

Obama was basically GWB's third and fourth term.

Privacy wise? Absolutely. Education too.

[Androidpk]

Privacy wise? Absolutely. Education too.

Foreign policy most of all.

[Back]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-pulls-back-obama-era-protections-women-workers-n741041

Trump Pulls Back Obama-Era Protections For Women Workers

On March 27, Trump revoked the 2014 Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/31/executive-order-fair-pay-and-safe-workplaces) order then-President Barack Obama put in place to ensure that companies with federal contracts comply with 14 labor and civil rights laws. The Fair Pay order was put in place after a 2010 Government Accountability Office (http://www.gao.gov/assets/310/309785.pdf) investigation showed that companies with rampant violations were being awarded millions in federal contracts.

[~Rocktar~]

If companies are violating the law shouldn't the justice department be prosecuting them? Why do you need a rule to say you need to comply with the law, other than to justify for paying more people to work on the public's dime?

[drauz]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-pulls-back-obama-era-protections-women-workers-n741041

Trump Pulls Back Obama-Era Protections For Women Workers
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Did you know that the GAO investigation report uses the word "woman" exactly once in the report?

[Parkbandit]

Did you know that the GAO investigation report uses the word "woman" exactly once in the report?

What a sexist bunch of white old men.

[Gelston]

Did you know all Back does is post shot he sees without reading more into it?

[Latrinsorm]

If companies are violating the law shouldn't the justice department be prosecuting them? Why do you need a rule to say you need to comply with the law, other than to justify for paying more people to work on the public's dime?The idea of the rule is that if a company has a track record of not complying with the law (including but not limited to DoL prosecution) then the federal government should take that into account when considering with whom it works.
Did you know that the GAO investigation report uses the word "woman" exactly once in the report?This is a parsing error on your part. President Obama's executive order explicitly includes compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to wit: "discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin" and is therefore correctly described as protections for women workers. That the GAO investigation did not explicitly reference sex discrimination is irrelevant, because the order did not limit itself to the findings of said GAO investigation.

[drauz]

The idea of the rule is that if a company has a track record of not complying with the law (including but not limited to DoL prosecution) then the federal government should take that into account when considering with whom it works.This is a parsing error on your part. President Obama's executive order explicitly includes compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to wit: "discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin" and is therefore correctly described as protections for women workers. That the GAO investigation did not explicitly reference sex discrimination is irrelevant, because the order did not limit itself to the findings of said GAO investigation.

Not what was being discussed.

[Latrinsorm]

Not what was being discussed.By whom?

[SHAFT]

Missiles away