*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5841
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3600 on: January 25, 2019, 07:55:31 PM »
Trump in a true 4D chess move is backtracking to support the border security that both sides agreed to before the shutdown (more or less). GG USA.
And then promptly surrendered. Sorry, made a tactical withdrawl.


https://www.npr.org/2019/01/25/688414503/watch-live-trump-addresses-shutdown-from-white-house-rose-garden




Saddam, I'd find a new job cause this shit was just a preview of the next two years.




Can't wait to see lacky spin this one.




I want to say" good job, Trump, for finally seeing the best solution."
« Last Edit: January 25, 2019, 10:55:30 PM by Lord Dave »

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7247
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3601 on: January 25, 2019, 10:37:44 PM »
Yes, and you used the emphatic expression "every dime," which suggested you were impressed by Trump's not accepting a salary and/or believed it was a sign of his altruism. You'll probably deny this and say you were being entirely neutral in your statement of fact, but it is part of the reason why I felt the need to respond and deflate the idea that Trump truly is being selfless. His declining a salary is basically a feint; a public show of charity meant to distract from him chasing the big bucks elsewhere.

But it literally is a sign of altruism. He told everyone he would refuse a salary and then he did. You're the one busy trying desperately to twist this into a bad thing because beep boop orange man bad.

If the facts are in the way of my narrative, then you should have no trouble pointing them out for me. Are you disputing the content of the article I linked? Trump is earning hundreds of millions a year from the properties and businesses that he refuses to divest himself of, many of which have dramatically raised their fees after he won the presidency. Corporate executives and foreign nationals regularly spend huge amounts of money on them. And we won't ever know the extent of how much influence these people have or could hold on Trump, because he also refuses to release his tax returns. Or is it my conclusions of corruption that you take issue with? Given Trump's enormous holdings, it's inevitably only a matter of time before Trump will have to choose between what's best for the nation and what's best for his wallet - assuming it hasn't happened already. Does that sit well with you? Like, suppose a group of shady rich Chinese people come up to Trump and promise him lucrative development opportunities in a number of Far East countries with hefty licensing fees, all if he'll just, say, launch a new military intervention in Syria. Do you think that Trump wouldn't take that deal?

This isn't even a question of Trump being uniquely terrible. I wouldn't trust any president being faced with such a major conflict of interest. And thankfully, we wouldn't have to, because any other president would have divested from their properties and released their tax returns. Why do you think Trump has refused to do those things?

Nice rant, shame that none of it contains credible evidence of wrongdoing. I stated that Trump made a promise and then kept it, I'm sure that irks you a lot, but it goes to show that Trump takes his promises more seriously than most. Also, nice "muh tax returns" narrative. I highly doubt you honestly agree with the "nothing to fear, nothing to hide" sentiment so common in today's Big Brother society, so I have to wonder why you think it should apply to Trump. He isn't required to show you tax returns and he isn't guilty by omission. The IRS wouldn't let him get by with anything illegal, so I'm unsure of why you think having the general public eyeball tax returns they cannot understand would be any use to anyone.

If Trump is as immoral and greedy as you claim, then it seems it'd be a lot easier for him to rake up his $400,000 salary and ignore his promise entirely.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2019, 10:42:26 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5841
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3602 on: January 25, 2019, 10:54:43 PM »

If Trump is as immoral and greedy as you claim, then it seems it'd be a lot easier for him to rake up his $400,000 salary and ignore his promise entirely.


Depends on the rationale.  Maybe he is nice and keeps his promises.  Or maybe he does it for tax reasons.  Remember, he doesn't donate his salary like presidents before him, he reallocates it back into the government.  Other presidents take the paycheck then write a check to a charity.  Trump does not.  This has the benefit that he has a $0 taxable income, otherwise, he'd still pay taxes on his salary.  And given his tax returns are likely complicated as hell, paying taxes on an income may be detremental.  But no one can say for sure since we don't know what his filings look like.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6874
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3603 on: January 26, 2019, 01:30:37 AM »
Trump keeps one promise over here and breaks another over there. He is just as trustworthy as HRC, he just substitutes one set of problems for another.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 2045
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3604 on: January 27, 2019, 06:22:27 AM »
But it literally is a sign of altruism. He told everyone he would refuse a salary and then he did. You're the one busy trying desperately to twist this into a bad thing because beep boop orange man bad.

It's a sign of him wanting you to think he's altruistic. $400,000 a year is chump change to Trump. I'll grant that not accepting a salary certainly isn't in and of itself a bad or selfish thing, but neither is it convincing evidence of his altruism.

Quote
Nice rant, shame that none of it contains credible evidence of wrongdoing...The IRS wouldn't let him get by with anything illegal

The law does indeed seem to currently be on Trump's side. He's correctly pointed out that the president is excluded from conflict-of-interest laws, and parts of the Constitution that might possibly restrict his behavior, like the Titles of Nobility Cause, are vague and have little to no case law actually putting their terms into enforceable rules. The hypothetical situation about the Chinese I outlined above would probably be perfectly legal, as long as it didn't cross the line into straight bribery. I'd argue that the legality of all this makes Trump's self-enrichment even more of a threat, not less, because it frees him to be as open and shameless about it as he likes. In any case, I'm asking you for your opinion on this subject, not the law. Do you think that Trump can reasonably set his enormous business interests aside when it comes to his policies and positions in office? As in, that he won't be influenced by how much money he stands to gain or lose with every decision that he makes?

Quote
I'm unsure of why you think having the general public eyeball tax returns they cannot understand would be any use to anyone

The general public also didn't understand the Climategate emails, or the revelations from Edward Snowden, or virtually any major leak or disclosure that involved documents of a technical or specialized nature. In situations like this, we typically rely on experts in the relevant fields to help us understand what's going on.

Quote
Also, nice "muh tax returns" narrative. I highly doubt you honestly agree with the "nothing to fear, nothing to hide" sentiment so common in today's Big Brother society, so I have to wonder why you think it should apply to Trump. He isn't required to show you tax returns and he isn't guilty by omission

Because he's the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world. Yes, he should be scrutinized, tested, made to prove that he's truly committed to the office and duty. Every president before him has been, and every one after him will be. When you run for president, you give up the privilege of claiming to be just another guy minding his own business and wanting to be left alone to live his life in peace. You invite that scrutiny onto yourself. And by pointedly refusing to do what all his modern predecessors have to prove that they weren't bought and paid for - not simply not thinking of it, or not getting around to do it, but deliberately refusing, basically stomping his feet and yelling no, never, absolutely not, he's made himself look suspicious as hell.

Have some standards. This man's job is to run the country. It's okay to want a certain level of dedication. It's good to want a certain level of dedication. And it's absolutely good to not be satisfied with someone who refuses to meet a relatively low bar like this.

Quote
If Trump is as immoral and greedy as you claim, then it seems it'd be a lot easier for him to rake up his $400,000 salary and ignore his promise entirely.

I don't know what you mean by "easier." It's not like Trump declining a salary is something that he needs to work hard at, or even put any effort into at all. Like I said, that kind of money is loose change to him, and he probably figured that what he'd gain in convincing people (like you) that he was honest and selfless would more than offset such a small sacrifice. Of course, I'm not claiming that this was necessarily the best tactic for Trump, or the only one that would work. He probably could collect his salary tomorrow, tweet something along the lines of "I'm working my ass off here!" and his base would fall over themselves praising his diligence and work ethic, as well as accusing anyone criticizing him of supporting slavery.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2019, 06:00:34 AM by honk »
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7247
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3605 on: January 27, 2019, 06:44:43 PM »
It's a sign of him wanting you to think he's altruistic. $400,000 a year is chump change to Trump. I'll grant that not accepting a salary certainly isn't in and of itself a bad or selfish thing, but neither is it convincing evidence of his altruism.

There's no discernible difference between someone acting altruistic because they just want me to think they are or acting altruistic because they actually are. The key to altruism is that someone behaving in that way actually produces the same results.

The law does indeed seem to currently be on Trump's side. He's correctly pointed out that the president is excluded from conflict-of-interest laws, and parts of the Constitution that might possibly restrict his behavior, like the Titles of Nobility Cause, are vague and have little to no case law actually putting their terms into enforceable rules. The hypothetical situation about the Chinese I outlined above would probably be perfectly legal, as long as it didn't cross the line into straight bribery. I'd argue that the legality of all this makes Trump's self-enrichment even more of a threat, not less, because it frees him to be as open and shameless about it as he likes. In any case, I'm asking you for your opinion on this subject, not the law. Do you think that Trump can reasonably set his enormous business interests aside when it comes to his policies and positions in office? As in, that he won't be influenced by how much money he stands to gain or lose with every decision that he makes?

Translation: I can't find evidence of any real wrongdoing or wrong behaviors, all I can do is deeply imply that Trump is bad because Trump is bad.

The general public also didn't understand the Climategate emails, or the revelations from Edward Snowden, or virtually any major leak or disclosure that involved documents of a technical or specialized nature. In situations like this, we typically rely on experts in the relevant fields to help us understand what's going on.

Right, because the public is also intelligent enough to always look towards experts to form their opinions of everything. Since experts on every subject are available, the general public has never formed a majorly wrong opinion. As you have probably realized by now, your logic doesn't follow at all. What would actually happen is people against Trump would twist his tax returns regardless of what they actually contain and people for Trump likely wouldn't be swayed unless it had Trump giving donations to a "Kill Everyone Very Painfully" fund.

Because he's the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world. Yes, he should be scrutinized, tested, made to prove that he's truly committed to the office and duty. Every president before him has been, and every one after him will be. When you run for president, you give up the privilege of claiming to be just another guy minding his own business and wanting to be left alone to live his life in peace. You invite that scrutiny onto yourself. And by pointedly refusing to do what all his modern predecessors have to prove that they weren't bought and paid for - not simply not thinking of it, or not getting around to do it, but deliberately refusing, basically stomping his feet and yelling no, never, absolutely not, he's made himself look suspicious as hell.

It's suspicious because you want it to be, and no, his rights don't magically disappear when he becomes POTUS. He's just a human being, he doesn't actually owe you anything, especially since you didn't even vote for the man. In fact, I would think that your stance on this issue is what has caused such major rifts in our politics. Demanding that someone, regardless of position, have their privacy rights damaged just because you or others like you find it to be suspicious is nonsense.
 
Have some standards. This man's job is to run the country. It's okay to want a certain level of dedication. It's good to want a certain level of dedication. And it's absolutely good to not be satisfied with someone who refuses to meet a relatively low bar like this.

"stop trying to apply rights to everyone, have some standards, just select who does and doesn't get certain rights" haha, okay.

I don't know what you mean by "easier." It's not like Trump declining a salary is something that he needs to work hard at, or even put any effort into at all. Like I said, that kind of money is loose change to him, and he probably figured that what he'd gain in convincing people (like you) that he was honest and selfless would more than offset such a small sacrifice. Of course, I'm not claiming that this was necessarily the best tactic for Trump, or the only one that would work. He probably could collect his salary tomorrow, tweet something along the lines of "I'm working my ass off here!" and his base would fall over themselves praising his diligence and work ethic, as well as accusing anyone criticizing him of supporting slavery.

Ah yes, here is you finally admitting it doesn't really matter what Trump does, he'll still be a bad man. Trump, to you, will always be bad. It doesn't actually matter what he does, because you're incapable of forming your own opinion about anything that matters.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 2045
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3606 on: January 27, 2019, 07:13:13 PM »
If you ever feel like reading my actual posts and responding to my actual arguments, I'll be happy to discuss the subject further. I'm not going to waste my time with you if you insist on arguing with the fantasy version of me that lives in your head.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7247
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3607 on: January 27, 2019, 07:36:14 PM »
If you ever feel like reading my actual posts and responding to my actual arguments, I'll be happy to discuss the subject further. I'm not going to waste my time with you if you insist on arguing with the fantasy version of me that lives in your head.

You quite literally admitted that, even if Trump isn't doing anything illegal, you want to upset his privacy rights just so you can twist anything he's done into "well, it's not illegal, but Orange Man Bad!" Not only that, but I guarantee the "experts" you're referring to aren't experts at all, but in fact just journalists who speak with "people familiar with the matter". When just about anyone talking about how terrible Trump is, it's never actually material written by an expert, but instead just a journalist who hasn't a clue what he/she is talking about. You then read those opinions, take them as your own, without any critical thinking on your own part. Then when I sit here to deprogram you, you "respond to my actual arguments" even when you clearly don't even have an actual argument. Anytime I discuss something with you, it doesn't even feel like it's you. It's always someone else, someone else's thoughts or feelings that you've picked up. It always feels like I'm playing the least fun game of telephone anyone has created.

I mean, just now, you said the IRS, the literal experts on the subjects of taxes, aren't enough for you, and that you want the tax returns released so that... what? The "real" experts can take a look at it? I think you meant you want BuzzFeed to tell you what to think about them, you don't give a shit about experts.


*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 2045
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3608 on: January 28, 2019, 03:46:18 AM »
You quite literally admitted that, even if Trump isn't doing anything illegal, you want to upset his privacy rights just so you can twist anything he's done into "well, it's not illegal, but Orange Man Bad!"

There are tons of things that are morally objectionable or politically-damaging without being illegal. I hesitate to say this because it's such an obvious rebuttal, but don't you remember Hillary? You didn't need her to be arrested or indicted to pass judgment on her actions.

Quote
Not only that, but I guarantee the "experts" you're referring to aren't experts at all, but in fact just journalists who speak with "people familiar with the matter".

Uh, you're kind of jumping the gun here. Trump's tax returns haven't been released, so there are no experts or fake experts analyzing them at all. Are you complaining about the media response to something that hasn't even happened yet? If it does happen, I'm sure there'll be no shortage of media outlets, both liberal and conservative, offering their hot takes about why they're absolutely devastating or else paint a glowing picture of the man. The quality of these takes will undoubtedly vary. In any case, I can't really discuss the specifics of such a situation until the situation actually happens.

Quote
I mean, just now, you said the IRS, the literal experts on the subjects of taxes, aren't enough for you, and that you want the tax returns released so that... what? The "real" experts can take a look at it? I think you meant you want BuzzFeed to tell you what to think about them, you don't give a shit about experts.

I never said that the IRS weren't experts or didn't know what they were doing. Of course they do. But they're not political watchdogs. They don't have the authority to say to the public, "Wow, it looks like this guy is totally bought and paid for by shady Russians/Chinese. They have so much money invested in his businesses and left dangling over his head that he'll most likely do anything they say. We have grave doubts about the wisdom of electing this man to public office, much less the office of president." It's also kind of funny that you'd accuse me of being in thrall to the liberal media when you're the one who's refusing to think for himself and consider anything beyond the official actions of a government agency. Again, you didn't let the FBI tell you what to think about Hillary. You shouldn't need an indictment from the IRS to have an opinion on whether or not you think that potential or current investors in or clients of Trump's vast business empire might bear an inappropriate influence on his policies and positions.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #3609 on: January 28, 2019, 11:28:58 AM »
Trump keeps one promise over here and breaks another over there...
What promise has he broke?

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #3610 on: January 28, 2019, 11:43:56 AM »
Maybe I was angry?
Maybe?
Or surprised.  Text offers little in the way of tone.
I'll stick with the "pissed," assessment.
Quote
Pissed that Trump did what Pelosi suggested as its smart and I wanr Trump to fail.
Hence your anger as he has not failed...
So following Pelosi's advice is smart . Thanks for that.
When you already know the cards the other side is holding and you know you have the better hand, you always stay in the game.
Quote
Quote
You're reading too much into things.
As are you if you believe this approach signifies anything like bending.

Trump is playing these people for the fools they truly are.
Oh, like Kim Jong Un?
Not a fool and no longer any trouble now that he is being treated as a human by Trump.
Right, because he's totally not building rockets ..
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/11/13/us-analysts-say-they-found-secret-north-korean-missile-sites-but-trump-says-theres-nothing-new/


I'd link the NYT article, but you'd call it fake news before reading it.
When news is printed way after the fact and then introduced, mental midgets are always fascinated.

Trump paid his visit to Jong Un many moons ago.

MSM continually pressing for a new crisis here and a new crisis there, promoting absolute bullshit stories about the North Korea, is the peak in hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, human trafficking, with over 50 million victims, and current legislation, with language requiring POTUS to ACT and seek to curb/eliminate such instances in this country, gets typically ignored by you libtards.
Quote
Or China?
China = many people

China ≠ these people to whom I refer (AKA: Dancy Nancy and her Chuckwagon).
The chinese government, you poorly written character troll.
I know you want to believe we have trouble with China.

Flash...

We don't.
Quote
Please, do tell, what is his master plan?
Drain the Swamp.

You remember... his campaign slogan?
Ok, I'll bite.  How does waiting to give the state of the union speech in the House help with that?
Gives more swamp creatures time to squirm.
Quote
Because to me this sounds like a very simple "Lets report good news" move . Which is smart.
Yes.

It is always good news when Trump speaks!

ALL HAIL OUR ILLUSTRIOUS AND BELOVED LEADER!
Only if you work in the MSM.  Then it means ratings.
OF COURSE IT MEANS RATINGS!!!

EVERYTHING TRUMP TOUCHES IS GOLDEN!!!

ALL HAIL OUR ILLUSTRIOUS AND BENEVOLENT LEADER!!!

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #3611 on: January 28, 2019, 11:47:21 AM »
Because he's the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world. Yes, he should be scrutinized, tested, made to prove that he's truly committed to the office and duty. Every president before him has been, and every one after him will be. When you run for president, you give up the privilege of claiming to be just another guy minding his own business and wanting to be left alone to live his life in peace. You invite that scrutiny onto yourself. And by pointedly refusing to do what all his modern predecessors have to prove that they weren't bought and paid for - not simply not thinking of it, or not getting around to do it, but deliberately refusing, basically stomping his feet and yelling no, never, absolutely not, he's made himself look suspicious as hell.
This is the biggest pile I have seen in some time...

Making tax returns public is the biggest joke ever played on the American public...
Trump's tax returns haven't been released...
Just addressing this one thing here...

2015, I believe, was made public, on the Rachel Maddow show...showed he paid 50 million in taxes...

Why don't you share yours?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2019, 11:50:52 AM by totallackey »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6874
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3612 on: January 28, 2019, 12:35:22 PM »
Trump keeps one promise over here and breaks another over there...
What promise has he broke?

He did not enact a number of the tax reforms he promised.

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #3613 on: January 28, 2019, 02:03:00 PM »
Trump keeps one promise over here and breaks another over there...
What promise has he broke?

He did not enact a number of the tax reforms he promised.
Oh...

1) Which ones?

B. Were those "promises," accompanied with the language, "...by this (insert time frame here)..., I will have done this!"

III. He is not out of office yet...He has kept more of his promises than any president, of any country, in recent memory!

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6874
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3614 on: January 28, 2019, 02:08:24 PM »
Trump keeps one promise over here and breaks another over there...
What promise has he broke?

He did not enact a number of the tax reforms he promised.
Oh...

1) Which ones?

I won’t name all of them, but as an example, closing the interest carry-over loophole. Funny that a guy who is there to drain the swamp keeps a loophole open that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy.

Quote
B. Were those "promises," accompanied with the language, "...by this (insert time frame here)..., I will have done this!"

Where did the goalposts go? Oh, you moved them.

Quote
III. He is not out of office yet...He has kept more of his promises than any president, of any country, in recent memory!

How many promises has he kept and how many more is that than Obama, Bush and Clinton?


*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5841
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3615 on: January 28, 2019, 03:19:55 PM »
When you already know the cards the other side is holding and you know you have the better hand, you always stay in the game.
So if Trump hadn't given in, he'd have lost and be out of the game?
This is confusing since he basically folded.  If he have better cards, you raise (or bluff).  If you have a poor hand, you fold to stay in the game. (Assuming you have more to bet)


Quote
When news is printed way after the fact and then introduced, mental midgets are always fascinated.

Trump paid his visit to Jong Un many moons ago.

MSM continually pressing for a new crisis here and a new crisis there, promoting absolute bullshit stories about the North Korea, is the peak in hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, human trafficking, with over 50 million victims, and current legislation, with language requiring POTUS to ACT and seek to curb/eliminate such instances in this country, gets typically ignored by you libtards.
1. Military Times is NOT MSM. 
2. I think its conservative.
3. Yes, and Kim has been hard at work building missiles. 



Quote
I know you want to believe we have trouble with China.

Flash...

We don't.
When you even ignore Trump's reality, then you are a terrible troll.  Time for ignore.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2019, 03:46:35 PM by Lord Dave »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 2045
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3616 on: January 29, 2019, 06:26:53 AM »
2015, I believe, was made public, on the Rachel Maddow show...showed he paid 50 million in taxes...

A couple of pages from his 2005 return were leaked, and it wasn't really much of a scoop, beyond the fact that Trump used some rather creative accounting to claim hefty losses while mysteriously growing considerably richer. Nothing unusual for him. The most interesting part of that story is Trump's "don't hate me because I'm beautiful" response. His position evidently isn't that we should value his experience of an unfair system that grossly favors the rich as a key factor for its eventual reform, but that we should admire him for exploiting that system to make himself as much money as possible. That's not the stance I would take if I were a populist politician trying to convince millions of people, many of them struggling, that I shared their priorities and deserved their vote, but what do I know? Trump's the one who managed to get elected president, not me.

Quote
Why don't you share yours?

Oh, come on, you're really going to "NO U!" me? I think I've been very clear that I believe presidents, or presidential candidates, are the ones who owe the public financial disclosure, simply because they're trying to become the president. If they find that too high a price to pay, then they shouldn't be running. If they value their privacy above everything and want to keep their head down and be left alone, then they shouldn't be running. If they have a shady past or skeletons in their closet that they don't want the public finding out about, then they shouldn't be running. Again, this goes back to standards. We have every right to be fussy and discriminating when it comes to electing the president. Put another way, there's no cause to ever be fretting about the privacy rights of the most powerful person in the world.

At no point does any of this come close to suggesting that everybody in the world should be okay with releasing their tax returns. I'm talking about presidential candidates, not regular people. So if I ever run for president, I promise you I'll release my tax returns.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3617 on: January 29, 2019, 07:29:10 AM »
When you already know the cards the other side is holding and you know you have the better hand, you always stay in the game.
So if Trump hadn't given in, he'd have lost and be out of the game?
This is confusing since he basically folded.  If he have better cards, you raise (or bluff).  If you have a poor hand, you fold to stay in the game. (Assuming you have more to bet)

What did Trump lose, exactly, by allowing a temporary reopening and allowing his administration to receive backpay?
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5841
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3618 on: January 29, 2019, 09:14:55 AM »
When you already know the cards the other side is holding and you know you have the better hand, you always stay in the game.
So if Trump hadn't given in, he'd have lost and be out of the game?
This is confusing since he basically folded.  If he have better cards, you raise (or bluff).  If you have a poor hand, you fold to stay in the game. (Assuming you have more to bet)

What did Trump lose, exactly, by allowing a temporary reopening and allowing his administration to receive backpay?


He did lose some of his reputation as a hardline, unsympathing, doesn't back down guy.  But I don't see that as a loss.  What he did was the best option.  (I also never said Trump lost anything so nice redirect there.)


 Lackey was the one talking of folding to stay in the game, implying that Trump would have lost if he did not reopen the gov.


[/quote]

*

Online stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3619 on: January 29, 2019, 09:17:29 AM »
When you already know the cards the other side is holding and you know you have the better hand, you always stay in the game.
So if Trump hadn't given in, he'd have lost and be out of the game?
This is confusing since he basically folded.  If he have better cards, you raise (or bluff).  If you have a poor hand, you fold to stay in the game. (Assuming you have more to bet)

What did Trump lose, exactly, by allowing a temporary reopening and allowing his administration to receive backpay?

Of the 800k furloughed, some are contractors. I don't know the number/percentage. But contractors don't get backpay. So there's that. Not to mention 800k works who were not at work normally supporting all of the ancillary workers/businesses that cater to those furloughed. Coffee shops, lunch places, transport, etc. There's also just plain lost productivity cost. I think it was the S&P that calculated 11B lost in the economy due to the shutdown. And DJT said on tape he would own the shutdown. He folded, fine, whatever. He at least gets back his SotU speech back. He will probably have to fold again or own another shutdown, to avoid, he EO's a state of emergency. That will just get gummed up in the courts. At the end of the day, no wall anytime soon, gov't open and his standing will be judged b/c of all this. Whatever that judgement may be.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.