It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I work at a golf course, hardly ever play or practice. Maybe play a few times a year and I score in the 80s. Now I do know some guys who are around Trump's age and a few of them have under a 5 handicap but they play and practice literally every single day so who knows.. It is hard to believe so who knows...
As Prince said, parties weren't meant to last....
;))
So what exactly is the point of this thread besides constantly bashing Trump and talking about how bad he is? Most of the people on this site are 30+ and don't have anything else better to do then cry and complain about an election? Lol... Okaaaay.
Yes, the FBI, Russia, electoral college and so on are legitimate concerns, but that only explains a very small slice of the vote. Really we should be asking, why wasn't Clinton winning by 5-10%? For all her merits, Clinton really has a problem with accepting criticism. Even to this day, she thinks she lost with no fault of her own.
Here are my suggestions for Democrats.
Vote
Yes, even for the lesser evil. Young Democrats complain their candidates are too conservative, so they don't vote for them. But the reason they move to the right is because they accept that they won't win the young vote anyway. If young Democrats voted, Republicans would have to move to the center instead of having the luxury to appeal to radicals within their party.
Get out of your bubble.
Colbert/Daily Show/Huffington Post/blogs etc. make you feel good and justify your viewpoints, but they also obscured you from seeing exactly what was going on this election cycle.
Be FOR something
Clinton spent a lot of time bashing Donald, but didn't promote her policies as aggressive as she derided his. Most voters aren't going to take the time to visit your website. You need to promote it yourself. Also, don't run a negative campaign because (a) Republicans win when turnout is low and (b) Donald will drag you down and beat you with experience.
Reach out to white working-class voters.
Yes, a portion of Donald's supporters are xenophobic, but many of them supported him because he talked about bringing the factories back. She should've reached out to them instead of assume that the only reason white working class voters would vote for trump is because they're pro-racism.
Charisma!
Democrats have a tendency to run intelligent qualified candidates who are poor communicators. Clinton joins a league of other aloof politicians like Kerry, Gore, Mondale, Dukakis and so on.
Be open to progressives, but not limited to them.
Younger Democrats are more progressive and the party will change over time, but don't exclude moderates either. You need centrist Democrats to win seats in conservative states. Also, keep in mind that the last 3 Democrat presidents were some of their more moderate candidates.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/does-donald-trump-cheat-at-golf-a-washington-post-investigation/2015/09/02/f8a940b2-50c4-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html?utm_term=.30a8d2b3b8fd
The ladies seem impressed anyway:
I wonder if Mr. Trump got any Goldfinger-like tips on how to have an unfair advantage in the game from someone who knew about them only too well:
@timmer, excellent post on the Electoral College. I agree with you, that is indeed the name of the game. As you correctly suggest, if one were trying to win a 'national popular vote' then the strategies, platforms and the candidates would have been quite different (and perhaps quite dull).
No system is perfect as we know. It's true that a focus on the Electoral College means that candidates focus ardently on a few 'swing states'. Moreover, the system gives no incentive to encourage voter turnout except in those swing states. It's also true that the current electoral system gives low-population states a disproportionate vote share, as @BeatlesSansEarmuffs and @TripAces suggest.
This is further exacerbated by the 'winner take all' method of allocating votes in many states, which also disadvantages third party candidates, who are likely to do better in a proportional system. the same problem applies to 'first past the post' systems (where a candidate with the highest number, not necessarily a majority, of votes is elected) in parliamentary countries like the UK & Canada. However, a proportional system is less likely to deliver clear majorities, which some argue is needed in order to govern effectively, particularly in a system like the US with 3 branches of Govt.
Proponents of the Electoral College counter that it allows for a more wider geographic representation. A national popular vote model would disproportionately favour large urban centres at the expense of rural neighbourhoods (this was most evident in the most recent election). Let's use the example of Pennsylvania, where Hillary did well in the populated counties like Philadelphia and Montgomery (blue), but Mr. Trump did well in most other areas (red):
No one has mentioned 'gerrymandering' (e.g. the practice of redistricting to favour one political party over another). That's another issue with the current system which does the voter no favours.
So in the end no system is perfect but we have what we have, and a win under the current system is a win. No two ways about it. Whining about it 'after the fact' just seems like sour grapes. So does banging on about 'fake news'. Even the defeated presidential candidate is in on it now:
She just won't go away unfortunately. I think she should have been advised to lay low for a while after her concession speech, which was the best of her career (even if it was a day late). No such luck, I'm afraid.
@BeatlesSansEarmuffs, Mr Trump is putting billionaires in important cabinet positions because he feels they have been successful in private life and have succeeded under the current system. Now he wants them succeeding for the American people.
"One newspaper criticized me: 'Why can't they have people of modest means?'" Mr. Trump said, while speaking in Des Moines, Iowa. "Because I want people that made a fortune! Because now they're negotiating with you, okay? These people have given up fortunes of income in order to make a dollar a year, and they're so proud to do it, and you watch, you watch what's gonna happen," he said. "It's gonna happen fast, too."
Personally, I don't think we should be biased against people who have succeeded in life. That seems like a case of perverse logic.
Regarding the EPA Head Mr. Scott Pruitt; yes, he has objected to Mr. Obama's Clean Power Plan Act, which he feels unfairly infringes on state rights. That matter is before the courts, and we'll see how it goes. Ultimately, if environmentalists like Mr. Gore and Mr. DiCaprio can make their case to the President Elect in a way that saves and creates new 'clean energy' jobs, then I'm sure he will consider their recommendations.
While I appreciate your desire to spend time in the trenches, it could be a long and unwinnable battle. I highly recommend that you reconsider such a foolhardy notion, and embrace the concept of "Make America Great Again" which has taken the country by storm. It's always best to be on the winning side! To paraphrase that unmemorable 'C' from the equally unmemorable SP, it's perhaps time to come out of the Dark Trenches and into the Light!
@bondjames, you have again ignored my main point to argue a topic you're more comfortable with. My objection to Trump stocking his cabinet with Goldman Sachs veterans isn't that I have a problem with successful people, it's that I have a problem with giving people who have made their careers out of gaming the system total control OF that system. As far as I'm concerned Trump is a con man who's pulled off the biggest con of his life, and now he's putting others just like him in positions to further the con. I don't believe for a moment that he or any of his cronies believe the jive about making America great again -- they only believe in enriching themselves. I base my belief on observation of their past actions and extrapolating those actions into an expectation of future performance. You evidently base your belief in their inherent goodness on a level of optimism that I'd find laudable if the stakes weren't so insanely high. Once upon a time...the last time the electoral college found itself disagreeing with the popular vote, back in the year 2000 when the Supremes inserted themselves into the presidential election when they had no constitutionally mandated right to do so...I comforted myself against the idea of an unqualified idiot in the White House by saying, "Ah, it's only 4 years, how much damage can he do?" Well, we found out. I admit it now: I totally misunderestimated the amount of damage George W. Bush could do. To quote The Shrub himself, "Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice...um.......Don't Get Fooled Again." So I won't make that mistake again. As far as I'm concerned, putting Donald J. Trump in the White House would be a a mistake of Apocalyptic proportions. Not just for the strength of the American economy, but for the issue of race relations in this country, for the matter of respect we Americans hold for others of differing opinions...and perhaps most importantly, for the sake of the environment. In terms of climate change, scientists tell us that we are very nearly at a tipping point. Putting into the oval office a Trump who does not believe in science, does not believe in what our own intelligence forces tell him, and does not believe in anything that contradicts his own self-important view of the world, is fairly obviously a disastrous course in my own opinion. You can paraphrase "C" from Spectre all you want...personally, I'll stick with actual quotes. Here's one from P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute." And another from H.L. Mencken: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." As intelligent in some ways as you obviously can be, @bondjames, you still prove the wisdom of their century-old observations. So if I'm wasting my time in the trenches, well, it's my time to waste and I'm doing it on your behalf as well as my own. And as far as as being on "the winning side" well, "What profiteth a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?"
Young fellow...I'd advise you to get a handle on reality, but at this point all can say is, at least you're consistent. If you haven't noticed...and evidently you haven't...the point of this particular thread is to talk about how wonderful Trump is. Seven pages so far of "What a Wonderful Trump We Have." Just recently, a detracting sentiment was placed...but still, the point of THIS thread has absolutely NOT been the bashing of Trump. Oh well...at least you're consistent in your erroneous point of view...
A few years ago I tried to imagine in earnest what it took to be someone like Cheney (or Trump), and here's my would be self-bio:
"My childhood was full of all the finer things in life but love. Early on I learned that 'love; was, in reality, merely another commodity. Money buys love (and everything else). I may be no saint, but seeing as there is no God, I'm no sinner either. We are animals, and I simply go by the timeless law of the jungle. I'm not the sharpest blade in the drawer, but my perception & dedication is second to none. My favorite saying is "Don't tread on me." That's SO American. When asked what my hobbies are or what I enjoy doing, the answer is simple- winning. That momentary rush when it goes my way. It's what I live for. Rinse & repeat.
And yes, he who dies with the most toys has most assuredly won."
The other (and more common) side of this sad coin is suicide.
Both arise from a kind of self-loathing just beneath the surface.
For instance, have you EVER seen a picture of Trump or Paul Ryan where they look kind or soulful?
;)
No no, that was only Charles Gray as The Criminologist in The Rocky Horror Picture Show. "It's just a JUMP to the LEFT..." \:D/
==Lesson on golf "cheating" is in order :-B
Trump's bullshit handicap is simply indicative of the broader nature of golf cheating.
Top golfers don't cheat because they don't need to cheat. They have mastered stroke execution. They are entirely concerned with course management, strategy, club selection, etc. They don't have to worry about duffing shots.
They truly endevour to get their handicap into single digits thru honest stroke counting.
However the average golfer who shoots in the low 100's maybe dipping into the 90's.
(this is myself btw) regularly cheats.
Not Goldfinger level larceny-cheating where you steal from people, but cheating in order to manage one's score - keep it below 110 for example, from being embarassing.
What the duffer will typically do is take shots over, improve lies, discount entirely some shots, eg three attempts to get a ball out of a sand-trap, or taking three shots off a tee, after the first two sail into the woods, and not counting the first two (mulligans).
The mentality here is along the lines of, I know I could of made that shot if I had only done this, because I have done that in the past etc, so we do a reset, and maybe another reset, until we get the shot respectable.
I can honestly say that I have never played an honest game of golf in my life. I am not good enough, but I don't play for money, and like Trump''s partners, the guys I play with all cheat too.
They aren't very good either. We couldn't possibly play for money. None of us could trust the other. Our cheating is so intrinsic to our games, that we couldn't possibly tear ourselves away from it.
But as you master the game, your need for do-overs and such goes away and you can honestly count strokes and evolve a true handicap.
The maximum handicap level is 36. I can honestly say if a course marshall was monitoring my game, I would be very lucky to hit that.
A 36 handicap is an honest 107. I can hit a cheat-107 no problem, even a cheat 98 to 106, but that's about it. I simply duff too many shots, that require do-overs.
In any given round, I can really only competently play 4-5 holes. The rest involve some sort of adventure, but its those holes that you do manage to play near perfect, that make the game so much fun. You live for those holes. Those few clutch putts you might make for birdie or par, or those few great blasts off the tee, is what you remember, what you blather about in the clubhouse afterwards.
I don't think I'd qualify for even a maximum handicap.
My honest no-cheat handicap would be more like 40 I suspect.
As for Trump, it does appear he can play the game at a reasonable level.
But he is such a blowhard and alpha type that he probably stroke shaves.
As he said, the guys that he plays with also cheat. It's Alpha male competition. No-one is going to admit to being the worst guy or having the highest score, so everyone gives themselves a little help.
I wouldn't be surprised that when Trump is playing with other blowhards, that he arranges to always "win"
Alice Cooper, who is a scratch golfer, and probably doesn't cheat at all, identified Trumps cheating, but Trumps cheating is probably a normal part of his game, and he wouldn't even be self conscious about letting Coop see it.
My guess is that Trump is probably a double-digit handicap, maybe a 10-14.
Hard to say. But he fancies himself a three or a 4, and in his mind he probably believes it, because what golfers tend to do, is focus on their best rounds and pretend that they can do that all the time, or should be able to consistently replicate them.
So Trump may have fired his share of low rounds in the 73-76 range and thus considers that his level. The higher scores become an aberration. But when calculating handicaps,
the high scores count too.
But golfers tend to live in their own fantasy world when it comes to their actual skills. "If but for the grace of God, I could have been on the PGA tour too....yadda yadda"
Obama's 14 handicap is very good, and it might be honest.
Obama is so nerdy that he may diligently count every stroke. Who knows.
My guess is Trump and Obama might have similar handicaps. Different types of players, much like Bond and Goldfinger, but there are different ways to put up good scores.
So no, Trumps golf cheating is not indicative of anything sinister.
We have a fiat currency system and a 'two big to fail' banking system. Both are essential (at the present time) to the greasing and well running of the American and global capitalist economic system. Until there is a fundamental change in this system, that's the way it goes. It therefore behooves the President Elect to rely on people who understand that system implicitly, because if they don't, the implications could be catastrophic. As an example, without the combined banking expertise of Ben Bernanke (then Federal Reserve Chairman), Hank Paulson (then Treasury Secretary under Bush Jr. and former Goldman CEO) and Timothy Geithner (then president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York), the global financial system may very well have imploded in 2008. Then we would have all been in the trenches, as it were. So, I don't have a problem with former Goldman execs in important financial cabinet positions. To be successful at that firm you have to be one of the best. I know that because I have colleagues who left the consulting firm I worked for to go there. Just because one works at Goldman Sachs doesn't mean one is a crook. It does mean one is bloody smart. If these wealthy and successful people are willing to give their time and effort to a larger cause (benefiting the American economy and worker) then I prefer to take a 'wait and see' attitude, rather than convict them ahead of that.
You are worried that President Elect Trump is unqualified and unready for the highest public office in the land. I can appreciate that. However I don't understand the comparisons to George W. Bush, who was a former two term governor of the 2nd largest state in the land. So he certainly had executive experience. Far more than the current president did before he was sworn in. As I recall mentioning to you in the old thread that was closed down, both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney had lots of experience. Perhaps you should direct your ire at the fiasco of the 43rd president's terms at those two 'qualified' individuals. I don't hang my hat on qualifications as much as you do, it seems. I agree more with Bernie Sanders - that one should focus more on judgement. Mr. Trump will have an opportunity to demonstrate his leadership skills in office. We know he has executive experience as the CEO of Trump Organization, and he has been successful in other endeavors as well. Like all risk takers, he has also had his share of failures, which have no doubt shaped him. I believe, at age 70, Mr. Trump is in it for the country. He is a patriot. I expect him and his team to do their best for America, because they really don't need to have this job, unlike the 'lifers' that are most politicians.
Regarding his climate change denial: As I've tried to explain to climate change advocates before, Mr. Trump was running as a Republican and the conservative religious right tends towards climate change denial. Mr. Trump had an election to win and he did what he had to do to win it (against the odds). Now that he has won that election, he is attempting to walk the fine line between balancing the radical views of some members of his own party with more mainstream ideas. The fact that his daughter has taken this as one of her signature issues is a positive, and once again let's see what comes of it rather than prejudging. One thing I can assure you of: Nobody in the administration is going to prioritize climate change over getting people back to work. That's why I said earlier that Mr. DiCaprio and others have to formulate their arguments with job creation in mind. That will get this Administration's attention as they are business and jobs focused.
With respect to race relations: I have only seen attempts by the President Elect to reach out since he was elected. I hope he continues to do that post-inauguration. I also hope that the left will stop with the identity politics. It's rather tiresome and annoying. Enough with the Alicia Machado gamesmanship please.
Yes, ultimately, I remain optimistic and want to give them a fair shot at success.
You might be surprised to learn that you share a lot of qualities with the President Elect. Most notably a desire for 'winning'. Additionally, he is personally aware of the tragedy of self-loathing, as it resulted in the death of his older brother, 'Freddy' Trump. That loss hit Mr. Trump very hard, and shaped his life.
Regarding seeing Mr. Trump or Mr. Ryan looking soulful, I'm not sure how their facial expressions will impact how they run the government. I know I saw Mr. Ryan singing Mr. Trump's praises on Hannity last night. I've never seen him look so giddy with excitement to get to work. The optimism was intoxicating. I didn't quite get a thrill going up my leg (to paraphrase Chris Matthews) but I'm sure they'll do great things together. How's this for Ryan looking 'happy' (from yesterday). That grin couldn't get any wider if it tried.
“We agree on the same goals, our agenda is one in the same,” Ryan said of Trump.
“You got to know how exciting this is for us,” Ryan said while discussing having a unified Republican government. He added. “We’ve been fighting Barack Obama for 8 years.”Ryan said they were going to focus on getting things done.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/10/ryan-weve-been-fighting-barack-obama-for-8-years.html
I've essentially accused Trump of being an agent of the Apocalypse but for you, my assessment of his activities on the golf course is where the hyperbole comes in. Not that I mean to be sarcastic, but -- what was your first clue? :-\"
I overstate, I understate, I state Nebraska if it gets my point across. And every now in then, I'm just in it for the laughs...
No, I'm not going to direct my ire for the failures of the GW Bush administration at Cheney or Rumsfeld. Sure, the latter two had plenty of faults, but at the end of the day the buck stops on the desk of the guy in the Oval Office. Harry Truman knew that & so should you. I mention GWB specifically because I've had the guy I didn't vote for win several times over the past forty-four years...and only twice did a little voice in the back of my head say, "This is going to be really, really bad." Once it was for GWB, once for your guy Donald. I gave GWB the benefit of the doubt. Fool me once, shame on you. Cue Roger Daltry 'cause I Won't Get Fooled Again.
I'd be happy to have you point out some genuine attempts by Trump to reach across the aisle (on the issues of racial or religious relations, or any other topic you'd like to name) because I haven't seen any. All I've seen has been foes of public education or environmental protection being given responsibility for overseeing those departments, and you'll forgive me for perceiving that as a slap in the face to those who didn't fall to their knees embracing The Donald from moment one. And then you acknowledge that Paul Ryan has been fighting Obama (rather than trying to work with him) for eight years, and expect me to think that it's a wonderful thing that Ryan is going to have his way for a change. That photo you show of Ryan isn't any kind of a smile at all. Hannity is the one on the right, and yes, he's got a big ol' grin. Ryan is the one on the left, and no, that grimace is no smile. He's talking the happy talk but he probably has a decent idea of the 4 years' worth of dogfights he's in store for -- if he's lucky. Michael Moore --one of the few heavyweight leftists who predicted a Trump "victory" before the fact-- is now saying that Trump will not be sworn in as President. I wonder what he knows that neither you nor I are aware of? This is just one more reason I say, happy holidays and watch out for what you've been wishing for. You're just about to Get It.
Difference is that being pleased with myself is not my life's work.
[-X
"Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe President Obama has brought Americans of different races closer together, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Forty-seven percent (47%) think Obama has driven those of different races further apart instead. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say his words and actions have had no major impact either way. "
"Last August (2015), Gallup reported that “Americans rate black-white relations much more negatively today than they have at any point in the past 15 years.” White optimism dropped 27 percent in the last two years, with black optimism down 15 percent."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2015/has_obama_widened_the_racial_divide
http://nypost.com/2016/01/17/how-obama-has-turned-back-the-clock-on-race-relations/
http://www.city-journal.org/html/obamas-biggest-failure-14638.html
You should click on the foxnews link I posted earlier for Ryan's interview with Hannity. He positively is gushing like a little schoolboy.
That's a great model. Congratulations on getting it to this stage and I look forward to seeing the finished model. Yes, I agree that one should not confuse self pleasure with kindness and soulfullness. However, a healthy ego is also a positive aspect of the human condition, as long as it doesn't become all encompassing and obsessive.
@blowhardwithearmuffs
This is the most self serving whiny drivel you have ever spattered across these boards.
A bitchfest of sore loser grousing. It is such hyperbole ( yes, that is todays word of the day) its not even worth seriously responding to, and I am sure @bondjames is rolling his eyes, rolling up his sleaves, and uttering "into the breach again ...blah blah blah "
If he responds seriously to these rambling he truly does have the patience of Job.
And speaking of, in your holier-than-thou delirium you are even quoting scripture.
Again oi vey! Sanctimonious liberal bleatings truly do not have any limits, do they?
I have bolded above some of the more egregious belchings.
Its comforting I guess for the losing side to console oneself with notions, that only suckers voted pro-Trump or anti-Hillary,
Or even better, that one can never underestimate the intelligence of the American people, if they aren't enlightened enought to vote for my candidate of course.
Delusional liberal arrogance in full bloom, like these flowers. Bravo!
And for "the sake of the environment" Please. I am going to cry.
This is so sad.
Hillary was going to save the planet!? And Trump plans to destroy it!?
Oh no, what shall we do?
Climate-deniers! OMG!! Orwelian duckspeak in full bloom!
You do realize the wackos that protest piplelines are not actually protesting the pipelines, but rather the stuff that is inside the pipelines.
God himself could come down from on-high and hermetically seal every inch of pipeline and the green loons would still be protesting.
What they don't want is any of what's inside actually making it to market.
They sucker with their safety arguments enviro bleatings.
PT Barnum indeed.
Liberal spinmeisters prey on sanctimonious gullibles such as yourself.
The tune is along the lines of
First Verse
Vote for us! They are all racists but we aren't!
2nd verse
Vote for us! They only care about the rich, but we care about the poor, and they don't!
3rd verse (particularly loud these days)
Vote for us! They want to destroy the planet, but we will save it!
Meanwhile, the idiot Liberal PM of Canada, self proclaimed global citizen, has served notice that he is going to buy international carbon credits. He will literally waste, squander, billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers money on purchasing what amounts to hot-air permits, on fraud-ridden organized-crime ridden global carbon-trading markets.
But he is going to save the planet.
Americans. This is what you managed to avoid. Count your blessings.
Although I don't think Hillary is anywhere near as loon as our PM.
Are the climate-change deniers perchance, those that protest this lunacy?
It is truly Orwellian in its lunacy. The duck speak aside, the liberal mind it seems has reached new levels of fevered delirium.
Yes by all means, work to develop business models that support alternative forms of energy that reduce CO2 emissions, or more to the point, reduce actual pollution, but its not life or death.
Nothing that involves spending money, is worth doing unless there is a business model that supports it. Otherwise misery follows.
Reducing dependance on coal btw, is far more important than ending oil dependancy.
But, doom doom doom, vote for us . We will make everything better. The utopia is nigh.
We will buy hot air credits and save the planet.
Reality check. The world survived both Bush and Obama. One as useless as the other IMO.
However the hyperbolic bleatings, gnashing of teeth surrounding the election and re-election of both was the stuff of Monty Python. Is memory really that short?
Our free societies have already survived much supposed impending disaster.
If you really must fret, dig into some of @germanladys warnings about the globalists who are trying to build a one-world order. That is scary stuff.
Trump is not their friend. He is about America first, as any sovereign leader should be.
I don't like Obama, because he has a big government bent. We disagree on macro approach to both social and economic issues.
But he was elected fair and square.
When liberals are in power, IMO, it just means we all have to work a little harder.
Taxes will go up. Standards of living will go down a bit. Government debt and bloat will increase.
Its not the end of the world though.
There will always be plenty that needs fixing.
With Trump we have a course correction. Obama had his shot.
But do continue fretting if that's what floats your boat.
Dig your trenches. The midterms are only two years away, but in the meantime the people have spoken. Of course the people alas, are all stupid or suckers or ignorant, and not as enlightened as their superior-thinking liberal betters.
No underestimating their lack of intelligence.
Democracy is a bitch.
You're knee jerk reaction to attach sinister implications to Trumps golf cheating is well, maybe just comical I guess, but there is this alltime favourite @earsmuffianism - the notion that liberals can't be racist.
That one is the howler of all-time.
Reality check.
Liberals are some of the most vile, mean spirited, sanctimonious homo sapiens you will ever meet, yet you can't fathom the notion such creatures might devolve into racial epithets and bigotry, along with others of the populace
Anyone with their ears open would disagree.
If I might indulge Buffy speak again. Rarefied Air much?
But I guess you've got those earmuffs wedged on real tight, when need be.
@earmuffs you ran the old thread like your own little bully pulpit.
You waxed obnoxious as to what would go down. Contrarians be ridiculed.
I do realize though you were just marching to the liberal drum being pounded
in your ear.
But still reality is a bitch, not to mention civility.
"During tough economic times, this is a major vote of confidence in Scotland's tourist industry and our ability to rise to the challenge," Sir Sean said.
Mr. Trump said: “I want to thank Sean Connery – he’s been a fantastic guy. “He came out without me asking him and he stood up and said this is a project that should be built for Scotland.”
Yes, Ms. Lebanon is quite fetching, although I'll admit to a slight preference for Miss Universe despite the slightly more prudish attire.
Sean has good business sense.
Suddenly I have a hankering to dig ditches. Might it end the reign of brat prince up here? Might I run into @beatlebrains in the trenches? Might he be wielding a heavy shovel?
Will bring a helmet, and earmuffs, in case rube-pundit is near.
Suddenly I feel need to save the planet? I've got some lose change. Where can I buy some carbon credits? Especially from the Chinese. Good value there I hear.
What a world. I hope Babs can squeeze out at least one more Bond film, before it all ends.
I shall be known as pissisall then.
I'm rubber and you're glue...
No I didn't/yes you did!
By all means, let's keep this on Trump's level!
:)>-
On a more serious note:
http://www.vox.com/2016/12/7/13673802/louisiana-healthcare-concordia-sickest-counties-in-america
It's long, but it shows the problems in the poorest areas that will get exponentially worse in a Trump administration...
Thanks for the flowers. I love you too.
As for the rest of your post, Rave On! If I were still in the musical clip business, I'd post one of Buddy Holly doing his classic, "Rave On." But I'm not. You'll just have to look it up yourself. And while you're looking things up, please find the posting from me that states that "liberals can't be racists." I'm pretty sure I've never said any such thing. Nor did I ever say a lot of the other things you're attacking me for. But hey, have your fun. At least @bondjames thinks my points are valid. Or maybe he's just trying to demonstrate true civility, in which case, "Thanks!" @bondjames!
All we know is that President Elect Trump has been elected to shake things up. To act on the promises he made during the campaign. To get to grips with out of control inefficient government and to improve the lives of working (and out of work) Americans. He was not elected to do that via social programs (that was the Bernie solution). Rather, he is planning to do it via emboldening and encouraging 'Corporate America' and 'Corporate World' to invest in America and its workers.
He has already proven to be quite a disruptor to the entire political process and parties (on both sides) and I for one believe that is long overdue. The nonsensical gridlock and partisanship that has characterized government for much of my working life is entirely unacceptable. Everyone was laughing at it (even abroad). Mr.Obama was elected to fix it with love and kindness. He failed. Mr. Trump has been elected to fix it by disruption.
Of course when there is disruption there is fear. It's only natural. Out of chaos, comes renewal and something better, but there also inevitably will be casualties (the iPhone effectively destroyed Blackberry and similarly Mr. Trump effectively destroyed both the Bush and Clinton dynasties which have gripped both parties for too long). The alternative is the status quo, which I think most sensible people would agree wasn't working.
Be glad that Mr. Trump is a 'sometime Democrat', 'sometime Republican'. He, more than most, can see both sides of the argument as a result. He is also, in the words of the current president, 'pragmatic'.
Try to forget the rhetoric and twitter comments (that's just his marketing shtick) and focus on what he does when in office. You might be positively surprised by the results, if you keep an open mind.