Welcome to Thunderdome

Malcolm wrote:Really?

He insisted he has nothing to do with the “divided states of America” that Time says he will lead. “When you say divided states of America, I didn’t divide them,” he told NBC. “I’m not president yet, so I didn’t do anything to divide.”

Despite all of his bullshit, I agree with him here.

The previous president promised to unify the country as never before, and I'm not sure if we're ever been more divided. (Let's be honest, that's all opinion and can't really be proven.)

Back to Trump, he won the election and the people who didn't want him to win have protested, turned violent, threatened to secede, are trying to get electors to betray their voters, are attempting recounts in states, threatened to leave the country if he wins, and the list goes on. You can't put that all on him.

Blame him for his big mouth, don't blame him for the actions of others.

Well it's all W's fault anyway.

And the bigots and racists.

Also, he has reached out to the other side quite a bit during his transition. And I think by definition an election divides us into mostly two groups.

This is just sand in the vajayjay from Hill shills.

The Pentagon covered up $125 billion in wasteful spending.

The MSM doesn't really care though because they're too busy telling us what an asshole Trump is for suggesting we're paying $4 billion for the Air Force One program and that's too much money.

Ok, Trump says $4 billion:

Asked by reporters Tuesday morning about the tweet, Trump responded, "Well the plane is totally out of control. It's going to be over $4 billion for [the] Air Force One program," he said. "And I think it's ridiculous. I think Boeing is doing a little bit of a number. We want Boeing to make a lot of money, but not that much money."

The White House counters with an implied, "Trump's full of shit.":

"The statistics that have been cited [by Trump], shall we say, don't appear to reflect the nature of the financial arrangement between Boeing and the Department of Defense," said Obama White House spokesman Josh Earnest.

Boeing responds too:

Boeing says it currently has an Air Force One contract worth $170 million.

So Trump's wrong, right?

So far the Air Force has budgeted $2.9 billion through 2021 for two new Air Force Ones.

It's not $4 billion, but I'd say he's more right than wrong. I mean when you're talking billions of dollars does 3 versus 4 really warrant the snarky response from the White House? And let's be honest, military projects NEVER go over budget...

I didn't vote for Trump and I still think we had the worst two possible options to chose from in the election, but Trump could cure cancer and the MSM would crucify him for it.

If Trump wasn't pushing for a $1T spending stimulus, I might could take him seriously that he was seriously concerned about the new AF1 being too expensive. However since his actual beef wasn't the cost of AF1, but rather that the CEO of Boeing stated he was concerned with Trump's trade policies and what it would mean for Boeing. About 20 minutes after that story dropped was when Trump sent out the tweet regarding the cost of AF1. I'm pretty certain that had the CEO came out praising Trump then the tweet would have been quite different.

Don't get me wrong, the press is awful. I'm just saying that pretty much both the press AND Trump was lying to us.

Vince wrote:Don't get me wrong, the press is awful. I'm just saying that pretty much both the press AND Trump was lying to us.

To be fair, you're assuming he pulled the Boeing stuff because of the criticism from the Boeing president. Perhaps the Boeing president made his statement because Trump had misgivings about the budget for the AFO project?

I don't think you can 100% say why Trump made the statement without knowing the full time line, and even then, it's still making an assumption.

Trump wants to start his term with Free Candy. This has the dual result of, well, giving some peeps free candy, and then anyone who criticizes him just hates America, plus Trump can point at Obama's bailout programs, "You loved them then, what changed?" The only losers here are the taxpayers who didn't benefit from the mortgage bailout, or the GM bailout, or the.... well, you know. The people who didn't make terrible choices.

Leisher wrote:

Vince wrote:Don't get me wrong, the press is awful. I'm just saying that pretty much both the press AND Trump was lying to us.

To be fair, you're assuming he pulled the Boeing stuff because of the criticism from the Boeing president. Perhaps the Boeing president made his statement because Trump had misgivings about the budget for the AFO project?

I don't think you can 100% say why Trump made the statement without knowing the full time line, and even then, it's still making an assumption.

It's an assumption based on history. His flag burning tweet came within minutes of seeing a segment on it on Fox and Friends.

If you wake up with a rattle snake in your sleeping bag and a snake bite, it's safe to assume the rattle snake bit you. Why? Because rattle snakes have a history of crawling into sleeping bags with a warm body and biting them.

Trump has a history of hitting back. He's even brags about it. Too many people are living in a fantasy land about who and what he is. On both sides.

GORDON wrote:Trump wants to start his term with Free Candy. This has the dual result of, well, giving some peeps free candy, and then anyone who criticizes him just hates America, plus Trump can point at Obama's bailout programs, "You loved them then, what changed?" The only losers here are the taxpayers who didn't benefit from the mortgage bailout, or the GM bailout, or the.... well, you know. The people who didn't make terrible choices.

Bingo. Republicans and Democrats alike are pretending that Trump isn't a socialist.

I don't think you can 100% say why Trump made the statement without knowing the full time line, and even then, it's still making an assumption.

I'm more than willing to make that leap of faith. He has the emotional stability of a 14-year old girl worried about who's taking her to the dance.

Dumb-ass Drumpf thinking of appointing another dumb-ass.

“We should reform FDA so there is approving drugs after their sponsors have demonstrated safety — and let people start using them, at their own risk, but not much risk of safety,” O’Neill said in a speech at an August 2014 conference called Rejuvenation Biotechnology. “Let’s prove efficacy after they’ve been legalized.”

Well, on the one hand that means a lot of idiots that are into fake medicine are going to spend even more money on more things that will do nothing for their real medical problems. On the other hand, I don't feel too bad when idiots that should know better get taken advantage of. On the gripping hand, since this change would involve a slight increase in the probability of idiots dying it may have an overall positive increase on the intelligence of the species.

TPRJones wrote:On the gripping hand, since this change would involve a slight increase in the probability of idiots dying it may have an overall positive increase on the intelligence of the species.

See also: legalizing drugs.

It's an assumption based on history.

Of course he has a history, but it's still an assumption. It's not completely out of the question that Boeing knew he didn't like the price. Perhaps he said some thing that worried them and they tried to get out in front of it?

Normally, I'd agree that it's his ego lashing out, but this isn't the most perfect black and white example for that.

I'm more than willing to make that leap of faith.

We all know where you stand on Trump. Again, if Trump cured cancer you'd be here posting articles about how many jobs he just eliminated.

Drumpf would have enough trouble spelling "cancer" let alone curing it.

Whether he is right or wrong, he is making some great optics with the regular working people, and the fact he has a union boss speaking out against him says a lot about the unions.

Leisher wrote:

It's an assumption based on history.

Of course he has a history, but it's still an assumption. It's not completely out of the question that Boeing knew he didn't like the price. Perhaps he said some thing that worried them and they tried to get out in front of it?

Normally, I'd agree that it's his ego lashing out, but this isn't the most perfect black and white example for that.

It'd the only thing that makes any sense. First off, there have been no cost overruns because there has been no order for the jets. At this point I think Boeing has spent a few million on the studies and planning and R&D side of things. There currently is no order to cancel.

Secondly, Trump HATES that all these businesses are leaving and we have trade deficits with all these other countries. Yet he's going to trash Boeing that has the largest dollar surplus per employee of any US exporter.

So I'm sticking with the butthurt twitter lashing out.

But I won't fault you for giving him the benefit of the doubt.

GORDON wrote:Whether he is right or wrong, he is making some great optics with the regular working people, and the fact he has a union boss speaking out against him says a lot about the unions.

Yes. And unfortunately the Republicans are proving to be just as easily emotionally manipulated as the left.