Welcome to Thunderdome

Whiny, dickless, bitch whines and bitches dicklessly.

Dipshit Donald Drumpf lashed out on Saturday at "this so-called judge" who put a nationwide hold on the implementation of his travel ban denying entrance to the U.S. to refugees and people from seven majority-Muslim countries.
..."The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!" Drumpf tweeted, after writing several other tweets defending his immigration stance.

Says the so-called executive.

"The dipshit’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people."

Except protecting us from the sharia-friendly country which holds the vast majority of the responsibility for 9-11. They buy too many weapons from us so they're cool.

Just part of the checks and balances system. A constitutional legal ruling balanced by insults you'd expect from a 5 year old.

Troy wrote:Just part of the checks and balances system. A constitutional legal ruling balanced by insults you'd expect from a 5 year old.

To be fair, I think it has to run its course through the appeals process before we can define it as "Constitutional". But even then I guess it's kind of subjective.

I agree that it was balanced by the insults of a 5 year old. Also, anyone that's watched him for the last year and a half since he announced he was running isn't surprised by this. He has been consistent for more than a year. Too bad the press wasn't so worried about it back when they thought Trump was the best chance Hillary had and downplayed this crap in hopes that he'd be her opponent. The influence of the press is going to continue to fall. This is going to be bad. We are going to end up without a truth rudder soon. It's hard now to get to the truth of things. Just insane.

"truth rudder" I like that phrase.

TheCatt wrote:"truth rudder" I like that phrase.

Thanks. To the best of my knowledge, that's semi original. At least I don't recall hearing it elsewhere. At any rate, flashes of brilliance followed by long stretches of being a dumb ass.

Back to the "so called judge" comments. I find it interesting that the press is focusing on that rather than the "Russia isn't so bad because the United States has done really bad stuff too" which could be far more damaging with his base and right leaning supporters. In my mind this is far worse than the "America isn't exceptional" rap on Obama. Or Obama's apology tour. But the press can't get past their world view to capitalize on it.

I find it interesting that the press is focusing on that rather than the "Russia isn't so bad because the United States has done really bad stuff too" which could be far more damaging with his base and right leaning supporters.

I doubt it. Drumpf could give each one of them a titty twister and still have their thumbs-up.

Bill O'Reilly tried to give him an out, and he wouldn't take it.

In a pre-taped Fox interview partially released on Saturday and set to air in full during the Super Bowl pregame show, Bill O’Reilly pressed Drumpf on his warm relationship with Putin.

Drumpf stressed that stronger U.S.- Russia ties could help defeat the Islamic State.

But “Putin’s a killer,” O’Reilly said.

“You got a lot of killers,” Drumpf shot back. “What, you think our country’s so innocent?”

Pence the puppet defends the hand up his ass.

Asked about Mr. Drumpf’s reference on Twitter to the “so-called judge” who ordered a stay of the dipshit's executive order, Mr. Pence said on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “Well, look, the dipshit of the United States has every right to criticize the other two branches of government. And we have a long tradition of that in this country.”

We have a long tradition of executives with zero legal expertise second-guessing every single judge that disagrees with them in every single fucking case they're involved in that doesn't go their way?

9th Circuit tells Dipshit Drumpf to take his executive order, turn it around, and shove it up his candy ass.

A federal appeals court early Sunday denied an initial bid by the Trump administration to restore its controversial immigration order that had barred refugees and people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.

AARP is pretty much a liberal Democrat organ. My parents bailed on them years ago because of the leftist crap they push.

Truth. There's a thread here somewhere about droves of people throwing away their membership because of AARP's politics.

I believe there's now an alternative to the AARP...?

More fake news and alternative facts.

In one Twitter post, the dipshit rejected reports of polls showing that a majority of Americans oppose his travel order. In another, he appeared to lash out at suggestions that Stephen K. Bannon, his chief strategist, holds the real power in the West Wing.

Trump threatening California.

“If we have to, we’ll defund," Trump said. "We give tremendous amounts of money to California. California in many ways is out of control, as you know.”

Step up to the plate Trump. That means our 7th largest economy gets to withhold our federal taxes too right?

The taxes that actually pay for those Red State's totally-not-socialist ways.

This one doesn't immediately bother me, mostly because "to work in the best interest of their clients" is rather subjective and seems more like a federal control thing than anything that would actually help an individual.

I like them being able to sue. I think that's the proper way for this to be handled rather than a bunch of federal regulations.

But I thought that was the whole point. This wasn't a criminal offense that would lead to investigations and whatnot, but rather an official hook that someone can hang just such a lawsuit on. Without it the scammer can just shrug and say "when it comes to investments there are no guarantees, I'm sorry it didn't work out" and not be held liable for anything.

Or did I misunderstand?

TPRJones wrote:

This one doesn't immediately bother me, mostly because "to work in the best interest of their clients" is rather subjective and seems more like a federal control thing than anything that would actually help an individual.

I like them being able to sue. I think that's the proper way for this to be handled rather than a bunch of federal regulations.

But I thought that was the whole point. This wasn't a criminal offense that would lead to investigations and whatnot, but rather an official hook that someone can hang just such a lawsuit on. Without it the scammer can just shrug and say "when it comes to investments there are no guarantees, I'm sorry it didn't work out" and not be held liable for anything.

Or did I misunderstand?

To be honest, I'm not sure. I can't imagine it would take an EO to allow someone to sue their financial planner if they could show damages. I could understand the laws protecting lawyers (because 100 dead lawyers on the ocean floor is a good start), but not financial planners.

I don't find it hard to believe that the guys in charge of the money have the power to get things twisted up so that they are protected from liability to an unreasonable extent. This is, after all, the fabled "Wall Street" that owns the politicians now, right?

Troy wrote:Trump threatening California.

“If we have to, we’ll defund," Trump said. "We give tremendous amounts of money to California. California in many ways is out of control, as you know.”

Step up to the plate Trump. That means our 7th largest economy gets to withhold our federal taxes too right?

The taxes that actually pay for those Red State's totally-not-socialist ways.

Let's address that "red states are more dependent" article first:

Using data from the IRS, WalletHub ranked all 50 states on four key metrics: return on taxes paid to the federal government, federal funding as a percentage of state revenue, the number of federal employees per 1,000 residents, and the number of non-defense federal employees per 1,000 residents.

Really? Those are your key metrics? When you hear things like "living off the government tit", these metrics aren't what people mean. I love how these metrics focus on people who are employed, because they're the real problem. I also like how they measure "per 1000 residents" in rural areas versus urban areas. Yeah, that's comparing applies to apples...

"Return on taxes paid"? Really? I depend on the government because I get a huge tax return every year? Weird, I thought it was because of the number of dependents I claim all year versus how many I actually have. Turns out I can't survive without government funding!

How much of that "federal funding" was for ethanol? Farming subsidies? Etc.

Sorry, I'm not a financial guy, but it seems to me when you do a "study" on "being dependent on the federal government", I would think at some point you'd have to at least mention unemployed people actually dependent on the federal government, right?

While the conclusion reached might be true, that whole article just feels insanely dishonest to me. What's next from them? An article on how many Americans killed Germans during the years of 1941-1945 without ever mentioning what was going on during that time?

As for the California stuff, Trump's a moron, but those people who think California would be just fine without the rest of the U.S. while still maintaining the same politics and spending are insane. There's a reason California is always thisclose to bankruptcy.

I would think at some point you'd have to at least mention unemployed people actually dependent on the federal government, right?

Sure. But you have to classify who and how.


Are retired people unemployed for purposes of your argument?

Here's an Atlantic article with different criteria and similar results. It's only a rank 8 of 50 here. 50 is most.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... rs/361668/

1) federal spending per capita compared with every dollar paid in federal income taxes;
2) the percentage of a state’s annual revenue that comes from federal funding; and
3) the number of federal employees per capita. (The third measure received only half the weight of each of the others in the calculation)

What metric do you want added?

Trump was being bombastic and demeaning of California during his Super Bowl interview and it's a fair point to call him out for being under-informed and a orange hued baby. Given the amount of federal income tax CA pays it's particularly dumb to go after us this way for not doing what he wants.

...it's a fair point to call him out for being under-informed

Calling Drumpf out for being underinformed is like being surprised Ricky Martin is gay. I thought everyone already understood and was aware.

Leisher wrote: "Return on taxes paid"? Really? I depend on the government because I get a huge tax return every year? Weird, I thought it was because of the number of dependents I claim all year versus how many I actually have. Turns out I can't survive without government funding!

This goes back to the socialist mentality that all money and wealth belongs to the state. Since they (the state) are giving it back, they are funding you.

Are retired people unemployed for purposes of your argument?

They can be, it all depends on their circumstances. They're irrelevant though based on the WalletHub survey. Only employed people are the problem.

Here's an Atlantic article with different criteria and similar results.

Oh good, an article from a left leaning site written by a politically active writer (who has been accused of making stuff up), and based on the same WalletHub "study". So no, their criteria wasn't different, and the results were the same because it's the same study. Please don't post the Huffington Post article on this study next.

one of the more interesting maps appearing recently came from the personal-finance website Wallet Hub.

It's right there in the second paragraph and referenced multiple other times.

What metric do you want added?

How about one that doesn't skew who's "living off the government tit" for political purposes?

My argument isn't "this is a blatant lie". My argument is this study is making the conclusion it wants based on revealing certain facts, while ignoring others.

C'mon, let's not get into a days long debate about how facts can be skewed and this study being clearly politically motivated. We're all smarter than that. The study is bullshit, you know it, and you don't need it to support your actual point, which is...

Trump was being bombastic and demeaning of California during his Super Bowl interview and it's a fair point to call him out for being under-informed and a orange hued baby. Given the amount of federal income tax CA pays it's particularly dumb to go after us this way for not doing what he wants.

Completely agree. He's a total moron the way he shoots his mouth off without facts. He had to be born rich to become a success because his personality never would have gotten him anywhere. He has no idea how to talk to people and compromise. How to work out a deal that might not be the best for both, but acceptable for both. It's his way or the highway.

But to be fair, while the delivery is moronic and arrogant, withholding funds is not a new tactic. The Obama administration did a lot of "do this or get no funds" too. Forcing Common Core on the country is the first example that springs to mind. I'm not saying Obama invented it either. Hasn't this sort of threat always been a thing?

"Do what I say or don't get into Heaven. - God"

Drumpf

I have a hard time taking you seriously when you do that. It reminds me too much of my nutjob right wing uncles who purposely misspelled Obama's name for the past 8 years.

This goes back to the socialist mentality that all money and wealth belongs to the state. Since they (the state) are giving it back, they are funding you.

Right. That one metric has no business in that study and proves my point about its intent.

Leisher wrote:

Drumpf

I have a hard time taking you seriously when you do that. It reminds me too much of my nutjob right wing uncles who purposely misspelled Obama's name for the past 8 years.

I like when they make fun of his appearance as some sort of icing-on-the-cake to their argument. It really makes me take them seriously, like when they would say W looked like a chimp or that Obama was really dreamy boyfriend material.

Leisher wrote: As for the California stuff, Trump's a moron, but those people who think California would be just fine without the rest of the U.S. while still maintaining the same politics and spending are insane. There's a reason California is always thisclose to bankruptcy.

It would be interesting to watch them secede from the States. For one, the politics of the US would probably shift about 3 degrees to the right.

I think they would take a pretty big financial hit. California has a lot of tech industry, but much of that is because of Silicon Valley. Much like Hollywood, it just became the place where the industry congregated early on (for practical reasons), but now is just "the way it is" more than anything else. They still produce a lot (52%) of the US semiconductors, but are far from being the world's supplier that they used to be. Google started in California, but Facebook did not. Would it make sense for a Facebook to move to another country if Califonia became their own country?

Also, I think the television side of the studio industry would dry up in a few years. There's a reason there are so many reality shows in the Louisiana swamps and a reason for half of the population of Alaska having their own TV shows. There are places much more profitable to make TV shows than in California. Movies could still be made there, but even that I wouldn't be 100% certain that they'd keep all of that.

Aerospace industries are another of the big industries in California. That's been on the decline in past years already. How much further would it decline without a US government client?

I don't imagine their agricultural industry would be hurt by breaking off. Drought is another issue.

Lastly is their tourism industry. I think that would suffer, but how much depends on how bad the movie and television industries get smacked.