Trump Triumph
Has any president, or world leader ever succeeded to the degree Trump has against suchch unrelenting opposition.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Imagine a bunch of morally superior murders that kept getting away with murder because they did it for the greater good of social justice.
Alternatively, dump them all in Minot, North Dakota to welcome them to the real US, which is not Honduras with free stuff. It's Honduras that doesn't speak any Spanish, but has cold white stuff on the ground for 5+ months each year.
This is a scorched earth, all inclusive hate.
Posted by term2 7 hours, 57 minutes ago
Trump lost my support when he put tariffs on to help his big business friends- and we citizens pay for it p
It's a sad commentary on the devolvement of our society at this time. However, it is what it is right now. Hopefully, we will start seeing SERIOUS punishment for leftist hate, intimidation, and crime. There will be no cure otherwise.
Being almost 72, I don't have that 25 more years myself.
And libs still make fun of Reagan.
Hinkley , whose family was very good friends with the VP at the time virtually ended Reagan’ s presidency. IMHO President Reagan was way out of his league.
And be called racist for describing its color.
I think, Cave Men, by comparison, were much smarter and more human.
- The Establishment against Trump
Have you ever had this conversation with someone who thinks he has done enough research in what is commonly labeled as “conspiracy theory” to try to convince you that Trump was a hoax, was picked by the Establishment and that nothing will fundamentally change under his command? Some say he is a Zionist, others say he is an Illuminati, others, among the most sophisticated theorists, claim he is the Establishment’s Trump Card…
Let’s get to the bottom of this.
If someone challenges you about Trump being from the Establishment, one simple argument is this one: was Moses from the Egyptian Establishment? Wasn’t he a prince? How did his story end? So that’s that. Now let’s go further.
Look at this picture, it was taken at Trump’s inauguration speech. Try to guess what these people have just heard: Imgur.
They look devastated. Do you think their demeanor is fake? Would they be all acting perfectly at the same time? What did Trump say that made them all this angry and worried? This is what he said, look at their reaction at the end: video
Did you catch it? Did you see how Bush was nervously trying to make eye contact with a lost in thought Obama while Hillary was agonizing drowning in her “private positions”? Here, I looped it for you: video.
This is what I like about the BBC: their staff is full of high level intelligence officers. They know exactly where to look at any given time. You can check the BBC production team is the only one showing Obama, Bush and Clinton at this particular moment when Trump is violently deconstructing the treasonous globalist policy that has attacked America. These MI-n agents working at the BBC know this is the culminating point of Trump’s speech, they know this is the moment Trump has declared war against the Establishment they serve. Imgur
“The Oath of Office I take today is an Oath of Allegiance to all Americans”. Do you realize what is going on here? Just like Kennedy, Trump is declaring war to all secret societies. He is implying: I am a free man, I have no allegiance to any secret society, no secret society trapped me to do any secret oath, my oath is public and unequivocal, I am an exclusive Servant of the American People. Whaaaaat? No 322 Skull and Bones or any similar gang involved? Are you kidding me? Let’s see what from-father-to-son-Skull-and-Bones George W Bush thinks about this: video
“The Oath of Office I take today is an Oath of Allegiance to all Americans”. Trump is a free man. He intends to be a free POTUS. He is hereby establishing his political lineage with John F. Kennedy. You did not know Kennedy and Trump came from the same Spirit? Q told you, right here: Q703.
Now that you know this amazing secret. Isn’t it easier for you to guess who would want to assassinate Trump? Do you now understand why the JFK file release had to be delayed and how it is skillfully used by Trump for leverage? Are you aware George H.W. Bush says he does not remember where he was the day Kennedy was assassinated? video. H.W Bush is now very old and has many health issues. Suppose Trump releases the JFK files and Bush is implicated. Suppose Bush dies a few days later. Do you imagine the political liability? These are the types of possible scenarios a skilled political advisor would point out to Trump... So? Relax.
Let’s continue with Trump’s speech: Imgur After having established his political DNA with JFK, this is Trump now going all the way back to the Founding Fathers who understood very well and passed on the simple idea that the success of America was based on a strong middle class. By investing in skilled workers and protecting them from the pernicious consequences of free trade and other treasonous ideas concocted in secret society think tanks, the Founding Fathers were showing the recipe for a strong, free and prosperous America. It is in this very spirit George Washington told Congress on July 4th 1789 that it was necessary for the US to impose tariffs to protect American jobs and manufacturing Link. President Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley were later killed trying to implement this same policy. When President Kennedy realized the real enemy trying to weaken America through the programmed destruction of its middle class was secret societies and their secret oaths, he was assassinated before he could do anything. Video.
So you see it? Obama, Bush and Clinton were very worried when they heard Trump was announcing he would resurrect the heart of America: its middle class. That very middle class they tried to destroy to implement their New World Order. This nefarious plan started after WW2 but was publicly announced here by President H.W. Bush: video. Each US president after this speech played its scripted and treasonous role in the progressive military and economical weakening of the United States. This demonic plan, was about to enter its final stage.
https://www.serial.rocks/post-56
Take "Mad Maxine" for example. Many say she's nuts, but by regularly throwing red meat to her highly ignorant constituency, she gets consistently reelected. As a result, she's rich and powerful, now head of the House Banking Committee, which means she can extort money from Wall Street. With great pay and lifetime benefits, she's got a pretty good gig most of us can only dream of. So don't call her stupid. She's got a formula that works for her, so long as she's comfortable with her "to hell with America" attitude.
ABC news Ex producer Ian Cameron married to Susan Rice.
CBS president David Rhodes brother of Ben Rhodes
ABC news corespondent married Jay Carney
ABC news corespondent Mathew Jaffe married to Katie Hogan Obama aide
ABC President Ben Sherwood Brother to Obama advisor Elizabeth Sherwood
CNN President Virginia Mosley married to Clinton Deputy Secretary Tom Nides
Netflix Director Susan Rice.
It seems easy to avoid the acid, if you are a Libertarian vs a Conservative. Just identify the common ground, and point out the silliness.
I was speaking of personal conversations. I regularly meet people who identify with Democrats, but fail to see how making things mandatory is a problem. It isn’t usually that hard to get them off the mandatory kick
I hope that the situation in venezuela will show emotional democrats that no matter how they "feel" for the people of venezuela, they would see that it was socialism that brought them to their current situation, as it always does.
“That’s not what we are talking about”
◦ Amnesty granted to anyone with a 'relation' to anyone in the country.
◦ Ivanka about to force paid maternal leave on all producers.
◦ Still no wall. Mexico hasn't paid for it. We are.
◦ Kavanaugh is NOT a conservative judge - by any stretch of the imagination.
◦ Subsidized farming. Our family got a YUUUGGGE pay check for our soybean crop this year. Thank you to all the tax payers for the donations.
◦ Ditch McConnell is faking right, going left as fast as he can.
◦ North Korea still being North Korea.
◦ $22 Trillion in national debt. Another $1.3 TRILLION just authorized (with amnesty), signed by DJT who promised he would never sign another such piece of trash.
◦ DOJ/FBI is a unfettered mess of debauchery that DJT has yet to clear up. Hillary isn't in jail. Neither is Huma Abedin, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, or any of the others fully invested in destroying the American Election process---something that ought to be akin to treason in this country!
◦ Bump stocks are being collected - so much for the 2nd Amendment.
◦ Zero reform in education.
◦ Sanctuary cities are still among us.
------------------------------------
Other than the Tax Reform legislation, what has the DJT presidential legacy accomplished?
Is this what WINNING looks like?
What proof does your claim contain .trump helping his business friends .
Pure nonsense. I bet he has a fair trade deal with the Chineses soon.
Were you an Obama friend getting cheap parts from China to support your medical eguipment co? I doubt it but you did benefit according to you.
Use your head.
The reason we buy from China is that their labor is so much cheaper than labor here, and in our field they are more advanced. If we didn’t buy from China we would instantly be out of business and our 12 USA employees would be out of work.
Our workers have gotten lazy and are simply competed out of existence. Tariffs would have to be 300% to equalize costs between China and USA anything less than that simply hurts the USA and make the Chinese laugh at us
I predict trump will announce some partial deal to save face and at least partially reduce his 25% tariffs
I knew as soon as I posted my post, the Trump-humpers of the site would vote it down simply for bad-mouthing his 'legacy': reality be damned.
You are free to bad mouth any political leader you wish. I say free speech allows you to see the true character of an individual.
Today we are 4 days from his declaration of national emergency, though he did not actually issue one.
◦ Has there been any 'action' on this national emergency? Other than 16 states threatening to sue his administration, what has the Trump administration done to curb this national emergency?
◦ What is the basis of his national emergency declaration? Are we being invaded? -- if so, where is the declaration of war request to Congress? if we are not being invaded, what is the emergency?
◦ Today, it appears that world-wide acceptance of homosexuality is of utmost importance. Why do I care whether Mr. Muslim in Pick-a-stan or the African continent treats gays equally? What's it to common Americans?
◦ Trump took time to tweet sweet nothings to Bernie Sanders, wishing him well on his bid for 2020. Where's the urgency for this "national emergency" ? Empty threat? 53-D Chess?
..oh wait, that's right, you're ignoring me. Nevermind.
But it is not only Trump the left is united against.
It is a global phenomenon.
If you look at what's happening in the EU, it is the same pattern, maybe even worse.
Often I have the notion that the left is borrowing its inane slogans and methods from the European liberals.
Just to mention one example: there is a party in Hungary that is proposing to keep a list on all Jews in the country. They claim it is not anti-Semitic.
Ilhan Omar introduced the same scenario here and if left unchecked, the left would run with it.
The first would be to revise the Twelfth Amendment and eliminate party-line voting for President and Vice-President. Return the vote to its original idea: that the highest vote-getter becomes President and second-highest becomes Vice-President. That's really the only way a third party becomes viable.
The second is a campaign finance-type law which says that only voter-aged, legal citizens may contribute money towards political campaigns - and that only within their respective voting district, i.e. if you can't directly vote for a person, you can't donate to them. Period. Say goodbye to unions and PAC's - including national political party committees. I think it would also eliminate these ridiculous fund-raising mandates coming from parties in order to get put in as a Committee Chair.
How about only real individuals (persons) may purchase political advertisements. Abolish the purchase of political advertising by artificial persons or agents of either real or artificial persons.
Convention of States, anyone?
It has nothing to do with a "convention of states", which mantra does not recognize the nature of the problem in bad ideas widely accepted. This has been discussed here previously. Repeating the slogan is not helpful.
All of these schemes evade the role of what people think, and the necessity of changing that to change an outcome for the course of the nation.
is
coming….
owning a gun or guns will not matter if you are not organized with a support group (MAG-mutual assistance group)...where everyone comes to the open assistance of any individual of the group threatened with confiscation and imprisionment...
As to guns, its very hard for the government currently to prove you still own a gun, since you can sell it privately without registering that you sold it. They will have to put that regulation in first. Maybe best to prepare a bill of sale NOW showing that you sold it, but just hold onto that piecee of paper in case they pass some registration requirement on private sales later..
There is some risk, maybe decreasing, that his deplorables figure out they have a lot in common with socialists and join forces. The greater risk is that regardless of whether it's serious statesmen or clowns pandering to the deplorable element of society, gov't spending, borrowing, intrusiveness and disregard for the law keep increasing.
https://goo.gl/images/FWTkLe
I suspect most of them are not. I have met one admitted Trump over and he didn't seem to want any part of President Trump's attention-seeking antics. The percentage of bigots and generally deplorable people voting for him may not be that different from other candidates. In the past, we had candidates who where normal and fringe shock jocks firing up the deplorables. President Trump is our first president who appeals directly to the deplorables of the world, so that stands out.
There is a real risk that a charismatic person will find away to appeal to all the people who can accept their problems are someone else's fault, that gov't force is the answer and needs to be freed from the constraints of the law. I see this as less of an immediate risk than I did a year ago. The people looking for facile scapegoats to blame their problems on are split into halves that hate each other. Hopefully that will keep them from accomplishing anything.
Trump's anti-intellectual demagoguery may egg them on as they join with others in Trump idolatry expressed in emotional frenzy with their anti-intellectual red hats with little to cover, and it makes it more difficult for anyone to know what he really thinks (if he knows himself) and is doing, but a different style of demagoguery and irrationalism doesn't make the demagoguery and irrationalism unique in politics.
Some find it "refreshing" because the sales pitch doesn't try to hide behind the usual obscure "acceptable" style of dishonesty that is no better. Clinton would have been worse, and so, especially, is the Democrats' new found open fanaticism for socialism. All of it is anti-intellectual, irrational disintegration of the course of the country that is frightening.
I think this is exactly right. Politicians try hard to be likable, and I can see why people find it refreshing for someone who appears to be himself, even in ways that are really boorish.
"The problems caused by government are real, not scapegoats."
Unfortunately almost no mainstream candidates make reducing government intrusiveness and spending a key part of their pitch.
"That there are always some who blame their own problems on
someone else is secondary to the worsening statism."
Finding scapegoats is a very common strategy tell sell statism.
Can you imagine if a politician could appeal to most people who are open to some collectivism? I'm thinking of a mixture of President Trump, Ocasio-Cortez, and the Marlboro Man.
I think the risk of this is more because things are changing fast and return-on-investment has been going up while cost of labor stagnates. It makes people susceptible to scapegoats. Hopefully the change will cut the other way, though, and give people more time to think about freedom and tools to be prosperous.
Absolutely, without any hesitation. If we must have a strong, intrusive, and expensive central gov't, I want it run well. The only benefit of electing a clown is the clownishness lays bare to all observers how the executive branch has become more powerful. Hillary Clinton would have used executive power the same way, just as President Obama did, in a tricky politician way that makes it sound like responsible consensus building. If President Trump's antics lead people to question the increase in gov't power and executive overreach, he will unwittingly be the best president of my lifetime. My prediction, though, is people like Trump and like Bernie sanders will split the unsophisticated people looking to for a scapegoat for their problems, leaving room for moderate leaders along the lines of Clinton or Romney. That unfortunately means the post WWII trend of big gov't and strong exec branch continues.
Trump is always a risk, but has not been expanding government the way Obama did and Clinton would have. In terms of preventing the worst, the Trump administration has been "running it well" in the sense of political appointees doing things in the agencies that you don't see or hear about that would otherwise be much worse for us when left up to the entrenched bureaucrats. Most of the controversy has been either manufactured by the leftist media or directly from Trump's mouth.
1970 - 20,036
1971 - 25,447
1972 - 28,924
1973 - 35,592
1974 - 45.422
1975 - 60,221
Within 6 years we had tripled the number of pages of regulations per year. It had been mostly in the 'teens since 1950. This was a graphic display of a major governmental shift sitting on the shelf in front of me.
It has generally stayed in the 60K range since then but in late 1990's it crept up into the 80K range, jumping dramatically to 97,110 in 2016 Under Obama.
The first year under Trump 61,949 is the lowest it's been since 1990.
It's just one metric, but one I've been watching for a long time.
Government has expanded and keeps expanding. To what extent individuals contribute
is debatable, but it's fact that it's growing.
"Most of the controversy has been either manufactured by the leftist media or directly from Trump's mouth."
When the president scoffs at the law, it matters. In some ways, President Trump doing it openly and ineptly is good in that it makes it obvious. It makes people take note and question how much power the executive branch and esp one person should have. We got to this point partly b/c of the need for someone who could respond to a nuclear attack that could devastate the country within minutes of detection. Having a clownish president makes me think the military leaders controlling those weapons might have come up with an informal understanding that they will disregard the president if he goes over the edge. I hope that hasn't happened. It's the type of thing that could buy a few minutes indecision that an enemy could take advantage of. I do not think this has happened, but I want a clearly competent president to be sure it doesn't happen. A crisis with an attention-seeking president could lead to reforms, but I am always against letting a crisis starts in the hopes it will lead to reforms.
The conservatives he appointed, and those selected under them, are in many cases making an enormous difference in comparison with the ideological leftists who would be appointed under any conceivable Democrat president, and to a lesser but still significant extent under a 'moderate' Republican.
It hasn't made the government smaller over all, but has made it less intolerable for those citizens are directly impacted by Federal agencies.
But whatever else Trump has said and done, he hasn't "scoffed at the law". For all the protest over the "wall" in particular, he is acting fully in accordance with laws passed by Congress and used by presidents for decades.
I mean verbally. Even in the debate he bragged that he could get the government to break the law. OTOH sometimes he says the opposite. I don't think he remembers. It's whatever gets a reaction.
Time will tell if this is the future: politicians acting as a circus freak show for the masses, the role talk radio and fringe magazines played all my life until now, and we console ourselves that behind the scenes they're appointing normal people who do a good job.
"For all the protest over the "wall" in particular, he is acting fully in accordance with laws passed by Congress and used by presidents for decades."
The "wall" is part of the freak show. We've been building barriers at points of high illegal crossings, and it resulted in an 82% decrease. Politicians can somehow convince people continuing the policy is radical new initiative to argue about.
How is the wall a freak show? An 82% decrease at a new wall is not a meaningful statistic because most go around it to somewhere else that is easier.
We could use less "wall" slogans and more rational discussion of what kind of wall where in contrast to what other less effective barriers, what other border security policy changes implemented along the border, and above all what kind of reforms to immigration law based on what principles. Mostly we are only getting hysteria from all sides.
I meant they have been building wall at places of high illegal crossings. As you say, the illegal crossing then moves to another location, and they build wall there. This has been going on for decades and over 25 years and has resulted in an 82% drop in total illegal crossings. The policy we've been pursuing is working. It's amazing and freak-show-like that they've misrepresented it as something to argue about.
Attempts to solve it are being obstructed with everything from "sanctuaries" to "catch and release" to open-ended "asylum" to "drivers licenses" for illegals and local election fraud -- while gangs are still uncontrolled and "caravans" are openly promoted in defiance of what is left of policies trying to control the problem.
Adding insult to injury is the propaganda from the supporters of the illegals claiming that there is no problem (for them). The Trump sales pitch is now calling anything a "wall" in order to claim progress, and the pro-illegals are taking him up on it to claim nothing else is required.
A more contiguous and robust wall, or some equivalent on the border, is required but isn't enough to contend with our own laws and policies allowing illegals to enter and stay, obstructing enforcement.
The whole mess is further disintegrating into its own self-generating emergency as it distracts from any discussion at all of rational immigration policy about what should be allowed and protected.
I don't see crossing as "skyrocking". We need numbers. I think it's blip in a long-term trend of fewer illegal crossings. We should keep doing what we've been doing, building walls in places of high crossings, and ignore the "high-frequency noise" component to the data.
The real problem is looking the other way after someone's here, either through illegal crossing or overstaying after entering legally. This creates disrespect for the law and an underclass.
IMHO we should liberalize immigration laws to make it easier for people to come here legally because a) it's a good policy and b) it's impractical to remove everyone here illegally. This is not part of the national discourse. Instead it's for or against "the wall", which does not even mean anything.
From what I have heard the numbers are increasing, but with all the hype who knows. A flow across the border does increase the accumulation, and we observe a political trend to create more illegal crossings with the "caravans", etc.
"we should liberalize immigration laws to make it easier for people to come here legally because a) it's a good policy and b) it's impractical to remove everyone here illegally. "
Legal immigration is good policy under the proper standards of what to exclude, and within numbers that are practical without changing the mindset of the country into a foreign mindset of statism and collectivism taken for granted. That wouldn't taken much with billions around the world who would like to come, encouraged by increasing statism and collectivism already here.
People (other than criminals, terrorists, welfare-seekers and the diseased) have a right to immigrate to a free society but not to overwhelm it with its opposite, thereby destroying it. "Assimilation" into American individualist culture is a requirement (though I don't like the word 'assimilation' -- we're not the Borg).
Bureaucratic obstructionism should be removed, but laws should not be changed to accommodate those who defy them. We don't make more crime legal because criminals make enforcement difficult, which would only encourage the worst.
No personal attacks.
Keep watching your biased media.