Essentially Trump is replacing lawyer politicians with highly successful businessmen

a reply to: Krazysh0t

. That's why Hillary's connections to Goldman Sachs were constantly a sticking point to people during the election, but this guy who was closer to the corporation than she was should somehow be given the benefit of the doubt.

Well....after all, he DID FORECLOSE on a 90-year old woman over a 27-cent discrepancy. TWENTY SEVEN PENNIES. She lost her home. This person is worse than scum.

ALL of them are questionable. Exxon is just fine with ruining the planet (oh, right. he admits that carbon emissions have something to do with it....but just not convinced it's very much....and it seems he (or some other muck) is considering carbon taxes. ha.)

good gawd it's surreal STILL! watching these people rejoice that sharks have invaded the swamp. Not ONE of those people gives a slip about ANYONE - they don't want to create jobs, they don't want to pay taxes, they don't know what it's like to be a regular citizen...but they can fix this?

preposterous. delusionals gone wild.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I see it as cleaning out the gators to make room for the crocodiles.

originally posted by: crazyewok
The problem i see is that none of these people where voted in by anyone.


Trump has in effect turned the USA into a overt corperocracy.

I am pretty sure cabinets are not voted in. I could be wrong. Maybe that has been the problem with our government all along, but we elected Trump. It is his decisions we are counting on. We will have to wait and see what kind of President he will be, but we have to give him a chance to lead first.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You may be right, but we just have to wait and see. We have to give him a chance first.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You may be right, but we just have to wait and see. We have to give him a chance first.

Why? Republicans didn't give Pres Obama a chance. They started fighting him the second he got in office and have tried to block virtually every political move he's made.

So why should I give Trump a chance to see if he'll really follow through on his campaign promises, like his promise to bring back waterboarding and more; his promise to obliterate ISIS-held areas in Syria and Iraq then send in the oil companies to take Syrian and Iraqi oil; his plan to put all Muslim American in a database while implementing surveillance programs in our communities; his promise to send even more police into minority communities, etc?

The dude looks like he's trying to pick a fight with China. Why should we sit back and see where this takes us?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You may be right, but we just have to wait and see. We have to give him a chance first.

Why? Republicans didn't give Pres Obama a chance. They started fighting him the second he got in office and have tried to block virtually every political move he's made.

So why should I give Trump a chance to see if he'll really follow through on his campaign promises, like his promise to bring back waterboarding and more; his promise to obliterate ISIS-held areas in Syria and Iraq then send in the oil companies to take Syrian and Iraqi oil; his plan to put all Muslim American in a database while implementing surveillance programs in our communities; his promise to send even more police into minority communities, etc?

The dude looks like he's trying to pick a fight with China. Why should we sit back and see where this takes us?

Your right. They didn't. Obama could not bring the country together the way that I had hoped he could. Maybe Trump can. Maybe not. But we have to give him the chance. It looked like Hilary was going to bring war with Russian. The same question can be put back to you.

Well that is a creative way of looking at it. I notice Trump has hired what some would consider Plutocrats, but I guess we are all Rome now. I guess if you believe the Billionaires are truly going to advocate for you, then you got your man!

I know when I think of populism, I think of men who live in towers named after them.

originally posted by: 3daysgone

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You may be right, but we just have to wait and see. We have to give him a chance first.

Why? Republicans didn't give Pres Obama a chance. They started fighting him the second he got in office and have tried to block virtually every political move he's made.

So why should I give Trump a chance to see if he'll really follow through on his campaign promises, like his promise to bring back waterboarding and more; his promise to obliterate ISIS-held areas in Syria and Iraq then send in the oil companies to take Syrian and Iraqi oil; his plan to put all Muslim American in a database while implementing surveillance programs in our communities; his promise to send even more police into minority communities, etc?

The dude looks like he's trying to pick a fight with China. Why should we sit back and see where this takes us?

Your right. They didn't. Obama could not bring the country together the way that I had hoped he could. Maybe Trump can. Maybe not. But we have to give him the chance. It looked like Hilary was going to bring war with Russian. The same question can be put back to you.

Well I agree with this. I am going to give Trump a chance...

I will say though that it seems highly unlikely that the investor billionaire class are going to advocate for the people that
they make all their money from.

It would seem more likely that they would all benefit by slashing wages and buying foreclosed assets for pennies on the dollar. They have already shown that the way they make their money is taking it from the workers in America who consume,
investing those profits over seas and repeating the process, which in turn makes the American middle class less and less robust.

a reply to: 3daysgone

Hey now, I'm not the one saying we should give a candidate a chance. I know for a fact that Republicans wouldn't give Hillary a chance if she won. And I doubt either the Republicans or the Democrats would give Stein a chance if she won, particularly because Stein is waaay more left wing than Hillary and because many Democrats absolutely loathe the Green Party.

True peace and unity can't exist here as long as we keep this "winner takes all" system. We need some kind of opt-in or opt-out measures. For example, I doubt conservatives would give a progressive politician a chance if that progressive politician wanted to ban guns. But if those conservatives could opt out of that program and keep their guns, they'd be more likely to give the candidate a chance.

And the same goes for progressives giving conservative politicians a chance if the conservative wanted to shut down social programs. If we progressives could still opt into those social programs, we'd be more likely to give the conservative a chance. But why would anyone give someone a chance when that other person is literally trying to undermine or erase the things we care for?

Also, in the worst case scenario, we were looking at a war with Russia or a war with China. Both are nuclear powers, both conflicts would be horrible, and I wouldn't fight in either. Russia is more of a military threat while China is more of an economic threat. China could simply nationalize all Western factories and facilities on their soil or freeze Western assets on their soil while having their allies do the same thing. That would hurt us far more than any Trump tariffs would hurt them. And frankly speaking, I don't want any part of that.

originally posted by: superbanjo
Well that is a creative way of looking at it. I notice Trump has hired what some would consider Plutocrats, but I guess we are all Rome now. I guess if you believe the Billionaires are truly going to advocate for you, then you got your man!

I know when I think of populism, I think of men who live in towers named after them.

Yeah. Trump is very vain. I hope the weight of this job will humble him. Maybe once he sees that this is real, when he takes that oath of office, it will sink in. Maybe his vanity will push him to actually try to be the greatest President ever. I am not saying he will, but look at what he has done. Everyone laughed at him at first. He pushed on. He worked hard. Even on election day all you were told by the news was that he was going to lose. Well, like it or not he didn't. But any way you look at it now, he is playing on the home team. America's team. Will we boo, or will we cheer for our home team to win?

originally posted by: 3daysgone

originally posted by: superbanjo
Well that is a creative way of looking at it. I notice Trump has hired what some would consider Plutocrats, but I guess we are all Rome now. I guess if you believe the Billionaires are truly going to advocate for you, then you got your man!

I know when I think of populism, I think of men who live in towers named after them.

Yeah. Trump is very vain. I hope the weight of this job will humble him. Maybe once he sees that this is real, when he takes that oath of office, it will sink in. Maybe his vanity will push him to actually try to be the greatest President ever. I am not saying he will, but look at what he has done. Everyone laughed at him at first. He pushed on. He worked hard. Even on election day all you were told by the news was that he was going to lose. Well, like it or not he didn't. But any way you look at it now, he is playing on the home team. America's team. Will we boo, or will we cheer for our home team to win?

I am being open minded, I really hope you are right. The thought that Trump would like to prove the naysayers wrong is something I am hoping is a reality.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: 3daysgone

Hey now, I'm not the one saying we should give a candidate a chance. I know for a fact that Republicans wouldn't give Hillary a chance if she won. And I doubt either the Republicans or the Democrats would give Stein a chance if she won, particularly because Stein is waaay more left wing than Hillary and because many Democrats absolutely loathe the Green Party.

True peace and unity can't exist here as long as we keep this "winner takes all" system. We need some kind of opt-in or opt-out measures. For example, I doubt conservatives would give a progressive politician a chance if that progressive politician wanted to ban guns. But if those conservatives could opt out of that program and keep their guns, they'd be more likely to give the candidate a chance.

And the same goes for progressives giving conservative politicians a chance if the conservative wanted to shut down social programs. If we progressives could still opt into those social programs, we'd be more likely to give the conservative a chance. But why would anyone give someone a chance when that other person is literally trying to undermine or erase the things we care for?

Also, in the worst case scenario, we were looking at a war with Russia or a war with China. Both are nuclear powers, both conflicts would be horrible, and I wouldn't fight in either. Russia is more of a military threat while China is more of an economic threat. China could simply nationalize all Western factories and facilities on their soil or freeze Western assets on their soil while having their allies do the same thing. That would hurt us far more than any Trump tariffs would hurt them. And frankly speaking, I don't want any part of that.

You may be right. But we will never know. She did not win. I do know that if she had won, I would have been hoping she would do good for America and it's people. The same way I hope Trump does.

I don't know what Trump is trying to erase that you care for. Give me some specifics.

China makes a lot of money off of America, as do many of the other countries. We would have more allies than China. The assets of America that they freeze, would no longer receive the monetary that it would collect from America. It would devastate their economy a lot more than it would hurt ours. It would create job opportunities in America, which is what the people really need. They are a nation of export, if they stop exporting to the most consumeristic society, which is America, they would fall a lot faster.

If it came to defending our country from an enemy, foreign or domestic, I would sign back up to fight. Why let our children die.

originally posted by: superbanjo

originally posted by: 3daysgone

originally posted by: superbanjo
Well that is a creative way of looking at it. I notice Trump has hired what some would consider Plutocrats, but I guess we are all Rome now. I guess if you believe the Billionaires are truly going to advocate for you, then you got your man!

I know when I think of populism, I think of men who live in towers named after them.

Yeah. Trump is very vain. I hope the weight of this job will humble him. Maybe once he sees that this is real, when he takes that oath of office, it will sink in. Maybe his vanity will push him to actually try to be the greatest President ever. I am not saying he will, but look at what he has done. Everyone laughed at him at first. He pushed on. He worked hard. Even on election day all you were told by the news was that he was going to lose. Well, like it or not he didn't. But any way you look at it now, he is playing on the home team. America's team. Will we boo, or will we cheer for our home team to win?

I am being open minded, I really hope you are right. The thought that Trump would like to prove the naysayers wrong is something I am hoping is a reality.

Well I would be foolish to say I don't have any doubts. I don't think anyone can truthfully say that.

a reply to: 3daysgone

You may be right. But we will never know. She did not win. I do know that if she had won, I would have been hoping she would do good for America and it's people. The same way I hope Trump does.

Come on, now. They impeached her husband, waged a multi-year witchhunt against her for Benghazi, and have launched multiple investigations against her for the email scandal. They've even gone on record saying they might even block her Supreme Court nominees, after blocking the current Democratic President's nominee. But if she won, we're supposed to believe they'd do a u-turn and give her policies a chance? I don't even think you believe that.

I don't know what Trump is trying to erase that you care for. Give me some specifics.

I'm a proud Muslim, pacifist, progressive, environmentalist (but not 100% in practice) & a socialist (for the most part). I am a huge supporter of immigration (especially for ladies ) & I support the movement to sharply increase the federal minimum wage. I'm pro-labor rights, want police and the justice system to treat all citizens fairly, want Wall Street more heavily regulated, and want our powerbrokers in politics, the MIC, and Wall Street to be held accountable for their actions.

I want our country to have a strong social safety net, universal healthcare of the single payer variety, and to stop all of these overseas wars and invasions (spend the money improving our own infrastructure instead of spending it destroying and intimidating others). I'm against Obamacare because I don't think it's strong enough, efficient/cheap enough, or covers enough people. And I want renewable energies to eventually become our sole form of energy (though I acknowledge petroleum's convenience and versatility).

Now be honest. Trump and especially the Republican Party as a whole are against nearly everything I stand for.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Come on, now. They impeached her husband, waged a multi-year witchhunt against her for Benghazi, and have launched multiple investigations against her for the email scandal. They've even gone on record saying they might even block her Supreme Court nominees, after blocking the current Democratic President's nominee. But if she won, we're supposed to believe they'd do a u-turn and give her policies a chance? I don't even think you believe that.

No were not suppose to believe it. Maybe we could hope that she could have brought them together somehow though. Maybe she would of thought of a way to do it. I don't know, maybe she would have. But if she would have won, I would have given her a chance.

I'm a proud Muslim, pacifist, progressive, environmentalist (but not 100% in practice) & a socialist (for the most part). I am a huge supporter of immigration (especially for ladies ) & I support the movement to sharply increase the federal minimum wage. I'm pro-labor rights, want police and the justice system to treat all citizens fairly, want Wall Street more heavily regulated, and want our powerbrokers in politics, the MIC, and Wall Street to be held accountable for their actions.

That is good. You are more than welcome to express all of your beliefs. As far as immigration, I could argue that it would be foolish to allow a large group of people, without intensive investigation as to their true purpose for coming here, detrimental to our society, and the social safety net that you believe in. I am all for a social safety net that doesn't become a way of life, because then you are not doing a service to this country, only taking from it. I agree with you wanting police and the justice system to treat all citizens fairly, but I also think that if someone points a gun at a policeman they are stupid, not a victim. I agree completely with you on wall street.

I want our country to have a strong social safety net, universal healthcare of the single payer variety, and to stop all of these overseas wars and invasions (spend the money improving our own infrastructure instead of spending it destroying and intimidating others). I'm against Obamacare because I don't think it's strong enough, efficient/cheap enough, or covers enough people. And I want renewable energies to eventually become our sole form of energy (though I acknowledge petroleum's convenience and versatility).

I agree with the social safety net, but as I have said, it should not become a way of life, because in the long run it just hurts the individual and country. Universal healthcare. I can't afford it now, just like I couldn't afford it before President Obama said I have to or I will be charged the money anyway, so I agree with you there. Renewable energies I can also agree with to a point. I use to be a coal miner. I understand the need for renewable energy and the need to get away from fossil fuels, but if you put a large percentage of a certain economy out of work, things get very bad, very fast. You have to have at least a transition period, job retraining, and of course jobs. That did not happen.

Now be honest. Trump and especially the Republican Party as a whole are against nearly everything I stand for.

It may seem like that to you, but things aren't always what they seem. I think both sides need to sincerely sit down and talk to each other the way we are doing right now. Maybe. Just maybe Trump will do that. Now all we can do is wait and see.

originally posted by: neo96

A bunch of people whine about evil 'corporations' then turn around and snip about not making a 'living wage' and having a job.

Cause wages and jobs come from BUSINESS.

I especially LOVED how the LAWYERS screwed people out of the social security cost of living raise this year, and the years before that where there wasn't none at all.

There is no money to be made anyways in hiring American workers when you can run to China and hire workers without rights under Communist China.

A boatload of money from the profits made from corporations was not invested in this country in the last 20 years anyways

It was either hid in offshore accounts or invested in growing business in slave labor countries

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Fools

Why couldn't it be the job of a politician to uphold current laws and review bad laws that need to be amended or reversed?

They do that too, though they're called lawmakers for a reason. The whole point of the legislative branch is to create new legislation; also known as "make new laws". Every State, local, or federal budget is a set of new laws because all budgets have expiration dates. And even when they want to continue with a previous budget, they still have to either submit a new budget w/the same figures as the previous budget or pass a continuing resolution (I'm still learning the process though, so I could be leaving out other steps).

Why do we NEVER see laws reversed? Even if we do, it happens once a decade or so. Marijuana laws are a good example.

That's simply not true. California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada all just legalized maryjane for recreational use this election cycle lol. And that doesn't even include the other States that have also passed recreational maryjane or the 20+ States that have passed medical maryjane laws. Many cities have even decriminalized possession of various drugs.

And at the State and local level, various other laws get reversed and/or nullified all the time. This includes budgets and tax laws, civil rights related laws, laws that previously restricted gun possession in various places, etc.

Also, you are having issues understanding the Supreme Court as identified by the constitution. THeir job is to make sure that laws passed by the legislative and executive branch are constitutional. It is sad that so many think they are the end all be all in regard to the United States political process.

That's not all they do and you should know that. For example, the laws that banned interracial marriage in the South were enshrined in various State Constitutions. But the "Loving v Virginia" case nullified all of their Constitutions. And the "Obergefell v. Hodges" case in 2015 legalized gay marriage throughout the country, literally overturning legislation in many States. There are plenty of other examples but I feel no need to research an obvious point.

Either way, it's the carefully crafted wording in the Supreme Court's rulings that determine how the related laws will be interpreted and enforced throughout the country (for the record, all courts do this). Ironically, that's the argument that's usually made against "activist judges", since they're seen as using the wordings in their rulings to create new legal interpretations which then must be enforced as law. So please tell me how that doesn't count as making laws too?

And please for a moment, can you just let your guard down and admit that there are SO MANY dumb laws that it boggles the mind.

Oh, so you're deflecting now? I never said there weren't many dumb laws out there. I just don't think it's only politicians with law backgrounds that make those dumb laws. For example, the upcoming "Trump Wall" related laws come to mind.

And none of these payouts from citizens help other citizens, they usually go back to enrich the bureaucracy that supports the system.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. Can you explain?

I did read your entire post earlier today and I do want to take the time to respond better. The one thing that struck me though was that the more I think of this sort of thing the more I understand what a genius Trump actually is. He is not only replacing the Harvard/Yale legal eagles in DC, he is having the same team sue eachother into oblivion. He has the wealth to do it. It's fascinating.

It will never cease to amaze me how the working class idolizes the rich.

They are almost God-like to them, not realizing that with the exception of Bill Gates and a few others, they made their wealth off the backs of people like them. Like Trump paying Hispanics $4.00 an hour to build Trump Tower, and he's still being sued for not paying some of them.

Crooked Trump.


And here, let me get this off my chest. About this new oilman secretary of state. All everyone is talking about is his ability to work with Russia.
Like Russia is the only entity the SoS works with. How is he going to be negotiating deals in the middle east to try and keep them from killing each other? Stopping genocide? Will Trump end our negotiations there and completely focus on Russia? WTH? How much time did Kerry or Clinton spend in Russia? They were constantly putting out fires in the ME, or trying to. To hell with Russia and their oil deals.

Bill Gates with his India visit literally killed off american IT jobs, he is the reason entire offshore business went to India.

What is worse than a regular lawyer - a corporate lawyer...They use the most vicious tactics to make few bucks.