Welcome To Trump World

[Richard]

^ looking back in the time machine of 2007,what does Canada have against Mexicans,are you guys racist or what?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/09/2...1refugees.html

[canuck]

^ looking back in the time machine of 2007,what does Canada have against Mexicans,are you guys racist or what?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/09/2...1refugees.html

What's with the libtard press clippings, Richard? Haven't you had enough of Fake News?

[Richard]

^ no it is an interesting source of entertainment,even more so when the first thing people come up with in a counter argument is say something off the wall like .... what do you do get your information from Fox News and think that is justified.

[Maof]

Kook in chief does away with DACA and blames the Democrats . "Truly should be a bill of love, truly love". <<<what happened?.

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/05/54642...ongress-to-act

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...66121983987712

[canuck]

Kook in chief does away with DACA and blames the Democrats . "Truly should be a bill of love, truly love". <<<what happened?.

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/05/54642...ongress-to-act

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...66121983987712

I just followed your twitter link and noticed one he wrote 7hrs ago;


...Congress must immediately pass Border Legislation, use Nuclear Option if necessary, to stop the massive inflow of Drugs and People. Border Patrol Agents [[and ICE) are GREAT, but the weak Dem laws don’t allow them to do their job. Act now Congress, our country is being stolen!

[GMan]

Kook in chief does away with DACA and blames the Democrats . "Truly should be a bill of love, truly love". <<<what happened?.

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/05/54642...ongress-to-act

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...66121983987712

Ended an executive action that was controversial and asked Congress to write a law. What's wrong with that? Congress is dysfunctional and needs to act. Problem is they don't want to go on the record either for/against.

[aj3647]

Ended an executive action that was controversial and asked Congress to write a law. What's wrong with that? Congress is dysfunctional and needs to act. Problem is they don't want to go on the record either for/against.

Congress has "gone on record for/against" on immigration almost half a dozen times now this year:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...l-floor-debate

Democrats even offered to fund Trump's border wall in exchange for citizenship for the Dreamers, which Trump said he was open to. Trump said no.

The problem here is, and this vexes both Democrats and Republicans, is that they have a grossly unreliable negotiating partner in the White House. Trump says one thing, does another. He changes his mind on a whim. He flip flops so much and so hard that I'm surprised he doesn't have whiplash. You can't negotiate with someone like that because their words and promises mean nothing. The Senate has actually been fairly consistent in their position, with a bipartisan majority willing to legalize the Dreamers in exchange for increased border security and some form of wall. This has been consistent. Trump is the one who is all over the map.

But as with all things, it's Trump who comes out of this as the biggest loser, since:
1) The courts have blocked Trump's DACA repeal, so there will be no deportation of any Dreamers anytime soon as this works its way through the courts.
2) Trump well into the second year of his Presidency still has nothing to show for his signature campaign promise [[build the wall).

So no wall, and the Dreamers get to stay. That's what the "World's Greatest Negotiator" got out of all of this. If Trump had an ounce of brain matter between his ears, he would have taken the $25 billion for the wall and let the Dreamers stay [[courts might end up letting them stay anyways). Now he gets nothing except things to rant about on Twitter. Maybe that's all he wanted all along...

[GMan]

Congress has "gone on record for/against" on immigration almost half a dozen times now this year:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...l-floor-debate

Democrats even offered to fund Trump's border wall in exchange for citizenship for the Dreamers, which Trump said he was open to. Trump said no.
.................................................. ..........................
..

So where is the bill for Trump to Veto???
Congress can't pass one and they don't want to go on record for/against, that's why.

[oladub]

“[Democrats] do not do well with white men and we don’t do well with married, white women,” “And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.” -Hillary

"Well, to me that just says to me, you don't like your voice. You like the thing you're told to like," - Michelle Obama to women who voted for Trump

We've heard Hillary and Michelle Obama accuse women who voted for Trump of being brainless and servile but actress Sandra Berhard took it a step further.

"A lot of women have compromised, given in, gotten married, raised their kids, and not had the luxury of being able to think for themselves," Bernhard said.
She said making that "sacrifice" harms women and their ability to be validated through their own work. She said some women who supported Trump do work, but they can still have a degree of inadequacy.

So now by having and raising children, in this Democrat's opinion, women are not able to think for themselves or be validated in their own work. In Democrat World, nurturing children is now anti-women.

Meanwhile, and back to the recent thread, Obama unconstitutionally legislated DACA legislation, in his own words, after the Republican House voted it down in 2014. He tried to get it through Congress, failed, and decided to be a dictator instead. DACA perpetuates itself thanks to liberal judges legislating from the bench. Democrats want DACA to win future elections. Democrats no longer trust 'deplorable' American workers.
.
“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” -Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton’s former top aid

[Zacha341]

You kind of know what's going on with the Bernhart comment: "given in, gotten married, raised their kids..." so no need to digress.

My MAIN response is that while personally I didn't vote for Trump [[or Clinton) I find these comments condescending and a nasty attempt to group and further stereotype women not compliant to in this case to a politically and ideologically driven will!

Nice. So women who refused to vote for Hillary as dolts, controlled robots of their men. Bull! That's the narrative they want to push as for one it serves a two-fer further demonizing men + kicking their dumb women.

Meet the new 'boss' same as the old boss! Women turning on women. Who'da thought it could happen......

Don't need the endorsement of affirmation. No, thank you. I don't hate all men reflexively, nor do I see any contact ala brothers, husbands, brothers, sons as some defacto patriarchal meem of subjugation.

Women are not modern, independent thinkers and progressive UNLESS we think your way! So annointed and appointed. Go kick bricks with your shoes off I say to those further judging the motivation and mind of women.

Even when it's women who are doing it!

We don't have to walk lock-step to any partisan apparaget et al to THINK for OURSELVES! Theirs either!

“[Democrats] do not do well with white men and we don’t do well with married, white women,” “And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.” -Hillary

"Well, to me that just says to me, you don't like your voice. You like the thing you're told to like," - Michelle Obama to women who voted for Trump

We've heard Hillary and Michelle Obama accuse women who voted for Trump of being brainless and servile but actress Sandra Berhard took it a step further.

"A lot of women have compromised, given in, gotten married, raised their kids, and not had the luxury of being able to think for themselves," Bernhard said.
She said making that "sacrifice" harms women and their ability to be validated through their own work. She said some women who supported Trump do work, but they can still have a degree of inadequacy.

[Zacha341]

Shocking. I thought the repubs were the only ones touting anti-family rhetoric?

Yep. A is A here. A mess of fragmentation and clashing of views and values. And what you see in that specific comment is exactly what you get: The Anti-Family narrative.

A bit dogmatic, aye? Tons of 'tolerance' and what all thrown in too....

Do a bit of research and dig a bit deeper and you will see where the far left anti-fam thing goes. It's not very pretty.

Should mothers who are parenting sons and eh-hmm, 'daughters' who choose affirmation go to the women who hold these views?! Irony is sickening aint it?

But you best shut up now if you're a man speaking on any of this...... only us women can speak on the subject. Dig?

So now by having and raising children, in this Democrat's opinion, women are not able to think for themselves or be validated in their own work. In Democrat World, nurturing children is now anti-women.

[Richard]

Well,they did get up on stage and claim to be nasty women,they are just showing how nasty they can be while kicking women back into the stone age in the process.

[aj3647]

Trump launches attack on Amazon: "The Post Office is losing billions of dollars, and the taxpayers are paying for that money because it delivers packages for Amazon at a very below cost," Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday. Fox News' Shepard Smith decided to fact check that: "None of that was true."

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/38...-that-was-true

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...osing-fortune/

Contrary to Trump's nonstop lying on this subject, here are the actual facts:

-The Postal Service makes a profit on every Amazon package it ships
-Package delivery [[buoyed by e-commerce sites like Amazon) account for the USPS's largest growth in revenue and is one of the few services they provide that actually is profitable
-The USPS, by federal law, CANNOT price parcel delivery below cost
-The bulk discount Amazon gets is the same discount that any bulk shipper can receive [[Walmart, etc.)
-If Amazon takes its business elsewhere [[FedEx, UPS, or builds its own package delivery system), the USPS would lose billions in revenue.

So now we are stuck with a President who is using his political office to interfere in the free market by trying to financially harm one of America's largest private corporations simply because he doesn't like their CEO's politics [[or perhaps he's jealous that Bezos is worth more money than him). The reliably-conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce has this to say: "It’s inappropriate for government officials to use their position to attack an American company"

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...-inappropriate

[Richard]

^ without being arrested can you please show where Amazon spends Billions with the USPS?

Once again you are accusing somebody of lying while lying to prove a point,that makes sense to you?

The figure is covered under a NDA so either you are disclosing classified information,presenting false information in order to manipulate the stock market,which is securities fraud or just providing false information in order to bolster a point.

http://fortune.com/2017/07/16/amazon...rvice-subsidy/

Sense the financial agreement is not public how exactly do we determine if it is a good deal or not and how do we pass judgment on the presidents statement with no facts to counter with?

Why do people complain about the 1% but yet still support them as long as it is convenient or allows them to purchase cheaper,self interest.

Personaly,I think they should crush Amazon like a bug on the road just like they have no problem crushing everybody else.

Was it also inappropriate for the government to attack the private corporation of Standard Oil ?

It appears it was not and for good reason.

[aj3647]

^ without being arrested can you please show where Amazon spends Billions with the USPS?

From your own link:

But Amazon’s size means that it benefits disproportionately, and ships around 40% of its deliveries with USPS.

So 40% of Amazon's packages ship with USPS. How much does Amazon spend on shipping each year?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...hipping-costs/

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/true-c...7b-first-time/

Over $16 billion for 2016. Perhaps as high as $20 billion for 2017. So you can make a crude estimate based on those publicly-available numbers if you can do the math of what 40% of $16 billion is. Would you like me to do the math for you, Richard? Or are you going to report me to the FBI for "securities fraud?"

Oh, just a quick question Richard, if Amazon and the USPS have a secret deal that is "covered under an NDA", just how could the Citigroup analyst cited in the Fortune article you linked to know that the USPS is losing EXACTLY $1.46 on every Amazon package it ships? Is he in possession of "classified" information too [[also, it's adorable that you think a deal between Amazon and the Post Office would be "classified", as if that's part of national security or something). Better call the FBI and report him!

Richard, perhaps Amazon crushes other businesses because of their attractive business model and lower prices? Why do you hate the free market, Richard? Are you showing your true socialist, anti-capitalist self? Looks like Amazon is getting too successful at being a business, looks like Richard the Communist has to come in and stop them from being better at their competition and making money.

[Richard]

^ your confused,your spectacular arguments have brought me over to your dark side of socialism,which is different then communism,in light of that will you join me in petitioning to allow the currant president dictatorship capabilities so we can all be happy in the land of pixie dust?

Aside from all of that can you provide the factual number that Amazon pays in shipping costs to the USPS so we can do a analysis based on facts instead of best guess?

Because they all use the service would it be fair to give one a discount above the others,or maybe somebody connected created a better deal for Amazon in order to suppress the competition.

But we will not know will we without all the facts and best guesses do not count.

I think there should be a senate investigation into this,outside of that you are guessing based on what you are told to believe without knowing the true incentive behind it all.

Should the taxpayer be funding Amazons shipping costs in order for them to gain an unfair advantage over the competition?

See,you have no problem with that,and that is not capitalism.

Why would they need a NDA in the first place?

Why do the other companies disclose what they spend with a taxpayer funded service but yet another private company wishes to keep their agreements in non disclosure.

[TKshreve]

^ your confused,your spectacular arguments have brought me over to your dark side of socialism,which is different then communism,in light of that will you join me in petitioning to allow the currant president dictatorship capabilities so we can all be happy in the land of pixie dust?

Aside from all of that can you provide the factual number that Amazon pays in shipping costs to the USPS so we can do a analysis based on facts instead of best guess?

Because they all use the service would it be fair to give one a discount above the others,or maybe somebody connected created a better deal for Amazon in order to suppress the competition.

But we will not know will we without all the facts and best guesses do not count.

I think there should be a senate investigation into this,outside of that you are guessing based on what you are told to believe without knowing the true incentive behind it all.

Should the taxpayer be funding Amazons shipping costs in order for them to gain an unfair advantage over the competition?

See,you have no problem with that,and that is not capitalism.

Why would they need a NDA in the first place?

Why do the other companies disclose what they spend with a taxpayer funded service but yet another private company wishes to keep their agreements in non disclosure.

Because trump colluded with Russia. Proven in an article I read online. Today. Go look it up and prove that I'm lying.

I bet you can't.

[Johnnny5]

Trump is supposedly ordering the deployment of the National Guard to protect our Southern border.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-ord...c=bell-brknews

[aj3647]

Should the taxpayer be funding Amazons shipping costs in order for them to gain an unfair advantage over the competition?

The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations.

So just HOW exactly is the taxpayer funding Amazon's shipping costs?

[Richard]

^ The USPS is a government agency that was created by Congress to achieve various public purposes. Federal law defines what products and services the Postal Service may offer. Additionally, the USPS’s employees are federal employees who participate in the Civil Service Retirement System, the Federal Employees Retirement System, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

The PRA’s designation of the Postal Service as an “independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States,” 39 U. S. C. §201, is not consistent with the idea that the Postal Service is an entity existing outside the Government. Indeed, the designation indicates just the contrary. The PRA gives the Postal Service a high degree of independence from other Government offices, but it remains part of the Government.


http://postalnews.com/blog/2015/05/09/postal-myths-2-the-usps-is-not-a-government-agency/

Where does the government get their free money?

We will not know how much Amazon is paying for shipping through the USPS because they do not want to tell us,why?

You wrote billions,where did you get that number when it is classified? That is the question I asked you.

[Zacha341]

Yeah, I knew that faction was going to emerge at that protest. I made sure to not attend. I cannot follow the new feminism down every road. Nope.

Well,they did get up on stage and claim to be nasty women,they are just showing how nasty they can be while kicking women back into the stone age in the process.

[aj3647]

^ The USPS is a government agency that was created by Congress to achieve various public purposes. Federal law defines what products and services the Postal Service may offer. Additionally, the USPS’s employees are federal employees who participate in the Civil Service Retirement System, the Federal Employees Retirement System, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

The PRA’s designation of the Postal Service as an “independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States,” 39 U. S. C. §201, is not consistent with the idea that the Postal Service is an entity existing outside the Government. Indeed, the designation indicates just the contrary. The PRA gives the Postal Service a high degree of independence from other Government offices, but it remains part of the Government.


http://postalnews.com/blog/2015/05/09/postal-myths-2-the-usps-is-not-a-government-agency/

Where does the government get their free money?

If that's how you see it, then the taxpayer is subsidizing EVERYONE who uses the Postal Service, yourself included. So why are you singling out Amazon? Those postal workers whose retirement fund is backed by the government deliver mail for everyone, not just Amazon, right? Have you ever sent anything through the mail, Richard? Then I guess you're suckling at the taxpayer's tit as well. Send your mail through FedEx or UPS like a real capitalist American instead of using the socialist Postal Service.

[Honky Tonk]

Yeah, I knew that faction was going to emerge at that protest. I made sure to not attend. I cannot follow the new feminism down every road. Nope.

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do, just don't become a Roman..."

Michael Franti-Spearhead, Home

[Richard]

AJ you brought Amazon into the conversation so how am I signaling them out and you have me thinking of gumby with all of that stretching.

I have mailed one letter in the past 20 years and that was for my birth certificate in order to prove I was an American citizen.

I do not have a problem with the taxpayer subsidies to the post office,as I clearly posted I have a problem if the post office makes a private deal with a private corporation that may or may not provide an unfair advantage to the corporation over the competition.

Which was also your original beef about the currant president attacking them,I believe it is for good reason but with the NDA we cannot prove it,can we.

Because in the times of allowing corporations to wipe out the competition in order to save a few dollars we are destroying the future and learning no lessons from the past.

It started with the fax,then with email,then online bill payment,WhatsApp etc. When was the last time you mailed a letter?

I have a friend who is now 103,he still mails letters and payes bills with a letter and stamps,he has hundreds of 1c stamps from way back when and he will paste 35 of those things to an envelope in order to mail it,because he paid for them.

Once again show me where you have the proof that Amazon pays billions to the USPS like you posted so I can send it to congress and have it investigated,you seem to be the only one that is privy to that private information,so it has value.

[Zacha341]

Hah! I've read the book of Romans enough to be wary! ----

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do, just don't become a Roman..."