Impressed by Trump administration

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Impressed by Trump administration
Spock's avatar

Spock

Senior Member

2,853 posts
Feb 28, 2017 9:22 PM
He is killing this speech.. It is pretty impressive that he has gotten this much done this month.
Feb 28, 2017 9:22pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Feb 28, 2017 9:30 PM
Spock;1839071 wrote:He is killing this speech.. It is pretty impressive that he has gotten this much done this month.
I liked the comment about ensuring women have access to capital, etc, to follow their financial dreams....and Elizabeth Warren was giving a confused-looking clap
Feb 28, 2017 9:30pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Feb 28, 2017 9:35 PM
gut;1839073 wrote:I liked the comment about ensuring women have access to capital, etc, to follow their financial dreams....and Elizabeth Warren was giving a confused-looking clap
I noticed this as well. That I don't really want to be seen clapping at a Trump speech but not clapping at government intervention protecting women look.
Feb 28, 2017 9:35pm
Spock's avatar

Spock

Senior Member

2,853 posts
Feb 28, 2017 9:47 PM
gut;1839073 wrote:I liked the comment about ensuring women have access to capital, etc, to follow their financial dreams....and Elizabeth Warren was giving a confused-looking clap
He has hammered home women stuff all night and all the partisan hacks wearing white for "women's" rights and they have failed to stand for anything
Feb 28, 2017 9:47pm
Spock's avatar

Spock

Senior Member

2,853 posts
Feb 28, 2017 9:56 PM
VOICE- victims of immigrant crime and engagement. That got some boo's by the hacks on the left and many did not stand and respect the families that were there. Unreal.
Feb 28, 2017 9:56pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Feb 28, 2017 10:00 PM
ok this extended ovation has gone into awkward territory


I hate the way they use people as props for these speeches.
Feb 28, 2017 10:00pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Feb 28, 2017 10:06 PM
Trump is talking but all I'm hearing is "trillions and trillions and trillions more debt"
Feb 28, 2017 10:06pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Feb 28, 2017 10:22 PM
well, this fossil is an interesting choice for the Democratic response
Feb 28, 2017 10:22pm
iclfan2's avatar

iclfan2

Reppin' the 330/216/843

6,360 posts
Feb 28, 2017 10:23 PM
Was probably his best speech he's ever had. And yea, not sure what this dem response is supposed to be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Feb 28, 2017 10:23pm
Spock's avatar

Spock

Senior Member

2,853 posts
Feb 28, 2017 10:25 PM
gut;1839091 wrote:well, this fossil is an interesting choice for the Democratic response
First thing I thought. Dems trying to make it seem like they are down to earth backwoods folks.
Feb 28, 2017 10:25pm
Spock's avatar

Spock

Senior Member

2,853 posts
Feb 28, 2017 10:27 PM
gut;1839089 wrote:Trump is talking but all I'm hearing is "trillions and trillions and trillions more debt"
You are in the minority. He is running the government like a business. The debt will be balanced if he has the chance
Feb 28, 2017 10:27pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Feb 28, 2017 10:33 PM
gut;1839088 wrote:ok this extended ovation has gone into awkward territory.
As much as I dislike the political props that have now unfortunately become the norm during these addresses I did not see the extended ovation as awkward.
Feb 28, 2017 10:33pm
Spock's avatar

Spock

Senior Member

2,853 posts
Feb 28, 2017 10:35 PM
That ovation was well deserved
Feb 28, 2017 10:35pm
iclfan2's avatar

iclfan2

Reppin' the 330/216/843

6,360 posts
Feb 28, 2017 10:37 PM
That whole democratic response was terrible. Who the hell chose that guy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Feb 28, 2017 10:37pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Feb 28, 2017 10:42 PM
gut;1839088 wrote:ok this extended ovation has gone into awkward territory


I hate the way they use people as props for these speeches.
Agree with second part, highly disagree with first part. That wasn't awkward at all; I had chills.
Feb 28, 2017 10:42pm
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Feb 28, 2017 10:50 PM
Not a Trump guy, but that was a great speech outlining a bold vision. A lot of that might be unattainable or not be able to be funddd, but if he just accomplices 20% of that he'll have done more than last three presidents.
Feb 28, 2017 10:50pm
Spock's avatar

Spock

Senior Member

2,853 posts
Feb 28, 2017 10:57 PM
Just imagine what that speech would of been like if Hillary was there giving that speech
Feb 28, 2017 10:57pm
F

friendfromlowry

Senior Member

6,239 posts
Feb 28, 2017 10:58 PM
Spock;1839102 wrote:Just imagine what that speech would of been like if Hillary was there giving that speech
you wouldn't have anyone's dick to suck then
Feb 28, 2017 10:58pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Mar 1, 2017 12:21 AM
While the America-first element is a crowd favorite among Americans, I still get uneasy about this much insistent nationalism.

Moreover, I heard an awful lot of spending about halfway through.

However, despite the fact that I'm not a fan of his, and despite the fact that I have irreconcilable differences with his overall platform, there were a few things I actually appreciated about what he said and how he said it:

- I appreciated his insistence that the protection and building of other nations has been problematic. Our pervasive presence across the globe is not only an overreach of what a non-global government ought to do, it's fucking expensive. It was nice to see a president call that out (He wasn't fully consistent on it, like when he spoke about ISIS and Israel, but enough so that it would be an improvement IF THERE IS FOLLOWTHROUGH).

- It was refreshing to hear clear, actionable objectives. I assume this is the CEO background coming through. Generalities and platitudes are fine and can be good for morale, but they end up being poor for actual planning.

- I thought it was a good call to specifically talk about enabling female entrepreneurs and specifically mentioning the notion that people should be allowed into the US. He didn't mention the specifics discussed above here, and for all we know, he's whistling Dixie out his ass, but it was a good PR move to mention it with specificity.
Mar 1, 2017 12:21am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Mar 1, 2017 1:43 AM
Con_Alma;1838985 wrote:I posted a report several months ago regarding the number of missions/cruises requested by the then current CIC. That report contained the details of the its of resources and staff to perform each of the missions successfully. We do not currently have the resources available to carry out what is asked.
The DoD's own internal report cited $125B in waste. When asked about what they would do with that, both Trump and Spicer had no comment.

The military doesn't need more money. It has to do a lot better spending what it has. When budgets are fat, waste is high.
Mar 1, 2017 1:43am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 1, 2017 7:43 AM
gut;1839109 wrote:The DoD's own internal report cited $125B in waste. When asked about what they would do with that, both Trump and Spicer had no comment.

The military doesn't need more money. It has to do a lot better spending what it has. When budgets are fat, waste is high.
I have no problem holding feet to the fire to cut the waste.

...but until every cruise/mission is fully staffed with all the men an equipment needed....the military isn't being funded properly.

In addition, the following will need upgraded and or replaced.

M1 Abrams tank designed in the '70s

The Bradley fighting vehicle entered service in...I think "81

The B-52 entered service in 1955...even the B2 stealth bomber is 30 years old.

...and on and on.

I understand that you do not support additional funds. I do. We simply disagree on the issue.
Mar 1, 2017 7:43am
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Mar 1, 2017 8:14 AM
Con_Alma;1839117 wrote:I have no problem holding feet to the fire to cut the waste.

...but until every cruise/mission is fully staffed with all the men an equipment needed....the military isn't being funded properly.

In addition, the following will need upgraded and or replaced.

M1 Abrams tank designed in the '70s

The Bradley fighting vehicle entered service in...I think "81

The B-52 entered service in 1955...even the B2 stealth bomber is 30 years old.

...and on and on.

I understand that you do not support additional funds. I do. We simply disagree on the issue.
M1 tank is fine. The days of massive tank warfare are over. The Bradley sure needs a replacement eventually, but not now. We are now working to replace the Humvee and I have a feeling that program will balloon.
B-52 is being replaced with a new bomber, the B-21, that was awarded last year.

Things are already in place weapon system wise.

If the funds are used correctly, they will be used toward Operations and Maintenance and readiness. Those funds have been seriously fund over the last 5 years. Some of the bases are severely hurting in those funds. They will not go toward new weapon systems.

Then again, what gut is getting to, is if you cut the $125B in waste, there is really no need to increase by $54B. The funds can just be shifted around.
Mar 1, 2017 8:14am
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Mar 1, 2017 8:16 AM
I thought the Trump speech was fine. He was his typical stump speech, just more refined and toned better.
It will play well with his supporters, and people that were on the fence, but his opponents will still not support him.

So, it changed little.
I agree with Otrap and gut as I heard a lot of new spending and broad ideas with little specifics.
Mar 1, 2017 8:16am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 1, 2017 8:21 AM
ptown_trojans_1;1839121 wrote:M1 tank is fine. The days of massive tank warfare are over. The Bradley sure needs a replacement eventually, but not now. We are now working to replace the Humvee and I have a feeling that program will balloon.
B-52 is being replaced with a new bomber, the B-21, that was awarded last year.

Things are already in place weapon system wise.

If the funds are used correctly, they will be used toward Operations and Maintenance and readiness. Those funds have been seriously fund over the last 5 years. Some of the bases are severely hurting in those funds. They will not go toward new weapon systems.

Then again, what gut is getting to, is if you cut the $125B in waste, there is really no need to increase by $54B. The funds can just be shifted around.
I acknowledged gut's point. Hold make people accountable for waste. Until you fully staff and fund active cruises/missions I will support increases.

Regarding the above, those are just a few of the items needing replaced. It was provided as an example.

At the risk of being redundant...we simply disagree on this. I will support increases when we are asking men and women to do things that we aren't equipping them to do with understaffed manpower.
Mar 1, 2017 8:21am