CNN’s Angela Rye: Statues of Washington, Jefferson and Lee ‘All Need to Come Down’

[Krugminator2]

Which has thus far resulted in which reductions in the size and scope of government?

They are PR things to elicit reactions just such as yours, and which, in the long view, are not even a bump on the road to serfdom.

Let's say Gary Johnson got elected instead. I would have been thrilled at that. That said what actions would he have taken that would have gone beyond what Trump is doing? I am not saying in any way Trump is good philosophically. I just don't think most of the stuff he is bad on will ever be policy minus what Sessions will do to weed and civil liberties. But I think there is a high likelihood Johnson would have appointed a far worse justice than Gorsuch given his comments on judges and in particular Weld's affinity for liberal judges. Mulvaney is about as good as it gets for budget director. Given that Johnson is probably/definitely on the carbon tax train and Weld being a green energy lobbyist, he wouldn't have appointed someone as solid as Pruitt to the EPA.

As long as Trump doesn't get involved in Syria in a serious way and passes tax reform, I think he will have earned my vote. I am pleasantly surprised that things have gone this well on the actual issues. I see Trump as kind of a Warren Harding equivalent. Historians will hate him, but an objective reading shows that he wasn't so bad for small government people.

Again, concrete results?

As far as Pruitt, he seems pretty aggressive in hacking away at the EPA. There was thing he did with California he did a few months back.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._in_court.html

[Krugminator2]

Rand has his ear, for $#@!'s sake, if all the screeching would cease maybe he could be heard.

That's another thing. Rand influenced Trump to stop his horrible neocon Sec of State picks. That's kind of a big deal. John Bolton could have easily been the guy calling the shots on North Korea right now. There was no other Republican in the field who Rand would have had that kind of influence with. The first person to endorse Rand is Trump's head of the Office of Budget Management. The guy who wrote Rand's budget, John Gray, who was a Rand Senate staffer, is the guy who is in charge of working out the budget details for Trump. The guy in charge of the EPA is a guy Rand coauthored this article with and likely would have been Rand's EPA choice. http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/234...roperty-rights

You can call it small potatoes but the federal government has cut 11000 jobs so far, which is unprecedented without some kind of outside force pushing. I think it is important to celebrate these kinds of victories. This is not Hillary Clinton who was pushing free college and banning Uber.

[Anti Federalist]

That's another thing. Rand influenced Trump to stop his horrible neocon Sec of State picks. That's kind of a big deal. John Bolton could have easily been the guy calling the shots on North Korea right now. There was no other Republican in the field who Rand would have had that kind of influence with. The first person to endorse Rand is Trump's head of the Office of Budget Management. The guy who wrote Rand's budget, John Gray, who was a Rand Senate staffer, is the guy who is in charge of working out the budget details for Trump.

You can call it small potatoes but the federal government has cut 11000 jobs so far, which is unprecedented without some kind of outside force pushing. I think it is important to celebrate these kinds of victories. This is not Hillary Clinton who was pushing free college and banning Uber.

Again, was not a fan, was very much opposed, did not vote for him.

But the facts are the facts.

Policy wise we are in a much better place than we would have been under Clinton.

[nikcers]

Rand has his ear

Rand has to support the Republican president otherwise he won't be electable in the republican party.- they also have to throw Rand Paul a bone other wise he could be a giant thorn in their side he doesn't have Trump's ear other then Rand Paul had been grabbing his ear and pulling him on issues because that's what Rand Paul does. Rand Paul has a lot of power in the Republican party- some would say he helped create the Republican majority. Even if it was a democrat president though he would be participating and fighting the good fight. Remember his influence / filibusters on NDAA and bombing Syria?

[r3volution 3.0]

Let's say Gary Johnson got elected instead. I would have been thrilled at that. That said what actions would he have taken that would have gone beyond what Trump is doing?

First, I'm not a fan of Johnson, he was a distant second choice after Rand. That said, what would Johnson have done? He would have TRIED to dismantle a large part of the federal government, and end foreign interventions, and reign in the police state. Would he have succeeded? Who knows. But TRUMP ISN'T EVEN TRYING; rather to the contrary.

As long as Trump doesn't get involved in Syria in a serious way...I think he will have earned my vote.

He's more involved in Syria than Obama/Hillary was, so...

I see Trump as kind of a Warren Harding equivalent.

That is a grievous insult to Warren Harding.

[r3volution 3.0]

That said, he has dialed things back more than any other administration in my lifetime.

I don't know how you could believe that.

A) No, NAZIS are not "gaining ground"

Surely you jest....

The very fact that someone like Bannon was in the WH at all demonstrates the point.

...though one need look no further than the transformation of RPF or other major libertarian venues in the last two years.

B) The best course of action to address that was Ron's. Take their money, dismiss them as irrelevant and move on.

You think that's the approach Trump has taken...? Contra my claim that he's pandered to them?

This is the point I was trying to make in the other thread, this is the point that I am trying make with the pictures of those $#@! pseudo X-stians marching around Africa in slave collars with shirts that read "So Sorry": nothing you say or do will be enough. You and me and everybody here are already "tainted". To the random leftist mobs out there, you are as much a NAZI as a Trump supporter or Stormfronter. So am I. So is everybody else here.

Yes, I know, you want to make common cause with them. My point is that that is asinine.

Don't join the people hollering for our heads on a stick (and no, that's not hyperbole, there are plenty of people who want us, quite literally, dead).

I haven't; you have.

There's no NAZIs here...

Most former Paulites have become sympathetic to the alt-right/NAZIs, along with huge numbers of other people "on the right."

They are the largest faction of the GOP at this point, hence Trump is President.

If you don't want that trend to continue, I suggest, you know, not supporting it...

I'm a tiny minority, who didn't vote for him or support him.

Most people want all those things.

If it's all a PR stunt he'd be doing the opposite of all those things.

Why did Obama "go through the budget line by line" in his first months in office?

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, well, I tried.

[UWDude]

...though one need look no further than the transformation of RPF or other major libertarian venues in the last two years.

I could hardly stand this place three years ago, because of the racism. Are you saying white nationalism decreased under Obama, the first black president?

All people are ghettoizing into their own ideological extremes. That's not because of Trump. It is because of the internet.

[acptulsa]

That is a grievous insult to Warren Harding.

Agreed! That's the man that eradicated the Wilson/House Socialism! He de-nationalized the railroads! Damn.

I don't know how you could believe that.

I don't know how you can't. Reagan began by finishing what Carter started in creating the ED. And if he's out of the running, who's left?

Why did Obama "go through the budget line by line" in his first months in office?

So he knew who to hit up for brib--er, I mean campaign contributions?

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't know how you can't. Reagan began by finishing what Carter started in creating the ED. And if he's out of the running, who's left?

Trump has yet to sign a budget, so there's nothing to compare.

On taxes? Again, nothing's been done.

On regulation, who was better? Bush (W), believe it or not.

...so what are talking about here?

So he knew who to hit up for brib--er, I mean campaign contributions?

Because he wanted to placate people who care (at least at a very superficial level) about wasteful spending.

[acptulsa]

On regulation, who was better? Bush (W), believe it or not.

The same Dubya who had the PATRIOT Act far enough along by August that he could have it through Congress and signed by Halloween?

Get the $#@! out.

[r3volution 3.0]

The same Dubya who had the PATRIOT Act far enough along by August that he could have it through Congress and signed by Halloween?

Get the $#@! out.

I said he eliminated regulations.

...not sure what the PATRIOT Act (which Trump fully supports, of course) has to do with it.

[Krugminator2]

T

On regulation, who was better? Bush (W), believe it or not.

No he wasn't.

http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/1...atory-kiss-off

"Obama's assertions to the contrary, the 43rd president was the biggest regulator since Nixon."

"It takes a lot of bureaucrats to create and enforce all those regulations. In eight years, Bush increased the federal government's regulatory staff by 91,196 employees. Clinton cut it by 969. "

[r3volution 3.0]

No he wasn't.

http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/1...atory-kiss-off

"Obama's assertions to the contrary, the 43rd president was the biggest regulator since Nixon."

"It takes a lot of bureaucrats to create and enforce all those regulations. In eight years, Bush increased the federal government's regulatory staff by 91,196 employees. Clinton cut it by 969. "

The number of pages of federal regulation dropped during W's tenure, as per the chart I posted earlier. That's not the best metric, nor is the number of staff at regulatory agencies (the best metric would be impact on GDP, but that's hard to come by), but it's the one being touted in defense of Trump ("he eliminated X number of regulations...").

[acptulsa]

That said, he has dialed things back more than any other administration in my lifetime.

I don't know how you could believe that.

I said he eliminated regulations.

...not sure what the PATRIOT Act (which Trump fully supports, of course) has to do with it.

So, I can't say Trump has dialed things back more than any other president in my lifetime because some hypothetical mashup of seven other administrations, if you pick and choose the right category from each one, theoretically did better in each category.

[r3volution 3.0]

So, I can't say Trump has dialed things back more than any other president in my lifetime because some hypothetical mashup of seven other administrations, if you pick and choose the right category from each one, theoretically did better in each category.

I can't be moving the goalposts when you never set any in the first place...

Tell me, what metric are you using to say that Trump has reduced the rate of growth of the state more than any recent POTUS?

Is it just anecdotes or what?

[acptulsa]

I can't be moving the goalposts when you never set any in the first place...

Tell me, what metric are you using to say that Trump has reduced the rate of growth of the state more than any recent POTUS?

Is it just anecdotes or what?

It's the fact that he has actually, so far, reduced the rate of growth.

That really isn't a hard standard to meet. He didn't have to jump very high to clear the hurdle.

[r3volution 3.0]

I can't be moving the goalposts when you never set any in the first place...

Tell me, what metric are you using to say that Trump has reduced the rate of growth of the state more than any recent POTUS?

Is it just anecdotes or what?

It's the fact that he has actually, so far, reduced the rate of growth.

That really isn't a hard standard to meet. He didn't have to jump very high to clear the hurdle.

Of what?

[nikcers]

I can't be moving the goalposts when you never set any in the first place...

Tell me, what metric are you using to say that Trump has reduced the rate of growth of the state more than any recent POTUS?

Is it just anecdotes or what?

It's just based on how Trump frames the narrative on his effective policy. Trump has the ability to go from credible to incredible in a heartbeat. I don't mean incredible like in a good way, I mean doublethink. The same people who think he is a mastery strategist also think he is really ignorant on really obvious things that any functioning adult who lived into their golden years would know.

He then takes this to a new level with his art of the deal bull$#@! where he makes people think that we are getting a good deal because he didn't INCREASE troops in Afghanistan, he just kept them there. He makes people think we are getting a good deal because he didn't INCREASE regulations. He makes people think that we are getting a good deal because he didn't INCREASE Obamacare

[acptulsa]

Of what?

You can keep this up all night, can't you?

Well I can't.

He then takes this to a new level with his art of the deal bull$#@!... He makes people think we are getting a good deal because he didn't INCREASE regulations.

Don't look now, but he has you doing it. Trump did INCREASE regulations.

[specsaregood]

Again, was not a fan, was very much opposed, did not vote for him.

But the facts are the facts.

Policy wise we are in a much better place than we would have been under Clinton.

and lets not forget Syria, it seems trump really did give up on that mess. no way would Clinton have done that.

[nikcers]

he has you doing it. Trump did INCREASE regulations.

[r3volution 3.0]

You can keep this up all night, can't you?

Well I can't.

It's not a trick question or something. I'm simply asking you define what you mean you say he "reduced the rate of growth of the state." If I said "Tony Romo increased the awesomeness of the Cowboys by 51.74%" that would be a meaningless statement without defining "awesomeness," and in a quantifiable way.

If all you're talking about is the fact that fewer new regulations were implemented so far by Trump than were implemented by some of his predecessors over a comparable period in their terms, per the chart posted earlier, well fine, that's true, but then my response (to repeat myself) is BIG WHOOP. Adding a couple dozen fewer regulations than would otherwise have been added means nothing when you already have nearly 200,000 PAGES of regulations. Number of regulations isn't a very good metric to begin with (because different regulations have different effects: 1 regulation might cost 1000x more than 50 others), so it's only really useful for large scale changes. If you go from 200,000 to 150,000 pages of regs, odds are the total regulatory burden declined. If you go from 200,000 to 200,001, instead of from 200,000 to 200,003, that doesn't really tell you anything.

Bottom line: Trump hasn't really done anything, he's just maintained the status quo.

[CaptainAmerica]

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-ang...-to-come-down/
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...ents-come-down

walmart, home depot, best buy, target,lowes,apple .......macys, jcpenny,sears.....etc. etc. need to come down, they sell slave labor chinese death camp made products.

[UWDude]

It's not a trick question or something. I'm simply asking you define what you mean you say he "reduced the rate of growth of the state." If I said "Tony Romo increased the awesomeness of the Cowboys by 51.74%" that would be a meaningless statement without defining "awesomeness," and in a quantifiable way.

If all you're talking about is the fact that fewer new regulations were implemented so far by Trump than were implemented by some of his predecessors over a comparable period in their terms, per the chart posted earlier, well fine, that's true, but then my response (to repeat myself) is BIG WHOOP. Adding a couple dozen fewer regulations than would otherwise have been added means nothing when you already have nearly 200,000 PAGES of regulations. Number of regulations isn't a very good metric to begin with (because different regulations have different effects: 1 regulation might cost 1000x more than 50 others), so it's only really useful for large scale changes. If you go from 200,000 to 150,000 pages of regs, odds are the total regulatory burden declined. If you go from 200,000 to 200,001, instead of from 200,000 to 200,003, that doesn't really tell you anything.

Bottom line: Trump hasn't really done anything, he's just maintained the status quo.

Under trump, as of a month ago, 96 regulations were removed, and 15 new ones implemented, which is better than his "2 regulations removed for every new regulation enacted" guideline.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/trump-e...a-regulations/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tr...rticle/2629177

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/don.../08/id/806522/

[r3volution 3.0]

Under trump, as of a month ago, 96 regulations were removed, and 15 new ones implemented

Wow!

At that rate, it'll only take about half a century to repeal the regulations issued in 2016!

[nobody's_hero]

Wow!

At that rate, it'll only take about half a century to repeal the regulations issued in 2016!

Nah, Trump's only gonna be in office, at most 8 years. Afterwards, we can start again rapidly going the wrong direction, instead of just moving very, very slowly in the right one.

[Anti Federalist]

Nah, Trump's only gonna be in office, at most 8 years. Afterwards, we can start again rapidly going the wrong direction, instead of just moving very, very slowly in the right one.

At the rate things are going right now, he'll be lucky to be alive 8 months from now.

[acptulsa]

It's not a trick question or something. I'm simply asking you define what you mean you say he "reduced the rate of growth of the state." If I said "Tony Romo increased the awesomeness of the Cowboys by 51.74%" that would be a meaningless statement without defining "awesomeness," and in a quantifiable way.

If all you're talking about is the fact that fewer new regulations were implemented so far by Trump than were implemented by some of his predecessors over a comparable period in their terms, per the chart posted earlier, well fine, that's true, but then my response (to repeat myself) is BIG WHOOP. Adding a couple dozen fewer regulations than would otherwise have been added means nothing when you already have nearly 200,000 PAGES of regulations. Number of regulations isn't a very good metric to begin with (because different regulations have different effects: 1 regulation might cost 1000x more than 50 others), so it's only really useful for large scale changes. If you go from 200,000 to 150,000 pages of regs, odds are the total regulatory burden declined. If you go from 200,000 to 200,001, instead of from 200,000 to 200,003, that doesn't really tell you anything.

Bottom line: Trump hasn't really done anything, he's just maintained the status quo.

This is the post that kicked off your seven hour cross examination of me. Did you read more than the first twenty-six words of it?

Nope. But...

I, like you, hate to grovel like a good little serf and thank Massah Donald for greatly slowing the rate of growth of the Octopus. I want it stopped. Indeed, I want it rolled back. I want it to shrink. It has not yet done that. It hasn't even completely stopped growing.

That said, he has dialed things back more than any other administration in my lifetime. It hasn't stopped growing yet, so I can't say we 're pointed the right direction at last. But some credit is due for retarding the growth, and no one does his credibility service by petulantly refusing to give that modicum of due credit.

Ron Paul he ain't. But it turns out there was an appreciable difference between him and the Wicked Witch of the West after all. That doesn't mean the 7D Chess Crowd deserves a pass when they say he's only threatening to conquer Venezuela to prevent McCain from nuking them and painting the stripes. Just means he might prove to have been the slightly lesser evil after all.

The Titanic is still accelerating toward the iceberg. But at least it's no longer accelerating toward the iceberg at full throttle. It ain't worth popping a champagne cork over. But one isn't remiss to pop the top on a Miller High Life.

Because you tied up all my time pissing me off with you silly-assed and more-than-mildly-irritating Socratic Interrogation just to drag me kicking and screaming to the very point I made in the very post that you used to kick this very odyssey off.

Now that I fully understand just how thorough a commie you are, and how little respect you have for my time and to what degree you consider it community property, that you would waste this much of it just to drag me kicking and screaming to a conclusion I reached years ago, I do hope you understand if the next time you ask me a question I completely ignore it.

I suggest you reread my original post, as many times necessary for you to understand the error of your ways.

This probably means a good dozen times.

Report back when you've completed your assignment.

What's good for the ganders is good for you, too, goose.

[LibertyEagle]

@Trumpcuck @dannno



That means most immigrants are rapists (contra "some" who are "good people).

Does Trump actually believe that? Who knows (he is very thick, of course...).

Did he say it to win the nationalists to his side? Probably (if there was any strategy behind the statement, this would have been it).

Did it have that effect? Definitely (he led the polls a month later, after doubling down on this theme)

Stop lying, Rev. Trump never said that. You are attempting to use Saul Alinsky tactics on the members of this forum. I have no idea why you have been permitted this long to continue.