**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

At any rate, wuf. Your stance on providing data is rendering you a troll.

If you're here to say polarizing thoughts which aren't backed by any link to reality, then you're really distracting from an otherwise productive exchange of ideas between people with different political ideologies who are honestly trying to understand the other side's positions w/o personal attacks or condemnation.

I'm giving ideas. Hoping to hit on something that makes somebody go "yeah, I remember that."

When it's a debate, well, we've had enough of those, and how many minds have changed? One side can give the world of documentation and the other side goes "meh, that's wrong because yadda."

[wufwugy]

Pussy.

lol

some y'all get damn close. damn close.

[CoccoBill]

I never realized the hoax was so intense. They're bending you over backwards when they tell you that a Syrian refugee that is in Lebanon or Turkey needs asylum in Germany or Sweden.

If you're not going to read what I write, maybe it's best you don't respond at all. Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan are swimming in refugees, there 2.5 million syrians in Turkey alone. There are camps that host tens of thousands of people, with barely any shelter, little food and water, medical supplies, let alone housing or jobs. How many years would you want to stay there, with absolutely no income, with your wife and kids? What you're saying I can only decipher as a complete lack of empathy and understanding to their situation.

http://www.pbs.org/video/2365920685/

[wufwugy]

To be fair, when he does present data it's from dubious sources that themselves don't provide sources. So it shouldn't be a surprise he's reticent to share it.

See.

All the previous gatewaypundit articles I presented were legit. But somehow, "dubious".

[wufwugy]

If you're not going to read what I write, maybe it's best you don't respond at all. Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan are swimming in refugees, there 2.5 million syrians in Turkey alone. There are camps that host tens of thousands of people, with barely any shelter, little food and water, medical supplies, let alone housing or jobs. How many years would you want to stay there, with absolutely no income, with your wife and kids? What you're saying I can only decipher as a complete lack of empathy and understanding to their situation.

http://www.pbs.org/video/2365920685/

Women and children first.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Women and children first.

troll

[wufwugy]

troll

"Hey Sweetie, Honey, Schnookums, I'm gonna go off to this place that will take care of me. You and the little one should stay here. After they take care of me enough, you should follow."

[wufwugy]

I wonder how things got so backwards

https://twitter.com/rupasubramanya/s...10948589416448

[MadMojoMonkey]

"Hey Sweetie, Honey, Schnookums, I'm gonna go off to this place that will take care of me. You and the little one should stay here. After they take care of me enough, you should follow."

[wufwugy]

Nope. Nothing to see here. What next, boss?

[Jack Sawyer]

At any rate, wuf. Your stance on providing data is rendering you a troll.

If you're here to say polarizing thoughts which aren't backed by any link to reality, then you're really distracting from an otherwise productive exchange of ideas between people with different political ideologies who are honestly trying to understand the other side's positions w/o personal attacks or condemnation.

It's an amazing discussion going on, here.

I have, multiple times, had to delete entire sections of my posts because I realized that my position was stupid in the light of the new information I know and truth I see in my opposition's points. I get the sense that I'm not the only one.

Your notion that we're all entrenched in our positions and looking for reasons to we're already right - is misplaced, here, I think.
There's a reason FTR doesn't suck. This is a big part of it.

(And yeah, I've been a jerk in the past, but I hope I'm less of one now, in part because of FTR and my internet friends.)

+1

[Jack Sawyer]

See.

All the previous gatewaypundit articles I presented were legit. But somehow, "dubious".

The Gateway Pundit is a hard-right website oft cited by such scholars as Matt Drudge. The website spends most of the day complaining about Barack Obama and liberals, and the occasional flirtation with outright white supremacists. It is a fairly popular blog, allegedly getting 4-5 million views each month, once again proving that being popular doesn't necessarily make you right.

Perception. When I saw "Drudge" there, that was it for me. That's why I never heard of it before

It's basically a wordpress blog

[wufwugy]

Perception. When I saw "Drudge" there, that was it for me. That's why I never heard of it before

It's basically a wordpress blog

That it is. And it gets a ton of stories that aren't covered outside the circle and are accurate.

I vouch for no single source. They all suck. And they all have certain uses.

[wufwugy]

If you wanna understand conservatives and conservative media and conservative politics, nothing is better than gatewaypundit. The conservative news cycle is as follows: Drudge --> Gatewaypundit --> Hannity and O'Reilly. 4chan and the_donald can appear or disappear at any point in that progression at any time.

At least this is what I heard. It seems to be accurate.

[BananaStand]

I realize that Trump needs twitter to keep ahead of a media aligned against him, but sometimes he's a bit too trigger happy I think.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...eley-riot.html

I mean, this is isn't surprising for Trump, and you take the good with the bad I guess. Not all his Tweets are gonna be on-point.

maybe someone here has better sources than what I'm looking at, but it's not exactly clear whether the violence came from among the protesters, or whether it was purposefully sparked by an outside group of agitators. That's a differentiation that I believe affects the accuracy and relevance of Trump's response. Not sure I'd punish the college if they were overrun by trespassers. Though it's a little fishy that there were no arrests.

I never thought I'd be calling for restrictions on the first amendment, but I think it's time we consider some kind of action or consequence against people who participate in these demonstrations while wearing masks or otherwise trying to conceal their identity.

[wufwugy]

I realize that Trump needs twitter to keep ahead of a media aligned against him, but sometimes he's a bit too trigger happy I think.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...eley-riot.html

I mean, this is isn't surprising for Trump, and you take the good with the bad I guess. Not all his Tweets are gonna be on-point.

maybe someone here has better sources than what I'm looking at, but it's not exactly clear whether the violence came from among the protesters, or whether it was purposefully sparked by an outside group of agitators. That's a differentiation that I believe affects the accuracy and relevance of Trump's response. Not sure I'd punish the college if they were overrun by trespassers. Though it's a little fishy that there were no arrests.

I never thought I'd be calling for restrictions on the first amendment, but I think it's time we consider some kind of action or consequence against people who participate in these demonstrations while wearing masks or otherwise trying to conceal their identity.

If I can put on what there is of my persuasion cap for a moment, here's what I think he's doing:

The "no federal funds" is intended to get the media upset and talk about it. What premise must be true in order for them to talk about Trump taking away federal funds? That violence against free speech and innocents is taking place on campuses. This gets the media to cover a topic they hope to avoid, and the message of violence against innocents is implanted in the viewer.

Maybe it's like boxing. You throw a right fake and a left hook, and your opponent ducks the right fake and runs into your left hook. In this case, federal funding would be the right fake and violence against free speech and innocents on campus the left hook.

[wufwugy]

Smart reframe by an organization that doesn't want the campus violence to be the message. It reaffirms all the tired biases about Trump.

[BananaStand]

If I can put on what there is of my persuasion cap for a moment, here's what I think he's doing:

The "no federal funds" is intended to get the media upset and talk about it. What premise must be true in order for them to talk about Trump taking away federal funds? That violence against free speech and innocents is taking place on campuses. This gets the media to cover a topic they hope to avoid, and the message of violence against innocents is implanted in the viewer.

Maybe it's like boxing. You throw a right fake and a left hook, and your opponent ducks the right fake and runs into your left hook. In this case, federal funding would be the right fake and violence against free speech and innocents on campus the left hook.

I can't presume to know what Trump is thinking. Perhaps your right, but personally, I think you're not. I think Trump would take any legitimate excuse he can find to punish Academia. Academia, the maintstream news media, and hollywood are Trumps top 3 enemies right now, and he's shown he's the type to strike back when he feels justified. I think he just shot his wad too early on this one.

If you look at some news outlets' coverage, it seems to focus more on Milo and his track record of controversial statements. So they're playing the persuasion game as well. They're trying to get you to believe that far-right rhetoric and generally acting like a troll is going to invite an outspoken opposition.

[wufwugy]

That's true.

It could be that this is a simple appeal to Berkeley administrators and other universities. As long as they think his threat is credible enough, they are likely to do something more about the violence than they otherwise would.

Frankly, I'm surprised Berkeley is letting this go on. Enrollments will probably suffer from this. Maybe it's a case of so many of the faculty and administrators agreeing with the sentiment that they don't stop the mistake that is allowing it to take place.

[BananaStand]

It could be that this is a simple appeal to Berkeley administrators and other universities. As long as they think his threat is credible enough, they are likely to do something more about the violence than they otherwise would.

Careful, I'm not sure that will lead where you want it to. Frankly, I'm surprised this happened at all. I'd expect a California State University to find some round-about justification for denying this guy from having an event at all. They'd probably cite extreme unrest and an inability to guarantee public safety...or something like that.

So Berkely gets credit in my book for having the balls to let this event happen in the first place. But if it really wasn't their fault, threatening to punish them will have the opposite affect than what you're seeking here. They'll just stop letting unpopular-on-campus conservatives hold events there.

It's still murky as to the source of the violence. There's some shreds of information out there that point to an interloping group of agitators. If that's the case, I don't see how that's Berkeley's problem or responsibility either.

What is dubious here is the lack of arrests despite the clear, obvious, and widespread violation of law. I mean, that girl in the Trump hat was standing on a sidewalk and got pepper sprayed on camera. How is it no one caught that guy????

The only explanation I can think of is that *someone* told the police/security to stand down. We need to know who that was before we start pointing fingers at Berkeley and meting out punishment.

[wufwugy]

I heard the mayor gave stand down order. Haven't vetted though.

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

^^"All of it began the first time some of you who know better, and are old enough to know better, let young people think that they have the right to choose the laws that they would obey as long as they were doing it in the name of protest."

Damn.

[BananaStand]

I heard the mayor gave stand down order. Haven't vetted though.

If that's true, then I don't see what cutting funds to UC will accomplish.

[wufwugy]

The mayor would then be under tremendous pressure to not give a stand down order.

[wufwugy]

I'm seeing a bunch of liberals jumping ship because of this.

Most people agree with freedom of speech and are non-violent, even if they don't like Trump or are not conservatives. Shitlibs push liberals away.

[BananaStand]

The mayor would then be under tremendous pressure to not give a stand down order.

Yeah, next time.

But like I said, you're basically creating an environment where there won't be a next time. If that threat were hovering over the mayor, you can bet the mayor is hovering over UC berkeley saying "Don't book events like this".

That would be a defeat for free speech, which is the problem here in the first place.

[wufwugy]

Yeah, next time.

But like I said, you're basically creating an environment where there won't be a next time. If that threat were hovering over the mayor, you can bet the mayor is hovering over UC berkeley saying "Don't book events like this".

That would be a defeat for free speech, which is the problem here in the first place.

That would probably be better for UC Berkeley than these violent protests. It would probably also be a losing strategy, just less so. If your university cant book popular events, students tend to enroll elsewhere.

[wufwugy]

I think your read is what will actually happen. It's probably that enough of the administration and faculty agree with the anti-Trump, anti-Milo stuff that the easiest path forward at this point in time would be to just not book events.

[BananaStand]

That would probably be better for UC Berkeley than these violent protests. It would probably also be a losing strategy, just less so. If your university cant book popular events, students tend to enroll elsewhere.

I don't know man. When people choose which college to enroll in, I doubt it's a high priority to have a diverse variety of political speakers. Academics, athletics, location, tuition, financial aid, specific degree programs, and a hell of a lot else are higher on the list than whether or not a Breitbart editor would get protested out of town.

You'll still have popular events, they'll just be either neutral (comedy shows, craft fairs) or they will be left-leaning...aka 'popular'. The pervasive, one-sided liberal dialogue that is so common on college campuses doesn't spark violent protests form conservatives. So there is no worry or risk to allowing 'popular' events on campus.

I think we need to dust off the patriot act here and really get creative with what we consider "terrorism". Unlawful use of violence and intimidation for political gains. The violence was obvious. "Intimidation" is where I think we might wanna consider being more flexible. These people who show up with bandanas on their faces, are there to intimidate people.

In this case, no one was arrested, but even in cases where there are arrests, they are few, and the charges are mild. I wanna see one of these little bandana wearing fucks get a terror rap for shooting fireworks and spend 3-5 behind bars.

That will calm down protests pretty fucking quick.

[wufwugy]

My sleeper POTUS pick, not necessarily for 2024, but maybe, is Mike Cernovich.

[OngBonga]

You forgot unemployed stoners.

Fucking right he did.

[Jack Sawyer]

Cheating & changing rules? Oh you don't say

[BananaStand]

Cheating & changing rules? Oh you don't say

When you have lawmakers flouting their sworn oath by exploiting the rules to facilitate an agenda of obstruction....seems perfectly reasonable to change them.

In the late 90's and early 00's, the New Jersey Devils made a living playing something called "The Trap". Once they got a lead in the game, they would hang back, put an extra guy on defense, and basically make it impossible for the opposing team to gain the offensive zone. They would just grind out wins 1-0, or 2-1, and they would always play for a tie in overtime.

That's great if you're the Devils. But if you're any other team, the league, or a fan, you hate it. That hopelessly boring and exhausting style of play undermined the sport's purpose as entertainment. So...the NHL changed the rules. Now there's no redline, and overtime losses still get you a point in the standings.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This guy is annoying. I don't like his fanatical tone.
Stating today's political shenanigans as though they are any younger than 200 years is annoying, too.

First rule of politics is, "If you don't show up to the party, then you get no say."

Stupid to boycott a meeting. No loss of income to the meeting. No actual consequence other than those who boycott being ignorant of what happens at the meeting.

[Jack Sawyer]

Despicable what happened at UC Berkeley. You should let him speak and let people make their own minds regarding his message, not throw tantrums and riots.

[BananaStand]

Despicable what happened at UC Berkeley. You should let him speak and let people make their own minds regarding his message, not throw tantrums and riots.

Liberals seem to think only their free speech is protected.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/03...ppearance.html

the most infuriating part of this:

Gavin McInnes has a long track record of using incendiary language to attract media attention and frenzy…Most recently, in December 2016, Gavin McInnes launched an informal group called the Proud Boys, an “anti racial guilt,” anti-feminist organization. When NYC Antifa began to share information about members of the group with their employers (in many cases leading to job loss), McInnes urged the Proud Boys to attend an Antifa concert and ‘wreck the s–t’ of the ‘f–gots.'”

They seem proud of the fact that they got their political opponents fired. They're stating that their agenda is to ruin lives of anyone who disagrees with their politics.

[BananaStand]

What if Bill Belichick analyzed liberal game film.....

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...-strategy.html

They take the PAT out of PATRIOTS!

[Poopadoop]

overtime losses still get you a point in the standings.

This is the worst rule in the game imo. Right now, if the game is tied in the final period, there is no incentive to take a chance to win, since you can get a minimum one point for taking the game to overtime, and possibly two if you win in OT/shootout.

Make a regular time win 3 points, an OT win 2, an OT loss 1, and a regulation loss 0, and teams will have an incentive to win in regulation.

The reason the league doesn't do this is because OT is exciting and they want to encourage it. But I'd rather have a 60 minute exciting game than 60 minutes of close checking and a 5 minute exciting OT.

[wufwugy]

[BananaStand]

This is the worst rule in the game imo. Right now, if the game is tied in the final period, there is no incentive to take a chance to win, since you can get a minimum one point for taking the game to overtime, and possibly two if you win in OT/shootout.

Make a regular time win 3 points, an OT win 2, an OT loss 1, and a regulation loss 0, and teams will have an incentive to win in regulation.

The reason the league doesn't do this is because OT is exciting and they want to encourage it. But I'd rather have a 60 minute exciting game than 60 minutes of close checking and a 5 minute exciting OT.

Not quite the worst rule in the game, but I see what you're saying.

But the reason that OT is exciting is at least partly because it's not 5 on 5 like regulation play. Fewer players means more open ice, which creates a faster, more fluid gameplay that heavily favors the offense, and is loads more fun to watch.

If you ask me, the worst rule in the game is the limitations on rink size. In the Olympics, and I think other international leagues, the rink is bigger. And again, more open ice, means more offense, means more scoring.

But we're getting off topic, my only point with this analogy is that it's possible for someone to be within the rules, but still undermining the spirit, purpose, and intent of the game. That's what Dems were doing by boycotting these hearings. The NHL dealt with it the same way repubs did. Change the rules, and force the players to play.

[Poopadoop]

Not quite the worst rule in the game, but I see what you're saying.

But the reason that OT is exciting is at least partly because it's not 5 on 5 like regulation play. Fewer players means more open ice, which creates a faster, more fluid gameplay that heavily favors the offense, and is loads more fun to watch.

If you ask me, the worst rule in the game is the limitations on rink size. In the Olympics, and I think other international leagues, the rink is bigger. And again, more open ice, means more offense, means more scoring.

But we're getting off topic, my only point with this analogy is that it's possible for someone to be within the rules, but still undermining the spirit, purpose, and intent of the game. That's what Dems were doing by boycotting these hearings. The NHL dealt with it the same way repubs did. Change the rules, and force the players to play.

Sorry, thought this was hockey thread. Or at least it should be.

More ice would be ok but not a decisive change imo. There's only so much you can do on the boards and behind the net, though I agree it would help the game a bit. I wouldn't mind seeing 4 on 4 in regulation as standard. Give the skill players room to manouevre.

[BananaStand]

Personally, I wanna see hockey games where a typical score is like 9-7, and a "tight game" is 5-4. Blowouts might look like 12-3. Make the rink bigger, make the net bigger, and make all penalties served by the goalie, regardless of who committed the penalty. You hook a guy...your team plays with an empty net for the next 30 seconds.

[OngBonga]

The worst rule in hockey is the one where they let them fight.

[Poopadoop]

Personally, I wanna see hockey games where a typical score is like 9-7, and a "tight game" is 5-4. Blowouts might look like 12-3. Make the rink bigger, make the net bigger, and make all penalties served by the goalie, regardless of who committed the penalty. You hook a guy...your team plays with an empty net for the next 30 seconds.

I wouldn't want to see a goal every three minutes, and 12-3 would be boring to watch. It's ok to have some suspense in a game. Typical 4 goals/team average in a game would be good - like in the 80s.

Goalies serving penalties - ah, no thanks. The power play is one of the funner parts to watch. I don't wanna see a guy flip the puck in an empty net from 60 feet away, or see a defenseman sitting in the crease taking slapshots.

[Poopadoop]

The worst rule in hockey is the one where they let them fight.

Meh, I'm pretty indifferent to it myself. It's pretty hard to throw a good punch on skates. Mostly they just swing away and miss each other. Once in awhile someone gets really clocked though which makes it fun to watch.

[Poopadoop]

What hockey really needs these days is some good old fashioned psychos.

[BananaStand]

The worst rule in hockey is the one where they let them fight.

Take care of your teeth!! That might work for you, but what else can a farm boy from Canada do???



I actually do hate the fighting too. It's totally unnecessary and adds nothing to the game. It turns enough people off that the NHL is really derelict in its responsibilities as a business by allowing it to continue. For the people who do like it, there's MMA.

[MadMojoMonkey]

[same quote from 20 sources]

Mainstream media attempting to undermine the Easter Bunny's springy edge. The attack on Christianity is clear.


While I see nothing wrong with this example, it is indicative of a major reason why any TV media is useless to me. When a company is in a position where they have to cross information with entertainment, then there is an inevitable misdirection of funds more and more to the entertainment side at the expense of the news side.

This often means blindly reading whatever comes through the press feed w/o doing the due diligence of fact checking.

I mean... any background check would easily show that the Easter Bunny's step is already at max springy, so this statement is hollow.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I actually do hate the fighting too. It's totally unnecessary and adds nothing to the game. It turns enough people off that the NHL is really derelict in its responsibilities as a business by allowing it to continue. For the people who do like it, there's MMA.

OK, I'd watch MMA on ice. I'd awkwardly wonder why it was entertaining me, but I'd watch.

[BananaStand]

OK, I'd watch MMA on ice. I'd awkwardly wonder why it was entertaining me, but I'd watch.

Someone getting kicked by a man wearing ice-skates....must see TV.

I've always felt that The Shredder was making a big mistake by making enemies with a species that has natural body armor. Against a human, I think he'd win any fight, anywhere, anytime.

[Jack Sawyer]

Tech industry vs Trump's ban.


Bonus: NL HU got solved apparently. I guess it's now only live poker from now on. Or bot vs bot

[Jack Sawyer]

Liberals seem to think only their free speech is protected.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/03...ppearance.html

the most infuriating part of this:



They seem proud of the fact that they got their political opponents fired. They're stating that their agenda is to ruin lives of anyone who disagrees with their politics.

I don't get what is going on there. This McInnes guy is from Fox News? What is he incendiary about? I thought they were protesting Milo? Can't we all just get along? I mean damn, who the hell is this new player antifa now, and why are they fighting?

[wufwugy]

Love me some McInnes. High quality sardonic humor. Makes great points that few are making these days.

[wufwugy]

Gavin McInnes' humor style tends to get me giggling like a schoolgirl. He mixes serious and joking as well as they come. Virtually every point he makes is hyperbole and not strictly correct, yet has enough truth to it that it is basically sensible.

[wufwugy]

He's Scottish. Probably where he gets it.

[wufwugy]

He's the best

[BananaStand]

I don't get what is going on there. This McInnes guy is from Fox News? What is he incendiary about? I thought they were protesting Milo? Can't we all just get along? I mean damn, who the hell is this new player antifa now, and why are they fighting?

I don't know if he's "from fox news". I've seen him on Fox News, but mostly on 'Red Eye', which more of a comedic take on news that airs at like 2am. I do recall he got in some trouble a while back for wrestling a baby. But he's politically conservative, which I guess means he's not allowed free speech unless he's willing to also be an assassination target.

I wish I could say that all this violence and turmoil was the result of a few intense troublemakers. But that doesn't seem to be the case. These stories keep occuring, and they are either downplayed by the mainstream media, or outright ignored. Not only that, prominent liberals (aka celebrities), seem to be fanning the flames.

Director Judd Apatow, known for "Knocked Up" and "Trainwreck," said in a now-deleted tweet about the [Berkelely] riots, "This is just the beginning. When will all the fools who are still supporting Trump realize what is at stake?"

Filmmaker Lexi Alexander chimed in, defending the riot on Twitter telling her followers to "punch Nazis," "riot when your college invites a Nazi," and "set it all on fire."

Alot of these folks seem to be flirting with the technical definition of sedition.

[wufwugy]

[BananaStand]

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster,” Nietzsche once warned, “and if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”

[BananaStand]

Wuf, I'm calling you out for fake news buddy!! I'd never heard that Churchill quote, but I liked it, and seems totally apt given the conditions we have today. So I did a little more research to see if I could find some context and.....

Spoiler: Show

Churchill never said it.
http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/9-quo...ake-1790585636

[wufwugy]

Oh I don't doubt that one bit. Even as I was posting it, I was thinking "I bet Churchill never actually said this." Great line though.

[wufwugy]

In 2017, all memes with cool lines will be attributed to the wrong source."

- Socrates

[Jack Sawyer]

[wufwugy]

^^She could have done a much better job on this one. A Cabinet member works for the President, and if the President deems it fitting for a Cabinet member to leave, he should make it happen. Yates wanted to get fired and did what she did on purpose.

Chris Matthews is going to be a terrible journalist, who gets most things wrong and smiles about it. That much is certain. But Kellyanne could have answered this one better.

[wufwugy]

God the National Review is fucking stupid.

They have a piece that explains -- correctly -- how Trump's move to nominate Gorsuch was brilliant because of how it is likely to entice Justice Kennedy to step down. But then the numbskulls go on to claim that in order to get a second justice through the senate, they should nominate a woman.

No, dipshits. People are tired of virtue signalling. The country keeps losing and losing over and over because too many people keep thinking they have to be as stupid as social justice warriors in order to get any positive attention. Trump will nominate the candidate best for the position REGARDLESS of background, gender, or color. As it should be.

[wufwugy]

Looks like we might be headed into our first real battle over Trump's legitimacy.

On the one side is the democratically elected President who engaged a very normal policy. On the other side we have an activist judge who supports a domestic terrorism organization. Let's hope clearer heads prevail.

[Poopadoop]

Oh here's a surprise:

[Poopadoop]

[Savy]

Looks like we might be headed into our first real battle over Trump's legitimacy.

On the one side is the democratically elected President who engaged a very normal policy. On the other side we have an activist judge who supports a domestic terrorism organization. Let's hope clearer heads prevail.

My money is on Trump losing but he says he wins and you agree.

[Poopadoop]

https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com/

[Poopadoop]

My money is on Trump losing but he says he wins and you agree.

Also, posts that judge is fake judge, was born in Iran, and enjoys the occasional 'pizza'.

[Jack Sawyer]

Still gonna "drain that swamp"?

[Jack Sawyer]

[Jack Sawyer]

From a Forbes Staff member, not an opinion piece by a nobody

Your retirement is at stake. President Donald Trump ordered the Department of Labor today to review the signature investor protection measure of the Obama Administration, known as the fiduciary rule. And DOL acting secretary Ed Hugler issued a statement saying it will now consider its legal options to delay the rule’s applicability date.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wha...ule-2017-01-23
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savin...ule/ar-AAmAE8O
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaeb.../#2d64c3794fe0
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...iary-rule.html

I love the spin

Hoover Great Depression CAUSED BY TO MANY DOORS AND NOT ENOUGH DOOR KNOBS.Reagan Saving and Loan Bailout CAUSED BY THE CARTER ADMIN.

Bush Bank Bailout CAUSED BY THE CLINTON ADMIN. WHEN HE DEREGULATED EVERYTHING.



ALL DUMBOCRATS THAT ALL CAUSED BY TO MANY REGULATIONS.
@truthspeaker1 YES all the dumbocrats are STOOPID