With proper marketing we could probably make politisuck bigly profitable right about now.
i was thinking about that but right now itās our safe space from feminists.
:rofl"
This is a mindset that very few people have. I do not think Trump is going to help this country. However, I want nothing more than for him to prove me wrong. I would spin on a fucking dime and praise his effectiveness if he can actually have a positive effect on the world despite me thinking heās an orange, spiteful, loudmouth douchebag.
I agree with this bigly.
On that note, what do you all think of Ajit Pai as the head of the FCC? On one hand, heās all about expanding fiber all over the country, but on the other hand, heās anti net neutrality as he thinks it stifles growth of a free market.
Itās hard to find an article that doesnāt lean too much, but net neutrality is a hot button to press. This one isnāt too bad:
Thoughts?
For all my enjoyment of the memes and suchā¦ i agree with you. I have my doubts that all of this will make a better America for EVERYONE. But i also believe that it is up to each to make things better for themselves and that this administration will enable able and attentive people to do this.
Iām building a US-based enterprise as an extension of my Canadian one and if they come down harder on illegal immigration and trade it will make my investments in doing things properly easier to profit fromā¦ and i think that is the way it should be.
Thereās a balance to that. Do you think that this administration is poised to help the lower to middle class?
theyāre marketing it as such. It is hard to say whether certain jobs (like Ford) really would have left and it is also difficult to say whether all of these stated investments will actually be realized inside the first term.
i definitely do believe that Mexico is crushing the US with immigration and cheap labour by way of NAFTA so putting pressure on both of these is important.
See, liberals generally have this view: that itās the governments job to help people. Or help _______ class of people, etc.
The political ārightā views government as an impediment to helping people. That individuals could help others (or themselves) better if they chose how to spend their money instead of a government seizing it through taxation and washing it though the bureaucracy. Or that government will only be motivated to help those who it agrees with, is funded by, etc.
Both sides are neither right or wrong: it all depends on what balance we decide a society should have.
Which jobs at Ford would have left? MAP wasnāt closing.
My partner at work just mother fucked me for supporting the immigration hold. Literally 10 minutes passes and he complains about Starbucks and says we have US citizens without jobs, citizens should get jobs first before refugees.
I quit facebook yesterday. Iām going to quit my job shortly.
The media comparing Trumpās firing of Yates to Nixonās Saturday Night Massacre should remove any remaining shreds of their credibility. It should, but it wonāt.
Just remember, it is OK for Obama to BOMB THE SHIT out of the Middle East but Trump canāt delay them at the airport for 2 hours or liberals actually cry. You cannot make this shit up.
If anyone is interested in the nitty-gritty, have a read: https://www.scribd.com/document/337535680/Full-David-Brock-Confidential-Memo-On-Fighting-Trump#from_embed
This is the confidential Democrat plan to fight back. If youāre on either side you should read this if you want to understand how the left works to ādelegitimize Trumpā and control the āmedia narrative.ā
The part about Shareblue is funny, especially for those of us who mostly get news on the web. Correct the Record failed in the meme war so it looks like theyāre re-branding it and re-directing it:
āWe are not waiting to see what Trump does in office. We are not willing to give him the benefit of the doubtā
The best part? In 44 pages they still donāt understand why Trump won. They still assume itās bigotry, sexism, racism, Putin, etc. 
How do you conservative folks feel about the promotion of Bannon as a Principal member of the National Security Council while diminishing the role of the Chairman of the Join Chiefs and Director of National Intelligence. Heās effectively rolled the structure back to what it was under the Bush Administration(pre 9/11) (DNI didnāt exist at the time). I may not like Bannon, but I donāt see adding an adviser (regardless of how abhorrent I may find him) as that much of a problem.
Why would a President with no military, intelligence or foreign policy experience would eliminate those roles as principal members on the National Security, but keep the Secretary of Treasury?
But that isnāt what happened
i thought fake new was a liberal thingā¦ like this #muslimban thingā¦ basically calling it a Muslim ban when it isnāt a Muslim ban
Youāre joking, right?
Which part?
Hereās the text from the memo.
ā¦
The PC shall have as its regular attendees the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, the Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist, the National Security Advisor, and the Homeland Security Advisor. The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed. The Counsel to the President, the Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget may attend all PC meetings.
ā¦
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and
I could see some reasoning behind Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but by the same logic, why wouldnāt Defense, Treasury, State, or Homeland Security be under the same provision?