Printable View
I am not sure this is the correct site to post this but here goes.
My first trip to BA was when the currency was 2.5 pesos to the dollar. This was an improvement from 1.1 to the dollar. I have now made maybe 15 trips to BA. I really like this city. I have health issues in my usa city but when this is resolved I will be back home in BA. I am retired and my intentions are to spend 8-9 months a year in BA. Please keep me posted on your party.. I would like to meet my fellow Xpats.
[QUOTE=HotRod11;446007]I am not sure this is the correct site to post this but here goes.
My first trip to BA was when the currency was 2.5 pesos to the dollar. This was an improvement from 1.1 to the dollar. I have now made maybe 15 trips to BA. I really like this city. I have health issues in my usa city but when this is resolved I will be back home in BA. I am retired and my intentions are to spend 8-9 months a year in BA. Please keep me posted on your party.. I would like to meet my fellow Xpats.[/QUOTE]Hotrod,
With all due respect, the American Politics thread is definitely NOT the place to go looking for friends.
I might suggest that you consider posting your announcement in the [URL==http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?795-Travel-Announcements-Who-s-in-Town]Travel Announcements / Who's in Town[/URL] section of the forum.
Thanks,
Jax.
I'm surprised , no comments from anyone on Mr. Fannings appointment?
I don't know anything about politics but this is the funniest thing that I have read in a long time and after that MF shot everyone in Oregon I needed a good laugh.
Things that I trust more than Hillary Clinton:
* Mexican tap water.
* A rattlesnake with a pet me sign.
* OJ Simpson showing me his knife collection.
* A fart when I have diarrhea.
* An elevator ride with Ray Rice.
* Taking pills offered by Bill Cosby.
* Michael Jackson's Doctor.
* An Obama Nuclear deal with Iran.
* A Palestinian on a motorcycle.
* Gas station Sushi.
* A Jimmy Carter economic plan.
* Brian Williams news reports.
* Loch Ness monster sightings.
* Prayers for peace from Al Sharpton.
* An Obama endorsement.
* Bill Clinton chaperoning a group of 13 year old girls.
* Casey Anthony as my babysitter.
I Hope that nobody gets offended .
TL.
Good Job TL I think you gave everyone a good laugh, insulted every liberal on the board but don't you think 13 is a little old for Bill?
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;446140]Good Job TL I think you gave everyone a good laugh, insulted every liberal on the board but don't you think 13 is a little old for Bill?[/QUOTE]A Big Thank You There Good Buddy!
Ok Boys , sorry to break my promise of posting on this thread only 1 time every 5 years or so.
I will try to wait another 5 years.
TL
Damn , couldn't do it.
Some good news to start your days.
[URL]http://nbc.com.co/obama-announces-third-term-presidential-run/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1226070/Pres-Obama-blasts-GOP-candidates-NYC-fundraiser.html[/URL]
As a conversation starter, here is my theory that I have not seen published anywhere else yet.
Trump is using the birther argument against Cruz as a feint. Cruz is saying he is a constitutional lawyer and Trump does not know what he is talking about. Who is the other American president that was a constitutional lawyer? To save you the the research, it's Obama. So I would create an ad that shows soundbites of Cruz saying he has been a constitutional lawyer his whole life in the last debate juxtaposed against Obama saying he was a constitutional lawyer from the recent State of the Union speech. If it comes down between Trump and Cruz, I think this will be the closing argument. What do you want? A man who has built a great business or a man who was a lawyer most of his life? We just had eight years of the constitutional lawyer. Cruz will be more of the same. Cruz has far different ideas than Obama but the question remains, can he execute. Really it is the same argument Kasich, Christie and Bush are making. As governors, they have managed through crises.
I have no dog in this fight as I am a Democrat. However I do not think we have a winning candidate running as of now although we will get our 47% as Romney pointed out. I am hoping that if Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden jumps back in. Clinton on top of all her baggage is making mistake after mistake in her campaign. I do not think physically she up to the challenge. I think her exhaustion and fatigue are creating errors in judgement. Remember the last month in the State Department she had to take a leave of absence due to health.
A good show to watch is "In All Due Respect." Halperin and Heileman were guys that wrote "Game Change". They are focused on the strategy and tactics of the campaigns.
Why do they lie or do they just not do their homework?
[URL]https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-gop-claims-carpet-bombs-kurds-031530748--finance.html[/URL]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;446909]Why do they lie or do they just not do their homework?
[URL]https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-gop-claims-carpet-bombs-kurds-031530748--finance.html[/URL][/QUOTE]The thread is dead, the battle has been won.
The President will be able to pick a new Supreme Court Justice!!!
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;447011]The President will be able to pick a new Supreme Court Justice!!![/QUOTE]The President can pick all he wants to, but if the Senate does not confirm his pick, the choice will go nowhere. Do you really think a Republican controlled Senate is going to confirm an Obama pick?? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. That's high school civics, WT.
Tres3.
[QUOTE=Tres3;447014]The President can pick all he wants to, but if the Senate does not confirm his pick, the choice will go nowhere. Do you really think a Republican controlled Senate is going to confirm an Obama pick?? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. That's high school civics, WT.
Tres3.[/QUOTE]Depends on who they send up. They have pressure due to the rules for when there are not 9 justices. From what I understand if they hear a case (and they have open cases) and they tie then the lower court ruling is confirmed.
Additionally if Bernie wins... They can't tie it up for the next 5 years.
Yes, it has been a long, long time since I was in High School.
But what I learned then was part fiction. Sort of.
The law I believe says something about the Justices not taking party sides on their decisions.
How many fund raisers did Scalia attend and give money to.
He should have been kicked out. As should a few others.
So, If the Republican Senate does not confirm a pick, isn't that Obstruction of Justice?
[QUOTE=Tres3;447014]The President can pick all he wants to, but if the Senate does not confirm his pick, the choice will go nowhere. Do you really think a Republican controlled Senate is going to confirm an Obama pick?? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. That's high school civics, WT.
Tres3.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;447017]So, If the Republican Senate does not confirm a pick, isn't that Obstruction of Justice?[/QUOTE]It's known as balance of powers.
There are many appointments the Senate has to confirm. It's the way the Founders intended for it to work.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;447017]Yes, it has been a long, long time since I was in High School.
But what I learned then was part fiction. Sort of.
The law I believe says something about the Justices not taking party sides on their decisions.
How many fund raisers did Scalia attend and give money to.
He should have been kicked out. As should a few others.
So, If the Republican Senate does not confirm a pick, isn't that Obstruction of Justice?[/QUOTE]"No matther whether th’ constitution follows h’ flag or not, th’ Supreme Coort follows th’ election returns” wrote Finley Peter Dunne (1867-1936) in 1901, through his comic character Mr. Dooley. The language has often been cleaned up to say “the Supreme Court follows the election returns” or “judges follow the election returns” or “the Supreme Court reads the elections returns.” The statement means that judges often tailor their decisions to currently popular social and political trends, sometimes without proper regard for the Constitution.
Don B.
[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;447018]It's known as balance of powers.
There are many appointments the Senate has to confirm. It's the way the Founders intended for it to work.[/QUOTE]Yes. And there is nothing wrong with the Constitution. But I don't think that the Founders ever anticipated politicians who put party before country. And, of course, we should not send such politicians to Congress. But too many of us vote based on the sound bites we hear in 15 second commercials on TV.
[QUOTE=AllIWantIsLove;447020]Yes. And there is nothing wrong with the Constitution. But I don't think that the Founders ever anticipated politicians who put party before country. And, of course, we should not send such politicians to Congress. But too many of us vote based on the sound bites we hear in 15 second commercials on TV.[/QUOTE]100% I don't think the founders ever envisioned the current state of the body politic in the US. I think if they were alive today they would all probably be in jail for smacking every other person they spoke to across the mouth.
The Republicans aren't going to tie up the appointment because the person is good nor bad, they will tie it up for 11 months (nearly 1/4 of a term) because until Scalia died the appointments were 5/4 Republican appointees. Segue; that always made me scratch my head when neo-cons would talk about "liberal law making" judges.
To be fair and balanced, this administration should try and send up an appointee that is a strict constructionist to replace the strict constructionist that left. A friend of ours says that the court is best when it is a mix of conservative and progressive judges, I agree with that sentiment. I personally think the court should lean towards real, not neo conservatism.
[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;447021]100% I don't think the founders ever envisioned the current state of the body politic in the US. I think if they were alive today they would all probably be in jail for smacking every other person they spoke to across the mouth.
The Republicans aren't going to tie up the appointment because the person is good nor bad, they will tie it up for 11 months (nearly 1/4 of a term) because until Scalia died the appointments were 5/4 Republican appointees. Segue; that always made me scratch my head when neo-cons would talk about "liberal law making" judges.
To be fair and balanced, this administration should try and send up an appointee that is a strict constructionist to replace the strict constructionist that left. A friend of ours says that the court is best when it is a mix of conservative and progressive judges, I agree with that sentiment. I personally think the court should lean towards real, not neo conservatism.[/QUOTE]“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”.
However, that was back in 2007. Looks like Chucky Schmucky has evolved a little on this topic now that the shoe is on the other foot.
It depends on who is doing the nominating and who is doing the confirming.
Don B.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;447017]Yes, it has been a long, long time since I was in High School.
But what I learned then was part fiction. Sort of.
The law I believe says something about the Justices not taking party sides on their decisions.
How many fund raisers did Scalia attend and give money to.
He should have been kicked out. As should a few others.
So, If the Republican Senate does not confirm a pick, isn't that Obstruction of Justice?[/QUOTE]And of course we all remember how FDR's attempt/threat to pack the Supreme Court with justices of his liken
caused the court to cave and pass favorably on the Constitutionality of his schemes.
In some circles, that would be called blackmail but then he is a hero to the loony left.
One of those cases was Helvering v Davis in which Cardoza 's opinion found the Social security Act to be Constitutional as it was actuarially sound.
It wasn't and what does that have to do with it anyway?
Don B.
President Obama and First Lady Michelle is in Argentina now talking with Macri and doing the tango. Hope he likes the steak and chope.
[QUOTE=BayBoy;447204]President Obama and First Lady Michelle is in Argentina now talking with Macri and doing the tango. Hope he likes the steak and chope.[/QUOTE]Q. Why did Obama go to a baseball game with Castro after sparing 51 seconds of his valuable time on the Brussels attacks?
A. Because Castro doesn't golf.
Don B.
Tell us what you would do if you were the President?
[QUOTE=DonB;447209]Q. Why did Obama go to a baseball game with Castro after sparing 51 seconds of his valuable time on the Brussels attacks?
A. Because Castro doesn't golf.
Don B.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;447211]Tell us what you would do if you were the President?[/QUOTE]Good question but critics often have no answers as its so easy to be critical while providing solutions is much more tasking.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;447211]Tell us what you would do if you were the President?[/QUOTE]With an electorate that has been brainwashed in government schools by over 100 years of progressive nonsense,
there is no way I or any other Objectivist would be elected to any office, much less President.
If at some point in time the ideas change, possibly in a 100 years, then we would have a government that would protect individual rights as a primary.
Until then we will continue to elect people such as Obama, Trump, Clinton and Sanders.
Now if I were suddenly to become President, how could I implement the necessary changes?
Look what happened with the Contract with America, which was mild compared with what needs to be done.
In the meantime I will continue to promote Obectivism in the schools, where it will do some good.
Don B.
As an executive the Donald would have Fired you.
Your not Presidential.
[QUOTE=DonB;447232]With an electorate that has been brainwashed in government schools by over 100 years of progressive nonsense,
there is no way I or any other Objectivist would be elected to any office, much less President.
If at some point in time the ideas change, possibly in a 100 years, then we would have a government that would protect individual rights as a primary.
Until then we will continue to elect people such as Obama, Trump, Clinton and Sanders.
Now if I were suddenly to become President, how could I implement the necessary changes?
Look what happened with the Contract with America, which was mild compared with what needs to be done.
In the meantime I will continue to promote Obectivism in the schools, where it will do some good.
Don B.[/QUOTE]
I wanted to make a poll, but I can not find the link to it, or did Jackson delete it?
The Poll is "How Many Of You Want Donald Trump Making All Your Life's Decisions for You As President?".
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;447236]I wanted to make a poll, but I can not find the link to it, or did Jackson delete it?
The Poll is "How Many Of You Want Donald Trump Making All Your Life's Decisions for You As President?".[/QUOTE]As apposed to Obama making them via executive orders?
Or perhaps you prefer Queen Hillary to do that for 4 more years?
No matter how bad Trump is could he really be worse that the last 16 years?
Perhaps it's time for a total outsider, if for no other reason than the political elite on both sides are scared of him.
Some of the same scare tactics now being used against Trump were used against FDR and Reagan, yet they become two of our most revered presidents.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;447235]As an executive the Donald would have Fired you.
Your not Presidential.[/QUOTE]As usual, I saw little point in responding to you.
Don B.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;447238]As apposed to Obama making them via executive orders?
Or perhaps you prefer Queen Hillary to do that for 4 more years?
No matter how bad Trump is could he really be worse that the last 16 years?
Perhaps it's time for a total outsider, if for no other reason than the political elite on both sides are scared of him.
Some of the same scare tactics now being used against Trump were used against FDR and Reagan, yet they become two of our most revered presidents.[/QUOTE]I don't want anyone making the decisions for me.
As I have said before, the only legitimate function of government is the protection of individual rights.
WT69 and his fascist cohorts are against this and , in fact do not even understand they are fascists (or maybe they do).
I am too busy to indulge in this dialog so further comments will be ignored.
BTW, Trump couldn't fire me as I would never work for him.
Don B.
It doesn't matter where you stand on Trump, this shit is funny and a great ad.
[URL]https://twitter.com/hashtag/CopaAmericaEnTyC?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/URL]
Now that The Trumpster has managed to singlehandedly knockout 16 Professional Politicians with a shitload of experience you should just deal with it and start to wonder who his choice could be for a running mate.
Survey Says :
Condoleezza Rice.
National Security, foreign policy and a skirted wild card.
Winning Ticket!
TL.
[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;447354]It doesn't matter where you stand on Trump, this shit is funny and a great ad.
[URL]https://twitter.com/hashtag/CopaAmericaEnTyC?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/URL][/QUOTE]It seems like who ever did that ad has a hard on for Argentina. I cant say I blame him.... But I think having Messi in that ad could boomerang on then!
[QUOTE=TejanoLibre;447355]Now that The Trumpster has managed to singlehandedly knockout 16 Professional Politicians with a shitload of experience you should just deal with it and start to wonder who his choice could be for a running mate.
Survey Says :
Condoleezza Rice.
National Security, foreign policy and a skirted wild card.
Winning Ticket!
TL.[/QUOTE]Deciding between Clinton and Trump is like trying to decide on poision or a gun to commit suicide.
Don B.
[QUOTE=DonB;447358]Deciding between Clinton and Trump is like trying to decide on poision or a gun to commit suicide.
Don B.[/QUOTE]Better start thinking about a Trump-Sanders Ticket.
TL.
[QUOTE=TejanoLibre;447359]Better start thinking about a Trump-Sanders Ticket.
TL.[/QUOTE]It seems to me that Trump and Sanders are talking right past each other.
Trump is going to put all the billionaires in charge of negotiating the trade deals or at least it is a regular part of his stump speech. If a Carl Icahn is at the table, nobody thinks he is going to take his cut. Meanwhile Bernie is arguing that the billionaires get too many breaks as it is (crony capitalism). What am I missing here?
My view is the opposite. Clinton needs to keep Sanders in the race because he is doing all the grassroots organizing like registering new voters. All the money that Sanders spends now will help Hilary in November not Trump. Nobody is rushing to register because of Hilary. Watch a Tad Devine interview and read between the lines.
Also remember that Clinton beat Obama in the California primary in 2008. Sanders will win a few more states but in total popular vote of Democratic voters, Clinton already has it cinched.
I love it.
He said that he is not accepting any money from the billionaires, that he is using his own money.
Now that he is the only one left to fight Hillary, the way I hear it, is that he will need the billionaires money so he can get his money back.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;447361]I love it.
He said that he is not accepting any money from the billionaires, that he is using his own money.
Now that he is the only one left to fight Hillary, the way I hear it, is that he will need the billionaires money so he can get his money back.[/QUOTE]He has only loaned money to his campaign.
I think that the Democrats would have rather faced Cruz. Trump is difficult to engage because it is not quite clear what his positions are. Hilary is a very weak campaigner. Plus she has been out in public life so long that even if you support her, you can find positions that she has taken with which you disagree.
Paul Ryan and Donald Trump's meeting on Thursday was a lesson.
Donald Trump does not understand Article One of the Constitution. Paul Ryan had to explain it to him.
[URL]http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word[/URL]
Clink on the one with Ryan, "Speaker Ryan gives Trump a civics lesson". It is funny and great.