Maybe adios thinks Obama and Clinton were unaware of exactly what a gay marriage was until they were briefed on it before their confirmations.
The dude tweeted an incredibly stupid reply when someone pointed this out


How do you prove you didn't start one of these? Does this guy not realize this is exactly like asking Obama to prove he wasn't born in Kenya?
As long as you're not trying to imply that the Trump in your brand is Donald, should be fine. One of the companies listed is just another person whose last name is Trump.

I'm gonna go with Perry thought abolishing the DOE made for a good soundbite to rile up the teabaggers. Now that he's in charge of it, what's he going to do, put himself out of a job?

I sincerely feel bad for adios. It has to be tough getting through life with that much anger and so little intellect.

Not to mention that "the DOE shouldn't exist" is a stronger tact to take for the opposition party than "we have policy disagreements." Unfortunately Dems aren't shameless enough to do the same thing.

Bush's first piece of legislation was No Child Left Behind, but ever since then how many morons have called Common Core a Marxist plot and wanted to abolish the Department of Education? There's no reason to be internally consistent.

repubs don't have a monopoly on "made for a good soundbite to rile up the (base)"

dems don't say they want to abolish the dept of energy, but they absolutely have their own dog whistles that are functionally equivalent just targeting a different base.

as does pretty much every politician ever.

Get back to me when someone wants to abolish a federal agency and then a Dem puts them in charge of that agency

this is where you give examples...

Liberal: I don't like the right's policies.

Rollwave: LOL you don't think the left have policies? The left have plenty of policies of their own, believe me. Plenty.

I mean either Perry didn't know what the DOE did or he was pandering to the know-nothing base by saying he was going to scrap it. It could also be (and I think probably is) a bit of both. He probably knew broadly what the DOE does, wasn't intending to scrap it, but had that airy Republican confidence that he could get rid of "waste and bureaucracy" or whatever and that he'd just shift the useful functions to another department.

There was that NYT article claiming he didn't know what the DOE did, but The Daily Caller ran an article saying that this was false and excoriating the librul NYT and their librul fake news. They are probably factually correct (they interviewed the source for the NYT story, who says the NYT article doesn't reflect what he said and that Perry did know) but I would love to see how they would cope with the new information that Perry himself now claims to have been unaware of the function of the DOE. Given their article, doesn't this make Perry both a liar (now) and a complete panderer (in 2012)? I commented on the DC article but it was just to troll. The chances that DC or any of their commenters will address this are nil.

This. I suspect we're going to get the mother of all false equivalencies here.

The Democratic base, while not composed of geniuses, is not so dumb that they will believe it is possible to abolish entire departments. Nor are Democratic politicians in general irresponsible enough to campaign on such blatant lies.

I guess you could argue it was proto-Trumpism, where both Perry and the audience know it can't be done but who gives a ****, just cheer anyway because it's all about theatre and hating libruls, public policy isn't actually a thing that matters. Perry's problem may have been thinking that it mattered at all that he couldn't remember the third department. Trump would have just named the first one that came to mind, then later denied that he proposed abolishing it.

yea, no sh*t

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-t...sla=y&mod=e2tw

you are now conflating two completely separate issues.

the point being discussed was about politicians making campaign promises with no realistic intention of ever actually implementing them. it was a discussion about perry's campaign.

now you are getting into trump's decision to appoint perry to that post, a discussion of trump's transition.

i am in agreement with you that trumps decision to appoint perry is awful, so your accusation/implication to the contrary is off base.

How does raising insurance payments on FHA loans advance Trump's mission to help the little guy?

LDO...






oops, my slow pony

Winner!

Orange magic!

oh this spin again? good times.

so, how much higher are the rates today than they were 2 days ago?

Are we talking semantics here? I can rephrase.

Trump's first action upon entering office was to rollback a reduction in mortgage interest payments on FHA loans that would save first-time home buyers about $500/yr on a $200k mortgage.

How does this advance his populist mission of helping the average American? If we truly needed the additional premiums to cover the insurance, wouldn't it make more sense to have the banks pay for it, or like, not reduce the top tax rate to 33%?

i'm not gonna argue scale or arbitrary measures of how blatant a lie is.

if you accept that dems make campaign promises that they have no realistic intentions of keeping, just purely to rile up support, votes and donations - that was my entire point and if you thought i was trying to say more there was a writing or reading error.

if you don't accept that, lol you.

if you want to say that dems don't lie as big as perry's lie, i dont really care, that wasnt my point and you can have it. i think you're kind of trying to compare whether muhamad ali was better than anti-lock brakes though.

I didn't see the orange nazis speech. Was there even lip service to being the president of everyone or was it wall to wall masturbation of white male racists?

Everyone's reaction to speech:

Watching Trump at inter-denominational church service. Pretty sure he's thinking "this is the last time I waste my Saturday on this bull****".

i was, thank you for rephrasing.

it probably doesnt. it was merely rolled back because trump will view anything obama did in a rush during the lame duck session as suspect and will roll them all back without much regard to their merits. in theory this could be to actually give time for him to consider whether or not to actually implement them himself - but that's pretty unlikely. I'm sure its mostly closer to spite, with a bit of his base will consider cancelling anything of obama's as good - and this letter was a super easy one since it hadn't even been implemented yet so there wasn't really anything to undo, just stop it before it starts.

an argument can be made that this would have been one of many steps that led down the same road that caused the last housing crisis. Right, cheaper mortgage insurance makes it easier for people to buy homes with small down payments - which may or may not actually be a good thing on a case by case basis, homes without any equity can be really risky since people move so often, lose jobs etc. But there's almost no chance that this played any part in trump's decision. And it may not even be a good argument.

there's really no such thing. if the govt charges the banks, they would still just pass that cost onto the borrowers.

In case you were not aware, the old "businesses pass costs on to consumers 1:1" is not established economic doctrine.

I personally do not believe it to be true in the vast majority of cases, as prices are typically set to optimize profit rather than simply maintaining some arbitrary profit margin %. If my cost of goods sold goes up by 5%, I am not going to increase prices by 5% if it means that demand drops by 20%.

It's also particularly telling that the business lobby will fight hard for corporate tax cuts, while at the same time claiming that any corporate tax increase simply gets passed along to consumers.

The outgoing Obama Administration announced the FHA insurance cut on January 9, from 0.85 percent of the mortgage price to 0.60 percent. They did so in direct response to increases in mortgage rates that significantly raised the price of purchasing a home. The FHA previously cut premiums by 0.5 percent in January 2015.