Should Meat Loaf play at Donald Trump's Inauguration Ceremony?

[loaferman61]

Originally Posted by glockenspiel

Without in any way wishing to denigrate the contents of previous posts, surely now that we know Loaf-at-Trump isn't happening, it's time to let this thread expire (??)

I agree. I had some facts I was going to post, but let it go. This thread is a moot point. I will be avoiding politics on this board from here on. I get enough of that on another site and actually come here to think about Meat Loaf and his music to get away from all the stuff going on in the "real world" and think about "Neverland" for a bit.

[duke knooby]

I've enjoyed reading this thread, it's livened up the board, so thanks to all that have contributed.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

I'd just like to make a couple more points, and then I will let it be:

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Let me be clear: I am not against immigrants at all, I am against the immigration policies. The EU freedom of movement seems blackmail for allowing free trade. Large corporations can enjoy cheap labor at a cost of favouring Eastern Europeans over Brits in many sectors of employment now (I have seen this with my own eyes if people think I am basing this on the Daily Mail). I am a foreign born Brit so somewhat of an immigrant myself. I just think ultimately it is best to have a very very low net immigration figure, close to zero if possible. This is the best for other countries where people are emigrating from (no-one ever thinks about that it seems) and best for the UK. I do of course understand all the reasons why people want to come to the UK. But I think ghetto forming is very, very bad. Sweden has problems with this now, Bradford in the UK has problems, areas in London and Luton too. Not integration in my opinion and past government policies have really failed these areas and it does not seem to be changing. Ironically it is usually in these areas where people always vote for more socialist / liberal policies - make the government give more free stuff- rather than structural changes that could lead to more employment or opportunity for all.

Andrew, you make a very rational and reasoned argument. Perhaps if the current resident of the White House had been able to do the same, he would have garnered more support. Instead, he preyed on people's fears, saying that Mexicans "are criminals, they're rapists, they're bringing drugs.." and we're going to build a wall to keep them out. Do you see the difference? Can you understand why many consider that racist, or at least xenophobic? The people who are risking their lives to come across the border are for the most part, regular people who just want a better life for themselves and their families. He can build all the walls he wants, and he's not going to stop the drug cartels- they are too firmly established in the U.S. already. Ironically, the biggest Mexican criminal of them all was just brought to New York last night.

Originally Posted by AndrewG

In any case Trump is elected president of the USA, here in the UK we will have a conservative government until at least 2020 and probably well beyond going by what the alternatives are offering (mostly backwards retake the EU referendum ideas etc). People can keep on crying and talking their own countries down because they disagree with past decisions or past votes and elections. Ultimately I think that is a recipe for failure for a country and for the people themselves regardless of who is president, political leader or party and just trying to make the best of things.

Well, I disagree. I think we need to hold our leaders accountable, and take them to task when we don't agree with them. Otherwise, what is the point of having elections? We might as well have a dictator if we're just going to shrug our shoulders and make the best of it.

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Michelle Obama stating "there is now no hope" was totally shameful in my opinion. Disgusting remark.

Many people are feeling that way right now; not good at all for a new administration.

[nightinr]

On a lighter note Trump's Mrs is very easy on the eye

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

In any case Trump is elected president of the USA, here in the UK we will have a conservative government until at least 2020 and probably well beyond going by what the alternatives are offering (mostly backwards retake the EU referendum ideas etc). People can keep on crying and talking their own countries down because they disagree with past decisions or past votes and elections. Ultimately I think that is a recipe for failure for a country and for the people themselves regardless of who is president, political leader or party and just trying to make the best of things.

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

Well, I disagree. I think we need to hold our leaders accountable, and take them to task when we don't agree with them. Otherwise, what is the point of having elections? We might as well have a dictator if we're just going to shrug our shoulders and make the best of it.

I agree Julie. The whole basis of a democracy is that we don't have to "suck it up" as so many Trump supporters are saying (and many Brexit supporters here). We need to hold those in power accountable, speak up in protest when they propose things we believe are detrimental. This is NOT about loving your country or not, nor about "taking it down", nor should it be derided or dismissed as "crying", nor are those of us who are vigilant, stand up and speak out "snowflakes". It is a vital and essential part of any democracy, and shows love of one's country and concern for its people, all of them, whether or not we are personally affected.

To have effect it should be done with clear reasoning not hate, with a calm voice rather than anger and violence, and with measured words not name-calling. But it is an important and constitutional monitoring process and debate, and essential if one is not finally left saying "Then they came for me .. and was no-one left to speak for me".

Many people are feeling that way right now; not good at all for a new administration.

And the removal within hours of pages from the White House website of the climate change web page, and the healthcare, civil rights, disabled worker rights and LGBT sections, will do nothing to allay fears and offer hope. The page on climate change was replaced with a page entitled "An America First Energy Plan" that ignores climate change entirely and says, "President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule."

The page on civil rights was replaced with a page entitled "Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community" that replaces concerns with how police act with a demand for more cops. It also paints predominantly black inner cities as shooting galleries. It includes the statement "In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent", which is false: homicides in Washington, D.C. were down in 2016 over 2015.

Obama's WhiteHouse.gov page on his first day in office featured a slate of issues he campaigned on; Trump's White House page doesn't even have a policy page on his signature campaign issue: immigration. His campaign website was more robust, featuring pages on a variety of issues and including press releases related to the black community, like "DONALD J. TRUMP’S NEW DEAL FOR BLACK AMERICA." Now the words "black" or "African-American" do not appear once in any policy sheets on WhiteHouse.gov.

However, the website does make reference to Melania Trump's jewellery line. How is that separating government and family business?

[nightinr]

Originally Posted by CarylB

I agree Julie. The whole basis of a democracy is that we don't have to "suck it up" as so many Trump supporters are saying (and many Brexit supporters here). We need to hold those in power accountable, speak up in protest when they propose things we believe are detrimental. This is NOT about loving your country or not, nor about "taking it down", nor should it be derided or dismissed as "crying", nor are those of us who are vigilant, stand up and speak out "snowflakes". It is a vital and essential part of any democracy, and shows love of one's country and concern for its people, all of them, whether or not we are personally affected.

To have effect it should be done with clear reasoning not hate, with a calm voice rather than anger and violence, and with measured words not name-calling. But it is an important and constitutional monitoring process and debate, and essential if one is not finally left saying "Then they came for me .. and was no-one left to speak for me".



And the removal within hours of pages from the White House website of the climate change web page, and the healthcare, civil rights, disabled worker rights and LGBT sections, will do nothing to allay fears and offer hope. The page on climate change was replaced with a page entitled "An America First Energy Plan" that ignores climate change entirely and says, "President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule."

The page on civil rights was replaced with a page entitled "Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community" that replaces concerns with how police act with a demand for more cops. It also paints predominantly black inner cities as shooting galleries. It includes the statement "In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent", which is false: homicides in Washington, D.C. were down in 2016 over 2015.

Obama's WhiteHouse.gov page on his first day in office featured a slate of issues he campaigned on; Trump's White House page doesn't even have a policy page on his signature campaign issue: immigration. His campaign website was more robust, featuring pages on a variety of issues and including press releases related to the black community, like "DONALD J. TRUMP’S NEW DEAL FOR BLACK AMERICA." Now the words "black" or "African-American" do not appear once in any policy sheets on WhiteHouse.gov.

However, the website does make reference to Melania Trump's jewellery line. How is that separating government and family business?

In fairness I think the protests have been very modest. A couple of shop windows smashed by a few thugs.

The left wing media are almost encouraging people to protest.

Let's see how he gets on....hopefully he'll become more humble and inclusive!

On a British point of view it is great to see The Churchill bust back in the Oval office that Obama so crudely chucked out!

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by nightinr

In fairness I think the protests have been very modest. A couple of shop windows smashed by a few thugs.

The left wing media are almost encouraging people to protest.

Let's see how he gets on....hopefully he'll become more humble and inclusive!

On a British point of view it is great to see The Churchill bust back in the Oval office that Obama so crudely chucked out!

Oh yes, in fact most of the protest marches have been peaceful. It's those that weren't that get the fingers and memes flapping on Facebook

As far as the Churchill bust brou haha is concerned .. the bust in question, by British sculptor Jacob Epstein, was given to President George W Bush by the British government in 2001 and was placed in the Oval Office. But the statue was not donated, it was simply on loan for Bush’s term in office (a loan which the British government decided to extend when Bush was re-elected in 2004). Churchill disappeared from the White House Oval Office in 2009, when the loan ended, at the same time that Obama moved in.

Most news stories, and Boris, neglected to mention that there are two Churchill busts – the one on loan to Bush from 2001 to 2009, and a second bust which the White House has had since the 1960s and still has to this day, which is immediately outside the Oval Office. I think it's completely understandable and appropriate that the first black President of the USA decided to put a bust of Rev Martin Luther King Jr in there to daily "remind him of the people who helped get him there.

From this British point of view I have more concern about the isolationist determination of Trump and his threats to withdraw from NATO than I do about whether a copy of Churchill's bust is one side of the Oval Office doors than the other .. and I'm quite sure that he removed the one of MLK because Obama had put it there, nothing to do with Churchill or the British (although as he seems reluctant to get full facts before acting, he may well have seized on the Churchill bust to replace it because he erroneously believed Obama had actually moved the original one out, rather than simply have placed the copy immediately outside when the original was returned to the UK).

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by CarylB

The whole basis of a democracy is that we don't have to "suck it up" as so many Trump supporters are saying (and many Brexit supporters here). We need to hold those in power accountable, speak up in protest when they propose things we believe are detrimental. This is NOT about loving your country or not, nor about "taking it down", nor should it be derided or dismissed as "crying", nor are those of us who are vigilant, stand up and speak out "snowflakes". It is a vital and essential part of any democracy, and shows love of one's country and concern for its people, all of them, whether or not we are personally affected.

Very well-said, Caryl. I might argue that it is in fact patriotic to question authority (and remove it if necessary) that appears damaging to your country.

And Trump did a pretty good job himself of "taking down" the country in his inaugural speech.

Originally Posted by CarylB

The page on civil rights was replaced with a page entitled "Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community" that replaces concerns with how police act with a demand for more cops. It also paints predominantly black inner cities as shooting galleries. It includes the statement "In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent", which is false: homicides in Washington, D.C. were down in 2016 over 2015.

I find that page extremely troubling, and I support the Law Enforcement Community. The wording to me sounds threatening: " The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it." How does he propose to do this? Send in the National Guard? Declare Martial Law (which can suspend people's rights)?

"Supporting law enforcement means supporting our citizens’ ability to protect themselves. We will uphold Americans’ Second Amendment rights at every level of our judicial system."

The Second Amendment reads as such: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

He seems so committed to upholding the Second Amendment that he seems to have forgotten about the First, which gives the people the right to peaceful assembly, and also to freedom of speech and the press:

"Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter." More preying on fear.

We've seen his current war with the media; he's threatened to kick the press corps out of the White House unless they are nice to him. The first thing a tyrant wants to do is suppress the press.

Trump has mentioned Chicago specifically a couple of times; I won't deny that there is a real violence problem in some areas. And we do need more police, at least in this city, as they are short-staffed. I'm also all for a better relationship between the community and the police, but I don't want to see a police state. I was too young to remember the civil uprising and riots in the 60's, but my mother told me about how frightening it was; I fear we may be headed back there.

Am I being overly dramatic? I truly hope so. But it seems to me it's being plainly spelled out, and just reinforces what he said all through his campaign. People say, "Oh, just wait until he's president. You'll see, he'll change." I tend to believe what Maya Angelou wisely said, "When people show you who they are, believe them."

Originally Posted by nightinr

In fairness I think the protests have been very modest. A couple of shop windows smashed by a few thugs.

The left wing media are almost encouraging people to protest.

Let's see how he gets on....hopefully he'll become more humble and inclusive!

Well, he had a chance to become humble and inclusive beginning with his inauguration speech; he did not.

It does appear that the protests have so far been pretty peaceful, for the most part (we women know how to do it ). There have been a few sporadic incidents that for all we know could have been started by the right to make the other side look bad and incite unrest. I don't know what to believe anymore.

(I know I said I'd let it be- I guess I went back on that.)

Originally Posted by CarylB

.. and I'm quite sure that he removed the one of MLK because Obama had put it there, nothing to do with Churchill or the British (although as he seems reluctant to get full facts before acting, he may well have seized on the Churchill bust to replace it because he erroneously believed Obama had actually moved the original one out, rather than simply have placed the copy immediately outside when the original was returned to the UK).

It's interesting that you say that; I kind of had the feeling that he chose to take his oath on Abraham Lincoln's Bible, because Obama had been the first president since Lincoln to do so (which I thought was powerfully symbolic); almost like he had to pee on Obama's territory. I just found it distasteful.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

And Trump did a pretty good job himself of "taking down" the country in his inaugural speech.

Yes he did .. the picture of a crumbling landscape with rusting factories like tombstones across the land. But there was no way he was going to pay one cent's tribute to just how far Obama had taken the country from crisis to recovery, not even to say 'We've started the recovery process, now here's more work to be done'

And you are spot on in saying his address was far from humble, far from inclusive. I found it rather frightening, just as his rally speeches, which this closely resembled.

He seems so committed to upholding the Second Amendment that he seems to have forgotten about the First, which gives the people the right to peaceful assembly, and also to freedom of speech and the press:

As you say, he continues to whip up fear, and his desperate need to control the press, to react irrationally to any perceived criticism, even as we've seen today to obliterate anything that wounds his huge ego, is very worrying. From his saying "It didn't rain, the sun came out" to the press briefing trying to prove the crowds were bigger than those at Obama's inauguration .. all lack any dignity, all make him look like a petulant toddler. And yes .. he wants to control and suppress the press like any tyrant.

Am I being overly dramatic? I truly hope so. But it seems to me it's being plainly spelled out, and just reinforces what he said all through his campaign. People say, "Oh, just wait until he's president. You'll see, he'll change." I tend to believe what Maya Angelou wisely said, "When people show you who they are, believe them."

I fear you are not. I knew virtually nothing of the man really before Meat was on CA. Trump showed me then a lot of who he is, particularly towards women and his business ethics. Similarly his petulant angry behaviour in Scotland when he didn't get everything his way. (His letters to Alec Salmon were utterly bizarre as business communications in their anger and threats, to the point of one doubting his mental balance, really. Nothing of negotiating just disturbing and crude attempts to bully his adversary into submission) Everything during his campaign has reinforced my assessment of his ethics, behaviour, instability; in his speeches, his response to any criticism or protest, and his fingers flapping like a duck's ass on Twitter. One might have hoped the last might stop after his inauguration .. but no. Adje said they seemed unable to control him, and he's right. I do not think him capable of change; his overweening arrogance and ego preclude it.

It does appear that the protests have so far been pretty peaceful, for the most part (we women know how to do it ). There have been a few sporadic incidents that for all we know could have been started by the right to make the other side look bad and incite unrest. I don't know what to believe anymore.

The protests on inauguration day included a group who attacked property etc But you can see clearly in one clip a placard representing a group of anarchists. They were not anti-Trump .. just anti-everything. They like to cause trouble, indiscriminately. One other group filmed smashing windows were Atifa .. a worldwide anti-fascist group, not democrats, "leftie liberals" or snowflakes The protests today have been huge, peaceful, and powerful. I have the utmost respect for every woman, man and child around the world who marched today, peacefully and democratically. They know that Trump’s voters felt boasting about sexual assault didn’t disqualify him from the White House. And they reserved the right to deplore the world in which this can be true.

It is not an excess of political correctness to be appalled to see a sexual predator in the White House; not for any woman, nor for any who have wives, sisters, daughters, grand daughters. It is not unreasonable to be concerned at the almost immediate removal of the sections on LGBT rights, disabled rights, human rights, from the White House website. It is worthy to march in peaceful protest, whether one is an American or not; it's solidarity, it's caring for people's rights and the respect of women. People across the USA and around the world from London to Antarctica showed today in their hundreds of thousands that they care for people, for the disabled, for those who are gay or transgender, and that they believe women have a right to dignity and respect. Few who marched today will have held out real hope that they will bring Donald Trump down. They simply would not stay silent, nor should they have, nor should any of us. I salute all those who marched and who made their voices heard, for women, and for all those who fear erosion of years of social progress fought for and won. They are heroes in my book.

https://www.facebook.com/TheRawStory...85059882646484

It's interesting that you say that; I kind of had the feeling that he chose to take his oath on Abraham Lincoln's Bible, because Obama had been the first president since Lincoln to do so (which I thought was powerfully symbolic); almost like he had to pee on Obama's territory. I just found it distasteful.

Yes, there has been quite a bit of leg-cocking I think, perhaps more to come .. I guess he sees himself as a powerful alpha male (I actually shuddered as I typed that) so it's not surprising .. but I agree, extremely distasteful

[nightinr]

It always makes me laugh that Brits think Obama as this fantastic US President. If he was that successful do you really think America would have voted for Trump?

From a UK perspective Obama had the audacity to say the UK would be at the "back of the queue" if we voted for Brexit. A terrible, patronising thing to say. This coupled with him removing the Churchill bust showed that he had little respect for the UK.

[stretch37]

Originally Posted by nightinr

This coupled with him removing the Churchill bust showed that he had little respect for the UK.

That's a giant assumption.

Everybody loves to judge the shit out of Obama, or love him up to death. I think he did some good, and some bad. But his intention was ALWAYS to do good and to help everyone. I think we can agree that this is in sharp contrast to his successor.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by nightinr

It always makes me laugh that Brits think Obama as this fantastic US President. If he was that successful do you really think America would have voted for Trump?

From a UK perspective Obama had the audacity to say the UK would be at the "back of the queue" if we voted for Brexit. A terrible, patronising thing to say. This coupled with him removing the Churchill bust showed that he had little respect for the UK.

I've clearly explained about the bust in vain. OUR GOVERNMENT removed it. Obama had the second one brought across and put just outside the Oval Office where he passed it every day. Obama wanted the UK to stay IN the EU, hence his saying what he did ... and if you think the isolationist (who has had the audacity to say he would not hesitate to drop bombs on Europe, does not consider Russia a threat, and has already demanded Brussels abandons plans for an EU Army if it wants the US is to continue its support for Nato) is likely to be rushing to trade deals without services delivered by the public sector to come under deal .... Even the guy tipped to be Trump’s ambassador to the EU has warned Downing Street to "read The Art of the Deal if they wanted to understand how Donald Trump’s mind works. It’s very different to a political mind."

Many suspect Trump’s interest in a deal is fueled mainly by a desire to anger his political enemies in Europe. It's far from clear not clear what Britain would get out of it, given US barriers are usually at state not country level. There is also the worry that the US will insist on opening up private sector access to public services, in particular the NHS, considered by all parties as the country’s most precious asset, and getting access for their private service providers to our public services .. and this Tory government with their ever increasing privatising agenda and May's desperation because there's no way she's going to get free market on her terms, could just get chewed up and spat out in negotiations with the Trump headed administration.

Originally Posted by stretch37

That's a giant assumption.

Everybody loves to judge the shit out of Obama, or love him up to death. I think he did some good, and some bad. But his intention was ALWAYS to do good and to help everyone. I think we can agree that this is in sharp contrast to his successor.

Agreed on all counts. He inherited a country in financial crisis and has steered it into emerging recovery, despite being constantly thwarted at every turn by a Republican congress who made it clear they would block him at every turn. He had a window of about 4 months when he had enough majority to push anything through. Hence the Executive Orders .. without which he could have done nothing and think of every budget that they held to a cliff-hanger! They fought him but he achieved:
* a universal health care programme which wasn't perfect by any means, but covered 32m people
* the act to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression, creating a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs.
* passed Wall Street reforms
* turned the auto industry round
* repealed "Don't ask, don't tell
* reversed Bush's torture policies
* boosted fuel efficiency standards and finalised rules to limit carbon emissions from power plants
* tightened sanctions on Iraq and negotiated the deal to block a nuclear Iran
* undertook a stealth climate policy which if Trump doesn't undo it would mean many of the dirtiest power stations would close (sadly I expect this to be culled) and pushed Federal agencies to be green leaders. He secured U.S. commitment to a Global Agreement on Climate Change (another one for the culling )
* expanded Wilderness and Watershed Protection
* cracked down on bad for-profit colleges and improved school nutrition
* expanded health care for children
* steered though recognition of same-sex marriage
* Protected LGBTQ against employment discrimination and strengthened women's rights to fair pay

These are ones I can remember .. there are many more. But I know he reduced the federal deficit from close to 10% down to just over 3% .. not quite the country gasping in its last death throes painted by Trump's inauguration speech.

AND .. he avoided any personal scandal; the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to serve two terms with no serious personal or political scandal.

I didn't like the drone bombing in Syria, but I think he chose that as the lesser of the evils he felt compelled to choose. On the other hand he forced an agreement by Assad to destroy the country’s stockpile of chemical weapons, ended combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ordered the raid that eliminated Osama bin Laden.

He is intelligent, probing, thoughtful, measured and articulate, gracious, good humoured, and stayed all these things despite a persistent level of racism towards him and his family. Both he and his wife had to put up with the kind of racist comments and slurs that appalled me, and most decent people; the kind of things I haven't heard for decades.

Above and beyond all this he had, as you say, a very real desire to do good, to help those who needed help, to afford those who were not comfortably privileged their rights to pursue happiness. He only wanted to do good, he cared about the people he was elected to serve, and I agree this is in contrast to his successor.

This legacy is under threat. Trump and the now Republican-dominated Congress have pledged to undo much of what he achieved, including repealing the Affordable Care Act and reversing important achievements on immigration and climate change. These were undertaken by executive orders and Trump has stated he will cancel every Obama executive order immediately he takes office, and indeed showily signed away the ACA within an hour or so. Meanwhile he has surrounded himself with the new swamp of climate change deniers, those with vested interests in fossil fuel, businessmen who are more interested in profit than workers' rights.

As to

If he was that successful do you really think America would have voted for Trump?

Of course the point is that millions of them didn't. The Electoral College ties in with the popular vote far less than our constituency system, and had for eg the Presidency been decided by a vote as in our referendum, he wouldn't have been elected. They are stuck with the EC, and I'm not going to argue he "lost" on the popular vote .. but 3m more people didn't vote for him, and it wasn't a run between Obama and Trump.

However, I think the above answers why this "Brit" admires Obama, and yes, thinks he was one of the best Presidents the US has had for many years, fears the new incumbent, and is extremely sad to see the one go and very concerned to see the other ensconced.

As to the

[nightinr]

Some great points as always Caryl, but we must be mindful of the silent majority.

You list Obama's key achievements but has the average American see an improvement in their quality of life? The silent majority in effect elected Trump, Brexit and the Tory Government.

The silent majority is probably looking at this thread and shaking their head at many of the posts.

[CarylB]

I thought the majority supporting Trump were rather vociferous. I'm not going to try and second guess what you call the "silent majority", nor if there's one here shaking its head. No-one has been attacked or abused; if headshakers don't speak I cannot respond or discuss.

Many of us here and in the US haven't seen significant improvements in our standard of living over the past decade. Obama inherited a staggering financial crisis. He halted it and started to turn the country around. This cannot be achieved overnight, nor in a few years. It is a slow process. Those who don't look beyond their own paypackets may well not see what he has achieved, but that doesn't minimise what he did, and they would have been far worse off had he not done so. Growth rate is just under 3%, ahead of ours.

One thing Trump did immediately on taking office was to put mortgage premium cuts on hold. It would have cut annual mortgage insurance premium by one quarter of a percent, or 25 basis points, on most new mortgages. That reduction could save FHA-insured homeowners an average $500 in 2017. The cut would have benefited homebuyers who close on their mortgages on or after Jan. 27, and also borrowers who refinanced their mortgages with FHA loans. The FHA last cut insurance premiums by 50 basis points two years ago after HUD routinely raised them in the years after the financial crisis. This would have restored premiums to their pre-crisis levels.

Trump has coyly avoided offering much concrete in terms of strategy; just it's going to be wonderful, successful and big. We'll see.

[Wario]

Originally Posted by nightinr

Not sure if that is aimed at me or Boston?! If it is aimed towards me sorry for any offence I am just trying to stick up for the "silent majority". Or silent 49%...lets not get into the "majority" debate again!

nah not you